[argyllcms] Re: Beta RGB As a Color Workspace
- From: "Andreas F.X. Siegert" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:33:53 +0200
on 16.07.2014 22:24 Ben Goren said the following:
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Andreas F.X. Siegert <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Why should I support something that I consider obviously wrong and
>> have empirical evidence to support my position?
>
> It's a question of workflow. Just as the Sports Illustrated crowd would
> generally be insane to shoot RAW, for most photographers BetaRGB
> represents a better workflow for what they actually do.
There are so many different workflows and only a few would allow anything
but ProPhoto at the first working space.
So this is only applicable to a specific subset of users.
> The great thing about picking a standard working space for a RAW workflow
> is that you can optimize your workflow for what you mostly do, and then
> alter it as needed for the occasional exceptions.
So how do you know you are dealing with an exception?
How often do you loose something without noticing it?
Too risky in my eyes.
> For most people, that
> means that BetaRGB is going to be better for them most of the time, but
> you can still switch to ProPhoto or whatever when you really do need it.
So how how you realize you need it?
> Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
Using a working space that is smaller than your cameras gamut is not only
premature optimization but actively limiting the amount of image information
you can work with.
cheers
afx
--
http://afximages.com/
Other related posts:
