[argyllcms] Re: Beta RGB As a Color Workspace

  • From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:31:34 -0700

On Jul 16, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Andreas F.X. Siegert <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

That's only the case in the Adobe world. Most everywhere else, especially 
amongst those RAW converters that trace their heritage back to dcraw, the raw 
data after demosaicing and the like is assigned the camera's own color space, 
and then that's converted directly to your output space.

> So how do you know you are dealing with an exception?

Well, in practice, it comes down to what you're going to do with the image. 99 
44/100% of the time, you're either going to print the photo or display it 
online. If you're going to display it online, you're not going to beat going 
straight from the camera's space directly to sRGB and using it for your working 
space. If you're going to print, you *should* know whether or not your working 
space is big enough for your printer; BetaRGB is a really good fit for pretty 
much all printers on the market, though some are finally starting to push its 
boundaries. And, again, if you're going to print, your best bet is going to be 
from the camera's space to your working space and finally to the printer's 

> So how how you realize you need it?

Because you're outputting to something with an incredibly big gamut.

>> 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.

Well, a lot of that question is going to come down to whether or not you think 
you can do a better job of dealing with out-of-gamut color than your color 

If you're using Adobe tools for your RAW development and color conversion, yes, 
you're probably going to do a better job -- but that's because Adobe's color 
management sucks. (Its editing abilities are amazing and frankly indispensable, 
but its approach to color management, especially for photographic development, 
isn't even worng.) But if your color manager and workflow is sane, then the 
output straight from the RAW converter is going to give you all the detail and 
color fidelity you can hope to get from the image, and that just leaves you 
with the artistic decisions (if any) of how to modify the captured image to fit 
your artistic vision.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Other related posts: