Graeme, About your comment regarding the 1-step rather than 2-step process: Quote ============================================================================ > And the following for Perceptual: > - Do a Relative conversion from ProPhoto to AdobeRGB (making sure the > colors are more or less within the AdobeRGB space before the > conversion to avoid too much clipping). > - Do a Perceptual mapping from AdobeRGB to print. Yes, that's one way. Another is to feed in a smaller gamut as the source into colorpof/collink -g. The smaller gamut could be from a colorspace (iccgamut) or from the images themselves (tiffgamut). > What would be nice would be to be able to make the smaller > intermediate working color space using tiffgamut/colprof (from a range > of typical images), but I don't see how that could be done. I don't see why you would want to use the 2 step process, when a 1 step with a smaller source gamut specified is more efficient. =========================================================================== The reason I'm thinking of a 2-step process is that: - Step 1: ProPhoto-to-AdobeRGB is a relative conversion that will only clip OOG colors. - Step 2: The Perceptual AdobeRGB-to-Print mapping should have a lesser flattening/desaturating effect than would a direct Perceptual ProPhoto-to-Print mapping (since the AdobeRGB space is smaller than the ProPhoto RGB space). Reducing the Print gamut by using colprof -g won't improve the ProPhoto to Print desaturation ... it will only make it worse (I think). As I find out more about the different working-space options, I'm beginning to think that a ProPhoto-to-BetaRGB Step 1 would be better than a ProPhoto-to-AdobeRGB Step 1 as BetaRGB is still significantly smaller than ProPhoto, but still bigger than my print or monitor gamuts. Do you agree? Robert