[argyllcms] Re: Custom Illuminant

  • From: Brad Funkhouser <brad.funkhouser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:15:55 -0500

Well said, Ben.  

My Epson 9900 can get a tiny bit outside of BetaRGB but only on my largest 
gamut paper, whereas it gets outside of AdobeRGB in several areas on several 
different papers.

BetaRGB is a good fit for me.

Some Acrylic paints do extend outside of BetaRGB, but not often and not by very 
much.  In these cases, I fret over staying with BetaRGB for process consistency 
versus going to ProPhotoRGB for certainty that no colors get clipped.

- Brad


> On Jul 8, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> My very humble experience is leading me to believe that there are very few
>> instances of saturated colors in photographs or every day pictorials?
> 
> Saturated colors are very uncommon. Most colorants have spectral profiles 
> similar to those of the paints artists and home painters use. Yellows, 
> oranges, and reds all reflect nothing shorter than a certain wavelength and 
> have a steep transition to being highly reflective (and basically flat) at 
> some point; where that point is is what determines their color, and how sharp 
> the transition is determines their saturation. Greens and blues and violets 
> have a single spectral peak that doesn't tend to be all that bright. The 
> wavelength of the peak determines hue again, and the slope of the peak 
> determines saturation. Then, of course, there're all the mixtures, including 
> many metameric matches with much more complex spectra.
> 
> To get truly saturated colors you generally need quantum mechanics: 
> diffraction gratings and variations on that theme (including butterfly 
> wings), or lasers. (There are other sources, but none common).
> 
> But, even if you're photographing something iridescent or a laser light show 
> or the like...how are you going to output those saturated colors?
> 
> Your monitor isn't going to come close. Your printer doesn't stand a chance.
> 
> Unless you're doing some sort of empirical analysis, the fact that you've got 
> a digital file with numbers representing those colors really doesn't do you 
> much good.
> 
> There might be some large gamut monitors or printers that are finally pushing 
> the boundaries of BetaRGB. It's probably a good time to start thinking about 
> an update (GammaRGB?) with a gamut expanded enough to accommodate the next 
> couple generations of devices. But, unless you're already outputting to 
> something with a gamut larger than BetaRGB, you're basically not going to 
> find a better compromise than what BetaRGB already represents.
> 
> b&

Other related posts: