Computer Monitors for Editing

[ajohnw]

There is a good description of rendering intents here Richard

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...conversion.htm

Pass on PS but you may have missed it because like software I have it can be set in 2 places. One from raw and another for actual output to where the image is actually seen. There may also be settings for how the raw conversion handles highlights. I'd guess those would be in ACR and maybe not elsewhere.

John
-

[Richard Lundberg]

When converting to one space from another in Photoshop, it does not matter what intent you select, you get relative, because the receiving profile must have the desired intents and the profiles in Photoshop only have relative. There may be some RAW converters that have profiles with all four intents, but I don't know any.
You can get intents by soft proofing or by printing.

[JHzlwd]

I'm using a 28 inch IPS technology 2550X1670 Adobe RGB monitor and would never go back to an ordinary unit. As others have generally said, the bigger the better. Adobe RGB monitors have been coming down in price. I got mine on sale for about $800 but that was 2 years ago. Now for a word of caution ... if the published monitor specs merely brag about the great color but do not specifically name Adobe RGB then it is almost certainly an sRGB unit which is 99% of what you see on store shelves. Also make sure the monitor has full custom settings available - sliders for each of R/G/B, brightness and contrast. Without these you won't be able to do a proper calibration. An aRGB monitor will have a factory calibration and setting for that but when new, the unit will drift off-calibration quite a bit for awhile if it has fluorescent backlighting. Also, the factory setting will be way too bright so, bite the bullet and equip yourself with a calibration system too.

Best wishes,
JH

[Nicks Pics]

Would you all here say that if you process am image o an sRBG monitor and then convert it to adobe RGB for printing the colors will turn out misrepresented? Most cameras take images in sRGB, don't they? If so, how would converting it to Adobe RGB be beneficial? I suppose this may be two different questions.

[Manfred M]

Would you all here say that if you process am image o an sRBG monitor and then convert it to adobe RGB for printing the colors will turn out misrepresented? Most cameras take images in sRGB, don't they? If so, how would converting it to Adobe RGB be beneficial? I suppose this may be two different questions.

1. If you use the RAW files from a camera, then these have no colour space assigned until you import them into your image editor. Jpegs do have colour spaces, and all of my higher end cameras give my a choice of either sRGB or AdobeRGB for jpegs.

2. I always use a wide gamut workspace when editing; the only time I ever use sRGB is if someone gives me a file using that colour space. It's a one-way street; once you lose the colour data, there is no getting it back. Downsample an AdobeRGB image to sRGB, it will throw away some of the colour data and remap it to the best fit in the new colour space. Convert back to AdobeRGB, and those colours will not come back, but rather will be sample to the closest AdobeRGB colours.

Do I ever go back; yes, but only in very specific circumstances. For instance, if I am working on a composite in AdobeRGB and I want to incorporate a sRGB image, I'll convert to AdobeRGB, knowiing that I probably won't have all the colours from the original RAW file.

3. If you work sRGB, then there is no advantage in converting to AdobeRGB for printing; you may as well print sRGB. If you are planning to print in AdobeRGB, work in that colour space or a higher gamut one, never sRGB.

[JR1]

Eizo

[Nicks Pics]

1. If you use the RAW files from a camera, then these have no colour space assigned until you import them into your image editor. Jpegs do have colour spaces, and all of my higher end cameras give my a choice of either sRGB or AdobeRGB for jpegs.

2. I always use a wide gamut workspace when editing; the only time I ever use sRGB is if someone gives me a file using that colour space. It's a one-way street; once you lose the colour data, there is no getting it back. Downsample an AdobeRGB image to sRGB, it will throw away some of the colour data and remap it to the best fit in the new colour space. Convert back to AdobeRGB, and those colours will not come back, but rather will be sample to the closest AdobeRGB colours.

Do I ever go back; yes, but only in very specific circumstances. For instance, if I am working on a composite in AdobeRGB and I want to incorporate a sRGB image, I'll convert to AdobeRGB, knowiing that I probably won't have all the colours from the original RAW file.

3. If you work sRGB, then there is no advantage in converting to AdobeRGB for printing; you may as well print sRGB. If you are planning to print in AdobeRGB, work in that colour space or a higher gamut one, never sRGB.

Thanks Manfred, your explanation is very clarifying. Basically, there are two (primary) options of color spaces you may work in; sRGB has less color variations, and Adobe RGB has more. You need the the appropriate monitor to work with whichever you use.
I think I'm getting it-?

[Manfred M]

Almost Nick - you can work with any colour space that you want; but the screen can only output within the colour range that it is capable of. So, I choose to work in ProPhoto, knowing full well that my screen is effectively only showing the AdobeRGB equivilent. Are there risks of there being a mapping issue between the higher gamut colour and what the screen will show; yes.

Have I ever seen this in a real life situation; no...

So, if you have a AdobeRGB screen, I would try to work in either AdobeRGB or ProPhoto. If you have an sRGB screen; I would do the same thing. Conversion to the output (printer or internet compatible sRGB) should be just about the last thing you do, and I never save this in my file, but save the highest quality image I have.

[ajohnw]

It also depends on the software that is being used Nick - and I assume if you go the Adobe route probably how it's set up in some cases depending one which one you use.

As a for instance. I often work in prophoto from raw - mostly now actually. However as I manipulate the image this is translated using rendering intents and gamut conversion software into an sRGB gamut. This results is that I get a final image that matches what I see in front of me. I know it's confusing but that is how it all works. I could equally well choose to work in aRGB as far as the output is concerned, or prophoto assuming it's there - which I believe it is. In that case I have no chance of seeing all of the colours - One odd aspect of that particular gamut is that some of them aren't real colours at all.

The way this particular arrangement works is that it takes a raw file and translates it into prophoto. This is then translated as needed in respect to the output. The output might even be a printer which would need a totally different translation to the one used for the display. Actually as I do have a printer which comes set up to print sRGB I can print sRGB directly and get little in the line of colour differences. In fact visually none. The image may appear "different" but that is more down other effects. Less dynamic range for one.

The next question is what to work in. Some have a thing about so called throwing information away. There is a catch though. There is an incestuous approach that says I am producing images purely for myself. In that case it doesn't really matter what you do. The catch with using aRGB and making use of it's capabilities is that when it's displayed on the web many people will have sRGB screens so the aRGB image will not look as it should. Some of the out of sRGB gamut colours in aRGB will look distinctly different. This basically means if you want an image to look it's best for most of the people in the world it needs to be adjusted in sRGB. If you also want aRGB that needs to be adjusted as well. If you want a print - highly likely to need adjusting yet again. Screen profiles are not the same as print profiles - aRGB or sRGB.

In my view where aRGB really comes in is with printing. The extra colours help get over the restricted dynamic range. Bear in mind though that I have little interest in priniting. The same applies to prophoto, well at least in the colours that can be seen area but in this case colours are adjusted without being able to see them until they are printed.

There are all sorts of comments about on the colour content of gamuts in respect to the human eye. There is also one concerning sRGB - it covers the vast majority of real world colours.I vaguely remember a figure of 98% from some where. Fact none of the statements are likely to be true. If they are the usual total visual colour space shown is completely wrong. The other catch is that any gamut can be covered with any bit depth. Greater bit depth = more colours so in some respects no photographic gamut can cover all visual colours as some will lie between each bit step. That actually is where aRGB originally came from - the colour steps in 3x8 bit form are reckoned to be a big as they realistically can be.

People also some times say that a raw file doesn't have a gamut until one is assigned. This isn't entirely correct. The software and camera profile converts it to representative colours. In other words r,g,g,b colours are scaled so that they represent real world colours within the limitations of the camera. being used. These can then be translated into a gamut. The catch with using sRGB at that stage is that the adjustments need to be more precise before the final conversion is done and information is lost.

John
-

[Nicks Pics]

Manfred,
Thanks again for helping clarify!

John,
Thanks for your input. Very knowledgeable!

[ajohnw]

Manfred,
Thanks again for helping clarify!

John,
Thanks for your input. Very knowledgeable!

Trouble is Nick that there is a very fine line between clarity and confusion. In terms of colour management some advice given is that unless you really know what you are doing stay away from it. The only reason I have an interest in it is for if I ever want to use it. For the web I don't see any point in using anything other than sRGB. If I ever do any prints then they would go to the usual commercial printers who want sRGB anyway.

It's a curious area where the colours available underneath it all in many cases can't be seen in any visual output and that aspect can cause a lot of confusion. For instance if I am working on a sRGB jpg I am usually keeping the data in a colour space that holds 3 over 1,000,000 colour channels. It would be the same what ever the gamut was.

My advice would be buy an aRGB monitor if you want but stick to sRGB until you understand how the package should be set up. The most important aspect really is that you calibrate it for what ever you are working in. Some people seem to produce aRGB images for the web even when they don't want to. That makes me wonder just how they are set up as supplied.

John
-

[Manfred M]

No problem Nick.

The issue with this (and many other) areas of photography is that there is a wealth of contradictory information out there and trying to separate the "good" from the "bad" is generally not that easy. Unfortunately, the "information" out there on various pieces of equipment is often little more than marketing data, that has a sales "spin", to help move the product, rather than give the reader the clear concise data to make an informed decision. Much of the information is "proprietary", i.e. most of us have no way of confirming if what we are told is correct or not, and we have to trust what the manufacturer tells us. Of course, technology is continuing to evolve rapidly, so something that was correct last year could be totally out of date by the time we read it.

This is even more difficult for the average person, when someone with an engineering degree scratches their head trying to make sense of the information.

Some general rules of thumb really do apply, though.

1. Use the highest quality of data available to you when working something;

2. Maintain that quality of data as long as you can in the end-to-end workflow, as once you downgrade the data quality, you've likely lost that forever;

3. You likely do have to downsample as some point; so if you print AdobeRGB or display an image on the internet; this should be the last step of your workflow. I virtually never save the downgraded image and store it in as high a quality level as I can, for future editing work. If your editor supports macros or actions, you can always automate this process. By downsampling I'm really looking at a number of different places that this can happen; going to a narrow gamut colour space, resizing the image, going from a 16-bit to 8-bit workflow / image, using lossy compression, etc.

4. Just because you cannot resolve the data (ProPhoto on an sRGB display, for instance), doesn't mean the data is not there and you should not use it.

5. All of the previous four statements can (theoretically) get you into trouble, but not following them will likely get you into even more trouble.


If you think of a modern camera; whether it is a pro level DSLR or the camera on your iPhone, you are effectively using a computer that takes pictures. It also uses optical and mechanical mechanisms to create that image, so a working knowledge of math, physics, software engineering, materials sciences, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering helps one understand what is really happening when you take that picture. Not the skills that most photographers or people that write about photography have.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks. I do appreciate your thoughts! There is lots to learn!