Color space of color transparency film?

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know it would be wider than proRGB, however if color transparency film was to be measured by computer color space standards, how much more area or "color space" transparency film actually have over proRGB?

 

Any ideas?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[giordano]

I know it would be wider than proRGB, however if color transparency film was to be measured by computer color space standards, how much more area or "color space" transparency film actually have over proRGB?

 

I think you mean "gamut" rather than colour space, and I'm not sure what you mean by "proRGB". I guess it's ProPhoto RGB.

 

Naturally the gamut varies with the film and its age and how it's been stored (50 year old Ferraniachromes have lost a great deal of their range). But the gamut of any real-world 3-layer film is sure to be smaller than that of ProPhoto RGB. And ProPhoto RGB is larger than Ekta Space PS5, which was designed to accommodate all Kodak E6 films.

[CalArts 99]

The IT8 target of the specific film will inform you of the gamut in respect to a color space (although as giordano says that can vary due to the film's age, etc.) Go to this webpage: RGB Working Space Information. It shows film type (based on the IT8) and color space gamuts at the bottom of the page under "color set evaluations."

 

Don't forget that the device's (e.g., the scanner) gamut is going to be defined by the ICC profile.

 

Better targets other than the film manufacturer's IT8 targets for really serious scanning are available here: HCT overview

 

Then you can also make 3-D gamut plots using ColorThink Pro.

 

But here's the gamut plot of an HCT Velvia target with Adobe 1998 (courtesy of Andrew Rodney.) So basically the moral of the story is that you can clearly see that you will save yourself all this unnecessary effort and just profile your devices and use the existing color spaces (even the 'lowly' Adobe 1998.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thebarnman]

But here's the gamut plot of an HCT Velvia target with Adobe 1998 (courtesy of Andrew Rodney.) So basically the moral of the story is that you can clearly see that you will save yourself all this unnecessary effort and just profile your devices and use the existing color spaces (even the 'lowly' Adobe 1998.)

 

 

It looks like the Adobe 98 color space can pretty much cover most of the "gamut" in color transparencies. Even so, there's clearly some color detail lost with the Adobe 98 color space.

 

And talking about Ekta space, I thought that captured more "gamut" or "color space" than ProPhoto RGB.

[CalArts 99]

 

And talking about Ekta space, I thought that captured more "gamut" or "color space" than ProPhoto RGB.

 

Did you take a look at the webpage I posted? You can see for yourself: Welcome to Bruce Lindbloom's Web Site Look at the overall volume of each space. And then look at the film IT8 target data in the different spaces at the bottom of the page. KT is Kodak and FT is Fuji. KK is Kodachrome. Both spaces (ProPhoto and Ektaspace PS5) are the same for Ektachrome (Ektaspace was designed specifically for Ektachrome with landscape subjects.) But there is a difference with the Fuji films. In reality however, both are large gamut alternatives but ProPhoto is readily available with most all commercial software.

 

fwiw, I think that all this only matters if you are photographing something critical like yarn for a catalog or paint pigments for a catalog (and using transparency film to do so.) In the real world, the current popular color spaces (Adobe or ProPhoto, etc.,) are going to be perfectly fine with any current emulsion. And if you are doing critical work where you know the film's gamut lies outside the color space you're using, then you can simply use a space that definitely covers the colors you really need to have without clipping them.

[thebarnman]

Did you take a look at the webpage I posted? You can see for yourself: Welcome to Bruce Lindbloom's Web Site Look at the overall volume of each space. And then look at the film IT8 target data in the different spaces at the bottom of the page. KT is Kodak and FT is Fuji. KK is Kodachrome. Both spaces (ProPhoto and Ektaspace PS5) are the same for Ektachrome (Ektaspace was designed specifically for Ektachrome with landscape subjects.) But there is a difference with the Fuji films. In reality however, both are large gamut alternatives but ProPhoto is readily available with most all commercial software.

 

fwiw, I think that all this only matters if you are photographing something critical like yarn for a catalog or paint pigments for a catalog (and using transparency film to do so.) In the real world, the current popular color spaces (Adobe or ProPhoto, etc.,) are going to be perfectly fine with any current emulsion. And if you are doing critical work where you know the film's gamut lies outside the color space you're using, then you can simply use a space that definitely covers the colors you really need to have without clipping them.

 

 

I did take a look at that page, however there's simply way too much numbers and information, I simply don't understand it.

 

Bottom line, from what I've read in this thread; it seems ProPhoto will cover most of what real life has to offer. Problem is, I don't have a clue as to what other color space to pick if any of the film's gamut lies outside the color space of something I might photograph. And, I don't know anything "wider" to choose than ProPhoto. Even if I did, I really don't have a way to know if what I'm photographing would be displayed properly (or not) color wise.

 

To me, it's just best to pick the color space that captures the most colors and carry that through to the print process.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In Photoshop you can go to View -> Proof setup -> and choose the profile that you want to base a gamut warning with. You can use any profile that you load (print profiles, color spaces; Adobe does have several already loaded.)

 

Once you are viewing your image in the proof setup (it's just like you would normally do for editing for printing by using specific print profiles) go back to View -> Gamut warning. When you select gamut warning, any out of gamut colors for that proofing profile that you selected will appear in gray. In Photoshop's preferences you can change that default to a more identifiable color (I use bright turquoise.) You can move back and forth by selecting different proof set ups to see what covers your file's gamut.

 

But don't forget that the printer is another device (and it needs to change RGB into CMYK.) And you have different papers which have their own gamut and which is why you always edit with a proofing profile that's profiled for the ink and paper and printer combo you're using.

 

The bottom line is that for most all real world scenarios, ProPhoto (or Adobe 1998) will be fine and you'll still have to live with the ink and paper's handling of colors anyway. And you'll find that the rendering intent that you choose will pretty much take care of anything out of gamut to where nothing will look out of place to you or the viewer. Make life easier for yourself.