Leica M8 and Pro photo color space

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..... Since Prophoto is a 1.8 Gamma space and I edit in 2.2, the final saturations are going to be a bit off. But I find the I prefer the convenience of staying in a standardized space ........,

 

Jack - You are a tease; so here's a nibble. If Prophoto is a 1.8 gamma space, how are you editing in 2.2 gamma? And more importantly why?

 

Feel free to lose me before the end of your first sentence, but I'm keen to give my best shot at understanding.

 

.................Chris

[Jack_Flesher]

Thanks for the answer Jack, I'm starting to get the picture so to speak:) .

Just one more question if you will, when printing from your chosen working profile normally one would output with a profile for the printer / paper which when I look at them in colour sync are much smaller than either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto, so what is the benefit of using the larger space of ProPhoto over say Adobe RGB if the printing profile has to clip anyway?. Is there a benefit in the output?

 

Many photo printers can print outside Adobe RGB -- for example, the latest K3 Epsons all have more yellow than Adobe RGB and yellow of course can affect the appearance of greens. Moreover, when you convert from a larger space to the printers space, you can optimize the way the file gets converted -- ie; RC or Perceptual, with or without BPC -- and what you choose will depend on what you deem optimal for a given printer.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jack_Flesher]

In the end, sRGB is good enough for viewing and printing.

 

I have to strongly disagree with this Carsten. SRGB is tiny relative to even Adobe, and significant amounts of color will be lost. Moreover, many modern printers, as I indicated above, can print beyond Adobe and thus *well beyond* the capability of sRGB.

 

Cheers,

[Jack_Flesher]

Jack - You are a tease; so here's a nibble. If Prophoto is a 1.8 gamma space, how are you editing in 2.2 gamma? And more importantly why?

 

It has to do only with how HSL (Hue, Saturation and Luminance) profiles get applied, and most directly how Joe's specific saturation variants get applied. In use, this means hue can drift slightly as I adjust saturation, however as a practical matter the drift is insignificant since the changes I make are small relative to the total color-space. So for the most part is not something you usually need to worry about unless you are delivering critical color to meet a client's specific color need.

 

And of course the real meat of color management now comes to the forefront: What makes something "good color" is dependant on the eye of the beholder -- in this case usually the photographer-artist or their client

 

Cheers,

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}. (I'm only making an educated guess on this last statement, so perhaps somebody who wants to take the time to compare the M8 capture space to DC-3 and 4 in Color Synch can tell us the exact story )

 

Hope this clarifies,

 

FWIW, when I was first working with the DMR and the M8, I actually wrote to Joseph Holmes about what the best colourspace he recommended based on some of the profiling I did... and on the bit depth of the Leica files.

 

And based on what Joseph wrote back to me, Jack is right on the money: DCAM 4 or even DCAM 3 is what he recommended and what I normally use for capture spaces in C1.

 

The utility of DCAM 3 is that it's a pretty darned good print output space as well for most printer profiles.

 

See, what some people don't realize about a tremendously large colourspace like ProPhoto is that while it's good for archiving, and maybe even necessary for some editing of incredible saturated colours, it's not, unfortunately, usually the best output profile for printing, since it arranges, for instance, primary colours in very weird places in the profile.

 

So you can actually get a print from a wide colour space that the colour management engine, print driver or RIP output can't handle (not to mention inks!), and important colours end up being clipped on output (the colour can end up like mud). IOW, you need to know exactly what you're doing with really wide spaces.

 

Now fortunately Photoshop is excellent about transforming (converting) from one colourspace to another; other applications though--including print driver applications and profiles--and YMMV is an understatement.

 

So as a matter of course, unless you have your own print profiles and routines, you should generally convert from ProPhoto into some more normal colour space for printing. There is simply not point in trying to make the printer print stuff it can't physically print.

 

This is why, if you know where you're printing and to what, a narrower space is often best.

 

So DCAM 3 is a nice tradeoff for minimal conversions. However, if I was prepping for a traditional CMYK pres, there are colours in DCAM 3 that would still be out of gamut.

 

BTW--Joseph also sells a DCAM 5 profile, which, IIRC, is actually wider than ProPhoto Again, for archiving purposes, it's probably the best out there.

 

But your output profile differs from the capture profile, and that really does depend on the content.

 

Workflow wise, for me= camera profile-->capture profile-->print profile (where print can be screen or actual paper profile)

 

EDIT: what Jack says about modern printers is correct: their spaces are, particularly in some colours, often larger than aRGB. Heck, modern Epson printers aren't really even CMYK, they're CCMMyKKK (and growing--don't the new ones have even more cyans and magenta? That's all to print blues, you know )

 

Anyway, this is why a custom output / paper profile can be so important. But you still don't want a wider profile than necessary when printing.

[ericperlberg]

From the Aperture manual:

 

Setting your colorspace in Aperture

 

In contrast with Adobe Photoshop, you don't have to set your "workspace." Instead, Aperture will always work in a wide gamut, except for when you apply Onscreen Proofing, which shows you how your work should look in final output. When you know your project is bound primarily for one medium, such as RA-4, it's a good idea to leave Onscreen Proofing on all the time while editing, which would give you the equivalent effect of setting your workspace.

After you're done editing your project, set the Export Presets to match the ColorSync profile that you use for Onscreen Proofing. (italics I added).

 

_______________________

 

Aperture and Lightroom work similarly. They don't actually convert anything until export. But in order to create a context for you to look at your images on your monitor they each simulate a very wide colour space to put your image in which is then pumped to your monitor through its profile. In Lightroom's case the working space is a unique colour space called I believe Melissa which uses ProPhoto volume but an sRGB gamma of 2.2 instead of ProPhoto's 1.8.

 

However, that's neither here nor there. What's important is that until you either export or print the image, files in either software remain unchanged.

 

In Aperture go to the Aperture Menu and select Presets>Image Export. The key for you is set the section where it says COLORSYNC PROFILE to ProPhoto (if that's what you want) and probably TIFF. Then 2 things will happen. 1) When you export your image, it will export as a ProPhoto Tiff and 2) When you use soft-proof it will show you the image in ProPhoto. However, another thing you can do is soft-proof with your final printer profile. You can set Soft-proof to work with a custom printer profile. Lightroom lacks this feature. If you're printing directly from Aperture you soft-proof using your printer profile, make adjustments as you want it to look and then print. This way you can create your images designed specifically for a paper-ink-printer combination.

 

Aperture has one feature which Lightroom doesn't have and sorely needs and that's the ability to soft-proof or show you on screen how the image will look when its printed or exported. But what's equally important is that Aperture allows you to view your image in either your selected work space or your eventual print space using onscreen proofing.

 

So you have 2 sets of options

1) Set the export preset to Tiff and ProPhoto and export to CS3 as such

2) Print directly from Aperture using your printer profile.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From the Aperture manual:

 

Setting your colorspace in Aperture

 

In contrast with Adobe Photoshop, you don't have to set your "workspace." Instead, Aperture will always work in a wide gamut, except for when you apply Onscreen Proofing, which shows you how your work should look in final output. When you know your project is bound primarily for one medium, such as RA-4, it's a good idea to leave Onscreen Proofing on all the time while editing, which would give you the equivalent effect of setting your workspace.

After you're done editing your project, set the Export Presets to match the ColorSync profile that you use for Onscreen Proofing.

 

Aperture and Lightroom work similarly. They don't actually convert anything until export. But in order to create a context for you to look at your images on your monitor they each simulate a very wide colour space which is then pumped to your monitor through its profile. In Lightroom's case the working space is a unique colour space called I believe Melissa which uses ProPhoto volume but an sRGB gamma of 2.2 instead of ProPhoto's 1.8.

 

{snipped}

 

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that Aperture and Lightroom (like ACR) apply an internal profile based on the camera (or the DNG matrix in the RAW file) on import.

 

This is one of the reasons I edit in C1

 

That they then perform edits etc... in a very wide custom colourspace doesn't change the fact that the RAW RGB has been interpreted and limited.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, of course, if someone knows for sure here.

[ericperlberg]

oops, and additionally from your Manual:

 

Images displayed on your computer screen may look different when displayed on

computer screens that use different color technologies. Your images may also reproduce

differently in print depending on the type of printer, the paper used, and the color

profile of the printing device.

To see what an image will look like when you print it or view it on a different screen,

you can have Aperture adjust your screen so that your images resemble the final

results. To adjust your computer screen, you choose a proofing profile that matches as

closely as possible the characteristics of the final output device. For example, if your

image will be printed on sheetfed coated paper, you can choose a proofing profile for

sheetfed coated paper to see what the printed image might look like. Aperture

provides several dozen profiles that match the characteristics of many printers, screen

devices, and color spaces.

After choosing a proofing profile that matches the final output of the image, you turn

on the onscreen proofing feature, and the image changes to show the expected results.

Onscreen proofing changes the look of images in the Viewer and in Full Screen mode.

To choose a proofing profile:

m Choose View > Proofing Profile, then choose the profile you want from the submenu.

To turn onscreen proofing on or off:

m Choose View > Onscreen Proofing (or press Shift-Option-P).

Note: After setting up onscreen proofing, make sure to set your image export preset

to match the eventual output of the image. Choose Aperture > Presets > Image

Export. In the dialog that appears, choose the profile you want from the ColorSync

Profile pop-up menu. For more information about exporting images, see Chapter 15

[ericperlberg]

and lastly from your manual:

 

Proofing Your Images Onscreen

Your printer, paper type, and color profile all affect the way your images are printed.

Onscreen proofing allows you to proof the color in your images onscreen, before you

print them.

To use onscreen proofing, choose the proofing profile that most closely matches the

characteristics of the final output device, and then turn on onscreen proofing.

To choose a proofing profile:

m Choose View > Proofing Profile, then choose the profile you want from the submenu.

To turn onscreen proofing on or off:

 

Choose View > Onscreen Proofing (or press Shift-Option-P).

When onscreen proofing is on, a checkmark appears beside the option in the View menu.

For more information about using the Aperture onscreen proofing feature, see “Setting

Up the Viewer for Onscreen Proofing” on page 156.

For more information about ColorSync profiles and color calibrating your computer, see

Appendix B, “Calibrating Your Aperture System,” on page 423.

[ericperlberg]

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that Aperture and Lightroom (like ACR) apply an internal profile based on the camera (or the DNG matrix in the RAW file) on import.

 

This is one of the reasons I edit in C1

 

That they then perform edits etc... in a very wide custom colourspace doesn't change the fact that the RAW RGB has been interpreted and limited.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, of course, if someone knows for sure here.

 

I'll admit to be at the edge of my ignorance here. According to this you're right. However, I also vaguely remember hearing Thomas Knoll on a lightroom podcast talk about this need to have each camera's raw "interpreted" as it were. I was under the impression that its a feature not a drawback. That in effect, without this camera specific matrix, you don't get the full advantage of the file. Hopefully Samir will be able to do what he set out to with the info above...

[ericperlberg]

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that Aperture and Lightroom (like ACR) apply an internal profile based on the camera (or the DNG matrix in the RAW file) on import.

 

This is one of the reasons I edit in C1

 

That they then perform edits etc... in a very wide custom colourspace doesn't change the fact that the RAW RGB has been interpreted and limited.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, of course, if someone knows for sure here.

 

Another interesting page of discussion at what seems to be an internal working group at Adobe?

[Jack_Flesher]

Workflow wise, for me= camera profile-->capture profile-->print profile (where print can be screen or actual paper profile)

 

Exactly, and as usual for Jamie and I, same for me

 

I would only add that the "-->" between capture profile and print proifile can be different depending on the space you started in and specific printer you are sending the file to. For example, coming out of Prophoto or DC-4, an Epson may prefer RC with BPC while a LightJet may prefer Perceptual without BPC...

 

Cheers,

[guywalder]

Will someone PLEASE publish a book containing best practice workflows for the M8!

 

-g

 

colour management is not specific to the M8 !!

but for those who (like me) are old fashioned enough to read books, try:

'Colour Management' by Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting

(I have no connection to the above...)

Guy

[wlaidlaw]

There is a good article on colour spaces as it relates to the M8 in the June/July edition of LFI. I have been using Adobe 1998 RGB in general as an export option in C1. I have recently changed over to eciRBGv4 but I am not really convinced I am seeing any marked differences. I found the lack of customisability of colour spaces and profiles an irritation in Aperture and have gone back to C1 + PS.

 

Wilson

[Eoin]

Firstly Jack, a sincere thank you for your input and knowledge. I mean that!

 

But it's really gotten confusing, sort of like asking ten chefs how to boil an egg you get ten different answers.

 

I was disturbed by your comment "It is why I recommend one always a use a fully color-managed raw converter like C1 or even ACR. Both allow you to assign any desired working space on conversion." which I read to imply there was something wrong with the colour management within aperture.

 

I have always shot raw, used the default working Adobe RGB profile for adjustments, then checked the on screen soft proof in the output profile be it for Ilford paper with my Canon i9950 printer or sRGB for web prior to either print or export with the presets. To me this is a colour managed workflow.

 

I can't see the point, other than "serious professionals with serious colour matching criteria" needing to step up to the level of ProPhoto RGB. Unless people are using serious top end displays and printers that can even resolve these wide colour spaces, the logic is beyond me. Most displays can't even display full Adobe RGB

 

I'm not saying in any way that it's wrong, if it works for you and your happy, hey don't let me spoil your fun I'm just concerned that some people reading this thread may start to think that ProPhoto is the only way to go and ACR and C1 are the only colour managed converters.

 

People if your using a mac go into colorsync utility and compare your printing profile, your screen profile, compared to either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. The hardware is the bottleneck in what is can resolve, it's like trying to use a hammer to crack an egg.

[Eoin]

I don't think this is quite true. I believe that Aperture and Lightroom (like ACR) apply an internal profile based on the camera (or the DNG matrix in the RAW file) on import.

 

This is one of the reasons I edit in C1

 

That they then perform edits etc... in a very wide custom colourspace doesn't change the fact that the RAW RGB has been interpreted and limited.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, of course, if someone knows for sure here.

 

AFAIK lightroom and ACR decode the matrix in the DNG to render the file. Aperture uses a hardcoded profile and C1 uses a ICC profile, so what's the difference? and why is one better than the other in your opinion?.

[Jack_Flesher]

I was disturbed by your comment "It is why I recommend one always a use a fully color-managed raw converter like C1 or even ACR. Both allow you to assign any desired working space on conversion." which I read to imply there was something wrong with the colour management within aperture.

 

Well, sorry to burst yor bubble, but there IS a shortfall in Aperture's color management, at least from a raw converter standpoint. It's why a *lot* of folks don't use it and use C1 instead -- just read a few of the posts above and you'll see it's not just me...

 

But by all means if YOU like Aperture and it's giving you results that work for YOU, then by all means continue to use it! And just because you can't see the point for your work doesn't mean others won't for theirs...

 

Finally, using more full-featured converters that allow you to use a colorspace sufficiently large to accomodate ALL of your hardware is certainly NOT anything like using a hammer to crack an egg. It is instead more like having a good enough chef in the kitchen he can crack the egg one-handed; It makes life easier and you don't end up with any bits of shell spoiling the batter...

 

Cheers,

[Eoin]

Well Jack there is no need to get snotty about it, all I asked is in what way is aperture not colour managed and is it really necessary to go to all that trouble to convert to prophoto when most displays don't even display the full colour space.

 

Sorry you feel this way, I'm not attacking you I'm asking you to clarify your comment so as I and any one else reading this can make an informed decision.

[Jack_Flesher]

Well Jack there is no need to get snotty about it, all I asked is in what way is aperture not colour managed and is it really necessary to go to all that trouble to convert to prophoto when most displays don't even display the full colour space.

 

Sorry you feel this way, I'm not attacking you I'm asking you to clarify your comment so as I and any one else reading this can make an informed decision.

 

Whoa -- no way I intended my response to come off snotty, nor did I think you were attacking me!

 

Re Aperture, the points are 1) it remains unclear how Aperture is (or even if it really is) converting to Prophoto, and 2) the fact Aperture currently does NOT allow one to convert to a custom space like DC-3 or 4. That's all we are saying. In that respect, Aperture is not a full-featured converter while C1 is.

 

(ACR isn't full-featured either in that it won't allow you to convert directly to a custom space. But it gets you accurately into Prophoto and from there is it relatively easy to get accurately to any smaller space. Ostensibly, Aperture may do the same, but the veracity of its Prophoto conversion remains suspect since there is little documentation about how its actually doing it.)

 

Best,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ericperlberg]

Whoa -- no way I intended my response to come off snotty, nor did I think you were attacking me! Not sure where you got that ???

 

Re Aperture, the points are 1) it remains unclear how Aperture is (or even if it really is) converting to Prophoto, and 2) the fact Aperture currently does NOT allow one to convert to a custom space like DC-3 or 4. That's all we are saying. In that respect, Aperture is not a full-featured converter while C1 is.

 

Best,

 

Doesn't Aperture allow you to convert to any space that colorsync can handle? I don't use Aperture but that's the impression I got from my reading for my earlier posts.