Color profiles

[Julius Bjornsson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone. I am still struggling to understand the differences between my new M8 and what I was using formerly (Nikon D2X). Now it is the color profiles. When I just use DNG (as I do always) the color profile is greyed out in the menus/inaccessible. I do not quite understand how this works especially as I notice when I open the dng files in PSCS3 i.e. in camera raw that they open with the Adobe 1998 profile.

 

My old D2x allowed me to change color profiles in raw files and they came up in PS with that profile.

 

Is this normal behaviour, i.e. not being able to adjust the color profile of a raw image?

 

What then is the color profile of the raw image?

 

Is it Adobe 1998 or something else, some Leica generic profile perhaps?

 

Please someone, an explanation would be greatly appreciated. I am getting a little lost here.

 

Advance thanks for your help.

 

JKB

[Advertisement]

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

[delander †]

I presume you are not using Capture 1, which allows you to assign the correct M8 profile and then if you wish convert that to adobe rgb when you convert to tif. Alternatively Capture 1 allows you to embed the Leica M8 generic profile (choice of 3 I think) into the tif.

 

I don't think other RAW converters handle profiles the way that Capture 1 does.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Jeff

[Shootist]

In ACR there is NO color profile like sRGB or ARGB or ProPhotoRGB. That is a option on exporting/opening the image in PSCS3.

Look at the bottom of the ACR windows, right in the middle, and you will see a link to open the Workflow Options. Click on that and you can change the resolution, size bit depth and color space that is used when sending the image to PS.

 

There are default camera profiles used by ACR and you can make your own to suit what you want and save it as a .XMP file. then load that profile anytime you want or make it the default when opening a RAW file in ACR.

[ho_co]

... When I just use DNG (as I do always) the color profile is greyed out in the menus/inaccessible. I do not quite understand how this works especially as I notice when I open the dng files in PSCS3 i.e. in camera raw that they open with the Adobe 1998 profile.

 

Is this normal behaviour, i.e. not being able to adjust the color profile of a raw image?

 

What then is the color profile of the raw image?

 

Julius--

Yes, this is normal behavior for the M8. A RAW image is theoretically simply the output of the sensor, without imposition of a color space. Only JPG actually uses the assigned space.

 

Presets in ACR and CS3 determine what happens when you open a file. You have both a default working space, and an instruction to the program of what to do when it opens a file that doesn't match that color space.

 

In other words, since a RAW image file is simply a record of the data collected by the sensor, it doesn't meet the description of any color space; that is assigned when you enter the processing program.

 

I think what happened with the Nikon was this: When you set the color space in the camera, that setting is passed along in the RAW file, and is accessed in ACR to assign a working space on passing the file to CS3. Technically, it's only an instruction that is passed along. The setting is actually applied in the camera only when you make JPGs.

 

Check the preferences in PSCS3 (and ACR, perhaps?) and set them as you wish. (I'm still using PSCS2, and don't know what has changed in your later version.)

 

I think others here may have misunderstood your question because of your use of the term 'color profile' instead of 'color space.' "Color profiles" are associated with specific software, and aren't used in Lightroom or Photoshop.

 

But my understanding of how these things fit together is not good, so their responses in technical matters will be better than mine. Ed's information is correct, but perhaps a bit too specific for your needs.

 

Hope this helps.

 

--HC

 

PS--

In regard to the Nikon files: You probably have PS set to 'use embedded color space,' so even though the file didn't have an embedded color space, the software read its tag to open it in the color space you had set in the camera. The M8 is more honest and doesn't automatically hand along a color space in RAW, so you may need to reset that preference.

 

BTW--When I first got a D200, I believe I remember doing a series of RAW shots using sRGB and Adobe RGB to see the difference, and seeing no difference. There was a difference in the JPGs I shot at the same time. In other words, I think this is a case of a Nikon shortcut that the Leica doesn't take. But on this I hope to be corrected by people who have better understanding of the whole business.

[Julius Bjornsson]

Thanks for that explanation, now this is a bit clearer to me. I think you must be right, the Nikon passes along an instruction. Makes sense. I have now set my ACR to ProPhoto RGB which is supposed ot be the largest color space. That should to the trick. Thanks again for the explanation, very helpful.

 

JKB

[ho_co]

Julius--

ProPhoto is an excellent choice for work space, but it may not be the best based on other considerations.

 

I've read that the latest Epson printers will reproduce nearly the full range of Prophoto; perhaps the newest Canons and HPs do as well. But if I recall correctly, as of a few years back, no printer on the market reproduced much more than the sRGB workspace. So the last step in outputting to printer or to Web is to be sure that the output doesn't exceed the range of the display medium.

 

And there I'm completely out of my depth, what with 'soft proofing' and many more techniques that are used to guarantee in-bounds output

 

Good luck!

 

--HC

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

........When I first got a D200, I believe I remember doing a series of RAW shots using sRGB and Adobe RGB to see the difference, and seeing no difference...........

 

Howard - By seeing no 'difference', do you mean after comparing prints from a 'large' colour space printer, or by comparing images against one another on your monitor? With respect, had it been the latter, the Adobe RGB image [the larger colour space of the two] would not be displaying its wider gamut because it was being viewed on a smaller gamut device [your SRGB monitor]. In which case the extra colours held within the Adobe RGB colour space were being rendered back into the smaller SRGB colour space for viewing purposes only and appearing the same as your SRGB image [regardless of the fact that those extra colours were still contained in ARGB and remaining available for printing from an ARGB colour-space printer]. I am presuming your example ARGB image was 'colourful' enough to have colours that actually fell outside of the SRGB colour space limits for the two files to actually be different.

 

Hope this makes sense and that I did not misunderstand your comparison.

 

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

[ho_co]

Chris--

You are correct; my comparison technique was deficient, and that hadn't occurred to me.

 

I saw no difference on my monitor and didn't take the comparison any further. There is certainly more data offered in larger color spaces than my monitor can display. Thank you for the reminder!

 

Perhaps you can tell me, because the Nikon manual is not specific: Which of the various color settings actually affect the NEF files? Can you actually write an sRGB NEF file? That is a little confusing to me since sRGB is only 8-bit.

 

With other cameras--the Panasonic/Leicas, the M8 etc--color and other settings affect only the JPGs and TIFFs if I'm not mistaken.

 

But you're certainly right: I was trying to judge whether there was a difference by looking at an sRGB monitor. My oversight!

 

--HC

[Julius Bjornsson]

I am trying to follow this discussion and having some problems. Are you guys saying that when I e.g. change color space in Photoshop, then all I am doing is changing some instruction. What happens then when I go from lets say Adobe RGB to sRGB, i have always assumed that if I do this I am throwing away some colors, gradations, effectively throwing away data. This should imply that if I then go back to a wider/bigger gamut I would not get any increase in colors/gradations/gamut as I have already thrown them away. So I should see a change in printed output when going down and not when going up again.

 

But, if this is just an instruction on how to show the colors then I should be able to go back and forth between spaces without loosing anything as the basic data is not altered only the instruction about how to show it.

 

Now I managed to get a little bit more confused, but as I understand this discussion it is the latter explanation that is the right one?

[Shootist]

Chris--

You are correct; my comparison technique was deficient, and that hadn't occurred to me.

 

I saw no difference on my monitor and didn't take the comparison any further. There is certainly more data offered in larger color spaces than my monitor can display. Thank you for the reminder!

 

Perhaps you can tell me, because the Nikon manual is not specific: Which of the various color settings actually affect the NEF files? Can you actually write an sRGB NEF file? That is a little confusing to me since sRGB is only 8-bit.

 

With other cameras--the Panasonic/Leicas, the M8 etc--color and other settings affect only the JPGs and TIFFs if I'm not mistaken.

 

But you're certainly right: I was trying to judge whether there was a difference by looking at an sRGB monitor. My oversight!

 

--HC

None of the color space setting effect the NEF file except in initial display of it in a Nikon RAW converter, like Capture 4 or NX. And that can be changed in the Nikon RAW converter when exporting to TIFF or opening in PS.

If you open the NEF file in Adobe ACR the color space setting has no effect

[ChrisC]

Howard - Like Ed said; my understanding is that the NEF [RAW] file holds all its colour information untouched until it is brought into one's pre-selected working space upon conversion. Until then the NEF [RAW] file is not tagged with a common colour space profile. Camera SRGB Jpeg files are so tagged because they are converted into SRGB in-camera from RAW file information [and because SRGB has been selected from the camera's menu] , but when shooting NEF + Jpeg the NEF [RAW] file is unaffected by the selection of colour space for the in-camera conversion Jpegs.

 

I have now reached the cutting edge of my ignorance.

 

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

[ChrisC]

.....But, if this is just an instruction on how to show the colors then I should be able to go back and forth between spaces without loosing anything as the basic data is not altered only the instruction about how to show it......

 

Julius - Your assumption of your first paragraph is correct if 'going' = CONVERSION. That is, colour information has been changed, and when converting from a larger space to a smaller space the chances are that colour information as you described is being dumped. The degree of dumping of colours at the outer edge of the larger colour space is also affected by the RENDERING INTENT [e.g. Perceptual, or Relative Colourimetric] selected for the conversion.

 

However; the above sentence of yours I quoted is true if, and only if going 'back and forth' between colour spaces equates to 'ASSIGNING PROFILES'.

 

'Assign Profile' allows the colour information of your file to represent itself as if in another colour space [i.e. whichever you decide to assign] so that you can assess the colour rendering differences of the image on screen, or more appropriately in a hard copy. Some of us here are fans of Joseph Holmes numerous colour space profiles designed to enable more, or less, 'colourfulness' [my crude term] for an image, we have a choice of his colour space profiles loaded and can play with assigning different spaces to gauge each one's effect on the image.

 

'Assign Profile' is a safe procedure which does not damage the original colour information. 'Convert Profile' although a necessary process, can indeed dump colour information. An image with an Assigned profile which suits the image [subject to inspection, or test printing] can always be Converted to an appropriate colour space for output.

 

I hope this helps your understanding. There are members far better versed on the subject of colour spaces and colour science than me - I claim no expertise. But I do remember the struggle I had to get as far as I have.

 

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

[ho_co]

I am trying to follow this discussion and having some problems. Are you guys saying that when I e.g. change color space in Photoshop, then all I am doing is changing some instruction. What happens then when I go from lets say Adobe RGB to sRGB, i have always assumed that if I do this I am throwing away some colors, gradations, effectively throwing away data. This should imply that if I then go back to a wider/bigger gamut I would not get any increase in colors/gradations/gamut as I have already thrown them away. So I should see a change in printed output when going down and not when going up again.

 

But, if this is just an instruction on how to show the colors then I should be able to go back and forth between spaces without loosing anything as the basic data is not altered only the instruction about how to show it.

 

Now I managed to get a little bit more confused, but as I understand this discussion it is the latter explanation that is the right one?

 

Julius--Quit reading my posts. I'm the source of the confusion. Your initial feeling was correct.

 

No, according to Ed and Chris, there is no 'instruction,' as I assumed there might be from what you said. Apparently, your Nikon files opened in Photoshop as you hoped they would NOT because of the setting in the camera, but because of the setting of Photoshop.

 

Yes, when you 'convert' to sRGB for export to a printer or to the web, you are irretrievably discarding color information. Same if you convert from ProPhoto to a smaller space like Adobe RGB: Going to a smaller space always loses information.

 

That's why it's always best to save the original RAW file for later use, and possibly even to save a 16-bit PSD or TIFF for rapid access. I save the RAW file, but no additional 16-bit files because they take up so much space on the hard drive. (If you have files that a lot of people want prints of, it might also be reasonable to save a copy in the 8-bit sRGB version you sent to the printer for quick access. That way you can avoid having to prepare the file for printing, because it's already in that form.)

 

To summarize: You were correct. I imputed more control to the camera than it has. Others corrected me, and I misunderstood at least Chris's input. No wonder you're confused!

 

Again, good luck. I hope there's a thread of logic in the thread, even if tangled. Sorry for the confusion; and thanks for the corrections, Ed and Chris!

 

--HC

[ChrisC]

Julius--Quit reading my posts.................................. when you 'convert' to sRGB for export to a printer or to the web, you are irretrievably discarding color information. Same if you convert from ProPhoto to a smaller space like Adobe RGB: Going to a smaller space always loses information...................

 

Julius - First, ignore Howard's self deprecating humourous instruction to ignore him, he makes numerous informative posts to the forum and many of us learn from him.

 

Howard - May I add a rider to the sentences of yours I have quoted? 'Going' [i.e. Converting] 'to a smaller space always loses information' ONLY IF the colours in the larger space [prior to conversion] would not have fitted comfortably in the smaller space, and depending on the the degree of dumping caused by the the Rendering Intent. It's a pedantic rider for those who already know, but might help others who do not.

 

Pro-Photo is a very large space and [if I remember correctly] can contain theoretical colours which we are unable to see. I think it is mostly regarded as an expert's colour space with some difficulties for the unwary, and too large for common adoption. The Joe Holmes spaces are larger than ARGB and designed to fit the colour capture of the original file [be it digital capture, or film scan], and make excellent archive spaces. It has been said before on this forum that the ideal colour space for archiving is one which only just contains all the colours captured by one's file. In and ideal world then, each image would have it's own, unique colour space for loss free archiving. Clearly this is less than an ideal world and we have to select our 'archive' and/or Working Space with some compromises in mind.

 

Should we always convert prior to output? Well no. According to Joe Holmes the Converters we use do not necessarily do a good job of handling the conversion. Clearly, if the file for output is being printed 'out of house' a conversion is required. However, if one is printing 'in house' it is recommended [by J.H.] that one leaves the file in it's comfortably Assigned colour space, send it to one's [in house] printer, and allow the printer's own Driver to translate the file's colours for the printing. The J.H. argument is that the Printer Driver does a better job of interpreting the colour than [say] Photoshop's Converter. In a professional photography environment where all image making can be designed for CMYK output, most of the above could be seen as self indulgent theory fiddling with no significant application for a workflow leading to squishing colours from RGB into a much smaller CMYK colour space.

 

As always, I wonder if I have made sense - at least this time I have posted with the heavy weight of sobriety on my shoulders.

 

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