My color editing recommendations for 2024 - (new: DxO Wide Gamut everywhere)

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

I’m at the point of thinking it’s all a bit pompous advocating one colour space over any other ‘adequate’ colour space given nobody else gives a damn because nobody else saw the original scene. You can promise anything but if photography has come so low that the colour space you use is now a battle ground of oneupmanship count me out. Show me a photograph where colour space makes a difference (unless a ham fisted rendering) and I may change my mind, otherwise it’s an argument between technicians and not photographers.

Sure ... I guess if these two images look the same to you, then I agree you should not care?
Here is a simple screenshot of the same image converted in the 'best' vs. 'business as usual' way:

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!

Left: DxO Neutral color, DxO Wide Gamut working color space in PS
Right: Adobe Camera Raw 'Adobe Standard', Adobe RGB working color space in PS

Edited January 3 by mzbe

[Guest]

Even with 'boring' images, one payoff for your choices cane be an increase in tonality. Please forgive me for posting one more picture to illustrate -

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!

Mt. Rainier, 100% crop. Natural fog/clouds, don't blame Leica ... White balance 'as shot' in both cases, with the M-agenta camera.
Same configuration as the first example. By now you can guess which is which ...

Here is the full picture, for context - not  a 'Master Shot', just in case you were wondering why I'm shooting hazy meadows ...

Edited January 3 by mzbe

[Advertisement]

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

[Wandering Photographer]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Umm... discussing colourspace is an integral part of postprocessing. Nothing to do with adequate and it has not about the original scene but about the result the photographer is after. The same argument could be made about prints, we can all recognize bad colour - or a bad print - but  nobody will see whether a print could be better if they like the result they are seeing.

The difference a colour space makes is the number of colours rendered. If you want green squashed to near-yellow, for instance, go from Adobe RGB to sRGB... 

 

 

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!

 

Prophoto is not here, it is similar to Rec2020 just a bit deeper into Magenta. 

I understand that perfectly well. A wider gamut will make it easier to put what you saw in the world onto paper. Adobe RGB gamut will allow you to more closely create on paper than an sRBG gamut. That is unless the scenes original colors were in some way constrained to the sRBG gamut. If your printer and paper covered the DxO gamut you could get even closer.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Wandering Photographer said:

I understand that perfectly well. A wider gamut will make it easier to put what you saw in the world onto paper. Adobe RGB gamut will allow you to more closely create on paper than an sRBG gamut. That is unless the scenes original colors were in some way constrained to the sRBG gamut. If your printer and paper covered the DxO gamut you could get even closer.

Even if you throw away much of the gamut due to output constraints, at that point you still win if you have preserved information along the way.

I used to print flowers in B&W whenever I could not preserve the details and texture I cared about on a color medium - perhaps you have similar experiences?

Edited January 3 by mzbe

[hansvons]

On 1/2/2024 at 1:55 AM, mzbe said:

In most cases, try to stay close to the output color space (e.g., sRGB). This will avoid translation losses when converting between spaces

The working colour space in today's photo editing applications colour space, which usually is linear (there are exceptions like ACEScct which has a logarithmic response curve and is often used in video colour grading), is larger than the camera’s and human sight’s working space and much, much larger than display-referred colour spaces like sRGB or P3.  Thus, there is no reason for trying to stay close to a small colour space with a gamma response curve such as sRGB. 

On the contrary, sRGB, P3, even Adobe98 (which is not display-referred and often used for printing due to its compatibility) are never a good idea for a working space as their comparable small gamut visually cripples the much larger gamut of camera raw data (after debayering to RGB).

The only reason why one would choose sRGB, P3, or Adobe98 as a working space (if the application would allow that) would be the editing of JPEG files that were exported in the respective colour space. However, the transform LUTs that transform sRGB/Adobe98 to linear (that's what the editing application uses) are fairly robust and simple, without any noticeable translation losses as its math is invertedly based on the usual output transforms we use for exporting our pictures to sRGB making them compatible to 99% of the worlds displays (that’s why sRGB is display-referred and not scene-referred as are the colour spaces of our raw cameras). 

Edited January 3 by hansvons

[hansvons]

7 hours ago, mzbe said:

Left: DxO Neutral color, DxO Wide Gamut working color space in PS
Right: Adobe Camera Raw 'Adobe Standard', Adobe RGB working color space in PS

Such image degradation would only apply if one chose Adobe98 as a working colour space over the regular much larger, regular working space in Photoshop. But why would one want to use Adobe98 for photo editing? C1 and LR don't offer such an option for a reason. 

Do you know why PS offers such an option? Can't think of a meaningful use case. 

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, mzbe said:

Even if you throw away much of the gamut due to output constraints, at that point you still win if you have preserved information along the way.

Agreed. However, the amount of "thrown-away" gamut data in the editing process depends on the display’s gamut and the intended output transform because the camera’s colour and the application’s working colour space are much larger. 

[stray cat]

Hi, this is a very interesting discussion. I tried googling "download DxO WideGamut RGB" to use with Photoshop but all I got were results for purchasing DxO Photolab. Is there a link you could recommend I could use to download just the ICC profile?

Edited January 3 by stray cat

[frame-it]

"DxO Color space is a superset of the P3 standard, so any monitor supporting P3 will also support DxO Color Space. That does not mean that every monitor can display all these tones today. Most Apple computers and laptops support P3 as well as some HDR capable monitors."

https://chriswright.photography/dxo-wide-gamut-color-space/

[jaapv]

This ignores that Adobe RGB is very similar to P3 so it is certain that it can handle DXO colour space. I am sure that any Adobe RGB monitor supports DXO. 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

Such image degradation would only apply if one chose Adobe98 as a working colour space over the regular much larger, regular working space in Photoshop. But why would one want to use Adobe98 for photo editing? C1 and LR don't offer such an option for a reason. 

Do you know why PS offers such an option? Can't think of a meaningful use case. 

Probably retro compatibility of old files. 

[zeitz]

4 hours ago, hansvons said:

Do you know why PS offers such an option? Can't think of a meaningful use case. 

Folks, don't forget that Adobe Photoshop was not originally intended for photographers.  It was intended for commercial printing / publication houses.  All the flexibility is retained for their equipment and processes.  People think of Adobe as Lightroom and Photoshop, but the Adobe suite of products covers graphics creation to product delivery to customers in printed or web sites.  Their products are the only suite with this scope and thus are the de facto industry standard.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, zeitz said:

Folks, don't forget that Adobe Photoshop was not originally intended for photographers.

Yes, but that was in 1987... We are using the photographic and video section of the creative suite. 

[zeitz]

24 minutes ago, jaapv said:

in 1987

In 1987 and in 2024 by publication houses so the old formats remain.  All the while Photoshop has been expanded for other uses that we need.

[jaapv]

That was indeed my point. 

[250swb]

20 hours ago, mzbe said:

Sure ... I guess if these two images look the same to you, then I agree you should not care?
Here is a simple screenshot of the same image converted in the 'best' vs. 'business as usual' way:

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!

Left: DxO Neutral color, DxO Wide Gamut working color space in PS
Right: Adobe Camera Raw 'Adobe Standard', Adobe RGB working color space in PS

Well one looks over processed, the left one, and one looks kind of normal, but if you can't see the original scene to compare who the hell cares other than not liking one rendering look over another?

Edited January 3 by 250swb

[250swb]

19 hours ago, mzbe said:

Even with 'boring' images, one payoff for your choices cane be an increase in tonality. Please forgive me for posting one more picture to illustrate -

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!

Mt. Rainier, 100% crop. Natural fog/clouds, don't blame Leica ... White balance 'as shot' in both cases, with the M-agenta camera.
Same configuration as the first example. By now you can guess which is which ...

Here is the full picture, for context - not  a 'Master Shot', just in case you were wondering why I'm shooting hazy meadows ...

And although you cherry pick what we are able to compare with (like a proper before and after) just using Photoshop 'Auto Contrast' and 'Auto Color' on the crops (so again we are unable to compare a full scene before and after) and the result comes out pretty close in switching back and forth to what you are saying is exemplary. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Well one looks over processed, the left one, and one looks kind of normal, but if you can't see the original scene to compare who the hell cares other than not liking one rendering look over another?

Please at the difference between shades of green in the leaves on the left side - the benefit of better profile, larger color space, and different processing?

My point was not to advocate for a single or simple approach. The whole thing is somewhat complex. My invitation to you, and other readers on the forum, is to explore the possibilities and find out what works best for you.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, stray cat said:

Hi, this is a very interesting discussion. I tried googling "download DxO WideGamut RGB" to use with Photoshop but all I got were results for purchasing DxO Photolab. Is there a link you could recommend I could use to download just the ICC profile?

You can embed it in exported files (TIF, JPEG, PSD, ...), and exact it e.g. with EXIFTOOL.
See the attached ICC file - works on Mac and Windows.

DxO Wide Gamut.icc

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stray cat]

16 minutes ago, mzbe said:

You can embed it in exported files (TIF, JPEG, PSD, ...), and exact it e.g. with EXIFTOOL.
See the attached ICC file - works on Mac and Windows.

DxO Wide Gamut.icc 580 B · 0 downloads

Thanks so much mzbe, I'm looking forward to checking out your colour editing recommendations.