4 color space in ACR?

HI
do you think it's enough 4 color space in ACR? i meen way only
pRGB, sRGb,aRGB and rRGB?
thank

Kokii,
A RAW digital image in its pure form is a matrix of B&W data captured through red, green and blue filters, and really does NOT have any true color until we render it using a RAW converter. When you set the color temperature, tint, contrast, brightness, etc, you are instructing the RAW converter to convert and 'dematrix' the file, and while doing so, make sure that the file is rendered in color as an sRGB, Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB or Prophoto RGB file.
So, if you choose ProPhoto RGB as your space in ACR, the conversions will be made to fit your file's data into the ProPhoto editing space, using the endpoints, color temp, etc, and other adjustments you made in ACR. When it arrives in Photoshop, it
IS a Prophoto RGB file...period. At that point, you can choose to convert to another profile if you wish, or leave it in ProPhoto. Assigning another profile at that point will change the colors, which is usually not the desired result.
Most images don't need ProPhoto RGB and come nowhere near needing its extended gamut. Converting a typical CMYK to ProPhoto RGB is usually silly, since the CMYK file has a VERY limited gamut. Usually Adobe RGB or sRGB is more than adequate. Even if these spaces clip a few colors, they are rarely noticeable. Most monitors cannot display the full Adobe RGB space, and most output devices are smaller than Adobe RGB, though some colors lie marginally outside ARGB.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Personally, I am not a proponent of ProPhoto, and never use it for editing. Others do, and that is fine, as long as they are knowledgeable and work in 16 bit. The only time I do use it is as an intermediate space when converting a file from ACR, and only on a handful of images. As soon as that file arrives in Photoshop, I immediately convert to PhotoGamut RGB if I need extended gamut for printing. To each his own. But normally, I find that sRGB is adequate for about 75% the files I print, and with very few exceptions, the remainder are adequately covered by using Adobe RGB. So, I generally use those spaces when converting in ACR. Those files arrive in PS as srgb or adobe rgb files.
I don't know if that explains things or not, but hopefully it is a bit clearer.
I certainly hope this doesn't degenerate into a discussion of the pro's and con's of ProPhoto vs other editing spaces. We've beaten that to death.
Lou

Similar Messages

  • ACR 4.1 Color space(s)

    Windows XP Bridge CS3
    ACR 3.7 and previous used to give the option to convert to various colour spaces (profiles I always get confused here).
    I've noticed that my Canon raw files show up in bridge as "colour mode RGB"
    If I edit in ACR4.1 and save; they show up as "colour mode RGB and colour profile Adobe RGB" which is the color space of the camera (20D).
    Files that I have previosly edited in lightroom (ACR 4) show up as "pro photo RGB"
    I have my colour space in photoshop set to pro photo RGB so lightroom edited files open without a mismatch whereas files edited in ACR4.1 in bridge produce a colour space mismatch.
    Am I missing something? or has the behavior of ACR changed in this respect since the comming of version 4?

    It sounds like you have Camera Raw set to Adobe RGB. You can change that to Pro Photo RGB.
    Along the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box there should be a link that lists the color space, bit depth, file size, and resolution. Click on that change the Space from Adobe RGB to ProPhoto RGB.

  • PS CS with color space set to Prophoto RGB - will ACR change embedded profiles?

    Probably a foolish question but my problem is that I have a mixture of files:
    My own files (all initially RAW (NEF) which I import into ACR as 16 bit Prophoto RGB ).
    Files from family members and from slide scanning performed elsewhere - they are in 2 groups:
    The first of these from elsewhere acquired files were all JPEGs that I converted to Tiffs in Bridge before setting out to edit them-- all unfortunately 8bit and sRGB.
    The scanned files were scanned as tiffs but also 8bit and sRGB.
    My normal procedure is that I in ACR I have set the files to 16 bit and Prophoto RGB. In PS the same but also to preserve embedded profiles. I have the impression that working with the "foreign" files in 16 bit does give me more room for editing but that I should continue with the embedded profiles.
    Is there a way to ensure that the color profiles are not changed in ACR even if the line in the middle below says 16 bit Prophoto RGB (I have PS CS5). I would hate to have to change this line each time I view a file in ACR. I would hate more to loose the editing facilities in ACR as these acquired files do need som special care before they are mixed with my own in our family albums. I prefer the 16 bit Prophoto RGB option for my own files as I like to play with them - i.e. apart from including them in Photo Albums.
    I do see that a logical way is to process all the acquired files before going to my own files but it is so much more practical for me to work with a mixture of the files sorted chronologically - a year or month at the time.
    I would even consider getting an upgrade to CS6 if this version could help me.
    Can someone enligthen me?
    Thanks, Git

    Hi, Tom.
    The real issue here is getting accurate color. You can't get accurate color by setting your monitor profile to sRGB. sRGB is a virtual color space that doesn't describe the exact color gamut of any physical device. But, in order to display sRGB or any color space accurately, you need to get a characterization of your monitor.
    Here is an AWESOME way to get access to a colorimeter: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/pantone-huey-colorimeter Looks like for $32 you can rent this for a week. Go in on this with a friend and profile both of your monitors and hardly pay a thing. If you have a reasonably good quality LCD monitor, this custom profile you make will be fairly accurate for many months. At the very least, this is way more accurate than having no regular calibration at all.
    Hope this helps!
    Bret

  • Lightroom's 4 color "spaces"

    I’m working on designing an advanced photography course. This course makes use of Lightroom and Photoshop in the photographic workflow.
    I’m learning and researching myself as I go along, and I feel I have reached a ceiling on what I can work out from the sources at my disposal thus far.
    So I am turning here for help.
    I am trying to clarify how tones and colours are affected from the actual scene through to the printed page. This might seem like overkill to some. However, there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, not to mention heated discussions amongst photographers about these issues. I’m experimenting with metering and colour / tone targets and my calculations are only meaningful if I understand how tones and colours are affected at every stage of the workflow.
    Here’s how I understand it:
    There are 4 (sort of) Colour “spaces” in Develop where a real-time dynamic preview of an image is rendered
    1.       The “viewing space” (ProPhotoRGB Chromaticity co-ordinates, sRGB gamma)
    2.       The “computational space” (ProPhotoRGB chromaticity co-ordinates, linear gamma – “MelissaRGB”)
    (Martin Evening’s Lightroom 3 book published by Adobe press - Appendix B, section on color space page 628-632)
    Below that, things get a little fuzzy. According to Jeff Schewe (Real World Camera RAW for CS5, page 32) there is a sort of
    3.            “Native Camera Space” and of course there is the
    4.            RAW data in the file on disk.
    So to generate the dynamically rendered preview, the image goes through the four “layers” as follows (from bottom to top). This is almost certainly flawed, but one has to start somewhere when trying to work things out :-)
    1. The RAW file is read from disk. Colorimetric interpretation is performed using a camera profile (e.g. Adobe Standard for whatever camera it is you are using). This process puts the image data into “Native camera space” (“Plotted” onto CIE XYZ with D50 white point)
    2. In “Native camera space, the scene white balance (as selected by user, guessed by Lightroom or reported by camera) as well as additional camera calibration panel matrix tweaks “informs” the colorimetric conversion into Lightroom’s “computational space” e.g. Melissa RGB. The colorimetric definition of camera RGB primaries and white is re-DEFINED. The demosaicing as well as chromatic aberration corrections are performed in “native camera space”
    3. Almost all image processing calculations occur computationally in the  “MelissaRGB Lightroom computational space”
    4. What is displayed on the screen, however, has an sRGB tone curve applied. This represents the “viewing” space. The histogram is generated from this and the RGB colour percentage readouts are generated from this as well. In addition, some slider controls from user input are weighted back through the tone curve into the computational space below.
    Could someone from Adobe kindly help me to clarify the steps? Eric are you reading this? :-)
    Thanks in advance

    Sandy - Thanks for the link. The spreadsheets you posted on your site is quite helpful.
    Jao – I think what you said goes to the heart of what I am trying to achieve here: “Photograph a grey target at the exact same exposure with the exact same lighting but with different cameras and you'll end up with different values in the raw files” Which is why I encourage photographers to experiment with their cameras in order to understand exactly how the camera will respond in the heat of a real shoot. Set up a scene; take a picture, open in Lightroom. What is clipped and why? Use a reflective spot meter. Repeat. Use a hand held incident meter. Repeat. How much can you reliably recover? Are you happy with what your meter considers the mid-point (and what you set your exposure for on the camera) or do you need to compensate? Just how much latitude do you have between what your camera histogram shows as a blown out highlight and what Lightroom shows as a blown out highlight. This relates to tone. I could go on with more examples, but by now, I am (hopefully) making more sense.
    I’m merely trying to clarify that which is already public in order to form a coherent mental picture. And by mental picture I do not mean an accurate representation of the minutiae and maths involved. Think of a subway map. It represents a bird’s eye view of a transportation system in a logical fashion, yet it bears almost no resemblance to the cartographical reality of the physical topography. I really don’t care where the tunnels go, how they were dug, how they are maintained or where they twist and turn. What I AM looking for is a logical (not physical) map. This map tells me where the different lines begin and end, and where I can change from one line to the other. The most important quality of the map as a whole is that it provides context. You can tell, at a glance, how different lines interact with each other and even how it links to other entities such as bus stations or public landmarks.
    As many have rightfully pointed out, I should not have to care about the maths/secret sauce/internal calculations. And I don’t. In addition, I am a very happy Lightroom user and I am very comfortable using it. I know what a user needs to know to get his picture from A to B. There is no shortage of information on how to accomplish that.
    It might help if I illustrate what I am trying to do below:
    Please excuse the low resolution, the maximum height allowed for upload is 600 pixels. The picture below goes on the bottom left of the "layer" picture above.
    Even though there are certainly many mistakes in my diagram, this is a helpful visualisation. I derived this diagram from publicly available information. As the subway map, this is a logical (not physical) representation that provides context in a visual form. With a little help from people like Eric I am sure I can correct and expand it. The net result is an enhanced understanding of Lightroom and ACR and where it fits into the photographic process, both in terms of tone and colour.
    I am not posting the entire chart here since I am not even certain that a 4 “layered” representation is an appropriate logical representation. I posted the spine of the chart with the 4 “layers” and one part that elaborates on the colorimetric interpretation between the two bottom layers. Comments and corrections are welcomed. And I am convinced that this can be accomplished without divulging anything confidential.

  • Open in external editor -- original color space workaround

    I was frustrated--like other's whose posts I've read--by the fact that when opening files (tiff, jpeg, psd) in an external editor they are all converted to the Adobe 1998 rgb space.
    I am working around this comfortably and by using some Automator actions that I got from Ben Long's Complete Digital Photography site: http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=414#more-414
    In my Pictures folder I have an Auto Processing subfolder with Photoshop droplets and lots of 'hot folders' tied to Applescript folder actions. I made two new folders: OPEN in Photoshop & IMPORT to Aperture
    The Open in Photoshop folder has attached from Automator the following actions from the default Finder suite: Open Finder Items and Move to Trash.
    The Open action is self explanitory, the next step of moving the recently opened file to the trash guarantees that I can't save to the source file. This forces Photoshop to do a Save As even if I hit command + S. The Save As prompts me for a location and I choose the Import to Aperture folder.
    The IMPORT to Aperture folder has attached the Import Photos action from Ben Long's Aperture suite. By selecting the Delete the Source Images After Importing Them option and the Show Action When Run option I get a prompt asking what project to add the new files to and the old files are deleted from my hot folder after the import.
    This isn't a perfect round trip solution because I still end up with two copies of the image in Aperture--even if I was just opening the source image to tweak an adjustment layer. I might create an Applescript that would prompt the user and delete the precvious copy of the image if desired.
    Like many of you I was feeling blue yesterday about rumors of changes in the Aperture team at Adobe. Blue not because I beleive Aperture's going away, instead because I expect if this rumor is true that we will see some delays in the short term while the new team gets up to speed.
    While I am waiting for that to happen I intend to use this discussion site to find creative workarounds for Aperture's current limitations and share them as widely as possible. Many of you are already doing the same.
    Thanks!

    Yes you could do that.
    I was part of the alpha/beta test group for Adobe CS2. Most of my work was with scripting and automation, especially for Bridge. I did have a very good dialog with Bruce Fraser, Seth Resnick and other testers whose opinions are as good as fact in my book.
    The consensus was that most digital cameras--certainly the pro models--had a color gamut substantially larger than Adobe RGB (1998). Note that ACR give the option of developing an image into sRGB, Adobe RGB, Color Match RGB, or Pro Photo RGB; 8-bit or 16-bit. That's the way I want it in Aperture.
    If you use the perceptial rendering intent (this is almost certainly what Aperture is using as its undisclosed default setting) then you will compress the wider gamut of the camera into the smaller Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. If in Photoshop you used the Convert to profile command and choose the perceptial rendering you would probably expand the color gamut back out a little bit. Why bother? Aperture really should have options for open in external editor like the very good export version settings.
    I have in my Aperture library a bunch of 16-bit grayscale scans and some CYMK files that seem to be working fine with the workflow above and Automator actions. (Lab files won't import.) I wouldn't want to go through the convert to Adobe RGB (1998) and reconvert to proper space with these files. My workflow is letting my store these files in Aperture and still edit in native color spaces in Photoshop with minimal effort for a round trip. I like it.
    P.S. I said in my original post that it would be easy to write an Applscript to delete the orignial file in Aperture when reimporting a slightly modified Photoshop version. It may be possible but its not easy in the current version which only has a bare skeleton of Applescript functionality.

  • Different results of color space conversion

    I am converting a raw image.
    1. First in ProPhoto, passing it to PS CS3, accepting ProPhoto (against the working color space), and then I convert it in sRGB in Edit.
    2. Next, converting it in ProPhoto, but when CS3 receives it, I ask for immediate conversion in sRGB, the working space.
    3. Third, I change the color sapace in ACR to sRGB and pass the image to CS3.
    Of course, the ACR adjustment parameters are identical in the three processes.
    1 and 3 are almost identical (a difference layer does show differences, but I don't see them on the results without huge boosting, and that shows quite random, noise-like difference).
    However, 1 and 2 are *vastly* different. The difference, boosted by 2 EV clearly shows the original texture, which is determined by a pecularity in the blue channel.
    What is the explanation for the difference between the two conversion from ProPhoto to sRGB?
    The conversion engine is Adobe (the conversion immediately at receiving the image does not ask me for the engine).
    http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/ProPhoto_to_sRGB_Discrepancy.tif contains three layers with the three versions.
    http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/ProPhoto_to_sRGB_inProPhoto.tif is the unconverted, i.e. ProPhoto version.

    > I played around a bit with your samples and I could get close to your "Converted when receiving" version by using the Microsoft ICM engine (other options like Dither and Black point comp didn't produce big differences that I could see). Is it possible that is what you have as the engine in Edit>Color Settings?
    As I posted, I am using the Adobe engine.
    > I reproduced your exact steps (but in CS4), and there was no difference whatsoever between the three. Pitch black in difference blend mode.
    I don't understand how you reproduced these steps. The file I uploaded is already in sRGB.
    Anyway, I repeated the entire procedude carefully, the result is the same.
    The raw file can be downloaded from http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/CCC_ISO0100_01208.ARW, the adjustment parameters are in http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/CCC_ISO0100_01208.xmp
    With these files it is possible to repeate the entire process.
    Pls note, that the conversion from raw to TIFF occured in 16bit mode, I converted the demo file to 8bit in order to reduce the size.

  • Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

    I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
    Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
    So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
    Thanks for any help!
    Michael

    Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    PS RGB Workspace:  ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
    Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
    I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
    Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient?  Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
    For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
    Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
    With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values.  If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour.  With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase.  Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
    Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
    Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
    Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

  • Camera Raw vs Lightroom Color Spaces

    I photographed RAW image of a Gregtag color target with my Nikon D300 and opened it in camera raw in the ProPhoto Color space and adjusted the develop sliders so that the tone squares on the bottom row matched the ProPhoto values, (e.g approx 238,189,144,103,66,37) and ran the Robert Fors calibration script.
    So far so good. I have read that all one needs to do is use the same settings in Lightroom. But when I opened the exact same RAW file in Lightroom and use the exact same develop and calibration settings that I used in ACR, it gives different values for the tone squares. And in fact the values are almost exactly the values for Adobe RGB (e.g. approx 242,200,159,121,84,53). And when I open that file in Photoshop from Lightroom using the ProPhoto color space option the value stay at the same Adobe RGB levels within the ProPhoto color space.
    What am I missing/doing wrong?

    the values in lightroom are not based on prophotoRGB, but on a prophotoRGB-derived space with the same primaries but with a sRGB tone curve. Since adobeRGB has almost the same tonecurve as sRGB, your values came out close. Bottomline is that the values do not correspond to the ppRGB values in ACR.

  • New ICC v4 sRGB Color Space May Prevent Clipping Converting From ProPhoto RGB

    Just discovered and tried out this new sRGB color space downloaded from this page:
    http://www.color.org/srgbprofiles.xalter
    Here's a cropped demo with histograms of a raw image I've been working on in ProPhotoRGB in ACR 3.7 and CS2:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/26078880@N02/2874068887/sizes/o/
    Please disregard the PRMG name in the demo. I got confused as to which was which on that site and thought that this version of sRGB was a PRMG=(Perceptual Reference Medium Gamut) profile. It's called sRGB_v4_ICC_preference.icc.
    Note the different color shifts using the Perceptual intent and unchecking Black Point Compensation=(BPC). Neat little features embedded in this profile, but not sure about how it renders certain colors close to clipping in the shadows. That site doesn't recommend mixed use of ICC v4 with v2 color spaces and output device profiles but I did it anyway just to see what it does.
    Who knows this may be the equivalent of handing scissors to children, but I'm just one of those curious children and thought I'ld share anyway.

    I'll try to respond to a few items above.
    The digital values in a Pro Photo RGB file should generally be the same as for a ROMM RGB file. The exception is that all possible Pro Photo RGB values are "legal" but not all ROMM RGB values are "legal." ISO 22028-2 restricts the legal ROMM values to those with PCS LAB values between 0 and 100 L* and -128 to +128 a* and b*.
    There is no enforcement if you use the illegal values in a ROMM file but as some of these values do not represent possible colors this is not advisable. I think it is good practice to try to stay mostly inside the ICC v4 PRM gamut with Pro Photo/ROMM images. You can check this using the gamut warning profile on the ICC site.
    If you have a Pro Photo RGB image you should just assign the ROMM profile to it. Converting to ROMM RGB should not change anything in the ideal sense but there is the possibility to introduce rounding errors and mismatch black points.
    The main difference between the Pro Photo RGB profile and the ROMM RGB profile is the former includes black scaling to zero (as is common with v2 color space and display profiles) and the latter does not (as is required with v4 profiles).
    In the duck picture, the reason for the difference is the ROMM profile black is at L*=3 so this is where the lowest blacks land when converting MRC to v2 sRGB (which has the sRGB blacks scaled to L*=0). In this case leaving BPC off is analogous to turning on "Simulate Black Ink" in Photoshop Proof Setup.
    All the ACR color space choices are v2 profiles with black scaling. If you want a v4 profile embedded you have to assign it (if you have a corresponding v4 profile) or convert to it.
    Both the sRGB and PRM gamuts fit within the ROMM RGB legal encoding range, but if you use a v2 profile with black scaling you should always turn on BPC when combining with a v4 profile. Otherwise the v4 profile will think the v2 profile represents a device with an infinite dynamic range. When BPC is on the Color Engine scales the black point of the source profile to the black point of the destination profile.
    The sRGB gamut extends outside the PRM gamut in some places, and the PRM gamut extends outside the sRGB gamut in other places. If you convert using a colorimetric intent in either direction some of the gamut will be clipped. The purpose of the sRGB v4 perceptual transforms is to minimize clipping in both directions.
    I can't do this justice here but basically scene-referred images are encodings of the scene colors and output-referred images are encodings of the picture colors on some medium for which the picture colors have been optimized. You can make a scene-referred image by setting the ACR sliders (except the white balance sliders) to zero and the curves tab to linear. You make an output-referred image when you adjust the sliders to non-zero values to make a nice picture as viewed on some medium. For example you might adjust the sliders differently to get the best results printing colorimetrically on glossy photo paper vs. on plain office paper.
    Often an important part of the transform to output-referred includes a midtone contrast and saturation boost. While there will likely be some highlight and may be some shadow compression, it is misleading to think of this transform only as a compression to some output medium dynamic range. In some cases the output medium dynamic range is larger than that of the scene.
    Usually the transform to output-referred is more complicated than a simple gamma function.
    Regardless of the image state (scene-referred or output-referred) the sRGB, Adobe RGB, or Pro Photo RGB nonlinearities will be applied to create the image data that you open into Photoshop.
    We are working in the ICC to prepare more information for posting on this topic.

  • Color Space Question

    I've imported a jpg created in photoshop with embedded sRGB profile(via Save for Web), but when I soft proof to Lightroom's sRGB profile I see out-of-gamut colors. Is Lightroom doing something with the imported color space?

    It's a bug. In both ACR, LR and Photoshop. Of course it show no OOG colors but shouldn't. Ignore it. In fact, the OOG overlay which predates Photoshop 5 with real soft proofing isn't at all useful.

  • PS CS6 Smartobject - Changing color space not working

    If I initially open a smartobject from ACR into PS CS6 using one color space, eg. sRGB, should it then be possible to click back into ACR and change color space to Adobe RGB ???
    This is important to me, since working most of the time in sRGB, batch editing lot's of files (for timelapse-video, hence sRGB), but sometimes it may be nessecary to go back and use Adobe RGB to make a best possible print of one of the stills.
    This is not working for me. I thought I should be able to do absolutely non-destructive editing when working with smartobjects from ACR, but this may seem to not be the case.
    Ole

    I understand now that a copy of the original RAW file is made when working with SO.
    Still, when checking what color space I am working in (in PS CS6), after changing from sRGB to aRGB, PS still tells me I am working in sRGB!!
    So what I am asking, going back from a SO in PS, into ACR, to change the color space, does not work.
    Is there a workaround for this?
    Or is it something I still do not understand here?

  • Anyway to set ProPhotoRGB as output space in ACR hosted by Elements?

    Is there anyway to set ProPhoto RGB as the output space in ACR 4.4.1 hosted by Ps Elements 6 on a Windows Vista Home Premium laptop?
    The images will be properly corrected using the full version of Photoshop 10.0.1 on my Mac, but I'm used to seeing the ACR preview window with ProPhoto RGB 16-bit set as the output space.
    Or do the limitations of Ps Elements cripple ACR in this regard too?

    > I'm assuming the choices of sRGB and AdobeRGB in Element's ACR is strictly output and working space. Regardless of which is chosen the preview stays the same in ACR. Correct?
    > Does Elements ACR embed the sRGB or AdobeRGB working space after saving to tiff and can you save in 16bit tiff as well?
    The way things work in Elements is that you have four choices for colour management:
    None - This means any file you open will have any embedded profile ignored, the working space is effectively the same as your monitor, when you save a file any existing profile is removed.
    Optimize for Web - This sets the working space to sRGB, so any file without a profile will be edited in that space. When you save such a file you can embed sRGB as it's profile on saving.
    Optimize for Print - This sets the working space to Adobe RGB, and then behaves as for optimze for web but using Adobe RGB.
    Let me choose - For files with no embedded profile, you can choose between sRGB or Adobe RGB and that will be the working space profile for that file. You can then save it with that profile.
    For the latter three options, Elemenets always preserves the embedded profile if a file has one. So, if you have Elements set to optimze for web, but open a file with Adobe RGB, it will use Adobe RGB. Unlike full PS, you can't force sRGB working space on an Adobe RGB file. It will also preserve ProPhoto RGB too it seems, even though it's not a profile you can use in Elements to create files with.
    Elements also provides the ability to convert (not assign) between sRGB and Adobe RGB. You can effectively do an assign by saving a file without the embedded profile, and then setting Elements colour settings to let me choose and then selecting the profile you wanted at that point...
    As for ACR, I believe the preview works no differently than it does in full PS other than there is no option to select the output space in the ACR window (along with other restricted options). This is effectively set by the Elements color settings above, so you will get sRGB for optimse for web or Adobe RGB for optimise for print. When it's set to let me choose, I think it defaults to using whatever your camera's default colour space is set to as this is still in the EXIF info, but am not sure there. ACR does let you specify 16 bit output though, so depending on the base colour settings in Elements you can create a 16-bit AdobeRGB TIFF file, save it with the correct profile, and also easily create a correct 8-bit sRGB JPEG from it for web use.
    So, no, Elements is not as flexible as full PS, but, if you want to stick with Adobe RGB and sRGB, then I reckon it's all there and it's not quite as pathetic as Ramon says. If you want ProPhoto RGB, then to be fair, Elements is probably not for you anyway.

  • Color Profile and ACR 4.6 (Vista)

    Hi,
    My monitor is calibrated with Spyder3. I have set up my Photoshop CS3 so that the color management policies are disabled and the proof conditions are set up to the .icc profile produces by the calibrator. With these settings the files that I save in Photoshop look similar in Photoshop, Microsoft Office Picture Manager, IE and on paper.
    But if I decide to open a RAW file, then it is opened in ACR and looks very different: all colors are over-saturated and totally unnatural. Nevertheless, clicking on "Save Image" without changing anything produces a jpeg, which, if opened in Photoshop, looks fine.
    I played with this jpeg in Photoshop and was able to reproduce those unnatural colors of ACR in the following way:
    - Go to Save For Web&Devices
    - Open the Preview Menu
    - Chose Windows Color
    Normally I have Uncompensated Color chosen there and then it looks normal.
    Here are the examples. First, how the file looks in ACR ad then in PS:
    Does anybody know why this might happen?
    Thank you very much,
    Vera

    vemina39 wrote:
    Thank you Ramon,
    Could you please elaborate? I have looked through the page you gave me a link to. I did not see much new there.
    The problem I have is with proofing. If I switch to sRGB I have consistent colors through all my applications but they look very washed out and way too cold. If I then make my picture look "natural" (whatever that means) on my screen, it looks too saturated and too warm on most of other screens I tried. (And on paper too.)
    Proofing under my .icc does not give that problem, but it has the other: ACR and Photoshop proof differently. So I cannot use ACR for conversion and have to use the Canon's software, which (I suppose) uses the monitor profile for proofing.
    Are you OYing about the fact that I do not convert the profile of my pictures before sending them to the printer?
    Vera
    Vera,
    If G. Ballard's excellent, clearly written pages did not help you, you can bet I won't be able to either. 
    No, I was saying OY! about your entire post! 
    Good grief! you're turning off Color Management in Photoshop (or you think you are, but you're not "turning it off", you're just messing it up) and you're massively misusing your monitor profile.
    Honestly I don't have the time, strength or inclination to explain it to you step-by-step.
    CAUTION:  NEVER, ever set your working space to be your monitor profile!
    In very broad strokes:
    Calibrate and profile your monitor, use the resulting profile ONLY in your OS and nowhere else, not anywhere in Photoshop. Set your working profile to a device-independent profile such as ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB, embed the same device-independent profile such as ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB, in your file (that is called "tagging your file"), work with your file and save it.
    • Then, for the web, Convert a copy the file to sRGB if it's not already tagged as sRGB, then soft proof (Proof) the file with the sRGB profile to see how other people who happen to have a calibrated monitor (less than 2% of all web viewers) will see it in a color managed application.
    For heaven's sake DO NOT soft-proof with your gosh-darned monitor profile!!!   You're just fooling yourself that way.  No one else in the entire world will see the image the same way except by sheer serendipity.
    —What kind of printer are you using?  Are you talking about your own inkjet printer or a commercial printing press?
    • If your own printer, then your file should be created in an Adobe RGB working color space (you can move up to an even wider space once you know what you are doing), tag your file with the embedded Adobe RGB profile, and then use your TARGET (paper) profile to soft-proof your image.  The Target Profile, also called paper profile, MUST be specific to a particular combination of paper/ink/printer.
    • If a commercial press, ask them to provide their own profiles for their print presses or devices so you can use it for soft proofing.
    In both of these last two cases, use the paper target profile for soft proofing. NEVER your gosh-darned monitor profile!
    Again:  If G. Ballard's excellent, clearly written pages did not help you, you can bet I won't be able to either.  I'm done here.

  • File Info - Color Space: Uncalibrated

    In File | File Info there is lots of interesting data about the camera, lens etc. There is also one field that says 'Color Space: Uncalibrated'.
    Should this be calibrated? Is it important, will it make any difference to my pictures if it is calibrated, and how does one go about calibrating it (presumably the camera)?
    FWIW the camera is always used on a copy stand, so same lights etc every time, so calibration might be a good thing.
    Thanks - Brian

    Ansel most likely would have loved Photoshop. He  was far from representative photography and manipulated extensively.  His ideas were around the concept of bringing out the subject matter, if that required suppression of certain aspects to do so. If all that is required is to be unobtrusive as possible, then previsualization would be unnecessary. His mantra was to make a photograph, not take a photograph, which he found distasteful; to "take". One can only make them consistently by using all that your tools can offer.
    I also attempt to get it done in ACR so far as possible, because some steps do look better in ACR than in PS, such as b&w conversion. Wait, not better, different. ACR allows fine tuning across a wider color palette than PS, but dramatizing is better accomplished in PS conversion, albeit with a noisier image likely. Finally, the one tool in PS for which I find no equivalent or better in ACR is Shadow/Highlight, which sometimes I do run as a Smart Object. What you give up as a Smart Object is a number of other tools become greyed out.
    I do use the plan mode as well, D.
    BTW, as I was walking down my street, a car pulled out of the driveway with "Fosse" on the license plate, preceded by initials neither of which was a D. I thought for a moment "wouldn't it be funny if we lived just down the street from each other all these years?"

  • Inadvertently saving in unwanted color space.

    In ACR (5.3) the color space to be used when saving an image in set in Workflow options. Since I change this setting to see how much is clipped in various spaces (aRGB, sRGB), I sometimes forget to re-set it to the space I actually want to use before actually saving the image or opening in PS (as a smart obj). Of course, I can return to ACR, change the workflow setting and re-save. I am concerned that some image information is being lost when this is done. These are drum scanned images originally in Ektaspace. For example, I inadvertently save as sRGB (I assume it convert?). If it does these types of conversions, I would expect that image information would be lost and not recoverable. I'm hoping that someone can confirm my suspicion or educate me. Thanks.

    Paul,
    Yes, if you open your
    raw image into Photoshop in a smaller color space, such as sRGB, you will lose color range in the Photoshop image,
    but your raw image file remains untouched. You can always discard the file you opened in Photoshop and go back to your raw space and open a new copy.
    ACR always opens a copy of the raw file. It treats all raw files as read-only files. Even the adjustments you make in ACR do not affect the raw data, they are all kept in metadata and are not applied to the pixels until you open the copy in Photoshop.
    >Of course, I can return to ACR, change the workflow setting and re-save. I am concerned that some image information is being lost when this is done.
    Absolutely not, just see above.
    >These are drum scanned images originally in Ektaspace.
    Ah, so they are
    not raw images at all. Nevertheless, what I wrote above still applies to your images, presumably saved as TIFFs. Any and all adjustments you make in ACR are still kept in metadata only.
    Keep in mind, however, that TIFFs do not give you anywhere near the latitude and flexibility that raw images afford. But you know that, of course.

Maybe you are looking for