Color space comparison in PS versus Aperture 3

Photoshop uses ECI-RGB color space in its RAW conversion process. What color space does Aperture 3 employ? Are we comparing Apples to Apples with initial RAW processing with these systems?
Thanks

From Aperture: Color and gamma settings for print and web
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.
Also see this thread: How can I set my work space to sRGB or aRGB & let Aperture handle color mgt

Similar Messages

How to select color space for PDF export in Aperture 3

If you're exporting a book layout as a PDF for printing by a third-party album company, you may need to specify sRGB as the color space for images in the PDF. That's OK if your book is composed of JPEGs that are already in the sRGB color space. But, if your images are RAW, Aperture will export them into PDF using the Adobe RGB color space by default. Sending aRGB images to an sRGB printer will result in flat, unsaturated colors, as I learned the hard way. Apple tech support was unable to tell me how to handle this, but I stumbled on the answer myself. Select the book in the Library pane. Select File > Print Book. In the resulting printer dialogue window, pull down the Color Profile menu (default: No Profile Selected) and select sRGB or whatever target color space you desire. Then, click the PDF button and select Save as PDF. Presto! Your PDF images will now be in the appropriate color space.

Hi again, here some updates.
the issue is still there.
From Aperture, I tried to export to PDF the single images, and they look good (no posterization).
Furthermore, I created a photo book from iPhoto with the same pictures, and exported it to PDF. It also looks fine.
Also opening/exporting to PDF from photoshop does not show any problem.
The problem occurs only if I try to print the book from Aperture (option "print book" -> "save as PDF"), or if I make a book preview before placing the order (I suppose it's the same action).
Is anybody aware of what exactly Aperture does in these particular cases?
Please consider that:
1. my monitor (iMac 24") is hardware calibrated
2. the source pictures are in RAW (so no color profile on them) and (just a couple) in TIFF (16bit, Adobe RGB). I also tried reimporting in the album jpg converted versions, with no better results.
3. OS and Aperture are updated to the latest versions.
This problem is blocking me from placing the order...
Someone could give some help here?
thanks in advance
marco

Aperture, Color Space, Printing, Oh My!

Any help with these is greatly appreciated. I've read countless articles and forums, only to be left with these questions because no one can answer them.
1) In RAW only if I want to print with my B9180 and process in Aperture, does the in-camera color space settings even matter? I do use soft-proofing in Aperture for the HP papers I use. Everything I read about it says Adobe RGB in-camera should be used when making your own prints at home, but they are always referring to printing from within Photoshop, but I don't use PS, so I'm confused about this with Aperture.
2) Now, what if I shot JPGs? Will in-camera color space matter in this same scenario (Aperture, B9180 printing at home)?
3) Using Aperture in a JPG workflow, does the application see the in-camera color space I selected or does Aperture have its own color space? Or is it selected based on the soft-proofing profile I use?

Henrik,
That's an awful lot of words but none of it gets at the day to day use of the program or really provides and answer for the original poster of the thread.
Yes, of course a soft proof is a simulation. That's why it's a soft proof. It's also never going to match the output exactly. It can't.
Strip away all the science under the hood as it relates to soft-proofing in Aperture (part of Jerry's question #3) and the questions are:
What is this?
When should I use it?
How do I use it?
What? It's a way of getting a sense of how your image will look when output. It requires that you are working on a calibrated monitor and you need an output profile in order to use it. It will never match your output 100%. It cannot due to screen vs. paper, how the color on each is created, gamut and contrast of each, etc.
When? In Aperture you should work on your image with "Onscreen Proofing" turned off. Why? because you should work your images as best possible without initial regard for the output. It may end up being output for different uses in the future (screen, inkjet print, offset printed, etc.) You can use Aperture's "Onscreen Proofing" if you want get a sense of how your image will look when output. You don't have to, just like you don't have to in Photoshop. If all you are doing is outputting to an in-house inkjet printer you could just make a test print via color managed printing, see how it looks, and then adjust as needed. But if you want to get sense of what's what and whether you need to make any changes before you hit "print" then you can do the soft proof. The soft-proof would also be helpful heading off issues if you are not printing in-house (again, assuming you have a correct output profile.)
How? In Aperture to get a sense of how the output will be you need to select your output profile in View>Proofing Profile and then turn on Onscreen Proofing, View>Onscreen Proofing. Now, you can turn on and off the proofing feature to get a sense of how the image will be reproduced. If your image is not soft-proofing as you expected or want you can create a duplicate of the image file. Then alter that to bring the image as close as possible to the feel of the non-proofed image. This is similar to Photoshop where you can "Proof Setup" and the duplicate your image and/or create additional image layers to bring the image more in line with your intention or expectation.
Jerry - FWIW, I know you posted about an HP printer in another thread. See the comments here,
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/02/13/insideaperturepodcast-9.html . There seem to be some HP printer based issues with regard to Onscreen proofing. This link also has a podcast with Joe Schorr, Apple's Senior Product Manager for Aperture, specifically about color management and onscreen proofing in Aperture.
Jon Roemer
site: http://www.jonroemer.com/
blog: http://jonroemer.typepad.com/jon_roemer/

PSE 10 as external editor for Aperture 3 - 8-bit TIFF and what color space?

Hi all,
I'm taking the plunge and trying PSE 10 as my external editor for Aperture 3. I understand that I need to export as 8-bit TIFF files (not 16) because PSE can't do certain things with 16-bit files. Is that right? Should I specify a color space in Aperture or leave it as "no profile selected"? (I don't know much about color spaces; I'm not a pro.) I print on an Epson RX580 Stylus Photo printer, if that matters.
I'll be grateful for any help and advice. Thanks.

Can I suggest you buy Philip Andrews book, Advanced Photoshop Elements 10. he explains colour spaces and much much more very clearly and exactly what can be done with 16 bit files and what you then have to change to 8 bit to accomplish. He's written basic and advanced guides for Elements since day one. Usually available from Amazon for under £20.

Change Aperture previews color space from Adobe98 to sRgb

Hi,
I'd like to change the default color space for the jpg previews that Aperture generates from the masters of my library.
I now have all my jpegs saved as Adobe98 but it's important for me to have them saved as sRGB because when third party apps and devices go to read them, they can't reproduce the right colors if they find the wrong color profile.
Thanks in advance for your help!

I don't know how many different ways to say that you cannot change the color space for previews. The files themselves have specific image data that corresponds to a specific color profile that is Adobe 1998 you cannot change the way Aperture generates these. Changing your system has nothing to do with it.
As for work-flow - If you need this to work and it doesn't then it never has so I really don't see how it is changing your work-flow that never existed?
RB
Ps. External devices like projectors work fine as long as your presentation software respects the source profile and has an output device profile - what kind of "device" are you using?
Message was edited by: rwboyer

External editor color space with Aperture and PSE 10?

Hi all,
I'm finally setting up Aperture to export to Photoshop Elements (10). In the Aperture preferences, I'm asking it to export to PSE 10 as 16-bit TIFF files. What color space should I indicate (if any)? It's currently set to "no profile selected." I'm not a professional; just an enthusiast. I print on an Epson RX580 Photo Stylus printer, if that matters.
I've searched on this forum and elsewhere, but haven't found a simple answer to this. All suggestions gratefully accepted. Thanks!

Can I suggest you buy Philip Andrews book, Advanced Photoshop Elements 10. he explains colour spaces and much much more very clearly and exactly what can be done with 16 bit files and what you then have to change to 8 bit to accomplish. He's written basic and advanced guides for Elements since day one. Usually available from Amazon for under £20.

Setting up color space between Aperture, Photoshop and my Epson 3880

Hi. I use Aperture to do quick fixes and Photoshop for more complex edits and printing. I have setup my export preference in Aperture to the external editor as 8 bit ProPhoto RGB and in Photoshop my color space as Prophoto RGB. I use mainly Nikon RAW files. (Epson suggests using ProPhoto RGB to get the most out of the ink). Does all this make sense? As a sort of related question I don't suppose there is a way to export RAW directly from Aperture to Photoshop using the mouse right click and edit with Photoshop option..

Yes, your setup makes sense, but the fact you're asking implies that you don't know much about colormanagement. Thus although this part of your workflow makes sense, it might well be that you're making error in the printing process for example. Get yourself a copy of the 'Real world colormanagement' by Bruce Fraser, to teach yourself all about it. Furthermore, when working in ProPhoto RGB, I'd suggest working in 16-bit instead of 8-bit, to reduce possible banding in color gradients.
By export RAW directly to Photoshop, I believe that you mean opening the RAW-file in Camera RAW? No, there is no way of doing that directly, though Aperture does have an export master option, allowing you to place a copy of the original RAW-file anywhere on your hard drive.

Aperture color space / working space

Something I have been wondering for some time now, and didn't find a real answer so far: what is Aperture's internal color space? Is it ProPhoto RGB? Does Aperture know about the camera's color space (i.e. how does it map my RAW data to its internal color space)?
What I noticed is that images are converted to AdobeRGB before sending them to Photoshop for editing; unless this is Apertures working space (which I hope it is not), it would make sense to change that to the working space. One could work around that by first exporting a TIFF in the appropriate color space, editing that and then reimporting it to Aperture, but this sounds rather unpracticable. And again, one should know what exactly the internal working space is, to avoid conversion losses.
I'm grateful for any suggestions,
Bernhard

I don't know that there is a background color space. As I said, if someone is working with a point and shoot digital camera vs. a Canon 1Ds Mark II, the range color the chip can capture is likely to be very different. In that case Aperture make work differently for each camera. I don't really know.
I think your question touches on the ongoing debate (it's been years now on Photo Forums) as to whether or not you can really profile a digital camera. Some say yes, some say no. The ones who say yes are the ones selling profiling software and charts. Capture One allows for custom input profiles. The ones saying no are promoting software that doesn't allow for custom input profiles (ACR, Aperture, any camera manufacturer's software). I think the theory on the "no" side is that with a camera the range of color is limitless therefor there is no way to really profile it. This is as opposed to something like a scanner that has a limited amount of color it can see and needs to reproduce.
I know that ACR has two types of general guides within it (one for daylight, one for tungsten) for each camera and then interpolates between the two. I say "guides" because I don't know if they are really termed to be profiles or if another name is more appropriate.

Aperture's internal Color Space?

Does anyone have any information about Aperture's internal color space?

The thread you linked to starts of with the same link I had already posted. Some people in that thread say they think it uses ProPhoto but without having any evidence to back up that claim.
As I also wrote in that thread, if you import ProPhoto tiffs into Aperture and do any kind of modification and then export again (using ProPhoto) you get something that is clipped to Adobe RGB. That's a pretty clear indicator that Aperture uses Adobe RGB internally.
Mies van der Robot wrote:
However, your display system is going to clip everything to AdobeRGB or smaller (depending on the gamut of your display),
That is most likely correct but I have not found any authoritative source for this (the question being whether the conversion from an image color space to the monitor color space is done via relative colorimetric or something else).
and Aperture doesn't have the degree of sophistication for working out-of-gamut that Photoshop does, so as a rule of thumb it probably doesn't hurt to think of the internal space as equivalent to that of your display.
Aperture cannot deal properly with images that have a larger gamut than its internal color space (ie, ProPhoto) but it can easily deal with Adobe RGB files which easily can have a larger gamut than your monitor (you might not be able to see what you are doing, but the same problem exists in Photoshop).

Color space AE CS5 Versus AE CS4 = !#%%$

Hello,
I'm trying to export HD uncompressed 10-bit with color space HDTV (rec.709) clips of VFXs footage that were done on AE CS5.
My main project file to which I want to integrate them in on AE CS4 which I am using (the AE CS5 render are made by someone else that has it).
My project file settings is in HDTV (rec.709) 16bit with mostly cineform clips, but with a few other VFXs shot that were renderer in HD uncompressed without problems (using CS4). I plan to them export my main project into HD uncompressed
We tried to batch of export:
First one was done in CS5 with HDTV (rec.709) in export settings but the project settings wasn't set to HDTV (rec.709) by the VFXs guy.
When I imported those clips in my CS4 main project there was difference in color (more golden) and blacks (more crushed).
You can it with the blacks's difference on the girl's hair and the side planel of the plane and the golden is less ovious on the picture quality but you see it a bit on the woman's face.
I then proceeded to check color space, and it was imported by default by AE in sRGB IEC611966-2.1.
I then changed it to HDTV rec.709 using interpret footage; it was a closer match, but not quite.
I then noticed that all my project's clips, including the HD uncompressed one that I rendered (under CS4) from work done by another VFX artist, were all in HDTV rec.709 YCrCb, but the the imported clips I was trying to match were in HDTV rec.709 only with no YCrCb mention afte them.
I talked with film's colorist and VFXs artist that worked with those projct file from which all the problematic shots comes (because problem is isolated to project file this person worked on), because we both over our head in color space territory.
We came up the the possible solution that the project setting might have been altered for quicker workflow and not set rigth again.
We checked and color space wasn't set in setting; colorsit suggested that if it's not set in settings no mather if you set it in your export settings, AE won't allow it and that's why it might have forced RGB, hence the sRGB IEC611966-2.1. It was in 32bit float instead of 16 bit, so that's ok, we initialy suggestedthat it might have been reduced to 8bit for quicker workflow.
After this, we proceded to re-render in CS5, bu we found a weird thing that we both don't realy grasp.
After he did the 2nd render (in CS5 still), he tried importing clips with old ones, to compare them to my unafected originals clips, in my CS4 project that he converted in CS5. It was worst. He then switched off the "blend color using 1.0 gamma"; which my project file didn't have on in CS4. The files are in 32bit float and color space was HDTV (rec.709), but since it's not embed in HD uncompressed files he set them manualy after importing them.
The OLD render batch was matching, but not the NEW ones.
Then he tried importing both render batch in the original project file he exported them from, and it was the NEW batch that now matched.
He's now doing test in my main project file in CS4 which is were I'd ultimately like it to work in,
but if anyone could gives us pointer as to why this is happening and how to make it match with no hassly tat would be great help.
Thank you for your time and interest.
Frédéric

You've lost me, honestly, but obviously you seem to be close to the solution. Your colorist is mistaken, though, about how AE handles color profiles. It doesn't discard or enforce profiles, it really seems you just forgot to carry them somewhere. Also, since these are different machines, maybe a specific profile was not available. eitehr it was never installed or it is blocked due to permission issues...
Mylenium

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..

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.

Color space export issues...

Well. This has been going on for a while. Sometimes it doesnt happen but most of the time when I export my images in srgb the view once uploaded is much depreciated. I proof in srgb 2.1 and embed upon export. The same thing happens with using the boarderfx export plugin. In addition, it seems to happen more after exporting to PS for edit and then exporting the tiffs to jpg later. But happens with normal jpg/raws as well. Thanks a lot for all the help and hopefully I can get this solved
Aaron

I don't mean "Quick Look" in Leopard. I mean Quick Preview in Aperture (a little button in the lower right corner that turns yellow when selected). I believe that, although not as seductive as the native screen display, Quick Preview is more accurate.
Here is what I mean by accurate:
• Quick Preview changes the display significantly and matches closely prints made from Aperture when printed on the paper for which I have selected the proof profile (in Aperture under View / Proofing Profile).
• Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that printed from Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same paper and profile are used.
• Prints made from Aperture are nearly identical to those made from PS, ID, and Acrobat using the same parameters.
• Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that displayed in Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same print profile is selected for soft proofing in these applications.
There is a wild card though: these days I print mostly using perceptual rendering intent. Aperture does not appear to provide any direct control over rendering intent or black point comp for softproofing. Native display in Aperture (with the correct profile selected for on screen proofing) is much closer to a PS soft proof of the same image using RelCol rendering intent in PS. In this case the difference seems to be perhaps in the implementation of black point comp.
It would sure be nice if we had full documentation of this stuff and didn't have to make suppositions about its functionality based on empirical data.
If you know of a way to soft proof in Aperture (that permits my workflow instead of imposing one) that allows for simultaneous editing I would be much obliged.
OK, I just did a little more poking around. Quick Preview appears to preview the image in the working color space, and what I was calling "native display mode" is using the selected soft proof profile. But on my system it is not accurate with my printer profiles. Not even close. Like I said this might be due to lack of control over rendering intent and black point compensation. (I also just noted that the soft proof display does not incorporate BPC. You can see this by creating a preview through the print dialog and comparing the result to the screen display.)
Though soft proofing seems to be broken, at least for me, I have answered my own question: My working space is close enough to (and obviously includes the full gamut of) my print profiles that I can select my working space profile for soft proofing (which it does use accurately since Aperture is also using the same profile to convert the RAW file to for export) which will allow me to edit while soft proofing in a valid color space with consistent rendering intent and application of BPC.
Flame off, over and out.

Color spaces in Lightroom and Photoshop

I read that Lightroom uses the large ProPhoto color Space and then again, that it's gamma curve ist close to sRGB. So what is my color space when working in Lightroom? ProPhoto, or sRGb, or something else?
And what kind of a color management workflow between Photoshop and Lightroom do you advocate? Using ProphotoRGB or sRGB as color work space in Photoshop? I used to work in AdobeRGB in Photoshop. Has this to be changed to gain maximum color consistency?
Thanks again for any help!
Johann M Ginther

Hey Claude,
if it did not have an attached profile it is almost definitely in sRGB or, more rarely, Apple RGB. Lightroom always assumes sRGB for untagged files which is typically a safe bet. Photoshop generally uses the working space for untagged images. Since you had adobeRGB there, you should get a more saturated image in photoshop then in Lightroom. The same data is simply interpreted in a different color space leading to different colors. This has nothing to do with the monitor profile therefore and my initial hunch was wrong. So for untagged images in photoshop, you should usually assign sRGB to them instead of working space.
>As for calibration hardware we do use them here so I will use it but since the Mac was brand new out the box I assumed that it was ok...
Unfortunately, in general the canned calibration is not very good on Macs. I find very large differences between the shipped profile and a profile generated by a calibrator. Also, Apple ships profiles that set your display's gamma to 1.8 instead of the standard 2.2. This leads to many images in webbrowsers being too low contrast. Even Apple suggests recalibrating your screen at 2.2 if you do digital photography work (it's in their Aperture help files). In this case though the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop had nothing to do with the monitor profile but was related to photoshop interpreting untagged files in its working space instead of the more likely sRGB space.

MPB 17" and what Adobe RGB color space coverage I might expect from it

Hello,
I am photographer and currently PC user. However, I plan to dive to the Mac’s world.
Before I become a Mac user, I have few questions.
Now I think about MacBook Pro 17”, i7 2.66MHz, 8GB RAM, 500 GB 7200rpm HDD and antiglare screen.
I plan to use additional monitor for photo editing.
I did search on google about *NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M* and *Adobe RGB color space* it covers, however, it gave me no results related to Mac. The only information about this card and Adobe colors I found is that Sony Vaio use this graphic card and in some forums, one say it covers 98% and in other 100% of Adobe color space which made me wonder what type of screen Vaio have.
- is MacBook Pro 17” good for photo editing?
- what % of AdobeRGB color space I might expect from it on my external screen or what % of sRGB colors space it delivers?
- Is it possible to calibrate Mac’s native screen and external one, use both at the time and have different profiles on each?
- Tell me anything that would stop me thinking about MBP for photo editing?
Thank you for your time reading this and hope to find the answers here.

You should consider posting your questions in the Pro Application section for Aperture. You will bump into more photographers there than you will here. But I will make an attempt at answers:
whats about Adobe color space?
No, the MBP screen will not encompass the Adobe Color Space. In fact, few desktop monitors are capable of this.
does the native MBP screen display full color range the video card is able to produce...
There really is no limit to the color extremes, which define a color space, as established by a graphics card. So your question is not a well formed question. An old ATI Rage card with 8-bit output would reveal the same color gamut as would the NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M connected to the same display. The gamut is determined by the attached display, not the graphics card.
...or connecting external monitor to it’s mini display port would bring much wider color range to my eyes?
Yes, certainly the potential for that exists. Notebook screens are usually a compromise and can't be expected to compete with a high-end desktop display in many categories, including color gamut. But whether it would bring a "much wider color range to" your eyes is hard to say. It depends on what type of external display is in use.

Color space comparison in PS versus Aperture 3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for