Default Color Space

Safari is color managed and that is great, but I understand if it encounters an un-tagged file it assumes monitor space, I'd like to know if it can be changed to assume sRGB for un-tagged files?
Thanks.
Patrick

The reason I ask is that (in another forum) I recall asking Andrew Rodney (Digitaldog) and he mentioned that it used monitor space. If it does, it definitely doesn't sound like a very good idea.
I hope you're right. I'll have to play around with Safari, Photoshop, and my monitor profile to see if I can prove it for myself.
Thanks for the reply.
Patrick

Similar Messages

Exporting Tifs:Default Color Space is sRGB

I'm flabbergasted.
Again, without warning, Aperture is altering my files. This seems to be part of the design philosophy.
Go to Output>Export Version.
From the drop down you can choose a variety of formats. Go to the bottom to Edit...
And you will see that the default color space for all formats except PSD is sRGB.
As if that weren't bad enough, there is an option for Black Point Compensation (off by default) and a Gamma slider......with no preview.
Even with Source Profile selected (shouldn't THAT be the default for heaven's sake?) the black point compensation button and the gamma slider are available to be invoked.
fp

It's even WORSE than that:
I exported a tif from Apeture:
8bit
Source profile
I sent the same master to Photoshop, converted it to 8bit and saved as a Tif with LZW compression.
First off, since you cannot specify compression when exporting from Aperture the Aperture file was twice as large, 35.1mb vs. 17.3mb for Photoshop.
But that's not the bad part.
The Bad part is that the Aperture file had suffered visible damage in the conversion with a visible loss of shadow detail. The Photoshop version had not.
I tried this a number of times. Interestingly each time I specified Source Profile the dialog box had returned to sRGB when I checked it again. But that wasn't the problem.
When I changed the export to 16bit tif instead of 8 bit two things happend:
First, Aperture created not one, but two exports of the same file on my hard drive. I trashed them and tried it again with the same results.
Second, the 16bit Aperture tif looked very much like the 8bit Photoshop tif. UNTIL I converted the 16bit Aperture tif to 8bit at which point the shadows fell apart just like they had in the 8bit Aperture conversions.
Very, very bad.
fp

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..

How do I set sRGB as my default color space?

Im honestly tired of having to convert the files with the "edit > convert to profile" menu option. I export from LR straight to PS. I dont know if that has anything to do with it. I doubt it. I just want to be able to open all my pictures in sRGB without having to do the converting. I do save for web but if the profile is converted before hand, the colors will change.

Raw
Double click here:
and change this

Change Default Color Profile in New Image Document ?

I've looked and looked, and even Googled. Anyone know how to change the default color profile when you start a New image file? In CS5 mine defaults to sRGB (Under the Advanced drop down) but my CS6 is ProPhoto RGB which means I have to change it manually nearly every time I paste an image copied via right click in a web browser.

I think it the same on windows. If I copy things to the clipboard with Photoshop that the document profile seem to be used there when I do a paste there are no color issues. However if I use Prtscn or Alt+PrtScn to capture screen content. I'll see that the colors are wrong when I paste the clipboard into a new document if my default color space is not sRGB. Then I need to assign sRGB to the document to correct the colors.
If I paste a screen capture into the current document the color can be very off and I will not get a prompt on the color mismatch. Therefore I don't think a screen capture has any profile associated with it. And of course the screen has a much lower resolution then the images I edit. So there is also a big size difference. Here is one scaled to 100% zoom after the paste. You can see both the color and resolution difference. This capture was assigned to sRGB so you will see what the screen looks like after the paste and zoom to 100%.
Message was edited by: JJMack

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

Color space and profiles clarifications

Does FCPX consider the embedded color profile of my clips ?
What is the default color space of FCPX projects ? (if any)
Can I select a specific color profile for my projects ?
My clips (according to after effect_cs6>interpret footage>color management) have this color profile embedded: HDTV (Rec. 709) Y'CbCr, but if I check out the same clip once transcoded to prores422 by FCPX there is no color profile anymore. What's goin on ?
I come from the photography world and we consider color profiles very important, what should I know about them when working with video ?
Thanks a lot

Thanks TOm, what do you mean internally ? In AE I can select a color space from a long list for my projects while FCPX discard the color profiles from the imported clips... how can it even manage them ?
Thanks

MacBeth chart - Adjust Color Space - What do I do next?

I have watched Colin Smith's Speedgrade Tutorial: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/no-stupid-questions-with-colin-smith/introduction-to-speedgrade/
Very well done. Thanks!
One question remains:
Using a Canon 5D MIII, I have shot a MacBeth chart (X-Rite Original ColorChecker Card) and was able to successfully use the “Go” button under the “Clip" tab and then sub tab "Color Space” checking “Override input format’s default color space." The adjustment is amazing and the it surprised me how well this turned out.
However, now I have a color corrected 2-second video clip of a MacBeth chart. Where do I go from here? I have 50 clips and cannot use LOOKs to store this adjustment as it is in the color space world. Also, I seem to fail storing the actual color space in any way. For test purposes, I have made a screenshot of the Exposure, Black Level and Matrix settings and then entered the 15 numbers into another clip with great success, but this is a bit tedious to put it mildly.
Any advice is appreciated!
Thanks!
CU
Heiko

I've done some checking on this. With the way ALL timeline-affecting things have been locked down for Direct Link work, this is NOT available in DL workflows. Very unfortunately, in my opinion ... which is sometimes very humble, but in this case, not so much!
Please file BOTH bug AND program feature requests on this ... invite your friends to do so also! Not only is the Passport color-checker chart quite a useful production tool, there are a couple similar things for video that are even better. NONE of which are usable in a DL flow.
Except ... that you can start in native mode creating an ircp file, do the same thing as done in that tutorial you referenced, save the results as a Look, and then apply that Look say in an second primary just above the footage primary during your normal DL workflow. Then apply any basic WB style color cast corrections to the lowest primary. It would be similar to the way a LOG style LUT/Look correction layer is used.
Try this and see how it works.
Neil

Do I need to harmonize color space between LR and other photo editing programs.

I perform the majority of my editing work in Lightroom. However, I also use some 3rd party applications (e.g. Nik, OnOne, etc.) in addition to Photoshop for special editing, etc. I've noticed that the default color space for each of these applications is different. Some default to Adobe RGBb, other sRGB and still others Pro Photo RGB. Should I be using the same color space and bit depth across all of these programs? When I export from LR, should that color space be the same as everything else? I have noticed that when I export some images and take them to a retail store based print service that the colors appear dull and drab. I believe that is because those mass producing print services don't read the color space in the JPEG correctly. Does any of this make sense, or am I way off? Thanks for everyone's input and time.

For your editing workflow, best is to keep the image in the same color space at all time. For final export you should convert to desiered space... for example sRGB for web, adobeRGB for print etc.

Color spaces not sticking...?

What's Confusing: I have a layered file, the color space assigned to it is sRGB. I save a png file via Save For Web, tick the option to convert export to sRGB. All looks good in the save for web 2-up preview. But when I open the new png file, it's color profile is set to Adobe RGB, and the color space looks off—not like it did in the SFW preview.
Details: My default color space is Adobe RGB. Sync'd across all CS5 apps. I have the option ticked to warn me on profile mismatches when opening a file. So far so good.
So it seems like my Working Space color (Adobe RGB) is overriding SFW settings as well as my document color space settings
Same thing happens when saving as a jpg.
Any thoughts?

To erase, delete or reset Save For Web & Devices SFW preferences:
Open a small .jpg in Photoshop (to ungray the File menu).
Mac: Press and hold Option+Command keys, while File> Save For Web Devices (you will get a prompt confirming you want to erase all Save for Web preferences).
Windows PC: Press and hold Control+Alt keys, while File> Save For Web Devices (you will get a prompt confirming you want to erase all Save for Web preferences).
that should configure SFW default settings to CONVERT your Photoshop Source Space to sRGB and strip the ICC profile by default
How to reset Photoshop's preferences using special key combinations (most Adobe apps use this method of keystrokes):
First Quit Photoshop.
Mac: Press and hold Command+Option+Shift keys, while opening Photoshop (you will get a prompt confirming you want to delete the Adobe Photoshop settings folder).
Windows PC: Press and hold Alt+Control+Shift keys, while opening Photoshop (you will get a prompt confirming you want to delete the Adobe Photoshop settings folder).

What is the proper way to do Color Space Defaults?

What is the proper way to do Color Space Defaults? let the color checker chart fill the whole frame or just put the color checker chart in front or aside items or people we are gonna shoot?

I"m not sure how to use this through Direct Link ... as the timeline including all color-space things are locked down. Perhaps going through Sg in a "native" launch with some of the footage, though it would have to be in a codec Sg takes in "native" ... then doing the color chart thing, creating a Look from it, and then applying that in Direct Link sessions might be the process ... but yea, Dennis Weinmann, some advice here?
Thanks!
Neil

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 on Thumbnail Image Variants

Hi all-
I'm loading some CMYK images into my repository (5.5 SP05) and trying to use the default thumbnail variant in a web application. For some reason, even though the color space of the thumbnail is set to RGB, it doesn't get converted when the thumbnail is created. This results in a .jpg that is CMYK (and isn't understood by a browser).
If I create a custom variant as .jpg and of the RGB color space, it works fine after generation. Is this a bug? Or is there a way to force the generation of thumbnails? I was trying to not have too many variants in my repository because I was worried about bloating it. Perhaps this shouldn't be a concern, but it still seems as if the thumbnail should get converted to RGB according to the settings in the Console. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Tim

Tim,
Sounds like this may be a bug. Since the Thumbnails are set to RGB, and cannot be changed, it seems as though they should be generated in RGB color space.
One thing to try. Go into the images table, right click on an image in the records window, and select Generate Thumbnail. I believe it will actually regenerate the thumbnail. Maybe this will regenerate with the RGB color space. That's my only idea. Other than that you really don't have much control over the thumbnails.
Regards,
Tim

PDF in CMYK color space?

I'm working on the most recent version of Pages from iWork 2008 running on the most recent version of Leopard, and I have to create a PDF in the CMYK color space for publication, but I do not have Acrobat Distiller.
Is it possible to create a CMYK PDF with ColorSync filters? I have tried using the "Generate PDF-X/3" filter, with "Generic CMYK" as the target profile and transparency flattening, but the printer still says that my PDF is in the RGB color space. If not, is there any other way to create a CMYK PDF from Pages or to convert a RGB PDF or PostScript file to CMYK using ColorSync Utility? Are there any alternatives without purchasing Adobe Acrobat? What about if I first convert images to the CMYK color space before importing them to Pages?
I have seen similar questions posted elsewhere, but I can't find a straight answer anywhere.

1. Obtain the ICC profile from the printer for his output device.
Correct. Either the shop printing condition or an ISO 12647 printing condition to which the shop can configure and calibrate the printing condition it is selling you. If the latter, you can get default ICC printer profiles for standard printing conditions at www.eci.org.
2. Create a filter in ColorSync Utility for generating PDF/X-3 documents with the ICC profile as the output intent (besides flattening the transparency and applying an appropriate resolution).
Correct.
3. Print to PDF in Pages.
Incorrect.
Your PDF/X-3 filter will become available in the system dialog for File > Print > Save as PDF. In saving as PDF you pick your PDF/X-3 filter as the template for the save process.
4. Use ColorSync Utility to modify the resulting PDF with the filter I created in ColorSync Utility.
(or 3-4. Print directly to PDF through the filter from Pages)
Your second step to combine 3 and 4 is correct, your first step 4 to save to disk and then postprocess in the ColorSync utility is incorrect.
5. Send this PDF/X-3 to the printer.
Correct.
It seems that no hard conversion from RGB to CMYK should be necessary if I take these steps, is that correct?
Correct.
If I send the printer a PDF in the RGB color space, should it cause problems for him to convert the PDF himself to the color space of his output device?
No.
You create three channel RGB images in the RGB colourant data model (it's just a model, it is not a colour space which a size and a shape of the gamut).
You save your colourants to disk in TIFF or PDF format with the ICC profile for the capture colour space (e.g. the ICC profile for your specific scanner with a Kodak EktaChrome IT8) or correction colour space (e.g. Joseph Holmes' RGB working space for EktaChrome). This ICC profile is the _colour space_ that you can view in the ColorSync Utility as a specific size and shape of gamut. The colour space determines what colours the colourants in your TIFF or PDF image should reproduce on different colour devices.
You now have a pagination with photographic objects in three component RGB, and you know what colours those colourants are supposed to reproduce. You then include the production profile for the printing condition. Your source profiles must match to this destination profile in the matching session, so all your photographs get converted to the SAME ink limit, the SAME graybalance and so forth. This unifies the inking behaviour and the colour formation for your printing.
If you imagine that in your pagination you place photographs which are manually converted into four component CMYK using a different ink limit, a different graybalance and so forth then you have not unified your inking behavour and colour formation for the printing process. This is IDIOTIC because the only way to correct in this case is to change the calibration of the individual inking zones on the offset press - increasing or decreasing the cyan, magenta, yellow or black for that zone.
It used to be that lithography on the press was the only way to work. This was in the days of EPS and EPS DCS, and before that in the days of photographic printing masters pasted together manually piece by piece to make the printing planes. Nobody in their right mind works that way today.
/hh

Problem of color spaces when i switch between photoshop cc 2014 and lightroom 5.7. where to ask

hallo,
where can we ask questions on photoshop cc 2014 tools ?
i have a prophoto nef in lightroom which is retouched.
i edit in photoshop cc to make a selection and come back to lightroom with a huge psd.
it says color space of photoshop is not correct and advises prophoto. i say yes.
first one day i lost the pen tool mask when i wanted to re-edit from lightroom. fortunately the version of psd on hard disk was ok. never understood what happened
second is i want to open a jpg background on my hard disk, perhaps srgb, in photoshop and add the selection.
how to manage color spaces because my colors of the selection or the background become ugly
not sure i still need to use lightroom for this step. bridge or photoshop itselfs can open files,...
best regards
marc

That's great, but what exactly did it - matrix (gamma) profiles instead of LUT? It would be good to know for future reference.
I have seen small problems with LUT profiles in Firefox, like black clipping up to value 6 or 7, but Lightroom seems to behave well with LUT profiles here. The problem with LUT profiles is that they are "heavier" and more complex, because they contain complete tables for all possible transformations - whereas matrix profiles do it by much simpler mathematical formulae. LUT is more accurate, but matrix simpler and more reliable.
Not that I think accuracy is a problem with Eizo CGs. Which is why it's a bit puzzling that ColorNavigator has LUT as default. I use mostly matrix targets these days, my feeling is that the simpler the profile, the better.

Default Color Space

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for