Rendering intent exporting to AdobeRGB and sRGB

LR works with the color space ProPhotoRGB. With highly saturated colors this colorspace is larger than AdobeRGB and sRGB. As I see it now is that while exporting to these color spaces, Lightroom uses the method as in Photoshop called Convert to Profile, which maintains the color appearance, but shifts the color numbers. High saturated colors will be clipped. Is this assumption correct? Is it possible to use in Lightroom the method Assign Profile, where the color numbers (and detail) are maintained?

LR4 and LR5 provide the ability to 'Soft Proof' your image in the Develop module:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS2bacbdf8d487e582-5591e4a41341ae6cc6d-8000.ht ml
This allows you to make adjustment changes using a Soft Proof virtual copy to correct for out-of-gamut colors. You have the option to preview the soft proof image using Perceptual or Relative rendering. The LR Export module does not provide this option under File Settings> Color Space and uses Perceptual rendering, which is generally the best choice. It is available using the Print module with Print to> JPEG FIle, if you should find an image looks better using Relative rendering.
Most of the images I process have very few out-of-gamut areas that change color significantly when converting to even the much narrower sRGB color space. This tutorial may be helpful if you do encounter images that have undesirable color shifts or exhibit banding in the target color space:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/whats-new-in-lightroom-4/soft-proofing-images/

Similar Messages

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..

Rendering intent when displaying, exporting or soft proofing?

I am trying to make use of soft proofing to adjust my images for a given output device for which I have ICC profiles. The two profiles I am playing with are for a Lambda and a Fuji Frontier. The Lambda working space almost fits within Adobe RGB, it exceeds it in only a few places but is noticeably smaller for a number of other colors. The Frontier working space is for most colors a bit smaller than the Lambda and about equal for only a small number of colors. The Frontier working space would also almost fit into sRGB (to give you an impression of its size).
When soft proofing with Aperture, dark greens desaturate more with the larger Lambda working space than with Frontier one. If the rendering intent were relative colorimetric, colors should be clipped more and limited by the smaller working space of the Frontier. If perceptual is used then colors would in general be somewhat more compressed (ie, desaturated) with the smaller Frontier working space. But I see rather the opposite. In short, neither explanation makes sense.
So I tried exporting from Aperture into Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB hoping that both would be big enough to contain most of the internal gamut of Aperture in order not to require much compression or clipping when converting from the internal color space of Aperture (I saw no difference between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB in the exported files, so I guess both are large enough for my purposes). And I then converted/soft proofed these files from Photoshop into my two output profiles. More options (different rendering intents, black point compensation) but none seemed to really match what Aperture was soft proofing. I still have a lot of ideas what to try out but if anybody could shed some light on rendering intents and soft proofing with Aperture, it would be very much appreciated.
(A related question, what rendering intent is used when converting colors, let's say defined in the Lab space in Photoshop, to the screen? I guess this is defined in the monitor profile, which in turn is created by the monitor calibration software, and therefore might depend on the latter. I would guess some kind of perceptual, but how the colors are really fitted and converted from the larger Lab color space into the smaller monitor one might very noticeably been different calibration software and will be different again for the monitor profile supplied by Apple.)

I went on about this a little more scientific by creating an image with three rectangles: red, blue and green.
All of them are 100%, e.g. (255, 0, 0). Colorspace: ProPhoto RGB.
Results when exporting the images to AdobeRGB and sRGB, concentrating on the reds:
- sRGB looks very washed out
- AdobeRGB looks a bit washed out
- Original ProPhoto has so much red that it almost drives me nuts
Now, I would really expect similar results when activiating soft proofing.
But when selecting either AdobeRGB or sRGB, the reds always drive me nuts.
There is just no difference at all to the original ProPhoto image!
Conclusion 1: Dorin, you were right, previews are in AdobeRGB. What I saw in the reds was the difference between ProPhoto and AdobeRGB. Somehow my screen seems to have extreme reds (calibrated recently with an X-Rite ColorMunki Display).
Conclusion 2: Soft proofing with AdobeRGB and sRGB really DOES NOT WORK!

What Rendering intent is used when exporting with a different color space?

Hi,
I would be ever so grateful if any one can tell me what rendering intent is used by LR4 when exporting using a custom colour space as there is not an option as there is with the print module.
Thanks.
Message title was edited by: Brett N

Jeff Schewe wrote:
Bob_Peters wrote:
The rendering intent in the Export dialog is Perceptual.
Actually, an RGB color space to RGB colorspace is always only Relative Colorimetric...and adding Perceptual would only work with certain V4 ICC color spaces (you can find perceptual V4 color spaces for sRGB and ProPhoto I think but I'm not sure they would work in Lightroom anyway).
When using an RGB print output profile you can select either Perceptual or Relative and have the intents actually applied.
True.
The case of interest to me is when I have to print a lot of files using a third-party profile and maintain the original filename so it appears on the back. That is why I made the request more than a year ago.
The problem with the Print module is that it clobbers the filename but does allow 2 choices for the rendering intent. Having to deal with weird filenames creates a mess when matching, say, 50 prints with custom notecards.

Recently switched from powermac to mac pro5 2x2.66GHz 6 -core xeon running FCP 7 on OS 10.6.8 exporting qt files and rendering project files now takes longer than my old machine looking at activity mon and % of user is aroun 6 and % of idle around 42

recently switched from powermac to mac pro5 2x2.66GHz 6 -core xeon running FCP 7 on OS 10.6.8 exporting qt files and rendering project files now takes longer than my old machine looking at activity mon and % of user is aroun 6 and % of idle around 42 are all the cores being used with FCP7?

johnnyapplesod wrote:
exporting qt files and rendering project files now takes longer than my old machine
It's because the PowerMac G5 had HUGE bandwidth with a fat BUS on each processsor so they could run hard, hot and heavy.
It's not so with the Intel processors which are multi-core and share a common bus thus bottleneck.
The newer Intel processors can do more work on the CPU, but when it comes to in/out they are s-l-o-w.
I've had a wickedly fast dual processor (not dual core) G5, RAID 0 pair of 10,000 RPM drives as boot and a fast video card, I could do a lot very very fast.
You'll likely have to upgrade to Final Cut X to get more cores utilized, prepare to cry a little bit, Apple is working on the features they stripped out of it to make amends to pro users who complained loudly. (all over TV too)
http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/09/20/apple-releases-major-update-to-final-cut-p ro-x-release-demo-version/

Rendering Intent for monitors?

We hear a lot about rendering intent in relation to printing, but isn't the concept equally important in relation to monitor displays? And how does this operate in LR2? Or is Windows (in my case) responsible for making the rendering decisions?
I have a calibrated and profiled monitor (I use a spyder) and am aware that LR uses (Linear) ProPhotoRGB as the working colour space. Obviously the range of colours recordable by my SLR and retained within the LR working space far exceeds the gamut of colours that can be displayed. Does anyone know how LR2 handles the out-of-gamut colours for display? I suspect that it employs a sort-of relative rendering intent and simply clips these colours - i.e. displays them as the 'nearest' available colour. Alternatively, it could use a perceptual intent, shifting the whole spectrum into the monitor colour space, thus altering all colours but keeping the relation between colours. This is important stuff, isn't it?
The use of the 'relative' method would accurately preserve those colours that can be displayed so that printer output can be predicted with some certainty. But, it would also mean that I will never be aware from the display (not even imperfectly) of the full range of colours that are in the file. At worst, it could cause 'posterisation' as the out-of-gamut colours accumulate at the edges of the displayable colour space.
The use of the 'perceptual' method, however, will mean that I can be aware of the range of colours but that these will be imperfectly displayed with implications for the accurate assessment of likely printer output.
Anyone care to take up this discussion?

>I'm sure my monitor does not support the percptual intent. Might it be possible in a future edition (LR3 ?) to have LR offer the perceptual intent irrespective of monitor capability? This is not an area that I know much about.
It is not dependent on the monitor. It only depends on the calibration solution you use. The calibration software needs to support generating the perceptual intent.
>At present this means, I think, that I may be losing the range of colour tones (levels of saturation) that may be presented in certain scenes that I photograph. They will be unviewable. Does this matter given that most of these 'lost' tones will be unprintable too? Well, it might matter. For one thing some printers can now (I believe) print colours outside the (mainly) SRGB space that my monitor is capable of. For another, I am losing the ability to choose which is more important to me - the full colour tonal range, or colour accuracy. The problem of posterization has already been mentioned.
Yes, that is a problem. Currently you can only really solve it by using a wider gamut monitor (becoming more and more common) or using the right calibrator (I Believe the eye one calibrators can do v4 profiles). In photoshop you can set the system up to desaturate everything on the monitor by a certain percentage to avoid these issues. You cannot do that in Lightroom. For the second part, basically every printer nowadays prints outside of sRGB.
Many even go beyond adobeRGB. Safe from getting a better monitor there is not much you can do about it.

Camera RAW 4.1 "rendering intent"

When Camera RAW 4.1 creates the output in the user selected color space (Adobe RGB, ProPhoto,...), how does it handle out of gamut colors? Is there any way to affect the choice of "rendering intent"?

"Does this imply that if a RAW image contains heavily saturated, out of gamut colors, then these could appears as featureless "blobs"?"
That depends...it's generally not the highly staurated colors that are the problem. Ironically most color spaces, even sRGB can handle most all the highly saturated colors in nature that a camera can capture (some of course fall out). But it's the DEEP saturated colors where sRGB and even Adobe RGB fail. Deep yellows (browns) and deep oranges are often capable of being captured by the camera and are contained in ProPhoto RGB but are gamut and saturation clipped in sRGB and even Adobe RGB. And yes, those areas can suffer blobiness...

How to control Display Rendering Intent in PS CS3 & XP?

Does anyone know a way to control the display rendering intent in Photoshop CS3 runing on XP?
The consensus seems to be that Relative Colormetric is always used. If I am using a large working space such as ProPhotoRGB, I would like to be able to switch between Perceptual and Relative Colormetric.
Here is some info I think may be relevant:
http://www.color.org/advantagesv4.pdf says one of the advantages of v4 over v2 is to "permit profiles containing multiple rendering intents to be specified for input and display devices as they currently are for output profiles".
Using http://www.color.org/version4ready.xalter I see that my system is not v4 compatible, but Photoshop CS3 does correctly render images with v4 profiles on my computer.
When I look at the profile that came with my monitor, using ICC_Inspector from http://www.color.org/profileinspector.xalter, I see it is ICC version 2, and the rendering intent is listed as Perceptual.
If use Monitor_RGB as my working space, and do edit > convert_to_profile, converting from ProPhotoRGB to MonitorRGB:
Using engine:Microsoft_ICM, I get different result for Perceptual vs Relative_Colormetric.
Using engine:Adobe(ACE), I get the same results for all intents, and they all look very close to Microsoft_ICM Perceptual.
However the original image in the ProPhotoRGB space is apparently rendered to my display space using Relative Colormetric because it looks like the image produce using convert_to_profile: Microsoft_ICM Relative Colormetric.
Thanks.

Let me think about this.
Looking at my monitor profile with the Color Sync Utility (I’m on a mac), the rendering of the profile is Perceptual.
With Photoshop, I open a saturated Pro Photo image. View: Proof Setup: Custom. Device to Simulate, Monitor Profile.
This is supposed to show me a file conversion to my monitor color space. I see no change in color (as long as preserve numbers is disabled). It makes sense, because the conversion is something that happens anyway. I can never truly see a Pro Photo image. It must be translated to my monitor profile before I see anything.
I can change the rendering and black comp all day long and it does not affect the color I see. I have to assume that what I see is actually a Perceptual rendering, not Relative Colorimetric, because Perceptual is the intent embedded in the Monitor ICC profile.
CMYK is a little different. With the same image open, View: Proof Setup: Custom. US Web Coated SWOP v2. Relative Colorimetric, Black Point checked. Simulate Paper White.
Now duplicate the image. Convert to Profile: US Web Coated. Relative Colorimetric, black point enabled. Now View: Proof Setup: Custom. Device to Simulate, monitor profile. Absolute Colorimetric.
Comparing the two images, the color is a dead on match.
In the second image (already converted to CMYK), if I change the rendering and black comp, the color shifts dramatically. This behavior is different from what I saw earlier, soft proofing Pro Photo to monitor, where the rendering and black point settings did not change the image color.
So at this point I have to conclude that Photoshop can control the display rendering for a CMYK image. But with RGB, it’s locked in somehow. I would imagine it defaults to Perceptual, not Relative Colorimetric. Can you open your monitor profile and check the rendering?
I have a utility that actually allows me to change the intent of an ICC. I went ahead and did that to the monitor profile and saved a copy, with Relative as intent. Using this in Proof Setup (with Pro Photo image) also yields no change. Makes sense, because the color gamut of the new copy is identical, and Photoshop is rendering a file conversion.
To get the Relative Colorimetric display requires changing the system profile to the new profile. Unfortunately when I do this, the screen color goes absolutely bonkers. All color are super saturated and I can hardly make out anything. I have no idea what that means.
I apologize for rambling on, I’m probably not much help. Thanks for the link and I will look into this matter more when time allows.

Where are the rendering intent options found in LR on a Mac?

I can't find the dialog to set the rendering intent when printing from Lightroom. How do I change from Perceptual to Relative Colormetric or visa versa? (Also, how do I change the type of paper I'm using, etc.)
I'm using LR 1.3 on Mac OS X 10.5 on a MacBook Pro, printing to a Canon Pixma iP1800.

Read that link and the user generated content: http://learn.adobe.com/wiki/display/LR/Set+print+color+management+-+Learn+More
There is lots of good stuff there. In short you have two choices. You either use driver managed, in which case you set up everything as normal in the driver and you make sure you turn ON ICM in the driver. In this case, the driver controls the color management and it depends on the driver whether you get any control over rendering intent. Or you print Lightroom managed. In which case you choose the correct paper and ink density in the driver and turn OFF ICM in the driver. You then manually choose the correct icc profile for the paper/ink settings combination. The latter can be tough as the icc profiles often have very cryptic names and this is where lots of people get it wrong I think. If you let Lightroom manage color, you get the mentioned control over rendering intent and blackpoint compensation.

"paste profile mismatch" ... what rendering intent is used?

When using edit > convert to profile... one can choose 1 of 4 rendering intents (Photoshop CS3).
Does anyone know which 2 of the 4 are used in the following situation ?
paste profile mismatch
You are pasting content copied from a document with a different color profile.
Source: (profile)
Destination: (different profile)
What would you like to do ?
( ) convert (preserve color appearance)
( ) don't convert (preserve color numbers)
My guess is that the second option uses the "absolute colorimetric" rendering intent.
But what about the first option (preserve color appearance) ? Does it use "perceptual" or "relative colorimetric" ?
And in case this issue has not been improved upon in CS4, I'd suggest that the corresponding rendering intent be mentioned in the dialog box (in addition to or instead of the "preserve..." explanation).

The first one converts using the conversion options set in your color settings, under more options. The second doesn't convert, it assigns the destination document color space. No numbers are converted, but their appearance in the new document will change as they take on a different profile.
More about color conversion options:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS46189F37-21A5-441e-8FF5-A5C35BCEDF67.html
More about rendering intents:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS6078C298-CB20-4dc8-ACD4-D344110AA026.html

Rendering intent for color conversions

As I understand it, when I make a new CMYK swatch in InDesign and type my recipe in, Adobe converts it to LAB and that is the number that is used behind the scenes to convert to RGB or to different CMYK profiles. Curiosity question: does the software reference the ICC profile that is set as the working space in order to make that initial CMYK to LAB conversion? Also, is it known if the software preserves and uses the numbers to the right of the decimal points for CMYK and LAB values, or does it all get rounded off? And finally, going far into the weeds: is it known what rendering intent is used?

Starting with last question first, the rendering intent is what you choose in Photoshop > Edit > Color Settings. At the top of the dialog box there in Photoshop are your choices for what color model your CMYK and RGB should be expressed in. These become the working color spaces for CMYK and for RGB. Working spaces imply that whatever picture you open and edit in Photoshop, it takes on this ICC profile of color model. Having a same choice from Photoshop for ICC color model means consistency in interpreting color, file after file. Near the bottom of the expanded Color Settings dialog box is the Rendering Intent, which is usually set to Relative Colorimetric.
What is Rendering Intent? ACE is the translator. His job is to translate visual color from one math number world to another math number world, with the intention of holding the visual color the same. When he translates numbers (representing colors) from one color space to another, inevitably some color will be lost in translation. Rendering Intent is a conscious decision for how to compromise colors that might be outside the gamut of the receiving color space. Bear in mind that many pictures, some color lost in translation is so slight so as to be scarcely perceptible.
Make your house rules choices here in Photoshop. Save as named .csf file. Then, in Bridge, click on Edit > Creative Suite color settings. Choose to apply this new custom-named house rules for your color workflow. In applying it, Bridge sends out instructions to Illustrator, InDesign, and Acrobat to follow the lead of Photoshop in adopting the same "house rules" for translating color.
If the Photoshop file being placed into InDesign already has the house-rules color space profile, it passes straight into InDesign without being re-interpreted/re-translated. (Like having a Smart Tag that allows you to drive through the toll-booth of the interstate. Like having a passport and express check-in at the airport. No need to re-examine you; you are already cleared. These are illustrations, by the way!)
Yes (your second question), ACE, in a behind-the-scenes support operation, checks all ICC color profile "passports" to see whether you need translating prior to entry, or merely waved through into InDesign. If the picture file already has the same working space as defined in Photoshop, it is allowed in unchanged. If the picture file doesn't have the same house color space, it is translated to the working color space, and allowed in afterwards. You might liken it to being issued a temporary passport. Do numbers get rounded off? Yes and no. Visual colors that exist in both color realms can be translated with great precision. Visual colors outside of the gamut of the receiving color space will change a bit, which is to say their numbers also change a bit.
As to your first question, is LAB at the center of things? Yes, in Photoshop. Lab color mode is the closest thing to a number system that consistently matches human visual color perception. Photoshop natively thinks in Lab, and translates out to all other color models, especially RGB and CMYK. Make sure to always run your pictures through Photoshop first (I like it's color management policies to force a permanent change to the house color space by choosing Conver to Working RGB/CMYK). After that, you place them into InDesign. In this way, all pictures already have a SpeedPass, so to speak, and InDesign does not re-translate the color. InDesign does not handle the Lab numbers, but is rather given the resulting conversion numbers by the translator, ACE, (if it needs to) working behind the suite of four softwares.
You might enjoy reading the book: Real World Color Management by Fraser, Murphy, and Bunting, and really geek out on this sort of thing.
Hope this helps,
Mike Witherell in Maryland

Additional Rendering Intent?

Bravo for the Soft Proofing! I really would like the addition of the rendering intent “Absolute Colorific” in the Print Module. Last year when I had my Photoraphy Exhibition, printed on my Epson 3800, over half of my nature photos used Absolute Colorific, consequently I had to use Photoshop for soft proofing and printing.

File a Feature Request at:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_family_photoshop_lightro om

Rendering Intent

Lately, I've come to the conclusion that the proper rendering intent for printing is Absolute, with the caveat that there is no out of gamut colors with which to accommodate. The text in the selection menu for this function states that Absolute is best for simulating a particular device. Well, duh, it's the monitor I want to simulate, not some veiled look supplied by Perceptual or Relative.
So why are those two the recommended pick? There is no shift in dynamic range when invoking Absolute as soft proof unless there is trouble in gamut. If little to no shift between Relative and Perceptual can be seen, use Absolute.
You don't know how much screwing around with curves etc I have gone through trying to match Perceptual to the screen w/o soft proof enabled.
Who decided on the algorithms for these functions, and what was the criteria, particularly visual? It sure sells a bunch of ink and paper trying to get it right!

Addendum:
Been doing a bit of reading:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm
From the article:
"Absolute colorimetric preserves the white point, while relative colorimetric actually displaces the colors so that the old white point aligns with the new one (while still retaining the colors' relative positions). The exact preservation of colors may sound appealing, however relative colorimetric adjusts the white point for a reason. Without this adjustment, absolute colorimetric results in unsightly image color shifts, and is thus rarely of interest to photographers." (Emphasis theirs)
So, I took my test image and proceeded to ad a grayscale to the bottom and printed both Relative and Absolute. The results show that the gray scale shifted color in Absolute, very slightly from neutral to a barest cream color, which corresponds to a gray value I knew to be quite neutral, but slightly low in blue, to more neutral in Relative. This is what I expected to find based on the above definition.
I also noted that the first and last stop of the 21 step part were clipped back to 19 steps in Absolute. I can easily do that with levels, if that's all it takes.
No unsightly colors appeared in the image. I showed the two images to ma associate, who is a colorist by training, and her selection was the Absolute. (Interestingly, after running it I tended toward the Relative! As Jeff said YMMV, but in this case, slightly!).
My whole effort is this: I want to obtain the maximum dynamic range of which the paper/ink is capable. I will specify the white point as I can using the info palette. After that, I want the conversion to do what I asked...white is white black is dMax of the combo. This shading back from this standard by the rendering intent is counter intuitive, as well as counter productive.
So it comes down to this:
What is meant by color accuracy
What is meant by the white point.
I define color accuracy to be what I see on the screen, pre soft proof, white point to be the white of the paper. If I want to depart from that I can do so at will, but to try to get it to match the screen before even departing is a load I wish not to have. The most reliable way to do this would be for the Info palette give out the actual numbers after invoking the soft proof.
But I suppose that's asking too much!
Thanks for looking.

I made a 46.5 min aperture slide show and tried a number of times to Export it so I can burn it to DVD to be viewed on an HDTV, so far with no success! I set computer sleep to 3hrs and let it export over night and the furthest i've gotten is 66% Exported

I made a 46.5 min aperture slide show and tried a number of times to Export it so I can burn it to DVD to be viewed on an HDTV, so far with no success! I set computer sleep to 3hrs and let it export over night and the furthest i've gotten is 66% Exported! Why is it taken so long and seem to stop but the activity status goes up ever so slowley???? Im using an iMac 7,1 2.4 GHz with 6GB of memory running 10.8.2 what am I doing wrong???

Rendering will take a very long time - I once needed 6 hours for a shorter high definition movie with plenty of effects.
What theme are you using and what settings?
The "places" theme needs a good network connection.
And the finished movie will need plenty of disk space.
And the finished movie will need plenty of disk space. Have you checked the available space on your disk?
What exactly happens when Aperture fails to render the movie? Are there any diagnostics, error messages in the console window, that relate to Aperture? Does Aperture alway stop at the same image or video clip?
if all fails, you could render your slideshow in two parts and combine the two videos on your DVD.
Regards
Léonie

Color Management : Rendering Intent Grayed Out

Currently running Lightroom vers 1.3.1. on a MAC mini 1.25 GHz Power PC G4 with Tiger 10.4.11. Not much RAM and not much of a printer. But totally enjoying Lightroom. My point is that prior to upgrading to the latest version of Lightroom I had no issues with Lightroom. None that a new Mac with more RAM and processing power plus a higher end printer couldn't handle much better. But to my point I use to be able to select between Perceptual and Relative in rendering intent. Now I don't have the ability as it has been grayed out after having chosen "Managed by Printer" in Color Management prior to printing. Have I missed checking something in preferences or haven't done correctly?
Thanks

WOW! If the spirit of Christmas lives. I was just going over the Lightroom Tutorial with yourself and Michael Reichmann and listening to the both of you discuss Color Management settings, profiles and render intent. And low and behold who should reply just seconds after I closed the quicktime file and checked to see if I there was a reply to this message! Yikes!
Thanks for the info!
By the way have thoroughly enjoyed the Tutorial!

Rendering intent exporting to AdobeRGB and sRGB

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for