This content has been marked as final. Show 8 replies
Joseph Holmes Chroma variants and his basic Ektaspace working space profiles were specifically designed for film gamuts.
Just understand something about working spaces though. They were designed to allow editing of saturated colors destined for smaller gamuts like the web and/or a monitor. A working space will write its converted RGB data in such a way to allow saturated colors that may appear to bloom on the display or dull when soft proofing to a much smaller gamut device so as to allow the user room to edit in regards to the RGB numbers when they would've most likely clipped to 255 or 0RGB in a smaller space.
Once you convert to a smaller space like sRGB which will clip most highly rich and vivid colors, the detail is permanently gone and can't be undone. A larger working space allows wiggle room to recover this detail before converting to a smaller gamut.
That's great input Tim, thank you. I hadn't been aware of Holmes' work before.
Here's a ColorThinkPro 3-D gamut comparison of Adobe RGB and Velvia as measured from a HutchColor 4X5 Velvia target on my Howtek 8000 drum scanner. You can easily see where a lot of the green territory is wasted in Adobe RGB but that the working space is also lacking in the yellow-oranges and especially in the darker saturated colors. Whether this has any bearind on your specific images is up to the content of the images and your intended output device.
There it is. Excellent input Peter, thank you.
Hi Peter. Hope all is well out your way.
Just curious.....have you compared the Velvia target to PhotoGamut RBG? If so, I'd love to see a comparison. My guess is that PhotoGamut will contain many or all of those yellows and oranges that fall outside of Adobe RGB. Perhaps not though, since PhotoGamut was developed to encompass the range of printed output rather than film capture. If it lacks anywere, I would guess it is in the bright highlights, light pastels, and possibly at Dmax. Thanks.
Not yet Lou. I'll try and get around to it. It would be interesting. I'm not really sure what tangible effect there is by having big chunks of unusable gamut. I know that the images I have that are in Adobe RGB don't seem to suffer from it, and it's rare that I have significant image content that falls outside of that. There's a lot to be said for using the smallest space that will give the results you demand.
You do know that I am talking about PhotoGamut RGB and NOT ProPhoto, right? Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. I prefer not to use ProPhoto as an editing space.
Yes, I know. I downloaded it yesterday.