sRGB urban legend Part 1

[@oldcodger]

Good presentation, will pass it along to others, thanks for your efforts.

[@edenameer5840]

i know Im kind of off topic but do anyone know of a good website to stream newly released series online?

[@JackDausman]

Detailed and definitive. Thanks Andrew

[@DavidZeitlin]

Really helpful information, thanks!

[@tomdetroit]

I have a question regarding the intent. I tell my students its a significant different on how you could work to adapt spectral information to fit into a device color space. I've never been a fan of the "imaginary colors" 😋 but I see your point in working in prophoto. My thinking is that using prophoto will clip "imaginary colors" and you will eventually struggle with banding of your image going into eg. SWOP. Using sRGB will than (most likely) reduce information amongst intense colors in an early stage (and during conversion as well). What I mean is that both workflows will most likely end up in work, maybe prophoto will keep more colors but it will also make conversion into a output space harder. So I wonder what your target with using prophoto is? I often find myself teaching the method of receiving a design created by "defaults" in color (sRGB), but in a fair amount of time I would like to see other options as possible if methods for conversion and handling (in Photoshop/lightroom are standardised), so you have any? With best regards Tommy

[@tomdetroit]

And also thanks a lot for the video of course 😊 very informative and good

[@DigitaldogNet]

No issues with banding if you work in high bit (16-bits pre color). As for out of gamut colors from ProPhoto ending up in smaller gamut color spaces, that’s to be expected and the role of the ICC profile for remapping. Certainly less saturated colors will be affected more than lesser saturated colors.

[@tomdetroit]

Thank you for answers. I want to be open minded towards all kinds of workflow even tough there is strong opinion about what is right from both sides

[@eartho]

did you compare a prophoto to sRGB conversion in Ps vs an sRGB export from LR/ACR?

[@DigitaldogNet]

@@eartho Yes, they are identical.

[@DigitaldogNet]

TOMMY: There’s no worries about ‘imaginary colors’ with actual images captured or scanned, only synthetic images you build from RGB values (like R0/G255/B0) in ProPhoto RGB. If you can’t see it, it’s not a color. It is a device value (an set of numbers) but not a color. So if you’re working with digital images, those all contain actual visible colors, not imaginary colors and nothing to worry about.

[@tomdetroit]

I understand that there is a number behind this color, but I dont have any good workflow to make intense prophoto colors fit inside a small device space without several cases of banding or flat gradients.

[@christopher8116]

I assume the apply image technique within photoshop can be applied between any two color spaces ?

[@alkrevit4755]

How about adobe rgb ,16 bit on a monitor that can display 99% adobe rgb. Would that be a good compromise? I feel that I need to see what I edit even if I'm losing some saturation in those greens and blues. Am I wrong or does this fall into being a question that has no right or wrong?

[@DigitaldogNet]

Yes (although the bit depth of each differ and that's fine). There are high bit displays and full high bit display paths. That path must be supported in the video card, application and OS all of which is possible with Photoshop these days.

[@alkrevit4755]

Andrew, I sometimes use the AI generator of Midjourney to create backgrounds for compositing. Any image from Midjourney is untagged. Because it is generated from a website would I be wrong to say that it probably used srgb color space? Also, if I tagged it as adobe rgb I can't change the underlying colors if they are not there. So, is there a way of doing this or just stay with srgb?

[@DigitaldogNet]

It is likely sRGB but all you have to do is Assign sRGB to the image. IF it looks good to you, it is sRGB.

[@alkrevit4755]

@@DigitaldogNetI did, and thats what brought the question to mind. I assigned and previewed srgb, adobe rgb and prophoto and what confused me is that the preview changed and showed more color with each choice. If it was srgb wouldn't all 3 previews be alike as the color changes wouldn't be available in srgb? Isn't that why you can only convert the profile not up from srgb but can always convert down from prophoto or adobe rgb? Your info has really helped me wrap my head around this and I think these questions are my last? Unless , of course I watch a newer video from you that opens more queries. Thanks

[@DigitaldogNet]

@@alkrevit4755 Yes, the preview should change, and you should select the new rendering you visually prefer to tag the image. The scale and meaning of the numbers change due to the new profiles, but the number do not. View my video on the Assign and Convert profile commands for more.

[@karlhendrikse1843]

This video is entirely missing the point. The concerns that people have are due to 8-bit quantization (i.e. it's about precision, not accuracy). Obviously you're not going to have a problem if you're saving 16-bit images. All the imperceptible but nonzero differences in this video are due to encoding precision and floating point precision loss; not the actual color spaces themselves (of course the same color in two different color spaces has a delta E of exactly zero, because that's what being the same color means). Of course, the concerns are generally a bit silly anyway because nobody should be using 8-bit for color spaces larger than sRGB. Your solution is to use a wide color space and 16-bit encodings. Their solution is to use sRGB. Both have downsides: your solution doubles the size of image files and reduces software compatibility, whereas their solution may cause banding, and clips colors by restricting the gamut. Yours is the better solution for any sort of serious color work, but you haven't really demonstrated anything relevant to the sRGB "advice" in this video.

[@DigitaldogNet]

Exactly: Obviously you're not going to have a problem if you're saving "16-bit" images. Use high bit images! digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf Of course, even Photoshop and ACR/LR don't work in 16bits, never have but they do work in high bit. Actually, it's 15 bits plus one level...done for algorithmic processing reasons. And since there really isn't a real life source of full 16 bit images, that's all the precision Photoshop needs.

[@OlegKorsak]

can u stop posting videos? i need to go to sleep!

[@DigitaldogNet]

Indeed, no more videos, will ask KZbin about removing those reaming here. Sleep is very important!