🚀 go-pugleaf

Yes.

This is what I typed in my reply to your post in the ACR forum:

      Ram�n G Casta�eda, "Convert RAW from ACR to profile?" #5, 4 Dec 2008 6:56
      pm </webx?14@@.59b72f81/4>

      Kokii,

      To go to a different color space than one of the profiles in ACR, go through
      ProPhoto RGB. It is essentially the same as ACR's internal working space
      and you will lose absolutely nothing.

      That's why you need nothing else.

Incidentally�

      pRGB, sRGb,aRGB and rRGB?




�what do you mean by rRGB?

The four output color spaces offered by ACR are ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ColorMatch RGB and sRGB IEC61966-2.1.

Where do you get rRGB from?

      >Where do you get rRGB from?<< yes. you right. i meam to colormatch...




here may broblem in 4 color space: let's say i open my file picture in ACR. and then i want this picture in pRGB color space. ok. i choose pRGB and then open in photoshop. but here the broblem: i canot do ASSIGN to pRGB? to do make assign may picture to pRGB i must choose different color space in ACR and only then make in photoshop assign to pRGB. and this it's A BROBLEM - what color space choose in ACR to do a good sssign to pRGB?

thank

Kokii,

What do you mean by pRGB?

Sorry, but your last post makes absolutely no sense. No sense whatsoever.

You NEVER assign a color in Photoshop to an already tagged image. Ever! Under no circumstances!

The only time you use "assign" is when some idiot hands you an untagged file and you have to come up with an educated guess as to what color space the file was created and saved in.

If you select ProPhoto RGB in ACR, your file will already be in ProPhoto RGB. You don't have to worry about "assigning" anything. You may however use CONVERT to go to any other profile of your choice.

Do not confuse convert and assign. Convert maintains the colors and changes the numbers accordingly. Assign maintains the numbers and changes the colors to something else.

      to do make assign may picture to pRGB i must choose different color space
      in ACR and only then make in photoshop assign to pRGB.




That is utter nonsense, Kokii. :/

Incidentally, is Arabic your native tongue? Knowing the answer may help me come to terms with your prose.

      >If you select ProPhoto RGB in ACR, your file will already be in ProPhoto
      RGB. You don't have to worry about "assigning" anything. You may however
      use CONVERT to go to any other profile of your choice. <<




but this it's a broblem - ProPhoto RGB it's a limit to Large space?
why? i want more large color space from profhoto RGB... did you want?

ProPhoto RGB is wider than anything else you can come up with, Kokii, at least in term of usable gamut.

Obviously we are not communicating well.

ok. but do you think in a future only ProPhot RGB be? certainly no.
so why not now?

thank

Kokii,

pRGB=ProPhotoRGB is an extremely large space. Use this
in ACR with 16 bits per channel (bpc) as an intermediate
color space (a transfer format).
In Photoshop you can convert the file into any other space,
for instance sRGB, aRGB=AdobeRGB, or my oRGB=OptiRGB.
The first steps of image processing, mainly levels corrections,
can or should be done with 16 bpc, but then you can continue
with saving by 8 bpc (my humble opinion, but shared by experts).

If you want to continue editing in PhS by pRGB, then you
should use 16 bpc.

These abbreviations are based on my suggestions:
sRGB = Standard RGB
aRGB = Adobe RGB (1998)
pRGB = ProPhoto RGB
oRGB = OptiRGB

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

THANK

I like do it color correction in pRGB. that way i interest to more large space - more choose to color correction in image.

thank

It would help to know exactly what you are doing, kokki, what industry you are in, where you get your files from and what you print them on.

I still have no idea what you really mean.

Ramon

we now when we do it color correction on pRGB we have more large histogra. right? and then we do it convert to some profile we want (to be said aRGB). and then we do it print in epson 8 ink.

to imagine if we have more large pRGB and them do it convert to aRGB.

      Incidentally, is Arabic your native tongue? Knowing the answer may help
      me come to terms with your prose.




It's dyslexia--see Kokii's explanation below:

kokii, "profill from camera or ps?" #13, 26 May 2008 12:55 pm </webx?14@@.59b55ca6/12>

Larry

Sorry, Kokii, but I still can't make any sense of what you say.

If only ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB are involved, then what is your problem? Both are offered by ACR.

Larry,

There's more than dyslexia involved in this miscommunication.

more large space more large histograme to color correction in yoer file image. pRGB it's not enough basis in ACR for today!

Kokii,

I'll try just one more time:

ProPhoto RGB is as large as it will ever get in ACR, as large as anybody will ever need. It is also essentially the internal working space of ACR.

Any other color space you can think of is included inside the gamut of ProPhoto RGB.

What you just wrote� 

      pRGB it's not enough basis in ACR for today!




�is the biggest nonsense you or anybody else has ever written on these forums.

Why can't you understand that ProPhoto is "the mother of all color spaces", to use a familiar expression? There is NOTHING larger available in this context.

I don't have any "broblem" or "broblems" (;)) with any color space in ACR or anywhere else, I just have a big problem understanding where you're coming from.

I ask you again, this time for the last time: what "other" color space are you thinking of that you would like to work in"?

Gernot, 

      The first steps of image processing, mainly levels corrections




"Levels" corrections these days are considered to be on the same plane as using a chain saw for brain surgery. Aside from the fact that the black point and the white point can be easily set in ACR, Curves adjustment layers are the way to go in Photoshop in most modern workflows.

I have the feeling we're opening a can of worms here with references to obsolete workflows espoused by, err� other folks. ;) I have actually witnessed people coming to blows over this at round table conferences. :/

On the question of the salutation in my previous post, it was very awkward for me to write only the first name of someone known to me to be a Professor. Sorry, but I just can't help it. Meine akademische Bildung an deutschen Universit�ten in den sechziger Jahren macht mich unausweichlich zum altmodischen Muffel. :/

Kokii,

This might help:



You can download the PDF to read an essay by Jeff Schewe titled "A Color Managed Workflow" <http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/color_managed_raw_workflow.pdf> and view the above image in context.

<http://www.colortek.co.il/RichTextArea_Pro_he/popups/uploaded/Printers/canon/iPF9100iPF8100-Brochure.pdf>

today we have aRGB print and panel pRGB in computer. pRGB in this day it's not enough.

do you really think pRGB it's alimit to future!?

Kokii,

Ramon is correct....ProPhoto is MORE than enough. It is an extremely WIDE color space with a HUGE gamut. If you can see beyond that, you are either able to see into the infrared and UV spectrum, or perhaps you are the son of Superman! I'd stop splitting hairs and get on with editing and printing images, unless you are developing software or designing editing spaces.

Most output devices cannot even display or print much of the ProPhoto gamut. In fact, many colors defined within ProPhoto extend beyond human vision. Looking for a color space larger than ProPhoto is unreasonable, in my opinion.

Lou

Lou

now the space ProPhoto extend beyond human vision. and i agree with Ramon with this. but i try say something additio and it's hard to me because i am dyslexic and inglish it's not may language. so please i litle patien.

so i try again: when we open image in ACR and then convert to pRGB and then open in photoshop, we have more large histograma to color corecation on image. we have more "data". but this image it's not realy a pRGB with all possibility. because even when we convert in ACR to pRGB it's not like assign we have full pRGB in limit data in image. so if we have more large space from pRGB and them we convert to this large space we have more large histograma to color corecation.

example: take image in color space cmyk and open in photoshop and make then convert to pRGB - it's not say this image be came full pRGB? "beyond human vision". no. it's still "cmyk" but more space to color corecation. so. if we have more large then pRGB then we have more space to "play" "data" on color corecation. so if i open may image in ACR and then convert to pRGB it's not say i have full pRGB "beyond human vision". no. it's say only i have more choose to histograme and color corecation.

Kokii,

A RAW digital image in its pure form is a matrix of B&W data captured through red, green and blue filters, and really does NOT have any true color until we render it using a RAW converter. When you set the color temperature, tint, contrast, brightness, etc, you are instructing the RAW converter to convert and 'dematrix' the file, and while doing so, make sure that the file is rendered in color as an sRGB, Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB or Prophoto RGB file.

So, if you choose ProPhoto RGB as your space in ACR, the conversions will be made to fit your file's data into the ProPhoto editing space, using the endpoints, color temp, etc, and other adjustments you made in ACR. When it arrives in Photoshop, it IS a Prophoto RGB file...period. At that point, you can choose to convert to another profile if you wish, or leave it in ProPhoto. Assigning another profile at that point will change the colors, which is usually not the desired result.

Most images don't need ProPhoto RGB and come nowhere near needing its extended gamut. Converting a typical CMYK to ProPhoto RGB is usually silly, since the CMYK file has a VERY limited gamut. Usually Adobe RGB or sRGB is more than adequate. Even if these spaces clip a few colors, they are rarely noticeable. Most monitors cannot display the full Adobe RGB space, and most output devices are smaller than Adobe RGB, though some colors lie marginally outside ARGB.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Personally, I am not a proponent of ProPhoto, and never use it for editing. Others do, and that is fine, as long as they are knowledgeable and work in 16 bit. The only time I do use it is as an intermediate space when converting a file from ACR, and only on a handful of images. As soon as that file arrives in Photoshop, I immediately convert to PhotoGamut RGB if I need extended gamut for printing. To each his own. But normally, I find that sRGB is adequate for about 75% the files I print, and with very few exceptions, the remainder are adequately covered by using Adobe RGB. So, I generally use those spaces when converting in ACR. Those files arrive in PS as srgb or adobe rgb files.

I don't know if that explains things or not, but hopefully it is a bit clearer.

I certainly hope this doesn't degenerate into a discussion of the pro's and con's of ProPhoto vs other editing spaces. We've beaten that to death.

Lou

Kokii,

When you output the image from ACR in ProPhoto RGB you are getting all possible colors, all that are possible now, and all that will ever, ever be possible �unless you change the laws of physics and of biology.

What you say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If anything, those who criticize ProPhoto RGB say it is TOO LARGE a space already.

You can output your image from ACR into ProPhoto RGB and then convert it in Photoshop to whatever color profile you want, whether an existing one or one you invent yourself in the future, or any color space anyone pulls out of his rear end in the future.

Lou is correct: 

      Converting a typical CMYK to ProPhoto RGB is usually silly




I would even substitute the adverb usually with something like monumentally.

Kokii, 

      when we open image in ACR and then convert to pRGB and then open in photoshop,
      we have more large histograma to color corecation on image. we have more
      "data". but this image it's not realy a pRGB with all possibility.




That is dead wrong. You are absolutely wrong!

What you have in the scenario you describe is indeed an image created in the ProPhoto color space (you are not "converting it") and correctly tagged as ProPhoto RGB.

Sorry, but this is neither a dyslexia nor a language-barrier issue. The problem is that you have no understanding of color theory or color management at all.

ACR ( and Lightroom 2.0 which will export to any RGB space you have an installed profile) uses ProPhoto RGB primaries for all its color processing (in linear encoded gamma). So there's no reason to have a "larger" space.

Kokii, you'd have to convince Adobe to use a different processing color space, good luck with that one!

      >Kokii, you'd have to convince Adobe to use a different processing color
      space, good luck with that one<<




in year 2015 (photoshop cs12 and epson or canon pRGB ink) perhaps...

perhaps adobe say: "beyond human vision?! how care what the man saw in a past!

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus>

      You can download the PDF to read an essay by Jeff Schewe titled "A Color
      Managed Workflow" and view the above image in context.




That is an excellent reference, but the illustration does not make the best case for ProPhotoRGB since it is a 2D representation of a 3D space, probably at L = 50. The Epson printers can print saturated greens at lower luminances and it is with these lower luminances that they excel. Bruce has noted this previously prior to his untimely death.





 <rollover_target.html>

      Bruce had noted this previously prior to his untimely death.




If he had noticed it after his death, presumably you wouldn't know about it, would you? ;)

      If he had noticed it after his death, presumably you wouldn't know about
      it, would you?




Touch�!

Kokii, what profile would you want to use?

      If he had noticed it after his death, presumably you wouldn't know about
      it, would you?




What about "channeling"...?

HI PECourtejoie

In beginning it's become esiRGB.
but after this dialog "beyond human vision"... it's that to principle.

Good grief, electron spectroscopic imaging (ESI) ?

OK, let's assume that's a typo for ECI RGC.

Just compare how much smaller ECI RGB is than ProPhoto RGB:

<--->
* The gray shaded areas represent views of each of the working space gamuts, as viewed from above in Lab space, ECI RGB on the left and ProPhoto RGB on the right respectively .

* The red outline is the projection of the Lab Gamut.

* Each gamut is rendered as its L* value only, so darker shades represent darker colors, as seen especially in the blue region (lower right of each image).

Linked from:
 <http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html>

� 2001 - 2008 Bruce Justin Lindbloom

Ramon

of course esiRGB it's smaller. may principle talk about "beyond human vision". when I ask the first time in furm "Adobe Camera Raw" why we have only 4 color space... some gay answer "that only you need because pRGB it's "beyond human vision". only then i try to explain my principle: "beyond human vision" it's border for human being but not for technology in a future.

      when I ask the first time in furm "Adobe Camera Raw" why we have only
      4 color space... some gay answer "that only you need because pRGB it's
      "beyond human vision". only then i try to explain my principle: "beyond
      human vision" it's border for human being but not for technology in a
      future. <




You simply "don't get it".

We're working with synthetic color spaces based on a theoretical emissive (display based) color space. If you enlarge as you must, the three primaries to fit this simple gamut space, you have to move some primaries out to allow the others to follow. This is why there are "imagery colors*" in ProPhoto RGB. So what? If your intent, as Kodak's was in designing a very large encoding color space, you have to move the primaries as such. Its just a container, nothing more. Can you numerically define "colors*" that fall outside the CIE chromaticity diagram? Yes. Is this a problem? Only if you do something stupid here and create numbers out of thin air. The facts are, ECI and all the other working spaces are too small to encode all the possible colors we can capture and output. You either clip colors you can capture and output such that you have a set of primaries that all fall within the chromaticity diagram OR you build a sufficiently large space that you can contain those useable colors.

No capture our output device will ever fully allow the use of the entire ProPhoto gamut. So what?

There are way, way more colors that can be defined in something like ProPhoto RGB than you could possibly output, true. But we have to live with a disconnect between the simple shapes of RGB working space and the vastly more complex shapes of output color spaces to the point we're trying to fit round pegs in square holes. To do this, you need a much larger square hole. Simple matrix profiles of RGB working spaces when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces. Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models. To counter this, you need a really big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB again due to the simple size and to fit the round peg in the bigger square hole. Their shapes are simple and predictable. Then there is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when you encode into such a space, you clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance.

* Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a
cognitive perception that is the end result of the excitation of
photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the
visual cortex. We define colors based on perceptual experiments.

A coordinate in a "colorspace" outside the spectrum locus is not a
color. We often refer to these as "imaginary colors" but this is by
and large also erroneous (you can't map an imaginary color from one
colorspace to another as the math (and experimental data) for each
colorspace breaks down outside the spectrum locus.

      >Color, is a perceptual property. So if you can't see it it's not a color>>




You are wrong: color it's psychology more than perceptual.

and every century see a relate color.

      color it's psychology more than perceptual.




And what is the difference, exactly? The physical properties of color only exist in relation to the perceiver. Without perceiver color doesn't exist. So, it's "psychology"? Sure. It's perception? Sure. One rules out the other? Why?

It's like saying that water isn't wet: it's just "un-dry"! You're splitting hairs and making no practical sense.

Besides, you should try to clean up your grammar and syntax: your posts are unreadable, and I'm sure that, like me, most people here have no idea what exactly it is that you're trying to say.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way...

ok riend. forgotten all this.

happy New Year!

      �forgotten all this�




You never knew it, kokii, you have never understood it.