PS and AFP only open the file silently, without any warnings when there is no conflict between their working space and the space of the file. If the working space of PS or AFP is NOT the same as the file’s then they warn me of the mismatch. That means I can control the conversion.
PL though never says anything. Yes, I know PL 5 can only work in Adobe RGB so it must be doing something when it opens a file that’s not in Adobe RGB but we can only guess as to what it is doing. We hope it properly colour manages the data into Adobe RGB but it could just as easily be ignoring the embedded profile and thus (mis)treating the data as Adobe RGB.
The sole point of my original post was to highlight this difference. To me, PS and AFP are more polite, they keep you, the user, informed. While PL just doing whatever it does seems arrogant.
Of course, I accept your opinion about these things. But your case seems a distinction without a difference.
Sorry if you think DxO PL is being impolite. But with any of these for-profit companies we are simply not privy to the proprietary initial pipeline, polite or not.
You’ve presented no objective information on this topic. Have you determined, for example, that your scans even contain any information outside of aRGB color space? Maybe this is all about nothing.
You seem happy with your Affinity Photo workflow. Great - maybe just accept success and get on with it.
I was merely noting the different behaviour of PS and AFP vs that of PL 5 when handling these TIFFs. I did so because I believe, and I think others here will agree, that this is another example of PL’s less than clear approach to colour management and is something that DxO could quickly and easily address without breaching any of their commercial confidences, if they chose to do so. Sadly I’m not confident they will.
May I suggest to check in AP / PS a scan (ProPhotoRGB, with a lot of yellow and red),
which then you convert / save as P3 and AdobeRGB to compare their softproof
(activate out of gamut colour / colour proof warning).
You can but as I stated in my original post, the widest gamut the scanner can do is Wide Gamut RGB, i.e. I can’t directly obtain a scan with a ProPhoto profile
Also, as I’ve already said, I’m not trying to solve a problem here, I’m just making an observation.
[ My monitor is mainly calibrated for AdobeRGB and I have and print successfully in ARGB with custom profiles. So for me, that is more important than P3, while I’ve printed ProPhotoRGB test pics … ]
Fair cop, my language is sloppy. Yes, what I mean is that the colour space with the widest gamut that the scanner can apply to the data it captures and which is a colour space that is defined by a profile that is understood by other applications is ‘Adobe Wide Gamut RGB’.
Means that you saved the image in Adobe Wide Gamut.
I think in a raw converter every import is converted to the working color space without notice. There’s no choice.
PL6 offers a choice between 2 working color spaces, after importing.
Depending on which raw converter is used, the working colour space can be preset or changed when images are displayed. Anyway, a colour space must be allocated unless one wants to fly through the tunnel with headlights off.
DPL’s implementation using WCS as a “tool” has its pros and cons…but I’d prefer to set the WCS in the toolbar above the preview, instead of some of the tools that are there today. The toolbar should be configurable anyway, but that is a different story.
Well, I don’t have PS or AFP so I can’t test it. So I give you just my thoughts.
A raw converter is meant to import raw files, they aren’t RGB files but R,G,B files. In the demosaicing process these channel values have to meet a display color gamut. At this moment that’s unknown so the converter uses a wide color gamut so it’s easy to drop down to a smaller gamut on export, exporting a RGB image. The same happens when importing a RGB image like jpg or tiff. I think the raw converter of Adobe works the same.
PS is not a raw converter. It contains a raw converter , Adobe Camera Raw or ACR. This one is bypassed when you open a RGB image.
PS lets you to change the working color space according to the embedded color space of your imported image. When this is known to PS.
> If the profile is missing or does not match the working space, the application may display a warning message, depending on options you set in the Color Settings dialog box. Profile warnings are turned off by default, but you can turn them on to ensure the appropriate color management of documents on a case-by-case basis. The warning messages vary between applications, but in general you have the following options:
*> * > (Recommended) Leave the document or imported color data as it is. For example, you can choose to use the embedded profile (if one exists), leave the document without a color profile (if one doesn’t exist), or preserve the numbers in pasted color data. > Adjust the document or imported color data. For example, when opening a document with a missing color profile, you can choose to assign the current working space profile or a different profile. When opening a document with a mismatched color profile, you can choose to discard the profile or convert the colors to the current working space. When importing color data, you can choose to convert the colors to the current working space in order to preserve their appearance.
If you want to compare PL with Adobe you must compare it with Adobe Camera Raw.
Not in this context, here I’m talking about what PL does when it opens a TIFF that has an embedded profile that is not Adobe RGB, and contrasting its behaviour with how PS or AFP open the same file.
To ensure I preserve as much colour accuracy as possible. I have no simple way of knowing the range of colours in the slides I am scanning. They may all fall within the small / narrow gamut defined by sRGB but they might not. To ensure accurate preservation of as many of the colours in the slides as possible the data has to be saved in a file that uses the widest gamut that the scanner can employ. If only a narrow gamut is used then any colour outside of that narrow gamut will be compromised because they have been ‘squeezed’ into the gamut in use.
No, you compared the behaviour of PL withPS and AFP. I don’t know abut AFP but when you compare PL with Lightroom you compare 2 RAW converters. And then there’s no difference between PL and Lightroom. A raw converter is meant to ‘develop’ a raw image. That happens in a rather wide gamut because the wanted output gamut is not known yet.That choice is made on export.
Now back to your scans. Your photo’s are scanned with the hardware of your scanner, in a so called input gamut. On export they are converted to the wanted export gamut. Your choice is a wide gamut. When you open that file in PL that gamut is converted to the wide gamut PL uses. You must find that wonderful.
Well, in the widest sense of that comparison I did but my original post makes it clear I am NOT comparing the raw conversion behaviours of these applications.
Feel free to disagree again but I’m not responding to this thread any more.
You compared the behaviour of PL with PS and AFP concerning the ability to choice a variable working color gamut.
In general not possible in a raw converter, but possible in an editor like PS.
PL6 offers 2 working gamuts.
