Thanks, Greg - - I hadn’t seen the 2nd of those communications …
Because …
Which begs the question; what display profile does PL presume when SP is NOT activated ?
– I’m guessing/assuming it gets that info from the OS
– In which case, it has all the info it needs to be able to apply the appropriate auto PSC-Algorithm
– Therefore, there’s no reason NOT to be applying the PSCA even if SP is not activated
– Then, if so, we’d go back to enjoying PLv5’s default WYS-is-always-WYG behaviour !
As you already said, you can store the dcp-file on your system wherever you want
which makes it difficult to comunicate about stuff related to this
( transmitting the raw-file + the dop-file + the dcp-profile to somebody else is one thing,
while the recipient’s system expects the dcp-profile’s in it’s ‘origin’ but unknown location / path
… and not knowing that location / path my PL6 crashed each time I tried. )
after getting your ‘cleaned up’ dop-file, I could register (import) the dcp-profile myself
and apply it to the raw-file
the raw-file with applied dcp-profile // the tiff-files show the difference
the dcp-profile took care for the colour rendering
– and replaced the colour rendering from the recognized camera (reading the exif-data)
[ my system is set up to apply the DxO Standard preset to new files ]
Then I installed in PL5 the DxO lens module for your camera
Sony A6000 + Sony E 70-350mm → C67135a raw
I can think of two reasons, not endorsing these reasons, but they might be in play.
the software overhead of squeezing those out of gamut colors into the display space may cause display to lag considerably, upping the power of machine needed to run DxO.
It has been the case with other software, that when soft proofing is available, the normal editing mode is with it off and users are advised to turn it on if they are choosing a different destination color space from the working color space to check what colors are going to look different. (If that sounds complicated for the user, I think the whole idea of color management is complicated and soft proofing even more so, if you are exporting from a working color space larger than your display to a destination space larger than your display - at no point, other than “simulations or warning overlays” can you see what’s happening )
I got quite a few unexpected things while trying out, but having properly erased the files from the active (!) PL version helped to ‘adjust / synchronize’ the database, so that I could start like ‘brandnew’ without the need to erase the database … So, finally the described procedure worked (in that order).
for demonstration purposes only ! the overlapping area between DxO’s lens correction and no lens correction (extracted with PS)
In PL6, I use softproof on a VC, which can be adjusted when needed – without touching my edits.
With a VC it’s easy to compare (also between different attempts !) – and convenient to export straight from the softproof copy with “Same as Softproofing”.
If I could set my display profile to the same as SP profile then the compare button would work just fine.
Well, I’ve tried that in sRGB and AdobeRGB mode, as screen + Eizo’s color navigator software allow to do so. But it doesn’t change anything. I get to see the very same rendition as without “SP”.
Inspite of being calibrated to the very same sRGB and AdobeRGB colour space, the profiles for my screen are not the same as those display profiles one can softproof to, “PSCA” included.
And having set up my screen for printing, I do not want anything to interfer (by default), but invoke softproof as needed.
What I can think of - DxO should let the user decide, how to start by default.
That could include a viable option for those working exclusively in sRGB.
This is not the same. Even with a VC the before image when holding down the Compare button is the image with the screen profile and NOT the image with the SP profile: absolutely useless to me!
Yes, I initially thought it might be a performance issue too - - but, in practice, having SP=ON doesn’t seem to have any impact at all on performance of display refresh (that I’ve ever noticed, at least).
Yes, that’s how I initially expected PLv6 to behave too … but, in practice;
Spot on … I identified 4 different scenarios for soft-proofing - as outlined here.
John,
in the described case there are only the warnings, that can ‘help’ by indicating the area with more or less critical colours.
Softproof means to see what’s going on – otherwise it is no (real) on screen simulation.
In other words …Softproof is more helpful on a wide gamut screen, while even PL6 Classic-Legacy and PL5 do not ensure true WYSIWYG – as shown further up.
for now, the quickest way to compare with the real (to be expected) output is
to hit Softproof ON / OFF
as with the compare function often you don’t get a “one click compare solution”
(the program seems to choose randomly – and when not consistent, one cannot
rely on without control / extra click)
and then there are cases, when one wants to choose what to compare to
.
So, are you saying that we are obliged to make a soft proofing VC in order to export correctly?
If so, that is totally unacceptable and a major, one could say breaking, change from PL5. It is quite confusing to have to think which VC you are working on without the extra load of having to create a VC just to export to a JPEG.
Hi Wolfgang. Yes, I was aware of that but, if you read the DxO advice, that is what you are meant to do - isn’t it?
I wasn’t trying to turn your words, As an experienced PL user since PL1, I have never been so confused about how a feature I have never needed in the past is meant to work. If I’ve misinterpreted what you said, I apologise unreservedly.
So, if all I want to do is to export an image to JPEG or TIFF, do I need to touch soft proofing or not? If so, why?
IF one doesn’t want to wiggle around with softproof to get a true WYSIWYG (see further up), better stay in PL5 or PL6 Classic-Legacy, which is why I think DxO should not patronize the user, but let him/her decide how to start with by default.
I’m under the impression, DxO wanted to ‘push’ their new baby. → More so, as I read from @John-M (?), that DxO implemented Wide Gamut also in PL6 Essential but without Softproof … teasing the user to upgrade to Elite.
Personally, being familiar with colour management, softproof and such I have no problem in that regard.
BUT I understand very well, that it is not easy, annoying and what not. People expect something simple to use and realizing, there is more beyond PL5 / PL6 Classic-Legacy really feels confusing – like pulling the rug out from under someone’s feet.
Indeed, I’d like DxO to improve that user experience. – Only, the thing is, trouble starts when mixing different colour spaces and the user has to handle them …
Wolfgang
Using PL5 / PL6 Classic-Legacy is NO degradation, just because DxO is offering Wide Gamut now
– inspite of everybody always wants the ‘best’ (at least, what we think of ).
Hi @Joanna, to try and help you with some of your questions:
DxO recommend you do soft proofing on a VC because you may want to make some adjustments that look better in your VC for the chosen profile without affecting your master image. You can have multiple VCs for different profiles.
Soft proofing is only useful IF you have very saturated colours in your photo that are outside of the gamut of the destination profile. Soft proofing allows you to see a simulation of how the colours will look when they have been converted to your destination profile.
Soft proofing is only useful if you have a monitor that can display colours outside of the standard sRGB profile. You and I have P3 capable monitors which can show higher gamut colours.
I am away taking photos and have only taken a few photos where colours are outside of my monitor profile. In this case I turn on SP to do a quick check to see if the photo is acceptable in the SP profile, which in my case is always sRGB. I have not yet had the need to modify my images to get a good output in sRGB colour space. I have also compared my photo in PL6 on my monitor to the sRGB output on another device and I cannot see any difference.
So far I am very happy with how PL6 works and the only thing I have to do differently to PL5 is to check highly saturated photos to see if they will be covered to sRGB in an acceptable manner.
