No time for this.
But you have to understand color spaces, gamuts, bit depths, image formats, etc …
No time for this.
The fisherman drops the lour,
The fish decides an other time…
Extra : what’s analoge color? Any thing which is reflection , bounced of something, light?
CCD colors vs CMOS colors, tube ( amplifier ) sound , linear crystal-oxygen free copper wires for speakers, snake oil, …
A pedant would answer that ‘Light’ is usually taken to mean electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is sensitive. Electromagnetic radiation is usually understood as a wave, i.e. a continuous / ‘analog’ stream but it’s equally valid to understand it as particles, discrete quanta known as photons, and thus all electromagnetic radiation is ‘digital’.
Colour is a word for something that human vision does when electromagnetic waves enter our eyes.
I got fis…oeps.
Fun but also a reality is the more we know about colors and making real colors as close as possible to the captured one on screen the more we step away from the initial catching, the just enjoying memorising in a image things we see.(exit i mean it doesn’t need to first priority for many of us.)
Me personal find the technical stuff very interesting so i get some idea of control and knowledge of the things which happens under the hood but in the end this must not drag you away from the fun and pleasure of taking photo’s so it’s not prime goal.
Then again talking about it here is great it’s a very difficult subject ,very abstract and not easy to grasp because it’s that wide embedded and submerged in our world that we stumble over it every day and hour unknowing.
I have to watch still a few video’s But i couldn’t resist to have some fun either… Apologies if any feels affend.
Painting, film ?
Maybe you’re born with only digital colors, color spaces, gamut, working color space, digital color management (opposed to film color management for example), but not everybody is as I can see.
Indeed, but if you talk about what photolab colorspace is, should be, you have to know what digital colors are and what processing them implies.
There doesn’t exist something like digital color. Color is analog.
I would say a painting is a analoge composition made with analoge colors.
Pigments not pixels
So i would define analoge a color made by pigments.
A digital is made by pixels and dots.(printers has a dotraster and the only inbetween is a pen/stift plotter who actually draws a line.)
An other explicit difference is reversable colorchange.
A RGB pixel can be changed by WB setting and back again
A pigment is blended and physical merged together. Once a yellow drop in the white paintbucket means it’s pigmented yellow. Not reversable. And adding its opposite is not giving you white. Only way is down to black in the end.
About photolabs new working space and therefore much wider choices of export colorspaces, i think the fact that we poking around in a very big list of choices and thus alot of changes to screw up, makes us afraid to really dig in all the ways we can alter colors inside different tastes and colorspaces. We stay often close to shore wile we edit images. By reading and discussing about colorspaces we get forced to swim further in to the wide sea.
And that’s what i like. Dragging out of the comfortzone in to something new.
This thread has gone way off topic. And I’ll add to the problem.
It seems to me that color, like sound, is analog. Computers have allowed us to digitize both color and sound. And don’t start with the vinyl vs CD debate.
When in photolab, colors are digital. They only are numbers : 3 numbers, a vector in a space which is a color space.
Photolab doesn’t know what a color is. It only knows vectors.
A digital color is a vector. In a space of 3 dimensions. (Even if most of the time only one 2 dimension section of this space is shown in graphs).
And when you process with photolab, you do maths on those vectors in this 3d space (the working color space). Then you convert those vectors in an other 3d space to save your images : the output space.
Not really analog, isn’t it ? Ok for digital ?
Analog colors ? :
Old screens with cathode-ray tubes - those with analogic signal (old tv for example).
But I think my english is not precise enough and my words probably sounds strange sometime.
Colors are always analog. They exist by the meaning of wavelength. The digital values are used to produce analogue values within the range of capabilities of the output device. They are units of account.
No difference with any kind of monitor or any print.
I don’t think so. I even think it’s an essential part of color management.
I just watched this video https://youtu.be/PV6DLuYbuwo and am impressed.
Will probably work and train a lot with AP V2 in the winter months.
You always find out new things that make working more comfortable.
If you want to be so precise, colors are absolutly not analog nor digital.
Only signals are analog or digital.
Colors does not even exist in “nature” nor on our monitors nor in our eyes.
They only exist in our “brain”, in our consciousness. They are the result of a complex “electrical-chimical” process inside our brain.
A color space. Wavelenghts that produce corresponding colors surrounding CIE rgb color space (in gray). And so ?
So 1 pixel is 3x16 = 48 bit. One block is addressed leaving 1 peace of 16 bit,1 word, left for other use like alpha channel.
Certainly, some interesting tools but isn´t that program moving away from being a RAW-converter (if it ever was - excuse my ignorance). AP seems to me to be more of a designer tool than a regular converter and when he talks of “non destruktive RAW-handling” as something new we know the most common converters all have had that for quite some time.
This tread is more focused on “color management”, “color rendering” and “soft proofing” and the pretty complicated system for that we now have in Photolab that we all now have to learn how to handle with the color spaces we choose to use.