Larger working space than adobe rgb - for not loosing colors our often very expensive sensors provide us

[uncoy (Alec Kinnear)]

[quote=“Wolfgang, post:80, topic:24529, full:true”]
Alec, this is an outdated thread.[/quote]

Thanks for your note, Wolfgang. The thread is relevant to me.

Of course you can export with the color profile of your choice
as well as EpsonPrintLayout (Win) enables BlackPointCompensation.

Yes, but this information is something which someone wandering around worrying about colour spaces and printing from PhotoLab needs to know.

DxO knows what they have to do to make printing viable (quite a bit in terms of interface, just a little bit in terms of background code, which is the perceptual/relative toggle along with a black point compensation checkbox).

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik7 / 3.3 ])]

As you mentioned in another thread, you print on Canon. … So Epson Print Layout is of no use to you.
If you don’t like PhotoLab for printing, look for Canon’s software, for example.

[eriepa (WIN11, PL9, FP7, VP4, NIK1)]

@uncoy

What’s very important is that the conversion mechanism to sRGB and/or AdobeRGB be flawless, not creating out of bandwidth colours. In this case, the richer the native colour space the better.

Or try not converting at all. That is, simply embed the DxO Wide Gamut ICC color profile at TIFF export. EPL (Win11) and my ET-8550 will print using that profile. The print output from wide gamut test files seems very similar, probably identical, to that using an embedded ProPhoto RGB color profile. To be clear, I use EPL in stand-alone mode only, and the results are the same whether the printer or EPL manages color.

[uncoy (Alec Kinnear)]

@eriepa

simply embed the DxO Wide Gamut ICC color profile at TIFF export. EPL (Win11) and my ET-8550 will print using that profile. The print output from wide gamut test files seems very similar, probably identical, to that using an embedded ProPhoto RGB color profile.

Good idea. If Canon or Epson do the right thing and put bright programmers on their own colour conversion engine, that saves photographers all over the world a huge amount of trouble. Have you noticed any significant difference between exporting in sRGB and printing vs AdobeRGB and printing?

I ask as since web is my main destination, I’ve become accustomed to sticking to sRGB all the time (saves profile mismatches and a lot of troubleshooting) everywhere. I’m slowly coming around to the idea that I should create intermediate masters if I plan to work in another program (say Affinity Photo) on the way to the final master.

[eriepa (WIN11, PL9, FP7, VP4, NIK1)]

@uncoy

Have you noticed any significant difference between exporting in sRGB and printing vs AdobeRGB and printing?

For the web, sRGB is fine (sadly) although I have begun using Display P3 as well. Printing is a different story. There are very noticeable differences between sRGB and either Adobe RGB (1998) or Display P3. Even a bit more using DxO Wide Gamut or ProPhoto RGB. I always embed actual ICC color profiles whatever the output destination.

[George]

@uncoy

Have you noticed any significant difference between exporting in sRGB and printing vs AdobeRGB and printing?

I think that also depends on your printer and your image.

George

[Oldjstein ([5800X, RTX3090, 32GB DDR4, WIN10, Z72])]

Maybe this is off topic, but it’s a good a place as any. There are a lot of opinions out there about color management for photo editing, for screen and for print, that’s for sure. Currently I edit photographs on a calibrated BenQ display with a different calibration preset when I would edit to print. For most purposes, I just use 6500K without a blackpoint offset, but the print setting is 5800K with lowered brightness. Is it actually necessary to alter the display color temperature, if you soft proof with ICC profiles? Does the software simulate D50 (or whatever the profile uses) for soft proofing, negating the need to have a different monitor setting for paper printing (other than brightness)?