As far asI know both the histogram and the clipping warnings are based on the output color space, the destination color space. Softproofing warnings are based on the source color space, or the transition from source to destination.
George
Asume it’s true.
When i have some sun and some moon clipping warnings and change output from p3 to sRGB it would be show more clipping right?
(i change the colorspace size to a more narrow plane.)
Point is then it should be always reacting on your prefference setting in export. Because until you select export the window of choices to export is hidden.
I don’t think it’s what you want. You edit a image for a base standard and after that use that as master for your different VC’s for export types. (note the popup when activating soft proofing.)
I am not at my desktop right now but i am pretty sure it’s reacting on legacy or Wide Gamut choice. (the Histogram is showing channels from 0-256 and color distribution based on the choosen workspace. This was in plv5 and know in plv6.)
There isn’t a raw histogram.(raw channel based colordistribution.)
Can’t remember if the softrpoofing tool set active turns the Histogram towards showing colordistribution of the choosen export colorspace or just stays at workingcolorspace colordistribution.
There is Legacy or Wide Gamut. (PSC module 1)
Rendering of the colors is based on the choosen profile. Cameratype and rendering profile or loaded colorprofile.
Sets saturation, whitepoint and such for the pixel based working image.
(on this the warnings are bount. Near black and near white. Or per channel near 0 and near 256.)
Because your monitor can’t produce Wide Gamut working colorspace it(dxopl) renders that to a “it looks a bit like this” (perceptual/relative dxo mojo magic based on the difference between working space and monitorgamut/iicprofile of the monitor. (sun and moon are not reacting on the monitors gamut.)) (edit:can’t remember if they changed this by let them change with themonitor out of gamut button)
Soft Proofing is the image of the working space layed over the export space in order to see if the pancake is inside the plate(no further action needed) or hanging over the edge.(action: cut it off or fold it back.)
And then serve it to your guest at the dinner table(the export rendering)
Before soft proofing you just smacked the panecake on the plate and run a knive along the edge of the plate wile walking to the table.
Bon appetit. 
Maybe I’m wrong.
Since when does the histogram show the real channel values and not the ‘warning colors’ values?
George
Histogram of DPL 6.1 on macOS does not change when I toggle warnings…
Same with DPL4 on Mac…so the histogram issue seems to be in the Win-version only.
@Franky, something for your list of differences?
I don’t mean that.
When you’ve clipping areas and the highlights on, then these areas are colored. Moving the mouse to the colored area showed the channel values of the area. Not anymore. Now the under laying channels are shown, as it should be.
George
1 Like
I wanted to know, if there was a difference in perceptive and relative rendering. Even though it’s not perceptible on screen, differences exist as we can see in the rightmost image.
Same procedure for “Protect Saturated Colours”:
QED
Thanks, Greg - - I stand corrected.
However, what led me astray is that the result achieved (comparing the exported JPGs) for the Protect Saturated Colors slider set at 0/zero AND [Soft Proofing activated versus deactivated) IS different
In other words;
- Activate Soft Proofing and set its Protect Saturated Colors slider to zero/0
- In the Export-to-disk dialogue, set ICC Profile = “Same as Soft Proofing” … and run the export
Now deactivate Soft Proofing; and re-run Export with same settings - The results are not the same.
- In the case where Soft Proofing is not activated, we can say that the PSCA is not applied at all.
- But, when Soft Proofing is activated, even tho the PSC slider is set to zero/0 - it’s still applied “a little bit” … I can see this on-screen within-PL, for my test image, by toggling Soft Proof status - and in exported file-size differences.
I’m not sure whether this was a design intention … I’m guessing; probably not !
John M
And, even if they’re not - it’s a lot “trickier” to use them in combo with changes to Color Rendering intensity and HSL settings, etc … than it is to simply activate Soft Proofing and work “visually” (that is, tweaking the image - in our usual manner - until it looks how we’d like it to).
My take is that OoG warnings are mainly useful when/if we’re aiming to export for an ICC Profile that describes a wider color space than the capability of the monitor we’re currently using (with PL).
Yes, that’s a good summary, Wolfgang …
Yes - That’s a good and important observation 
Yes, I stand corrected on that point … almost !
There’s a nuance involved (which is what led me to that initial false assertion) - As explained here.
John M
Thanks, Required …
Actually, via the Export dialogue option to specify “Same as Soft proofing”, the process does provide for multiple exports in parallel … because each image is handled uniquely; as per the parameters to Protect Saturated Colors (or not) assigned in the Soft Proofing sub-palette for each image.
The hint we were given during the Beta test phase is that it’s a combination of Relative & Perceptive Intent, with some DxO “secret sauce” thrown in, resulting in a proprietary algorithm (and a very effective one too, it seems to me.)
Haha 
Thanks - - We need more of that !
Thanks for your confirmation of that - Tho, (if I am understanding him correctly?), @platypus does not seem to agree - at least not in the absolute sense.
Not directly, but - - the Export-to-disk process can be directed to apply Soft Proofing settings.
Not necessarily; the PSC algorithm IS applied (even when Soft Proofing is not activated) when “Protect Saturated Colors” is specified in the Export dialogue (when other than “Same as Soft Proofing”).
John M
In theory, different rendering intent should change the output and I see this in my first very simple tests with the two screenshots that I then compare in Photoshop (using layers to divide one image by the other).
I also see, that different PCS slider positions produce different images, although the difference was not perceptible on screen.
It’s not about agreeing or not. I simply wanted to know what is going on with soft proofing’s different settings and as it seems, they matter, even if it’s not apparent on screen.
I’ve meanwhile repeated the test with exported files (16 bit TIFF) and found very similar differences. I also found that LrC produces different results when softproofing is on or off, something I had never noticed so far. Again differences are barely visible on screen, but show if output files are layered in PS. Measuring the respective areas show differences of 1/256 - 3/256, which is about 1% and therefore close to the threshold of visibility.
2 Likes
First of all, thank you all who are working so hard on this topic and bring clarity to the matter!
I’m still working with PL5 (on a calibrated MacBook Pro M1) and haven’t bought version 6 yet. For days I’ve been reading all the threads about color management/softproofing etc in PL6 and hope it’s ok if I post my question here as it fits the topic.
It is recommended to enable SP permanently when using the Wide Gamut WCS and I can understand why [PSC(A)].
However, my understanding is that images are then only ever displayed in that color gamut that corresponds to the one selected for SP. So e.g. sRGB. Thus, I do not visually benefit from the WG working color space and its larger color gamut in the visualization, since I limit the display just by SP and the set smaller color space (sRGB). Do I see that correctly?
1 Like
Hi Manfred,
for the current behaviour see → here …
Otherwise, there is a problem with SP and DxO should be working on it ( after the holidays 
).
Thanks for your references, Wolfgang.
In your references you mention “sRGB screen”. What I was getting at: The screen on my MacBook is P3-capable, according to the specs. So it should cover a wider spectrum than an sRGB screen.
But if I now have SP enabled all the time with the sRGB IEC61996-2.1 profile (e.g. for images to be used on the web), just to achieve WYSIWYG, then I’m pruning the possible spectrum of my screen with it. Let me visualize it:
In addition, I then also do not get to enjoy the Wide Gamut WCS. Because, in my opinion, all processing takes place in the “SP color range”.
Do I have a mistake in thinking now?
Well, you set the SP to where / what you want to export to, so that SP can simulate the to be expected output – and you can control (and change to some degree) how the colours will appear at export, if important texture is affected etc.
As you mention your P3 screen …
When working on a pic with a wide gamut (to simplify: with highly saturated colours) SP makes sense when exporting to sRGB – to not be surprised by the ‘new’ look of your exported file, with saturated colours stuffed / compressed into the smaller output colour space.
- The SP itself doesn’t change your file’s colour space, only the export.
To enjoy DxO’s Wide Gamut working colour space you don’t need SP, while for web use your screen might show you colours, that are not applicable. Shouldn’t you care – then be it so.
BTW, for softproofing you need the Elite version
2 Likes
Yes, you’re mistaken about that. All processing takes place in the DxO Wide Gamut color space when that is selected as your working color space. When you use Soft Proofing and sRGB is your target for export, you’ll see the image rendered for sRGB (with all processing applied). Here, you can use the out-of-gamut warning indicators for the export destination to see what colors, if any, are being modified to fit into sRGB.
1 Like
Hello Greg,
thanks for your reply too.
That’s the point. If I have SP on all the time during editing (for WYSIWYG), then I also only ever see “the image rendered for sRGB (with all processing applied)”.
So from my point of view it would be better (at least for someone who uses a monitor that can display a larger color space than sRGB) to turn SP on only at the end of processing and before exporting. Isn’t it?
I guess if I had a monitor calibrated for Display P3, I’d want to work in that color space first, then make a virtual copy and edit that for sRGB with Soft Proofing on. The only problem I anticipate is, if your monitor is calibrated for P3 will it also display sRGB accurately? I think it might oversaturate the RGB primaries a bit, as this is what my P3 laptop does when displaying sRGB. (Then again, I’ve had nothing but trouble trying to calibrate a wide-gamut display with the Windows desktop in use.)
1 Like
I reckon it depends on the target/intention for your exported images;
- I see from your posts above that you understand that the purpose of having SP enabled permanently is to ensure WYS-is-WYG … My following comments are on that basis. I’m also assuming you’re working with the Wide Gamut WCS.
If your intention is to view your images on your P3 monitor;
- I would still use SP - with ICC Profile = P3 … Tho, there will be less likelihood, with P3, of saturated colors not translating well from DxO’s Wide Gamut working color space (which, as Egregius pointed out, is used for PL’s internal processing, regardless of the ICC Profile selected for SP)
If your intention is to share your images with others, and post to the interwebs etc;
- Enabling SP with ICC Profile = sRGB is the way to go … for ensuring that the result you achieve and see within PL is the same as others will see on their (probably/typically) sRGB monitors.
If it’s a bit of both;
- I suggest choosing one of those profiles (sRGB or P3) as your working profile
- Enable SP with ICC Profile = your “working profile” choice
- Use a Virtual Copy to enable SP with the opposite ICC Profile
- Get the result with both versions looking as you want them - and export accordingly (using Export option “Same as Soft Proofing” to ensure you don’t get things mixed up !
Also, note Greg’s “words of caution” (with regard to your P3 monitor);
Observation: It seems that having a better-than-sRGB monitor, when one’s principal export intention is for sharing, posting, submitting to comps, etc - ends up making things more difficult/complicated (?!)
John M
1 Like
I’m not aware of any problem with SP, Wolfgang … ??
John