C1 Pro -- Could not generate preview?

[Georg Baumann]

The second thing is a question. My normal work flow is to start in C1 and then export a .tif to PS. I recently noticed that the resolution setting for the output was at 300 ppi. I'm pretty sure the native resolution of the M8 RAWS is 240, so am I inadvertently doing a slight uprez when outputting at 300?

Hi TRS, on another note re workflow, another thing to check on may be is the color space you use before you export to TIFF. In my case there was no ProPhoto RGB in the waaaay too long list of profiles (printers, screens etc) So it used the Adobe RGB instead. I had to copy the file manually into the directory. Check that you have it set as ProPhoto, and if it is not there just copy this file to user/library/colorcsync/profiles and it will appear in the list. The file is named ProPhoto.icm.

 

[TRSmith]

Thanks Georg, I do have ProPhoto in there. Good tip though.

Tim

 

[thomas]

C1 was brandnew installation, latest version.

hmhm... delete the file (file -> delete permanently) and reload it from your archive.

 

[thomas]

In my case there was no ProPhoto RGB in the waaaay too long list of profiles (printers, screens etc)

I love that list!
Using ProPhotoRGB in C1 is colour management reduced to absurdity. C1 works with input profiles (the camera profiles) and whatever you adjust will never exceed the colour space of the camera profile. When converting to ProPhoto by processing you gain exactly nothing as this conversion is done relative colormetric (either way what you set in the preferences) - the colours remain exactly the same but are translated to ProPhoto.
If you want to adjust certain colours later on in Photoshop that exceed the colour space of the camera you might use ProPhoto. But be aware that in this case you edit colours no printer will ever be able to print.
Set the output profile to "embed camera profile" and leave the file in that colour space (i.e. set the colour preferences in Photoshop to preserve embeded profiles when opening files).
Does not make so much sense to edit colours the camera didn't capture, no?

 

[Georg Baumann]

I understand what you are saying Thomas, however, I believe it does not hurt to use the largest color gammut and have all my files in that space already safed for the future instead of having to go back in may be one or two years time to do that job.

 

[thomas]

I understand what you are saying Thomas, however, I believe it does not hurt to use the largest color gammut and have all my files in that space already safed for the future instead of having to go back in may be one or two years time to do that job.

basically true... if you know how to handle such a large gamut in Photoshop.
But there won't be a future that will take full advantage of ProPhoto. And if so you just convert the TIFs from the camera profile to ProPhoto (with an action in batch mode Photoshop will do it for you in some nights...).
Anyway... was just a side note to think about and if you feel fine with ProPhoto keep your workflow as it is.

 

[Georg Baumann]

Thomas, I am always grateful for others opion and experience on such things! Btw. This is why I like getdpi so much, the quota on useful exchange is extremly high, and the atmosphere outstanding.

I think, the perfect workflow does not exist and is a more or less evolving situation, determined by personal needs and the variety of tools available to us.

 

[Jack]

But then on the other side of the coin...

Once you are in 16-bit, whichever color-space you save the file won't affect file size at all. If you want to be totally progressive and anal about efficiency in your color space choice, then I suggest you invest in Joe Holmes' D-Cam 4 and D-Cam 5 sets. If you really want to stay in 8-bit, then look into his D-Cam 3 space.

The issue here is having a color space that holds 100% of your capture device's colors -- even if output devices get to the point they can exceed the capture device's space, it is moot since all you can ever show is what you captured.

The real advantage of Prophoto is it is so large, it is unlikely any capture OR output device will exceed its size anytime soon... The disadvantage is it is a gamma 1.8 space, not a gamma 2.2, so many image editors mess it up with contrast or saturation changes. Here is where Joe's saturation profiles help immensely as they're based on the proper gamma. This brings me back to Joe's D-Cam 5 space as probably the ideal, but it is not an accepted standard like Prophoto...

PS: FWIW, the same thing was said of the Adobe RGB space about 4 years and longer ago, that it was large enough for real-world devices... And right now, we've got cameras and printers exceeding Adobe RGB in some areas. As Yogi Berra said, "Pre-planning must be done in advance!"

 

[TRSmith]

I find the business of gamma to be pretty confusing. There seem to be conflicting ideas about what is correct. Are there some simple guidelines for setting the correct gamma while profiling your monitor?

 

[Jack]

Hi Tim:

Yes, set it to 2.2 because that is what is the current defacto standard. Earlier use of 1.8 gamma had to do with providing better monitor proof correlations to offset printing (CMYk) output on a Mac. Nowadays, monitors and proofing engines are similar between systems, so 2.2 works very well for most all output applications.

What it means with Prophoto in a practical sense, is that when you increase say the saturation or contrast sliders in CS, colors do not change in the exact relation they should and color shifts can occur. In most cases we are only adding a little bit of either, so the net shift goes unnoticed. Where it becomes problematic is on larger adjustments -- but then those get so obviously "changed" that the loss of color accuracy probably isn't all that concerning anyway.

One way of dealing with it on a contrast adjustment layer (usually a curve) is to set that layer's blend mode to "Luminosity" so that in effect only contrast is changed and hue/saturation are not affected.

 

[thomas]

But then on the other side of the coin...

Jack, I think we won't go too deep into this topic... but some short notes as far as I understand it.

In Capture One you have a camera profile as input profile. Basically you edit your file in this profile whilst the output profile is considered as proof profile for the respective preview, histogram and RGB values.

In the case of TRC matrix profiles as output profiles (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto...) the colour conversion is necessarily relative colormetric. Now, if you convert from your camera profile to any TRC matrix profile you preserve the identical LAB values but they are just translated to another colour space - nothing else. Whether you convert to any other profile straight from C1 or do it afterwards in Photoshop is absolutley the same (too, if you convert it to another colour space in 10 years or so...). So you do not store a single colour more or less if you convert to ProPhoto (the same applies to JH's Dcam colour spaces as these profiles are TRC matrix based - correct me if I'm wrong).
But what you could do is to set ProPhoto or D-cam5 as input profile in C1 (if this is possible, I don't know... but would like to know...) - in this case you would edit (and store) the captures right in this colour space.
In any case the input profile determines which colours you store - not the working space you are converting them to. Or you use the Phase input profiles and do all further editing in Photoshop - in this case you may profit from the wider gamut as well.

 

[thomas]

What it means with Prophoto in a practical sense, is that when you increase say the saturation or contrast sliders in CS, colors do not change in the exact relation they should and color shifts can occur.

But this applies to ALL Gamma coded working spaces. First if your working space is L* coded (ECI RGB V2, ProStar) the dispersion of luminance is the same as in LAB, i.e. an equidistant luminance dispersion.

 

[thomas]

I find the business of gamma to be pretty confusing. There seem to be conflicting ideas about what is correct. Are there some simple guidelines for setting the correct gamma while profiling your monitor?

For the monitor the TRC is not that important as in a colour managed workflow the different Gammas and TRCs are translated into each other. This apllies espescially to 16bit workflows on displays with internal16bit processing.
Basically you get the best visual performance (this is what the monitor is for) when you set it to a TRC matching that of your preferred working space as in this case there is no further transformation of Gamma/TRC on the way from the image to the display. I.e. - in this case you will have the smoothest gradations on screen and should not expect banding (if the display is linearized accurate).
So if your preferred working space is ProPhoto... set the display to Gamma 1.8. If you use AdobeRGB set it to Gamma 2.2.

 

[TRSmith]

Thanks thomas!

 

[Jack]

In the case of TRC matrix profiles as output profiles (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto...) the colour conversion is necessarily relative colormetric. Now, if you convert from your camera profile to any TRC matrix profile you preserve the identical LAB values but they are just translated to another colour space - nothing else. Whether you convert to any other profile straight from C1 or do it afterwards in Photoshop is absolutley the same (too, if you convert it to another colour space in 10 years or so...). So you do not store a single colour more or less if you convert to ProPhoto (the same applies to JH's Dcam colour spaces as these profiles are TRC matrix based - correct me if I'm wrong).

Correct -- but when you start working on the file in post, you can change colors to the point they move beyond the confines of the original capture space -- and why I convert to Pro upon C1 output.

And yes, in C1 -- at least the Pro version -- you can select any space loaded on your system to output to, so I have all of Joe Holmes' options in there as well as Pro, Adobe and sRGB, etcetera...

 

[Jack]

But this applies to ALL Gamma coded working spaces. First if your working space is L* coded (ECI RGB V2, ProStar) the dispersion of luminance is the same as in LAB, i.e. an equidistant luminance dispersion.

Yes indeed. But again, the amount of changes we are making to an image is usually pretty small from a relative standpoint, so the error effect from being 0.4 gamma off is minimal. And yet again, we can minimize this issue further with proper editing technique...

EDIT: I am an idiot -- I mean 2.2 gamma is now the standard. Don't know why I stuck on 2.0! :banghead: So for every 2.0 I have above, please insert 2.2!

 

[thomas]

And yes, in C1 -- at least the Pro version -- you can select any space loaded on your system to output to, so I have all of Joe Holmes' options in there as well as Pro, Adobe and sRGB, etcetera...

you can select them as outut profile, but not as input profile...!?

 

[TRSmith]

Now I don't feel to badly for being confused. I'm headed for the "set it and forget it" mode.

 

[thomas]

PS: Note that gamma is contrast and if you look at a gamma curve for 1.8 and 2.2, the three will track very closely to begin with.

hmhm... no... see attachments (source: http://www.colormanagement.org/download_files/Working-Spaces.zip )

 

[thomas]

Now I don't feel to badly for being confused. I'm headed for the "set it and forget it" mode.

so...just do it... set something and forget it )