LinearSharpen question

[pigasus]

I just used LS to convert and sharpen (HQ) a 400 ISO image. In the action, it assigns Wide Gamut RGB as the mode, then converts to LAB and then converts back to RGB mode. However, this last conversion sets the mode to my RGB space (BruceRGB). Shouldn't it be going back to Wide Gamut RGB? If so, I can alter the action, but I'm not sure if I should Convert to Profile or Assign Profile from the LAB space to achieve Wide Gamut RGB.

Thanks for the help.

Pigasus

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Sally,

Looks like you found a little hiccough in 342. :) It should be OK to replace the "convert mode" step with a "convert to profile ".

I couldn't find anything to suggest that this would give a different result than the simple command, if the working space was wide gamut RGB.

It's interesting that Pekka feels lab mode is still better for shaprening with the higher ISO numbers.

Regards,

[pigasus]

Thanks, Roger.

I notice that Pekka uses the following settings when he converts to profile (eg from Wide Gamut to Adobe RGB):

Engine: Microsoft ICM
Intent: Relative Colorimetric
Without Black Point Compensation

So I'll use the same settings to convert from LAB to Wide Gamut - unless you advise otherwise.

Pigasus

[TLMelanson]

pigasus wrote:
Thanks, Roger.

I notice that Pekka uses the following settings when he converts to profile (eg from Wide Gamut to Adobe RGB):

Engine: Microsoft ICM
Intent: Relative Colorimetric
Without Black Point Compensation

So I'll use the same settings to convert from LAB to Wide Gamut - unless you advise otherwise.

Pigasus
Wow! There are more workflow options than grains of sand on the beach.
I'd love to know why Pekka (or anyone else) uses Microsoft ICM vs Adobe ACE when others vehemently state that the algorithm from Adobe is much more accurate. (Not that I've seen any difference, but that's what "they" say.)
Most also recommend using Black Point compensation.
Would Pekka care to weigh in here?