out of gamut , what can i do?

[mantra]

Hi
i shoot raw
and i convert my photo or using the rgb or adobe rgb profiles

but sometime i have some colors out of gamut

what can i do to correct them?

thanks
have a nice day

[kevinf]

Open up the hue/sat dialog, sample the color and reduce it's saturation a bit.

[Damo77]

Actually, there's very little excuse for your colours to be out of gamut when converting from Raw. You just need to reduce exposure or whatever it takes to get them within gamut before converting.

[René Damkot]

but sometime i have some colors out of gamut


When and where?

If you are softproofing for print, you can use for instance hue/sat to get certain colors into the printers gamut.

If you are converting from Raw, there's no reason to be out of gamut.

[mantra]

When and where?

If you are softproofing for print, you can use for instance hue/sat to get certain colors into the printers gamut.

If you are converting from Raw, there's no reason to be out of gamut.


well it's the sky
it's decolorize light overexposed sky
i converted with lightroom , so i shoot in raw

but a question about the out of gamut , i bring the photo in a lab and i get a print , with all the colors

the out of camut is report to my printer?

[queenbee288]

Depends on how much of the photo is out of gamut and how accurate you want it to be. I think that if you don't fix the out of gamut then the printer will try to match it the best it can. I also find printing at home that when I proof to the paper I am going to print on that that ususally takes care of the out of gamut unless I over saturate it again.

I usually use the sponge took in PS set to desaturate and go over on the parts that are showing out of gamut. that usually takes care of it.

[mantra]

Depends on how much of the photo is out of gamut and how accurate you want it to be. I think that if you don't fix the out of gamut then the printer will try to match it the best it can. I also find printing at home that when I proof to the paper I am going to print on that that ususally takes care of the out of gamut unless I over saturate it again.

I usually use the sponge took in PS set to desaturate and go over on the parts that are showing out of gamut. that usually takes care of it.

i get almost every time out of gamut
does it depend of the printer?
i live in europe , and photoshop is setup to proof setup working CMYK

i did notice that rgb or adobe rgb don't make different:evil:

[mantra]

When and where?

If you are softproofing for print, you can use for instance hue/sat to get certain colors into the printers gamut.

If you are converting from Raw, there's no reason to be out of gamut.

i live in europe , which is the best color setting?

[tzalman]

i get almost every time out of gamut
does it depend of the printer?
i live in europe , and photoshop is setup to proof setup working CMYK

i did notice that rgb or adobe rgb don't make different:evil:

CMYK proofing is only for work being sent to a lithographic printing press (magazines, etc.). Don't use it otherwise.

[René Damkot]

photoshop is setup to proof setup working CMYK

Don't!

Soft proofing is utterly useless if you don't softproof for the specific printer/paper profile you are going to be printing on.

Read a few of the links in the link from my sig; soft proofing is explained pretty well there.

[bohdank]

When you print, the software will "pull it into" gamut.

If your viewing with sRGB, then nothing should be out of gamut, since the camera is sRGB (or should be set to that).

When you print, the printer's gamut WILL be different. Don't worry about it... there is nothing you can do.

[René Damkot]

When you print, the software will "pull it into" gamut.

If your viewing with sRGB, then nothing should be out of gamut, since the camera is sRGB (or should be set to that).

When you print, the printer's gamut WILL be different. Don't worry about it... there is nothing you can do.

Nope. In this case your sig line is accurate ;)


When you print, out of gamut colors will be either compressed or clipped, depending on rendering intent.
The camera has a wider gamut then sRGB, so colors can easily be clipped in sRGB.
The printer probably has a wider gamut then sRGB in some colors, smaller in others, again, colors might be out of gamut.
You can do something about colors being out of the printers gamut; that's the whole point of softproofing.
Read the link in my sig.

[mantra]

Nope. In this case your sig line is accurate ;)

When you print, out of gamut colors will be either compressed or clipped, depending on rendering intent.
The camera has a wider gamut then sRGB, so colors can easily be clipped in sRGB.
The printer probably has a wider gamut then sRGB in some colors, smaller in others, again, colors might be out of gamut.
You can do something about colors being out of the printers gamut; that's the whole point of softproofing.Read the link in my sig.

can i add or import color profile inside photoshop?
download them and import?

[René Damkot]

can i add or import color profile inside photoshop?
download them and import?

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question?
PS can use any profile that's on your system.
So for instance, if you download a printer profile and put it in the right location, PS can softproof for it or convert to it.

[Underscore]

Actually, there's very little excuse for your colours to be out of gamut when converting from Raw. You just need to reduce exposure or whatever it takes to get them within gamut before converting.

This is not correct. If you use ProPhoto RGB going from Lightroom to Photoshop, depending on your output media, you can have a significant number of colors out of gamut and this has nothing to do with RAW conversion, but simply the ability of your output media to render the color.

Additionally, depending on your color space, you cannot check for soft proof gamut testing while in RAW conversion. There is no tool for this except to convert to sRGB, while in ACR, or whatever color space your intended media can handle and see if you have any clipping in the histogram. That is the only what I know.

[René Damkot]

This is not correct. If you use ProPhoto RGB going from Lightroom to Photoshop, depending on your output media, you can have a significant number of colors out of gamut and this has nothing to do with RAW conversion, but simply the ability of your output media to render the color.
I'd say it is correct.
If you don't want clipping from LR to PS, you don't get clipping.
LR uses (very similar to) ProPhotoRGB internally.
ProPhotoRGB is the "output" color space in this case.

You can get clipping when converting to another color space, or to for instance a printer profile. But that is in PS.
Additionally, depending on your color space, you cannot check for soft proof gamut testing while in RAW conversion. There is no tool for this except to convert to sRGB, while in ACR, or whatever color space your intended media can handle and see if you have any clipping in the histogram. That is the only what I know.
Agree.
And AFAIK, in LR the histogram is based on the internal color space, so you don't have a warning for clipping sRGB output.

[bohdank]

Nope. In this case your sig line is accurate ;)

When you print, out of gamut colors will be either compressed or clipped, depending on rendering intent.
The camera has a wider gamut then sRGB, so colors can easily be clipped in sRGB.
The printer probably has a wider gamut then sRGB in some colors, smaller in others, again, colors might be out of gamut.
You can do something about colors being out of the printers gamut; that's the whole point of softproofing.Read the link in my sig.

I don't think I said anything that disagrees with your statement, just a little too briefly.

There is little point for images intended for printers to be manipulated in ProPhoto or other wide gamuts.

I know my Epson 2200 does not exceed the boundaries of sRGB and falls way short, as a matter of fact.

What's the point of doing color balancing, saturation, etc. only to have it come out completely different when printed ?

Take a shot that has stayed in ProPhoto, for example, during it's entire workflow, and assign a narrower gamut profile... most images will noticeably change in, at least, in saturation.

ACR doesn't give you many choices. I choose Adobe for the profile. I then import it into PS without changing the profile. I hope when I finally print, and assign my printer profile, it comes out looking the same, which it usually does.

I don't even see much point in using the Out of Gamut warning in PS. It apples only to the color space you happen to be in. Why try and fix it when you're final output device will probably have an even narrower or different gamut.

I just stick with Adobe through the entire workflow. I wish I could assign my printer profile in PS, but unfortunately one can't do that. The Print with Preview is of limited use, imho. My prints come out well enough that I have no complaints.

btw.... the 40D doesn't even come close to covering the sRGB's color gamut, if I interpret the chart(s) correctly.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/E40DIMATEST.HTM

Of course, I welcome corrections ;-)

[Damo77]

There is little point for images intended for printers to be manipulated in ProPhoto or other wide gamuts.
I totally agree, as long as there's not a chance that your file may be printed on a wide-gamut printer some time in the future.

I know my Epson 2200 does not exceed the boundaries of sRGB and falls way short, as a matter of fact.
Really? I'd expect it to fall short in some colours, but meet or possibly exceed in others. I'm not familiar with that printer, though.

What's the point of doing color balancing, saturation, etc. only to have it come out completely different when printed?

Take a shot that has stayed in ProPhoto, for example, during it's entire workflow, and assign a narrower gamut profile... most images will noticeably change in, at least, in saturation.

ACR doesn't give you many choices. I choose Adobe for the profile. I then import it into PS without changing the profile. I hope when I finally print, and assign my printer profile, it comes out looking the same, which it usually does.
I notice you've used the word "assign" twice. I trust you are not actually assigning profiles. You should be converting, and the out-of-gamut colours are dealt with via the rendering intent (if not before).

I don't even see much point in using the Out of Gamut warning in PS. It apples only to the color space you happen to be in. Why try and fix it when you're final output device will probably have an even narrower or different gamut.
What? I think you're missing the point entirely. How can an image be out of its own gamut?? The point of soft-proofing (of which o-o-g warnings are a part) is previewing how your image will look in your printer space.

just stick with Adobe through the entire workflow. I wish I could assign my printer profile in PS, but unfortunately one can't do that. The Print with Preview is of limited use, imho. My prints come out well enough that I have no complaints.
There's that word "assign" again - I'm worried about it.

btw.... the 40D doesn't even come close to covering the sRGB's color gamut, if I interpret the chart(s) correctly.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/E40DIMATEST.HTM
I don't really understand that article, but I'm quite confident your 40D is capable of capturing colour far beyond sRGB.

[bohdank]

Check the grey lines in the sRGB and the Adobe RGB plots of the 40D. Those are the gamut boundaries. The 40D falls short. Adobe has more space on the blue/green (lower) edge of the plots.

I actually never assign a profile. I don't even convert to other profiles. I set ACR to Adobe and keep it at Adobe all the way through the final image. I may change that to setting ACR to sRGB for the 40D (just got it recently and only printed the past few days). I find the printed images come out slightly duller and less saturated then they should. I'm going to try sRGB from beginning to end and see if there are any differences and the gamut is closer to typical printers so less chance of going out of gamut when PP'ing and finally printing.

Assigning doesn't change the actual color "numbers" when "assigning" a different color space, hence you get strange results. Converting does "map" the colors to the new space. If the new space has a wider gamut then you should see no change whatsoever on your monitor.

There isn't a printer out there, that I know off, that has a wider gamut or even comes close to the xxD cameras.

Anyway..... the less you play around with color spaces, the better.

PS. go to www.drycreekphoto.com and compare color spaces of different cameras and printers.

[Bill Boehme]

There is little point for images intended for printers to be manipulated in ProPhoto or other wide gamuts.

There is plenty of reason to start off in ProPhotoRGB. If you start off in sRGB, you are much more likely to encounter saturation clipping in images. Also, regardless of which RAW converter program you are using, you will be making changes to the data before it is converted to another format such as JPG. You can't get away from these changes which include at least several of the following adjustments: styles (which is a composite of a number of things), sharpness, exposure, brightness, white balance, contrast, shadows, midtones, highlights, saturation, specific color tweaks, profile data for your camera, and chromatic aberration corrections. The RAW data that you start with has had NONE of these adjustments applied to it ... and for each one of these adjustments, there will be loss of data in the file as colors and levels get shifted and edges emphasized. If you happen to be using a small color space like sRGB, then many of these adjustments, especially increasing saturation, will tend to drive parts of the image into clipping. It is much esier for a file that has a large color space to not encounter clipping caused by normal processing during conversion. After the JPG, TIFF, PSD, etc. file has been created, you may decide is the time to convert to your working space, which would be done using "convert" and relative colorimetric (not assign). I know that some printers may have a small color gamut ... in the case of my printer, it's output is able to handle AdobeRGB and I get colors that I feel are true to what I see on screen. I do make certain that I let Photoshop manage colors and turn off color management on the printer. I also use paper that has published profiles for my printer inks.

What's the point of doing color balancing, saturation, etc. only to have it come out completely different when printed?

If you are having that problem, then it appears that you do may have a problem in implementing color management. An excellent reference, but rather dry reading is "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser.

Take a shot that has stayed in ProPhoto, for example, during it's entire workflow, and assign a narrower gamut profile... most images will noticeably change in, at least, in saturation.

If you have been going from a large color space to a small one by assigning the new color space, then I see why you may think that starting off with a large color space does not make sense. The correct procedure would be to "convert" from one color space to another ... and for this particular case, use relative colorimetric interpretation. By doing things that way, colors that are in gamut for the sRGB color space will not change their visual appearance when converted. Any of the converted colors that are outside of the sRGB color space will be mapped so that the change may not even be noticed most of the time.

btw.... the 40D doesn't even come close to covering the sRGB's color gamut, if I interpret the chart(s) correctly.

The output gamut of sensors in DSLR cameras is very large ... far greater than the sRGB color space and also larger than AdobeRGB. If you open a RAW file in ACR and set the color space to sRGB, you will find that you get many more images with saturation clipping in one or more channels than you would have seen had you selected ProPhotoRGB which is sufficiently large enough to cover the gamut of colors that the sensor is able to produce. Furthermore, colors lost due to saturation clipping are history and can't be recovered if you remain in sRGB during the RAW conversion process. Any unrecoverable saturation clipping encountered when using ProPhotoRGB is due to sensor saturation rather than software clipping due to color space limitations.

Of course, I welcome corrections ;-)

I hope that my input has been helpful.

[Bill Boehme]

PS. go to www.drycreekphoto.com (http://www.drycreekphoto.com) and compare color spaces of different cameras and printers.

I would not put much stock in anything that I saw on that site.

[Bill Boehme]

btw.... the 40D doesn't even come close to covering the sRGB's color gamut, if I interpret the chart(s) correctly.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/E40DIMATEST.HTM

Of course, I welcome corrections ;-)

I don't see how you got that interpretation of the data. As far as I could tell there was no mapping of the color gamut of the camera ... what the data showed was color accuracy for a set of specific test colors using a Gretagmacbeth color checker where all of the test colors are within the sRGB color space. Besides that, I also think that their test method is flawed because they ought to be using ProPhotoRGB color values for the test patches and comparing it to the camera response with the RAW converter using the ProPhotoRGB color space. Even sillier is the fact that they used DPP and applied styles to distort the color output from the 40D. Sheesh!

[Chris1le]

I would not put much stock in anything that I saw on that site.

If you have your prints done at Costco you would. :lol: Once I got the profile and learned how to use it. My prints match what I see on my monitor pretty much dead on.

[René Damkot]

Whokay...
Multi quoting ;)
I might repeat some things others have allready said...

There is little point for images intended for printers to be manipulated in ProPhoto or other wide gamuts.
That is open for discussion, and also depends on the printer used.
Inkjets have a gamut that's close to AdobeRGB, exceeding it in some points...
It makes little sense IMO to work in a color space that's larger then the printers gamut.

Most people cannot see those colors on their monitors anyway, so that makes processing a bit harder ;)

I know my Epson 2200 does not exceed the boundaries of sRGB and falls way short, as a matter of fact.
I don't think so.
If you go here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm) , there is a graph halfay down the page showing sRGB, AdobeRGB and a Canon iP9900. The printer exceeds both in places.

A bit of Google-ing found this review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml) on LL, which says:
Note that at the point shown the 2100 has a larger gamut than the 1270 and can print cyan way beyond anything Adobe RGB can handle, but is shy in saturated green and blue.

What's the point of doing color balancing, saturation, etc. only to have it come out completely different when printed ?
If you do it right, it will not come out "completely different"...
Sure, "ink on paper" has it's limitations compared to "light off a screen", but color management does work, and helps to reach WYSIWYG...

Take a shot that has stayed in ProPhoto, for example, during it's entire workflow, and assign a narrower gamut profile... most images will noticeably change in, at least, in saturation.
Don't assign. Ever.
If an image in ProPhotoRGB is converted to sRGB, per definition Relative Colorimetric is used. So all colors that are within the destination color spaces gamut will not change one bit..

I don't even see much point in using the Out of Gamut warning in PS. It apples only to the color space you happen to be in. Why try and fix it when you're final output device will probably have an even narrower or different gamut.
You softproof your image for the destination color space.
So the out of gamut warning tells you which colors are out of the printers gamut...

I just stick with Adobe through the entire workflow. I wish I could assign my printer profile in PS, but unfortunately one can't do that.

I'll read "convert" where you say "assign" here ;)
Off course you can.
I wouldn't want to work in the printers color space (for one thing, R=G=B in't likely to be neutral), but it is possible.

The Print with Preview is of limited use, imho. My prints come out well enough that I have no complaints.
Something we agree on ;)
I use softproofing to get the prints looking like I want them, the print preview only to see if the image fits the paper well ;)

btw.... the 40D doesn't even come close to covering the sRGB's color gamut, if I interpret the chart(s) correctly.

Of course, I welcome corrections ;-)
You don't interpret the chart correctly ;)
It is only about color accuracy, not about gamut.
All colors that are captured are within sRGB gamut. That doesn't mean that the camera cannot capture a wider range of colors.

Check the grey lines in the sRGB and the Adobe RGB plots of the 40D. Those are the gamut boundaries. The 40D falls short. Adobe has more space on the blue/green (lower) edge of the plots.
See above.

I actually never assign a profile. I don't even convert to other profiles. I set ACR to Adobe and keep it at Adobe all the way through the final image. I may change that to setting ACR to sRGB for the 40D (just got it recently and only printed the past few days). I find the printed images come out slightly duller and less saturated then they should. I'm going to try sRGB from beginning to end and see if there are any differences and the gamut is closer to typical printers so less chance of going out of gamut when PP'ing and finally printing.
Give softproofing a try. Have a read in a few links in the link from my sig...

Assigning doesn't change the actual color "numbers" when "assigning" a different color space, hence you get strange results. Converting does "map" the colors to the new space. If the new space has a wider gamut then you should see no change whatsoever on your monitor.
Agree

There isn't a printer out there, that I know off, that has a wider gamut or even comes close to the xxD cameras.
Debatable.
What is the color space of the camera?
I think if I look on my Mac, I can find at least 3 camera profiles for my 1D2, all showing a different gamut. (C1, ETC-profiles, Canon profile, maybe some others)
I'd say that the camera can capture colors outside of AdobeRGB.
Some printers can print (about) AdobeRGB gamut.
It might be that there are some colors that can be printed, that are outside the camera's "Gamut".
On the whole, I'd say that nowadays, using an inkjet, the printer has a bit smaller gamut then AdobeRGB, tha camera a bit larger.
Huge difference? Nah.

Anyway..... the less you play around with color spaces, the better.
Agree with you there!

There is plenty of reason to start off in ProPhotoRGB. If you start off in sRGB, you are much more likely to encounter saturation clipping in images.

True.
Few points however:
Use ProPhotoRGB only in 16bpc.
When you convert to another RGB working space (sRGB for instance), only colorimetric rendering intent is available, so pay very good attention to the out of Gamut warning, and prevent clipping.


and for this particular case, use relative colorimetric interpretation.
Even if you set "perceptual", still "relative colorimetric" will be used ;)


Any of the converted colors that are outside of the sRGB color space will be mapped so that the change may not even be noticed most of the time.
But they will get clipped.

I would not put much stock in anything that I saw on that site.
Why not?

Besides that, I also think that their test method is flawed because they ought to be using ProPhotoRGB color values for the test patches and comparing it to the camera response with the RAW converter using the ProPhotoRGB color space.
Why?
What difference does the color space used make?

Even sillier is the fact that they used DPP and applied styles to distort the color output from the 40D. Sheesh!

Agreed.
They are testing the accuracy of the camera and the picture styles here.

[bohdank]

Too much to respond to at the moment.... an interesting and, informative thread, imo.

No, I do not "assign", ever. ;-)

I suggest if you want to see what devices compare to the different gamuts go to the site I posted earlier.

www.drycreekphoto.com that does professional profiling for personal and commercial printing services.

Install the Octava VRML player and look at the comparisons. You can pick and choose from a large variety of devices including some Canon DSLR's and many commercial and popular ink jet printers.

For example, comparing The Canon 20D to sRGB. The Canon clearly has a smaller color gamut than sRGB, although not greatly smaller and does not exceed it at any color axis.

Canon/Epson/Fuji Frontier don't even come close to sRGB although some exceed at, for example, towards the yellow spectrum.

You can even compare printers to printers.

Quite an eye opener and usefull when explaining why greens, for example, don't come out quite right on printers.

[René Damkot]

I have that installed ;)

Here is a screenshot of the 20D vs. sRGB:
http://img.skitch.com/20080807-rw64ns5iprb21su7ep1iteg79m.jpg

I think you might have gotten the two mixed up ;)


Edit: this is a rather difficult point to discuss anyways, since the experts don't even agree on wether or not a Raw file can have a color profile ;)
If you want to read a rather long discussion about that topic: Do a search on the LL forums (IIRC).

[bohdank]

Compare the 20D to any printer.... scary how narrow the gamuts are of all the printers which, in the workflow, will always be your limiting factor.

I wish I could make my printer profile(s) my working space in Photoshop. Then you would REALLY get WYSIWYG.

[Damo77]

Then you would REALLY get WYSIWYG.
If you're not getting wysiwyg at the moment, don't wish for the impossible. It's quite possible to get reasonably-near-perfect wysiwyg, if all your ducks are lined up.

Unless you are consistently photographic extremely bright colours, or habitually saturating your colours to an unfeasible extent, I don't think you should be running into too much trouble. The "average" scene that you might photograph (landscape, portrait, etc) doesn't have many colours that extend beyond even sRGB, IMO.

[bohdank]

I'm not having problems just taking the topic to it's logical conclusion which is WYSIWYG. Isn't that what we all want. Not 99% but 100%.

At the moment I do have problems with reds/oranges (saturation) and blues/greens which sometimes are not quite right but that could just be a function of the 40D as much as the gamuts down the chain.

Are they good enough. Sure, I happen to be very fussy with getting the colors right (real), so "good enough" is saying a lot. I am not a fan of technicolor saturated images, so that isn't a problem in this case.

Since I got my new monitor, HP LP2065, I am getting noticeably better printed results so I am a bit more relaxed when I'm waiting for the print exit the printer....lol

[René Damkot]

I wish I could make my printer profile(s) my working space in Photoshop. Then you would REALLY get WYSIWYG.

I think I've said this before: You can. But you really don't want to.

And it wouldn't make a lick of difference as far is WYSIWYG is concerned.