DPP and CS5 color differences

René Damkot wrote in post #12327741
Both your DPP and PS settings are wrong.

Can you explain the difference between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB IEC61966-2.1 in the Working Spaces - RGB: drop down box? I have been on Adobe RGB and I don't see a colour difference between PS and DPP. I have the correct set up in DPP.

I wish I had found this thread a long time ago. It was a nightmare. I finally stumbled on the DPP monitor setting after a frustrating week if trying to figure this out.

Yeah.
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …als/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
http://help.smugmug.co​m …mer/portal/arti​cles/93362
http://www.earthboundl​ight.com …sus-adobe-rgb-debate.html

(From the "Color Problems?" link in my sig.)

And the PS color settings explained: http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …nagement/pscolo​rsettings/

Also, read the "Why color management link in my sig"

I see René posted while I was typing, but rather than just throw out my "Long...winded" response, here is is anyway...

So, first I'll explain that the different color spaces have different color "gamuts", which governs how the colors are rendered in the program as well as in a conversion to, say, a jpeg/tiff/psd.

What we have are three commonly used color spaces with gamuts that range from "wide", meaning that some colors that tend to be brighter/more saturated are rendered more "accurately" if you have the software and the equipment to "support" that color space (monitor and printer), then to more "narrow"/less "wide" color spaces, that may not quite cover the widest range but have better support from both software and hardware.

We can start with the widest being commonly used, which is a derivative of "ProPhoto RGB". It had been common since the introduction of Lightroom, because Lightroom uses it as its "internal color space". Unlike Photoshop/ACR and DPP, you are "stuck" with this color space (te derivative is called "Melissa RGB). In Lightroom, you only leave this colorspace when doing a conversion/Export (you can specify a color space there) or if you open the image in an external editor, where you also can specify an "output color space.

The key thing here is support for a given color space -- the ability to view it properly in a monitor and with software that can properly "render" the color space/gamut.

Historically, the most common color spaces have been "less wide" than ProPhoto but also better supported. The Adobe RGB color space is the "next" in the scale, and people often use it because for one thing there are an increasing number of monitors that can properly support it and, because modern printers, including many home/office inkjet printers, can handle the brighter/saturated colors that the aRGB gamut can contain. Canon cameras have an sRGB option that they specify can be good for these printers, although they caution people to handle it carefully. But, this applies to shooting jpegs, since Raw images are "handled" by your Raw processor using either the Workplace setting you specify or, with Lightroom, using Melissa.

However, the real-world reality is different from our photo processing->printing workflow. When you are preparing images to put out into the Real World, you are either posting on the Web or in some way sharing photos with family, friends, clients, coworkers, etc. In these situations, you are putting out typically jpegs, and these jpegs will be viewed using a wide variety of viewing software and monitors.

Historically digital photos and hardware/system/softwa​re adopted the sRGB color space as a "universal" color space -- it has a "narrower" gamut than aRGB (or of course ProPhoto), meaning that it won't handle the richest, most saturated colors as well but in general, it can be handled "properly" by the various monitors/systems/softw​are out there, meaning they can apply a "standard" rendering with no need to "manage" things by "reading" a color space and applying a special algorithm to "render" the image in that color space.

And, all printers except for some specialize printers can also "brainlessly" handle sRGB images. In fact, some print labs "require" use of the sRGB space.

And so, most of us, those who us especially who post images on the Web, have adopted the practice of sRGB conversion at a well-define point in our workflow. If you print on a device that supports aRGB you may decide to hang onto using aRGB (or, if printing directly from Lightroom or Photoshop you can be in ProPhotoRGB and the software handles whatever conversion is called for) until you need to put images out for the Web or other Real World uses -- so, for example, with Photoshop you can use Save for the Web and it can automatically convert to an sRGB color space, or you can do the conversion manually and do a Save As.

But, many people want to skip the hassle, and so have their Raw converters (DPP and Camera Raw) set to use sRGB and convert automatically to sRGB or, with Lightroom, to Export to sRGB. This is fine, as long as you aren't dealing with those colors that "need" a wider gamut and that you want to be able to print.

If you are not sure, you can switch in DPP and Camera Raw between sRGB and aRGB and, if your monitor is "aRGB-capable" you will see the color rendering. Also, you can see the changes in the RGB histograms, which can give you a clue no matter what your monitor can handle and, in fact, the histograms can be useful to "tone down" colors that are pushing outside the sRGB gamut!

No, you shouldn't see any difference at all (if your c.m. is working properly) because no matter what output space is selected you are still seeing a translation into monitor space. In the opposite case where you have a narrow gamut monitor and Adobe RGB is selected as output, there might be some clipping of the few colors that are outside the monitor space, but it will need a pretty experienced eye to detect it.

This is true.

tzalman wrote in post #13152940
No, you shouldn't see any difference at all (if your c.m. is working properly) because no matter what output space is selected you are still seeing a translation into monitor space. In the opposite case where you have a narrow gamut monitor and Adobe RGB is selected as output, there might be some clipping of the few colors that are outside the monitor space, but it will need a pretty experienced eye to detect it.

Heh! Let's see...what do we see, and what don't we see!

Yeah, confusing, isn't it?!

René Damkot wrote in post #13152603
Yeah.
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …als/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
http://help.smugmug.co​m …mer/portal/arti​cles/93362
http://www.earthboundl​ight.com …sus-adobe-rgb-debate.html

(From the "Color Problems?" link in my sig.)

And the PS color settings explained: http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …nagement/pscolo​rsettings/

Also, read the "Why color management link in my sig"

Thanks. Had to got out. I'll go through these.

Settings are irrelevant. Each of us needs to set our prefs based on workflow, delivery and printing. The question is, why has no one mentioned that Adobe is incapable of reading and displaying all CR2 data properly. This has been the case for years and will most likely continue to be for years to come. There is proprietary data here that is not read by Adobe. I'm not going to go into detail, but there's plenty you can learn by researching it. These images in the OP shouldn't match.

amonline wrote in post #13154191
These images in the OP shouldn't match.

Yes, they should. Left is a CR2 in DPP, right is a jpg produced by DPP in PS.

They should look identical.

IMAGE LINK: https://skitch.com/ren​edamkot/bwk7p/photosho​p

amonline wrote in post #13154191
Settings are irrelevant. Each of us needs to set our prefs based on workflow, delivery and printing. The question is, why has no one mentioned that Adobe is incapable of reading and displaying all CR2 data properly. This has been the case for years and will most likely continue to be for years to come. There is proprietary data here that is not read by Adobe. I'm not going to go into detail, but there's plenty you can learn by researching it. These images in the OP shouldn't match.

Do you mean CR2 image data or metadata? If image data, you could perhaps make a case that Adobe doesn't know how to utilize the RAW data optimally, but that's not the same as saying "Adode is incapable of ...reading ...CR2 data properly," with the implication of enciphered image data. If metadata, OTOH, none of it is essential for RGB rendering.

"I'm not going to go into detail, but there's plenty you can learn by researching it." If you have done the research, it would be nice if you would share with us the fruits of your labors or at least provide a few reference links.

tzalman wrote in post #13155243
If image data, you could perhaps make a case that Adobe doesn't know how to utilize the RAW data optimally, but that's not the same as saying "Adode is incapable of ...reading ...CR2 data properly," with the implication of enciphered image data.

You obviously know what I meant. Adobe IS incapable of reading proprietary data Canon includes for DPP to use. And yes, I said that. No need to go into detail. It can be found with a simple search.

The proprietary knowledge is not in the CR2 file, it is built into DPP in the form of color profiles and tone curves that are activated by metadata notations. So it is not there in the file for Adobe or any other third party to access. Adobe has a different set of profiles and curves, true, but I don't think the term "proper" is the right adjective for Canon's set unless color fidelity is the only criterion.

René Damkot wrote in post #13154838
Yes, they should. Left is a CR2 in DPP, right is a jpg produced by DPP in PS.

They should look identical.

I see what I missed... sorry about that. When I see questions like this, they are often RAW vs RAW.

tzalman wrote in post #13155787
The proprietary knowledge is not in the CR2 file, it is built into DPP in the form of color profiles and tone curves that are activated by metadata notations. So it is not there in the file for Adobe or any other third party to access. Adobe has a different set of profiles and curves, true, but I don't think the term "proper" is the right adjective for Canon's set unless color fidelity is the only criterion.

This is not entirely true. DPP is capable of presenting "style" data that Adobe cannot - as shown on the back of your camera when the image is shot.

By the way, I never said anything about "proper".

amonline wrote in post #13155799
This is not entirely true. DPP is capable of presenting "style" data that Adobe cannot - as shown on the back of your camera when the image is shot.

OK, let's clear this up!

The camera saves the Raw data, which has only the data captured by the sensor, and also saves "metadata" into the Raw file which contains in-camera settings for things such as the Picture Style, Noise Reduction, White Balance, etc. The camera also stores the "normal" exif data for exposure settings in the Raw file, but the Raw data is separate from the Exif/metadata "stuff".

DPP reads the Raw data and then reads the metadata so that it can render a preview from the Raw data that presents a "jpeg-like" appearance. This is why many people enjoy using DPP, because it gives this as a "starting point". However, because you are working with the Raw data, you are free to change things around.

Lightroom and Camera Raw are not designed to read all the in-camera metadata settings such as Picture Style and such. It reads the Raw data and selected basic metadata such as White Balance and then renders a preview using its own process, but will not present the same jpeg-like preview that DPP does. It is up to you to apply the things that Canon uses to create a jpeg -- Contrast, Saturation, Sharpening, Color Tone, Noise Reduction -- these are things that DPP can automatically apply using your in-camera settings, although in DPP you can come close to the Adobe defaults by setting your Picture Style to Neutral.

So, you can get close to the same "Starting Point" by setting your camera to the Neutral Picture Style so that DPP will start out looking more like the Adobe default, and you can also "tweak" the Adobe default by choosing one of the camera Calibration profiles.

And, since you are working with the Raw data, you are free in both apps to mix things around!

Exactly right.