AdobeRGB1998 or ProPhotoRGB?

I've always used adobeRGB 1998, but I've noticed that my histogram is different when going from LR to PS and PS to LR. I guess the develop module in LR is running on ProPhotoRGB and it's not an option to switch it. I realize it's a wider gamut color space, but I was wondering how many people use this one over Adobe throughout the entire editing process and do you have any troubles with your colors? Was thinking of just switching to the same Color Space so it's the same throughout, but I've heard some have had issues in the past with it? What are your thoughts?

I use ProPhotoRGB throughout my workflow. Between 95 and 98% of my images are processed only in LR. If I do have to go out to PS then I keep the images in 16 bit as well as the colour space choice. All images that come back will be further processed in LR, although that is very often just cropping for format. All images are then exported from LR to match specific useages. I really only start to worry about things like apropriate colour space when I export from LR.

Be aware that LR actually uses MelissaRGB internally. It is pretty much identical to ProPhotoRGB, but with a different gamma curve. ProPhotoRGB is the closest match avilable externally from LR. ProPhotoRGB is such a large gamut that you should really only use it in a 16 bit enviroment. This can be an issue for those who use PSE as the external editor, as it is very poor at 16 bit support.

Alan

Gotcha, I'll try switching and see what happens. At least my histograms look the same now

The ProPhotoRGB bastardized with different Gamma is what Lightroom uses internally for color representation (and is often referred to as the 'Melissa colorspace'), and is a much larger color space than aRGB.
ProPhotoRGB/Melissa should be 16-bit representation of colors, while both aRGB and sRGB are only 8-bit per color.

So by storing in 16-bit there is the freedom to output to aRGB or to sRGB or to CYMK, without the conversion loses if you stored in aRGB and then output sRGB.

Neither.

http://damiensymonds.b​logspot.com.au …/the-wide-gamut-myth.html

Damo77 wrote in post #17350489
Neither.

http://damiensymonds.b​logspot.com.au …/the-wide-gamut-myth.html

I'm sorry you are a non-believer. We see the ProPhotoRGB color space clearly encompasses aRGB and sRGB in this illustration...

"Melissa RGB is not an "official" color space, but is the combination of the ProPhoto color space, with an sRGB gamma curve. It's important because Melissa RGB is what Lightroom uses for its readouts. Specifically, the RGB values you get as Lightroom readouts are in this space. Note that the Melissa RGB profile I'm providing here has the real sRGB gamma curve. The sRGB gamma is close to a 2.2 gamma, but is linear at low values. So, if you take a readout of the darkest patch of the GretagMacBeth chart, there is is about a 1.5% difference between the reading using ProPhoto at a 2.2 gamma and a true Melissa RGB profile."

That has nothing to do with anything. sRGB is the only practical space to work in.

I do not disagree about sRGB being the only practical space to work in...IF you use commercial photo printers. Except for three vendors worldwide, I have never had any vendor pointed out to me as using aRGB files directly without conversion to sRGB. So, when you go outside for prints, your conclusion is indeed valid.

However, with a number of home inkjets directly supporting aRGB, the above is not the only way to make prints...you CAN get aRGB printing done, at home!

Since RAW has no color space, recording RAW then doing RAW conversion into a 16-bit color space allows you to record images today which can use any color space which might be developed at some time in the future, which are broader than sRGB and aRGB. Yes, today such a broad color space is fictitious, but would you not want to be able to take advantage of future capability, rather the restricting yourself to the narrowest of the RGB color spaces (sRGB)?!

Wilt wrote in post #17350509
Since RAW has no color space, recording RAW then doing RAW conversion into a 16-bit color space allows you to record images today which can use any color space which might be developed at some time in the future, which are broader than sRGB and aRGB. Yes, today such a broad color space is fictitious, but would you not want to be able to take advantage of future capability, rather the restricting yourself to the narrowest of the RGB color spaces (sRGB)?!

No, you keep the advantage of future capability by simply keeping the raw file.

There is NO benefit to attempting to edit colours that you can neither see nor reproduce here in 2014.

Damo77 wrote in post #17350534
No, you keep the advantage of future capability by simply keeping the raw file.

There is NO benefit to attempting to edit colours that you can neither see nor reproduce here in 2014.

Damo, I like the blog and in general I agree with you. Certainly it is all true for the high percentage of photos that contain no colors beyond the gamut of sRGB and for which most of the space in ProPhoto RGB is unused (although reserved for colors that don't exist in the subject) and therefore the subject colors are rendered in reduced color resolution (fewer colors). It is absolutely true for all those whose photos will go to the web or a commercial print lab.

BUT, when you write,

You have put your case way too strongly. The percentage of Adobe RGB capable monitors in use is certainly not "very small", especially among photography enthusiasts, and is growing rapidly. The price differential between a traditional sRGB monitor and a wide gamut model has narrowed considerably.

And if you print at home you don't need an Epson 9890 to print a wide gamut. An R3000 can be had today at B&H for less than $500 (after rebate) and its gamut will easily exceed sRGB, if you need it to. Even my aging R1900 not only exceeds sRGB,

Alas, it's the dogma of "you must work in a big colour space" which is getting people into messes every day of the week.

I see no harm in starting with prophoto or aRGB. As said, your monitor is generally going to be working in a smaller color space and will do the clipping itself. So if you are using a larger working space, you are probably still seeing a smaller space so you edits will be accurately represented.

Preserving the most color until I decide on the output is what I do most often. If I know that the images are heading straight for the web I go straight to sRGB.

I think the most important thing is to a not going back and forth a few times, this is why I start with Adobe or Pro and make one conversion for output.

I like the idea of synchronizing my workflow with ProPhotoRGB 16 bit. Even though we can't see it, it means when we proof our photos for a specific CMYK printer, we have more leverage with correcting out of gamut color, right?

No, of course not. You're only parroting that because that's what you've been told. A moment of logical thought will tell you that it makes far more sense to simply work with available colours from the beginning.

Damo77 you are forgetting one very important factor in the question of choice of colour space. We are discussing an approach to workflow when working with Lightroom. Internally you can only work in LR in MelissaRGB. of course LR is doing that in a 16 bit space too. So I have no choice in how I am going to work. I do not worry about it as although most of my images are going to mostly fall only within sRGB I AM still working in 16 bit. Given the difference between 8 and 16 bit, even though am working in a much larger colour space the quantisation steps for MelissaRGB in 16 bit are still going to be smaller than the quantisation steps in sRGB in 8 bit. So when I have LR do that conversion when I export an image I still have very small/no errors in the conversion. Although you do still have to deal with the OOG colours you might have.

So given the above, what should one do when one needs to take an image on a round trip from LR to PS for some editing that cannot be done in LR? What colour space/bit depth should I use? Remembering that I will be bringing that image back into LR and applying further edits in LR, before exporting the image along with all of the other RAW images that have only been processed in LR.

Alan