what's the difference between Prophoto and wide gamut working spaces?

what's the difference betweern Prophoto and wide gamut working spaces?

I ask because I notice that Wide gamut is the only option you can get from DPP that I assume is close to ProPhoto

I want to know really whether theyre almost identicla for all practical purposes otr whether they are sufficiently different that certain factors ( which?) need to be taken intp account when working in photoshop


(if you need to ask why I am using prophoto please don't offer an answer - thanks)

I've attached the colour graph of ProPhoto and the only "wide gamut" colour space I could find on Wikipedia - Adobe Wide Gamut.

If you superimpose one over the other, there are slight differences, but whether these could be noticed?

Wikipedia has a quite in depth coverage of each.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Lowner wrote in post #7714113
I've attached the colour graph of ProPhoto and the only "wide gamut" colour space I could find on Wikipedia - Adobe Wide Gamut.

If you superimpose one over the other, there are slight differences, but whether these could be noticed?

Wikipedia has a quite in depth coverage of each.

thanks for that: I was baffled when I first saw DPP used wide gamut ( still baffled!) - I'd love to know why...

The Wide Gamut RGB space is smaller than ProPhoto. ProPhoto was designed to contain all the colours that can be produced on E6 film whereas Wide Gamut RGB was created with laser projection in mind as it's based on monchromatic wavelengths like those that lasers emit.

Both spaces will contain all the colours that your 5DII can capture so in practice it makes little difference. Though WG-RGB is a Gamma 2.2 space with 6500K White Point which is nice.

I can't think of a reason why Canon chose WG-RGB over PP-RGB but hey, they use CR2 instead of DNG too.

HankScorpio wrote in post #7714355
The Wide Gamut RGB space is smaller than ProPhoto. ProPhoto was designed to contain all the colours that can be produced on E6 film whereas Wide Gamut RGB was created with laser projection in mind as it's based on monchromatic wavelengths like those that lasers emit.

Both spaces will contain all the colours that your 5DII can capture so in practice it makes little difference. Though WG-RGB is a Gamma 2.2 space with 6500K White Point which is nice.

I can't think of a reason why Canon chose WG-RGB over PP-RGB but hey, they use CR2 instead of DNG too.

So can you change widegamut to prophoto when you take it into Photoshop? Well I presume you can but I mean does it get back what widegamut lost or does it just interpol;ate?

I doubt very much that Wide Gamut would cause any clipping as it's plenty wide enough so when you convert to ProPhoto, which you can in PS, you should get everything you would if DPP supported ProPhoto itself.

I don't see an advantage in converting from WideGamut to ProPhotoRGB.
I use the one that the Raw converter supports, and stick with that in PS. Both are big enough.
On a side note: Both should only be used in 16bpc IMO.

thanks Both

Its just that DPP produces so much better colour and tonality than ACR or LR, I wouldnt want to lose it again through working space conversion or similar

ps Rene , yes always work in 16bit

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sensor can only read up to an Adobe RGB gamut anyway. All this talk about larger gamuts is a moot point unless you begin discussing processing - in which case, you're going to find it extremely hard to print in these gamuts anyway - if at all. I don't think there is really any specific logic behind why Canon chose to implement Adobe WG in DPP. They simply chose a larger gamut than the equipment was capable of as a safety factor. The same goes for LR and ProPhoto. It's the largest gamut that is practically printable on today's best printers. Just IMHO.

amonline wrote in post #7721086
correct me if I'm wrong,

Okay

Have a look here: http://www.drycreekpho​to.com …er_gamuts/gamut​model.html

Not sure what you're trying to say Rene. I know how gamuts compare to each other. What I said above was that the camera sensors are not capable of capturing gamuts larger than Adobe RGB. (that I've ever found proof of anyway) Therefore, most of the above discussion is fairly moot given that printing in the OP's "wide" gamut is nearly impossible.

amonline wrote in post #7721086
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sensor can only read up to an Adobe RGB gamut anyway. All this talk about larger gamuts is a moot point unless you begin discussing processing - in which case, you're going to find it extremely hard to print in these gamuts anyway - if at all. I don't think there is really any specific logic behind why Canon chose to implement Adobe WG in DPP. They simply chose a larger gamut than the equipment was capable of as a safety factor. The same goes for LR and ProPhoto. It's the largest gamut that is practically printable on today's best printers. Just IMHO.

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter that DPP is using this gamut. It's still going to give you reults in Adobe RGB or smaller. (sRGB) Taking the images to PS or LR will allow for post expansion into the larger gamuts, but going to or beyond ProPhoto is really unecessary.

If you follow the link, you can compare a few camera's to AdobeRGB gamut.
AdobeRGB solid, 1DsMk2 wireframe:

Sorry, I was editing while you were typing. I probably wrote too much - so, to the OP, all I am trying to say is that the "wide" gamut is really something you shouldn't overthink. Basically, you are not using it unless you are taking the image to PS and bursting the colors to the seams in that workspace. In the end, you wouldn't get very good results at the printer anyway with that gamut. My suggestion would be to work up to ProPhoto only. Many printers today will print almost the complete ProPhoto gamut. This is why many pros use this gamut. There is only a small difference between sRGB and ProPhoto in most printing situations and they usually print dead on. I've been using ProPhoto for over a year now and have not looked back. Even when I convert to sRGB for lab printing, I can see very little difference - if any.

Hmmm....does that apply if shooting RAW?

amonline wrote in post #7721225
Not sure what you're trying to say Rene. I know how gamuts compare to each other. What I said above was that the camera sensors are not capable of capturing gamuts larger than Adobe RGB. (that I've ever found proof of anyway) Therefore, most of the above discussion is fairly moot given that printing in the OP's "wide" gamut is nearly impossible.



I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter that DPP is using this gamut. It's still going to give you reults in Adobe RGB or smaller. (sRGB) Taking the images to PS or LR will allow for post expansion into the larger gamuts, but going to or beyond ProPhoto is really unecessary.

amonline wrote in post #7721314
Sorry, I was editing while you were typing. I probably wrote too much - so, to the OP, all I am trying to say is that the "wide" gamut is really something you shouldn't overthink. Basically, you are not using it unless you are taking the image to PS and bursting the colors to the seams in that workspace. In the end, you wouldn't get very good results at the printer anyway with that gamut. My suggestion would be to work up to ProPhoto only. Many printers today will print almost the complete ProPhoto gamut. This is why many pros use this gamut. There is only a small difference between sRGB and ProPhoto in most printing situations and they usually print dead on. I've been using ProPhoto for over a year now and have not looked back. Even when I convert to sRGB for lab printing, I can see very little difference - if any.

I think you meant to say AdobeRGB here instead of ProPhotoRGB