Except when using an imported icc profile. Then you might also see a visual difference.
I’m total lost of what we’re investigating at this moment.
George
John,
in the described case there are only the warnings, that can ‘help’ by indicating the area with more or less critical colours.
Softproof means to see what’s going on – otherwise it is no (real) on screen simulation.
In other words …Softproof is more helpful on a wide gamut screen, while even PL6 Classic-Legacy and PL5 do not ensure true WYSIWYG – as shown further up.
yes, understood 
-
for now, the quickest way to compare with the real (to be expected) output is
to hit Softproof ON / OFF -
as with the compare function often you don’t get a “one click compare solution”
(the program seems to choose randomly – and when not consistent, one cannot
rely on without control / extra click) -
and then there are cases, when one wants to choose what to compare to
.
So, are you saying that we are obliged to make a soft proofing VC in order to export correctly?
If so, that is totally unacceptable and a major, one could say breaking, change from PL5. It is quite confusing to have to think which VC you are working on without the extra load of having to create a VC just to export to a JPEG.
3 Likes
Joanna,
I was answering Keith – and as you know, you can softproof without VC. Do not turn my words.
Hi Wolfgang. Yes, I was aware of that but, if you read the DxO advice, that is what you are meant to do - isn’t it?
I wasn’t trying to turn your words, As an experienced PL user since PL1, I have never been so confused about how a feature I have never needed in the past is meant to work. If I’ve misinterpreted what you said, I apologise unreservedly.
So, if all I want to do is to export an image to JPEG or TIFF, do I need to touch soft proofing or not? If so, why?
Joanna, quite simple
IF one doesn’t want to wiggle around with softproof to get a true WYSIWYG (see further up), better stay in PL5 or PL6 Classic-Legacy, which is why I think DxO should not patronize the user, but let him/her decide how to start with by default.
I’m under the impression, DxO wanted to ‘push’ their new baby. → More so, as I read from @John-M (?), that DxO implemented Wide Gamut also in PL6 Essential but without Softproof … teasing the user to upgrade to Elite.
Personally, being familiar with colour management, softproof and such I have no problem in that regard.
BUT I understand very well, that it is not easy, annoying and what not. People expect something simple to use and realizing, there is more beyond PL5 / PL6 Classic-Legacy really feels confusing – like pulling the rug out from under someone’s feet.
Indeed, I’d like DxO to improve that user experience. – Only, the thing is, trouble starts when mixing different colour spaces and the user has to handle them …
Wolfgang
Using PL5 / PL6 Classic-Legacy is NO degradation, just because DxO is offering Wide Gamut now
– inspite of everybody always wants the ‘best’ (at least, what we think of ).
Am I right in saying that the Windows version allows you to set the default editing colour space?
This is not the case on Mac. Could this be a reason why I can’t see any point in soft proofing for the monitor?
Hi @Joanna, to try and help you with some of your questions:
DxO recommend you do soft proofing on a VC because you may want to make some adjustments that look better in your VC for the chosen profile without affecting your master image. You can have multiple VCs for different profiles.
Soft proofing is only useful IF you have very saturated colours in your photo that are outside of the gamut of the destination profile. Soft proofing allows you to see a simulation of how the colours will look when they have been converted to your destination profile.
Soft proofing is only useful if you have a monitor that can display colours outside of the standard sRGB profile. You and I have P3 capable monitors which can show higher gamut colours.
I am away taking photos and have only taken a few photos where colours are outside of my monitor profile. In this case I turn on SP to do a quick check to see if the photo is acceptable in the SP profile, which in my case is always sRGB. I have not yet had the need to modify my images to get a good output in sRGB colour space. I have also compared my photo in PL6 on my monitor to the sRGB output on another device and I cannot see any difference.
So far I am very happy with how PL6 works and the only thing I have to do differently to PL5 is to check highly saturated photos to see if they will be covered to sRGB in an acceptable manner.
I hope that helps your understanding a bit more.
3 Likes
No – where did you get that from?
I’m sorry, I think I meant monitor profile
We used to be able to set the monitor profile in PL5 but now PL6 gets the profile from the OS and there is no way to change it in the program.
You can change the profile at the OS level and restart PL6.
In the second link I posted above (Colour Management in PL6 - #107 by Egregius), the absence of the monitor ICC profile setting in PL6 is said to be for “Windows only.” I take it from your statement, Joanna, that it’s missing on Mac, too?
Just to clarify a few of your clarifications, Keith 
True - but not only ;
Due to the nuance of the “Protect Saturated Colors Algorithm” (PSCA), which is applied when Soft proofing is activated (also when Exporting-to-Disk) … Soft proofing is also useful when you have saturated colours in your photo that are outside the gamut of the current monitor (that is, the monitor one is using with PLv6 and on which the target image will also be viewed).
True, but - only in the context of one’s own monitor (or one with the same rendering capability).
That is, Soft Proofing simulates how the exported image will appear when viewed on the same monitor.
-
This simulation will be “perfect” if one’s monitor is fully capable of rendering the ICC Profile via which the target was Exported-to-Disk
– eg, sRGB target on a sRGB-capable monitor … or sRGB target on a P3-capable monitor, etc -
However, of course, this simulation is not possible if one’s monitor is not capable of rendering the ICC Profile via which the target was Exported-to-Disk – eg, P3 target on sRGB-capable monitor
– in which case, we need to refer instead to the Out-of-Gamut warnings enabled via the Histogram.
I suspect that what you had in mind here is; “Soft proofing is only useful if you have a monitor that can display colours at least within the destination ICC Profile” … with more detail in section just above.
For example, and counter-intuitively; Soft Proofing in PLv6 is applicable (particularly in the case where an image contains saturated colors) even when using a standard sRGB-capable monitor and Exporting-to-Disk via ICC Profile = sRGB !!
John
PS. It’s quite ironic, I reckon;
-
The automatic “Protect Saturated Colors Algorithm” (PSCA) is a brilliant feature that’s unique to PLv6 … it ensures that detail is retained in saturated colours … and it’s specifically tailored to the (RGB) ICC Profile assigned to the image Exported-to-Disk
-
On the other hand, it’s also the main cause for our confusions over when & why we should have Soft Proofing activated … specifically because the PSCA is applied (on-screen/within-PL) only if/when Soft Proofing is activated.
It’s my belief that some minor difference in behaviour by PLv6 would; i) retain all the benefits of the PSCA, and; ii) remove all confusion related to it;
-
As I understand it, the logic as to why the PSCA is not applied on-screen/within-PL all the time (regardless of whether Soft Proofing is activated or not) is that, without Soft Proofing being activated, the intended target ICC Profile is not (yet) known.
-
However, PLv6 does have all info it needs about the monitor currently in use (such that it no longer expects us to specify this in Preferences).
-
Therefore, it could readily apply the PSCA for this current monitor (which, in the vast majority of cases, I contend, would be a sRGB-capable monitor … NOT that that’s any dependency for this proposed behaviour).
-
And, therefore (if the PSCA was applied for the current monitor), when one Exports-to-Disk via the ICC Profile for that same monitor’s capability (which, I contend, is the most common scenario #) - then we would never be surprised by the result (it would be WYS-is-always-WYG).
-
# I’m referring to the common/typical case where one is using an sRGB monitor and targeting an sRGB result … but it’s just as applicable if using a P3 monitor and targeting a P3 result, etc
-
This would leave Soft Proofing purely as a tool used for simulating the exported result on a monitor of different capability - and/or for printing.
Whereas, current behaviour (whereby the PSCA is not applied, on-screen/within-PL, unless Soft Proofing is activated) …
-
Is unexpected / counter intuitive behaviour when one is using a monitor of capability “A” for export to a monitor of the exact same capability … typically, the very same monitor.
-
Is confusing / confounding for users with no appreciation of the impact of the PSCA … That is, the typical user (and especially one coming to PLv6 with PLv5 behavioural expectations).
John
2 Likes
Hello John,
I am absolutely with you on this post.
Sigi
1 Like
Are we 100% sure this statement is correct? Maybe the PSCA is applied to the monitor profile! DxO have not denied or confirmed this have they?
Yes, 100% sure:
Ok, some thoughts and comments:
- I suspect everyone was happy with how PL5 worked, but we do not know what our colours and saturation were actually like because we accepted what PL5 gave us.
- We are now working from a base that PL5 was correct and PL6 is not. I content that PL6 is now more correct than PL5 because of the higher gamut working colour space! We also now have tools to help us understand where our colours actually are in the gamut of different profiles which is now confusing a lot of people.
- A lot of us are trying to replicate the behaviour of PL5 thinking it is correct. Have we actually questioned if that is actually true? I suspect not. I, for one, am happy with how PL6 works having used it to developed a large number of photos recently.
- I think we need to understand how PL6 works and change our workflow accordingly if necessary. I have done this with minimal changes to my workflow and I love the results!
One last comment: my wife continues to work with PL6 in the same way as with PL5 and I have not explained any of these new tools and colour spaces to her. She has not had any complaints!
One very last thought: the result of your edits is so subjective that if it pleases you then that is “correct” seven of it is different to PL5. I do believe there is no correct result but simply what the photographer wants to produce.
2 Likes
I don’t believe so. It’s just different due to the wider gamut. More compression/correcting has to be done to fit in the same smaller gamut. I like the result of pl6 more, but that’s personal.
George
1 Like