Right. PL6 with the DxO Wide Gamut WCS will more accurately preserve the color gamut of the source and give more latitude for edits. Doesn’t equal “correct” - that is up to the whole color rendering pipeline and user preferences. For example, with many FilmPack color renderings applied to my Olympus RAW files, it usually doesn’t matter which working color space I select. Unless colors are very saturated, I won’t see a difference. But other adjustments do yield different results, and technically the DxO Wide Gamut WCS gives an advantage. But when colors are very saturated, errors can occur in the output rendering in a small color space, requiring adjustments which differ according to the working color space.
Very eloquently put Greg. This is what I meant when I said more correct.
Yes, I agree - I’m happily using it too, Keith … with the new Wide Gamut WCS.
I’m not meaning to assert that. Only that PLv6’s behaviour (as currently implemented) can be confusing.
(Other than some glitches with rendering of some Presets, etc), the only major thing that bothers me with PLv6 is that what I might be seeing on-screen/within PL is not necessarily what I get when viewing the end result on that very same monitor.
To avoid that conundrum, I simply have Soft Proofing permanently activated - and then “all is good”.
I’ve been looking through some of my own images with PL6 finally and I’m not seeing differences as much as the same flaky application behaviour I’ve seen in the past releases.
Sometimes images don’t load in the browser (reported that in PL1 already, in the film strip then); rotation I did in PL3 or PL4 can be dropped; crops can differ slightly on export with perspective correction; optics modules aren’t consistently applied after downloading resulting in differences in colour and geometry, which is sorted by browsing to another directory and back. In fact, in all of the cases where I’ve initially seen a difference between PL5 and PL6 in PhotoLibrary and/or Customize (just viewing previously edited images), jumping out and back has solved the problem, but having to do this doesn’t really instill confidence that I’m seeing what I’m supposed to be seeing when I open an image.
This is on Mac. I’m sure it’ll be a different set of problems on Windows. It’s not as bad as I expected given what some others have experienced, but the application is still buggy, and some of the bugs have spanned over several releases now. I don’t know if DxO purposely doesn’t fix bugs to string people along, but they certainly don’t go out of their way to fix them.
Just catching up on this very interesting thread. Huge thanks to Keith, John, and Wolfgang for sorting through and documenting the new color space and apparently, new under-the-covers color workflow DxO is marching forward with.
Is it possible that DxO intends to color profile certain printer/ink/paper combinations just as they profile camera/sensor/lens combinations?
Thanks for your positive comments
As a first guess, No. I think they will just allow you to select profiles for ink and paper produced by the manufacturers of those items.
Indeed. Red River is my paper of choice and their own profiles with printer/ink combos have been invaluable to me over the years. [[ICC Profiles & Inkjet Printer Color Profiles]]
It’s the variability of inks that drives me crazy though…
I’m printing since a while (still with PS), so ask anything you’d like to know
and for some differencies – I’m on Windows and Epson.
Closing in on 150 posts on this thread… I wonder if DxO might consider it is well past due to deliver the promised paper on colour management in PhotoLab?