As a query do we know if PL is now working with hardware monitor profiles such as with BenQ and Dell as I know they it didn’t not that long ago. If not there will be problems for a lot of users as these monitors are more widely used now. I never got my BenQ calibration to work so use Spyder but its working on my wife’s PC.
Since PL no longer provides the option to specify the “ICC Profile used for display” in Preferences (as it did pre-PLv6), it’s assumed that PL is now acquiring monitor profile details directly from the OS.
So, if you have a BenQ monitor then PL should be sourcing the ICC Profile for it, as it’s known to the OS.
John M
The display on the monitor will be in the monitors gamut.
That’s an important restriction you didn’t put in your diagram. What I see in the soft proof preview doesn’t have to be ‘true’.
George
Soft proofing is a simulation and can’t replace a real print (or projection etc.) - if we care for best quality.
1 Like
Why I have always exported the jpgs in whatever quality I will use them to do a final check (and re edit if need be). As you can’t see what results prime etc. will do without anyway. So far apart from finding the new gamut warning useful I haven’t bothered with soft proofing as it doesn’t show the sometimes big effects of cleaning up noise only and export will do that.
1 Like
That is true BUT if the SP gamut is smaller than the monitor gamut then the image will display as if it was on that smaller gamut. i.e. the colors will be modified to fit the SP gamut thereby simulating the SP gamut.
I cannot put every detail into the diagram as it is designed to give a high level overview of how color management works in PL6.
2 Likes
Hi John,
I don’t know about your BenQ monitor, but you might to have a look → here.
Wolfgang
(Eizo CG2730 + Eizo ColorNavigator)
Thanks, there were a lot of reports of problems with Palette Master Element and from his video he also has major problems with different versions of the program with videos on the ways to overcome the problems (or not to use some versions).
I spent a long time with their support who had direct access to the PC and couldn’t get it to work. Unlike in the video we had, as they say to do, USB connection to PC and calibration device running from the USB outlets on the monitor.
In fact my wife now has the same problems of it not working properly and she has switched to just the Spyder calibration. They are very good monitors but I and others have found a lot of problems with Palette Master Elements and in many ways it’s probably easier to just use the same calibration program/hardware on both monitors as messing about with two different programs and one of which does have a very variable history of problems.
Thanks for that and for all the demosaic information.
It’s been taking me a while to digest all this but I really appreciate your spending the time to explain it all.
Thanks again, Rod
The quote was written by dxo staff.
What he means to say ( i think) is that a WB change in edit room will be activate a CA correction adjustment which is done before the actual demosiacing to pixels.
Fwiw i just tried to add some backloop info which shows that working space effects some earlier made corrections in the first stage of raw to preview.
But yes maybe it’s good not to complicate the flowchart.
This backloop system prevent dxo to show in preview the full rendered included denoising image. Same with the 75% zoom and the CAcorrection and microcontrast kick in.
Too much processing power needed.
But it definitely will show you how an image with saturated colors will actually look when exported to disk (and the result then viewed on the same monitor - which is the typical case).
I recommend have Soft Proofing activated at all times … it does no “harm”.
John
Soft proofing contains two conversions: 1 to the soft proof gamut and then 1 to the monitors gamut. I think that’s essential to understand what’s going on. The oog colors are based on the first conversion and what you see is based on the second conversion. To me that’s an essential part of color management.
George
@George, sorry but I totally disagree. Doing the double conversion as you suggest would accomplish nothing as you will be back where you started with your monitor gamut.
Soft proofing converts your image from the Working Colour Space to the soft proof profile and displays it on your monitor. You may end up with out of gamut colors if the SP hasn’t is larger than your monitor gamut but the idea is to stimulate what it would looks like in the SP profile and there must be NO further conversions otherwise you will not be simulating the SP profile.
As an aside, soft proofing to a gamut larger than your monitor gamut cannot simulate what the final output will be using the SP profile.
This is all logical if you put your mind to it.
Yep that’s the Detail part. 
It are just calculated RGB values for one “pixel” the interpretation of those values are done in the color rendering which uses a selected colorrendering algoritm (camera profile or neutral or…) to map the values in the selected colorspace. (workingcolorspace
Same as the luminance part. (amount of brightnes applied)
By the aplication and the monitor driver.
Lots of things are having influence in how the color will be look/seen by the viewer, even your own eye’s.
See my post in the other link and the image from that book Soft Proofing - #26 by George.
That’s why you have also a monitor oog. That’s showing the oog colors due to the conversion from soft proof to monitor. The soft proof gamut shows the oog due to the conversion from working gamut to soft proof gamut. It’s all really part of the color management of pl and other programs.
George
From what I can see, the monitor OOG is from WCS (working color space) to Monitor gamut and the soft proof gamut is what you say, WCS => Soft Proof. I base this on setting my destination (soft proof) profile to sRGB and having a 97% sRGB calibrated monitor managed by an ICC profile (Not the same one as set in Soft Proofing which is a standard ICC reference profile) at the OS level. The two gamut warnings are nearly identical.
The working gamut image is converted to the soft proof gamut. That image is send to the monitor and gets its standard conversion to the monitor gamut.
The monitor oog warnings are only available with soft proof on. Well I thought so in 6.0. I don’t have it anymore maybe somebody with 6.0 can tell us.
George
A general comment on 'intents" and DxO PSCA. Firstly, the ICC profiles come in two basic types, Matrix (3x3) and LUT (lookup tables). Both are intended to describe the the conversion from one color space to another. In addition one can specify one of 4 intents: relative colorimetric, absolute colorimetric, perceptual and saturation. The RGB color working spaces (or reference spaces) editing software use are matrix based, that means you can’t use an ICC profile to achieve perceptual and saturation intents when going to another RGB matrix space, i.e. I specify sRGB as my output color space (or Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB or Wide Gamut RGB). I found this easy to understand graphic from the argyll cms here.
So, it seems to me that DxO PSCA is a way doing either or both of perceptual and saturation intents when converting between RGB (matrix) color spaces, which ordinarily would not occur.
And yes, the GUI’s of lots of image software allow you to select perceptual when converting between matrix color spaces, but it just ends up being colorimetric clipping.
During soft proofing there is NO conversion from SP profile to monitor profile, even in the diagram you provided so I don’t know where you get that false idea from.
Step 3 and 4.
There is always a conversion , otherwise you will see wrong colors. That’s just the idea of color management. A certain color with the pixel values rx,gx,bx in color gamut x is a different color in color gamut y. So the values has to be converted to ry,gy,by to show the equal color.
Conversion is done through the ‘profile connection space’. https://www.color.org/profile.xalter. Every gamut references to that color space.
George
1 Like