So I used exiftool to export the icc file from the image generated by NX Studio. I then specified that icc file as the custom profile. It is then correctly ‘attached’ (embedded?) in the jpeg generated by PL4.
So it seems specifying “sRGB Color Space Profile.icm” as the custom profile is the problem.
What I do not know is what impact specifying the ‘wrong’ icc file has. Is there any danger that it is actually used and generates an incorrect colour mapped image? Or would all ‘consumers’ of the jpeg just treat it as an sRGB and display it in the same way?
I also embed the Nikon sRGB profile through the custom option and it works.
But why do I verify the image in other software? Why do I say that color management in a PhotoLab is unsatisfactory? The first problem is that you cannot set a working color space. Instead, the PhotoLab uses some internal color space, which according to various posts here in the forum is very close to AdobeRGB. This fact leads to the consequence that on the screen at the time of editing you can see colors that will not be present in the exported sRGB file. Because sRGB is a narrower color space, some (or all) colors will change. The second problem is that you have no control over the conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB. You cannot set rendering intent or black point compensation. And these are parameters that directly affect the convert result.
This seems to me a misunderstanding. Using sRGB, I’ve never once had exported colors be different from what I was seeing during the editing process. (I also have a calibrated monitor, which is important.) An internal color space is just that, internal - where calculations are done. DxO uses Adobe RGB because it’s the largest color space that it supports. You don’t see it unless you’re using it. You can configure which color space you do your work in and export to the same space or a different one. There are open requests for DxO to use a much larger color space (typically ProPhoto) so that we’re not limited to just sRGB and Adobe RGB.
The second problem arises from editing in Adobe RGB and exporting to sRGB. Are you also exporting to Adobe RGB for some purpose that benefits from its greater color range?
I see a difference in the colors of the exported sRGB files for me. And I’m not an amateur. I work with EIZO Coloredge CG2420 and the whole work process is calibrated with X-rite i1 Photo Pro 2.
I do not want to limit the monitor itself to sRGB, because PhotoLab is not the only software I use in my work.
99% of my work is in sRGB. That’s why I do not want to work at AdobeRGB. This only complicates matters.
I know there are requests for a wider working color space and that shocks me. I would just ask on what device will the work be visualized? What device will the customer see it on? I’m sorry for my candor, but 99% of Photolab users have limited knowledge of color management.
@kokofresha
PL’s (internal) workspace is AdobeRGB.
For your calibrated screen it’s best to set PL this way
wether your screen is set for sRGB
or
for AdobeRGB,
PL will show the colours correctly.
As long softproof is missing, for sRGB output you are better off to edit in sRGB colour space.
Unfortunately for now, we only have RI perceptual.
→ Pruning lights and shadows - #20 by Wolfgang → also follow the provided link …
I agree with your opinion. My setting in PhotoLab is the same. The monitor is set to AdobeRGB because the world does not revolve around PhotoLab.
I wish that one day Photolab would have color management on a professional level, but I don’t believe that will happen.
That looks like an edge case to me, deliberately seeking a point of failure. I shoot in sRGB and output in sRGB and have my monitors calibrated to sRGB. Hard experience with Aperture and Lightroom over the years has shown me that mixing colour spaces creates trouble just when you aren’t expecting it.
If you wish to use other spaces, I’d suggest you set up shooting AdobeRGB, processing in AdobeRGB, monitors set to AdobeRGB and even output to AdobeRGB (most of the time, web of course has to be output to sRGB). Some labs only accept sRGB but I imagine if you are on an all AdobeRGB or ProPhoto with properly calibrated monitors that show close to 100% of those colour spaces, you would be using print houses which prefer AdobeRGB files.
Here is an interesting article from a professional photographer who also developed chip hardware for colour space conversion (so he knows how stuff). In a nutshell - he recommends you always use sRGB.
I do not agree with your opinion.
I would like to be able to choose the working color space. My preferred option is to work in the color space of the input file.
Many software allow this. Photolab does not allow it.
There is little good reason for DxO to give users control of the Photolab’s internal colour spaces. It’s a great opportunity to tie up their core team bug-hunting colour issues for two to three years. About 1% of Photolab users might benefit from that change. I say might as switching between colour spaces generally causes more trouble than it creates benefit.
Looks like you will have to learn about the pain of mixing colour spaces the hard way. I hope someday somewhere someone will see a positive visual difference out of the complexity of your colour workflow.
Steve’s request to have Photolab optionally include an explicit sRGB profile in exports makes sense and is not much extra work for DxO at all.
I support Koko’s request that DxO PL improve its Export to Disk color management options interface. The current options are a hodge-podge. At the very least, make it clear when a profile will be embedded and when it will not be embedded (simply flagged). And while it may be old school, best practices color management advice has always been to embed the profile. One can, as has been mentioned, embed Nikon or other sRGB profiles, such as Elle Stone’s non-proprietary “well-behaved” profiles (V2 and V4) available on GitHub. However, the current work-around is not obvious to those new to DxO PL, hence this topic resurfacing every few months.
That’s not what Koko is asking for at all. Koko is asking for DxO to change how PhotoLab handles colours internally which is a huge ask.
The original poster Steve is the one who asked for profiles to be embedded. I believe we all support allowing sRGB profiles to be embedded, even if it’s a checkbox which is turned off by default.
This is just the latest of several threads regarding embedding ICC profiles going back several years now. Koko has been consistent in asking that this particular issue be resolved. I do agree that discussions about the internal working color space should be (and are) in separate threads. Those discussions are not what I was addressing.
I think that is indeed where I have ended up. So I have raised it in the “Which feature do you need?” section. I do realise it repeats previous requests, but hey-ho…
Let me try to tell the story in a little more detail…
1. About the embedding of color profiles.
For the last more than 2 years I have been actively appealing for the solution of the problem with the missing color profile when exporting to sRGB. I am grateful to the colleagues from the forum, who together with me searched and in the end we found a temporary solution. The developers at some point promised us to investigate the problem and if it is confirmed to be corrected. Understandably, after more than 2 years, I have no hope that this will happen.
The experiments conducted with the colleagues from the forum (mainly with Nikon cameras) make me think that the problem is not a matter of quick correction. Rather, it requires an assessment of how to change the export menu so that users are aware of whether or not there is an color profile attached. An additional difficulty is that some cameras do not attach this profile, and this is what their company software does. This is the case with Nikon, I do not know if this applies to other manufacturers.
In all these cases, the PhotoLab should be able to offer an adequate solution.
The lack of action on the part of the developers leads to the fact that this problem appears periodically in the forum. My advice to those who have recently encountered the problem is to use a temporary solution. It’s no coincidence I say more than 2 years … it’s a long time for a software.
2. For unsatisfactory color management in a PhotoLab.
Recently, there have been requests for various features and topics for problems in the forum. Some of them are: Soft proofing, ProPhoto color space, high quality printing and others. I am increasingly realizing that they cannot be at a high level without the hi-end color management. This includes both a choice of work color space and various policies (for example, what to do if a file does not have a built-in profile).
It is extremely important that the photographer is able to configure these options according to his needs, and not be forced to use hard-coded settings.
On this issue, I am 100% sure that nothing will change, so I will not invest more time in this problem.
If even a colleague thinks about the role of color management in professional photography after reading this topic, then my time will not be wasted … you do not need to agree or disagree with me … just to think …
Thanks. I did read your links and your replies are appreciated. The end of the article about the Nikon profile does say that it might cause others a missing profile warning. As I said earlier, I did export with a Nikon profile which seemed to work. However, exporting with “sRGB Color Space Profile.icm” which I think is what you referred to, does not attach it, and the effect was exactly the same as just selecting sRGB instead of a custom profile.
Since the club competition system does assume sRGB if there is not an attached profile that says otherwise, and PL4 is correctly indicating it is sRGB in the EXIF data even if not attaching the profile, I might just put up with the warning the system gives me. Or I might try the Nikon profile on my next entry!
I seriously doubt that Nikon is failing to attach a sRGB designation. There is no need to attach an actual sRGB profile as it’s a known public standard.
What is your goal here, Koko? To make colour management in Photolab as complex and unreliable as Photoshop? For print one needs CMYK. Presumably someone creating designs like T-shirts or other objects would not be using Photolab directly. Hence no need for Photolab to have those soft-proofing tools.
Almost everyone who has been through the “high end” colour space carousel after some years comes to the conclusion it’s a complete waste of time designed to separate them from their money and has their own horror stories of images turning out wrong, whether in print or on the web. DxO does their best to save us from ourselves.
For those who do want a different workflow: Photolab does process in AdobeRGB internally, will accept AdobeRGB RAW files and will export those files directly into AdobeRGB format. The missing link may be to calibrate one’s monitor to AdobeRGB (I have about 70% coverage of AdobeRGB as opposed to 100% coverage on sRGB). I really do not see what it is you lack. Photolab is not a dedicated printing app. Those people doing large scale printing with custom colour spaces would have existing workflows of applications which do soft-printing and CMYK separation very well. Mimicing it seems like the greatest possible effort for the least possible return for Photolab. Making a good product worse, as there will be so much misunderstanding of the preferences and ruined photos.
