I have not yet exported from DPL6.
I have a screen covering 100% adobe RGB profiled with a probe.
I’ll do some testing to see.
if DPL6 works normally and the external viewer manages the screen profile well, you should not see any difference between DPL6 and the viewer
@Jhon-m:
are you sure that your problem does not come from an external viewer which does not take into account the screen profile?
this could explain (in part?) the differences
I made exports from DPL6 in adobe RGB
in the win viewer (configured to manage colors) in Lr (which automatically recognizes the screen profile and the image profile)
I have no difference in colorimetry between DPL6, the viewer or Lr.
DPL6 color management on win 11 seems to work for me
I just want to highlight another issue that I have requested: When Soft Proofiing is enabled the Compare button needs an option to compare with No Corrections (SP with geometry)
I know there is a workaround with virtual copies but that is really messy.
I believe this is a very necessary feature in PL6 and ties in with what @John-M had proposed.
What about a preferences switch to make PL6 work like PL5 which would also enable you to select your display profile as before. After all, we have the option to use the Classic WCS so why not remove this option and just have the option to work like PL5?
I would be inclined to agree with you @Joanna. This would go hand in hand with my above proposal to make PL6 work like PL5 but still use the wide gamut WCS for additional flexibility.
Yes - and that’s how PL still works, Nicolas … That’s not the issue I’m alerting us to.
Yep - and that’s basically my workaround for now (except I’m using sRGB as my ICC Profile)
However, “Regular-Joe” user will not appreciate the need to do that; I’d prefer to see a “fail safe” solution that does not (as now) have the potential to catch-out unsuspecting users.
Yes, I am, Nicolas. This issue is different; See explanation above.
My apologies for the detailed wordage !! … I was trying to be as clear as possible.
I can only direct you back to my example above, Nicolas … Your tests are not detecting the issue at hand.
John
Yes - That would be another way of doing it …
Excellent suggestion … 
… Probably even better than mine (simpler) !
I will edit/update my proposed solution to suggest this alternative … Merci !
Could you elaborate a little, please Keith.
Perhaps (?) you’re suggesting;
That’s essentially a combination of @maderafunk and my suggestions … I like this too
Or, do you mean something a little different to (or more than) this ?
John
Thinking about this a bit more, here is what I would do:
How does that sound? I can’t see this being difficult to implement.
I agree totally with your point 1.
My present PL5 workflow is:
And that’s all I have to do.
So, if I want to do “the same” simple workflow with the new WGCS, what has to change? And why?
I have never used and don’t want to start using soft proofing. I find adjusting by eye on a calibrated screen has served me well for many years and I really don’t want to have to start doing it now.
I’m just curious: Is soft-proofing these days still necessary? My understanding of doing it was to have to deliver data for magazines printed on various print machines and various profiled papers on this machines, so it made sense to not do hard proofs but soft proofs. But whoever wants to print his/her images will almost certainly buy a decent printer at least in A3+ or bigger. There are profiles for paper and printers, monitors are calibrated (again, in the workplace of serious amateurs or professionals). I have to join the question of @Joanna: What has to change?
Edit: Just saw, there’s PL 6.0.1 which should solve some problems with Soft-Proofing.
6.01 only for Mac, not for Windows.
Hi Joachim,
soft proofing for me is a essential part of my workflow.
I did not own a printer for the formats I need for posters I place on the walls of my flat.
I have made the experience that without softproofing the posters don’t look like I’ve seen it on my calibrated monitors. The most of them was a little bit too dark, or some colours was “washed out”.
So over the times I have approached my current workflow.
Monitors are calibrated and set to the brightness of 90cd, soft proofing with LR because DXO hasn’t this function, and asking my manufacturer for the printer/paper profile. Since them I was happy with the results.
best regards
Guenter
I understand. When you let others print your images (like I also would do for bigger sizes than A3+) it can become essential to see the paper underneath the image before it’s printed. Thanks for clarifying.
about new pics in PL6 …
For now, in PL6 the user can decide to stay with the so far default Wide Gamut WCS or to change it and go with Classic-Legacy – on a per picture basis.
DxO – why not let the user decide, how to work and keep that setting in the preferences to start with, what he/she wants?
There are multiple reasons for to be in Classic-Legacy WCS, ranging from the often used uncalibrated screens (“profile? – what profile?”), missing knowledge (“so far not necessary”), convenience (“let the program take care for the colour management”) … right to those, who just want to keep working in sRGB for ease of use or to get the job done.
Working with wider gamut than the screen is capable of, implicates problems.
The handling of out-of-gamut colours, when converting from a wide(r) to a small(er) colour space is done by so-called rendering intents. In softproof, the user can choose a perceptual or relative colorimetric rendering intent, while in export DxO decided for an ‘automated’ process.
[ If the latter is related to the several times mentioned “Protect Colour Saturation”, I don’t know. ]
When in softproof, one can temporarily simulate the outcome of a pic before to export & apply a certain
profile (ProPhotoRGB, AdobeRGB, sRGB IEC61966-2.1, a dedicated printer/paper profile and the likes).
[ note – softproofing for another monitor is something else … ]
It doesn’t help – working in a colour space beyond the screen’s capability ( → visible with Monitor gamut warning on ) is ‘like a blind date’.
… which is available in PL5 only → different “…(gamma 2.2)” in PL6
For printing, I would export to ProPhoto RGB and print the resulting TIFF file from Preview, ColorSync or Canon’s utility, using a custom ICC profile for my printer/paper/ink.
The results are wonderful. I never knew things could be any better and everyone who used my printing services were totally satisfied.
… just continue without any headache and don’t bother, that your PL5 export to ProPhotoRGB doesn’t contain colours beyond AdobeRGB. – You always have been happy with the results.
Supplementary Question (post #8)
1.I want to use the WGCS
2. My camera uses AdobeRGB
3. My monitors are Apple (which I believe are P3) but custom profiled.
4.I export for web/email/etc using sRGB
5.I export for printing to ProPhoto RGB
6.I do not need to soft proof for printing as I use ICC profiles.7.I also need to teach this stuff to beginners at our club photo,
so I don’t want to have to teach anything more than absolutely necessary.
Just do as you like. – Now in PL6 and depending on the pic, your export to ProPhoto RGB can contain out-of-gamut colours, which your screen most probably doesn’t show, but your print should do.
That’s not really terrible, as I had tried not so long ago → Yet more colour space confusion - #24 by Wolfgang (and also w/ your infamous crabs). The prints then showed some more saturated colours and possibly a ‘better’ gradation, but nothing earth shattering, nothing what I couldn’t do without. And these were straight out prints from PS, no softproof, no correction.
It’s a big difference, if one is on a sRGB monitor and tries to get around w/ wide gamut colour space,
or on one like your’s. A ‘good’ monitor, covering P3, AdobeRGB …, shows most of the colours and you can check with softproofing to sRGB IEC61966-2.1, what / how users see on a sRGB screen.
[ When I was in a photo club (run their homepage and also had put out instructions about CM, beamer,
printing and such → monitor & beamer were in sRGB), I always told them to ‘stay in sRGB, when they don’t know better’ … difficult for some. ]
Now the big question, why ‘should’ you softproof?
As long you don’t change colour space, there is no need for – you see on your screen, what’s happening. If you are happy with, what you get out of your prints – no need for …
Things get different, when e.g. using matte paper, which cannot reproduce deep blacks and you have to lift the shadows … better in softproof (and w/ the ‘coming soon’ paper& ink simulation)
[ wherever you might do that … I’ve been using PS so far ].
Exporting a pic w/ strong out-of-gamut colours from Wide Gamut WCS to sRGB IEC61966-2.1,
most probably will look different than when done from Classic-Legacy (PL5 style).
The reason is, PL6 WG (then) handles colours differently and you should see it on your screen.
.
In spite of export, you can compare the masterfile (WG) and a virtual copy (CL)
– or more interesting softproof VCs (set to sRGB) from each of them …
and compare them to both exports (WG → sRGB and CL → sRGB).
If the equivalent results from WG resp. CL look identical, save your time & judge from your screen.
The biggest practical problems I see i is using virtual copies since the current stupid ones were introduced it takes a lot of messing about. You have to copy and paste them then delete the unwanted ones. OK with one or two but 20 or more. Some users have large numbers and it’s not practical, if DxO have introduced this as a problem when using wide gamut they haven’t done so with a solution to solve it and made it the way to mitigate export problems difficult with the existing virtual copy’s. The original virtual copies were so straight forward, just delete the unwanted and the let one was the master one.
Hi John,
I have no problems w/ VCs – except after a while I don’t remember, what they were meant for
and try to find out with
This is where you need the Windows version to get the Mac feature of being able to rename virtual copies. It is so useful
Currently, with PLv6, if you expect what you see within-PL in your Step#2 (Edit Image) to be always, consistently & reliably exactly what you see in your Step#3 (Look at the result and share with others) - then you will need to have Soft Proofing = ON. … … … Why? - - - See above.
And that’s pretty much the point of my proposal, Joanna
For those who don’t want to even think about Soft Proofing … including those who don’t understand why they should need to - I reckon PL should always work with WYSIWYG behaviour, by default.
Instead, with PLv6’s current implementation, sometimes (but not with all images) that will not be the case; it will be mystifying to the average user, and that will impact confidence in using PLv6 … 
If my proposal were to be implemented (or one of the variations of it, as suggested by @maderafunk and @KeithRJ) then we could all go back to ignoring Soft Proofing until we really needed it for some specific purpose … such as printing or export to different color space(s).
That is the result I’m aiming for.
Yes - If you’re expecting the WYSIWYG behaviour we enjoyed pre-PLv6, in all cases.
Why? - - - See above.
And now, with PLv6, SP=ON is advisable in all cases - including for simple export to digital files … NOT only for printing. Why? - - - See above.
They’re all good points, Wolfgang - but, that’s not the issue under discussion here. My concern is that PLv6 sets-up unsuspecting users - who, in good faith, adopt WCS=WG - will eventually get caught-out if they do not apply Soft Proofing for all images they’re processing — NOT ONLY for printing.
Unfortunately, that’s no longer the case … Why? - - - See above.
Keep the questions coming … I feel we’re “getting there” !
(Apologies for my repeated referral to the background info above; but I reckon it’s best that I don’t confuse matters by continually repeating the explanation).
Sounding good, Keith - as seems it would address both our concerns (Win/Win 
)
But, I’m still not quite sure what you mean by; {Make PL6 behave exactly like PL5 …}
John