Somehow I expected it
This is a hell of a complicated matter, even though it seems simple to our eyes: we just look and that’s it…, we see.
Let’s start by agreeing that no matter what you set in any modern program, it will convert your raw image into a 32 bits floating point image, and will work with that data from start to end, until it’s exported. So you won’t ever be able to see that internal image, and it will always be coded in 32 bits floating point.
Now, by levels I understand posible colors within range of the chosen color space. That is, if we choose ACESp0 we won’t ever be able to capture, display or print every possible color inside that gamut.
I have to admit this is one of my grey areas: to me, with current computers and bit-depths available, it shouldn’t be a problem. We should just set ACESp0 and forget about it, but people keep telling that is a bad idea, that it’s much better choosing the smallest possible color space (working profile) able to hold all the colors you will be working with (from camera to printer).
I can’t fully understand why is that if we have quite a lot of possible values between colors (thanks to the 32 bit floating-point encoding), so to my understanding even using half the values possible for a color space, there are much more than needed possible values (decimals) between each level. But as there are people much wiser than me that suggests it’s better using a not so big color space, so be it.
One definitive solution would be to save our images as 32 bit floating point data (a possibility in RT), but that would lead to huge file sizes, so generally speaking currently it’s not an option.
I let it always disabled.
To us, if we are not looking for perfectly rendered/printed colors, the options are Perceptual and Relative colorimetric. In both cases we loose color fidelity, but in different ways: with Perceptual intent the whole set of colors are modified in their saturation so the relationship between colors is maintained while compressing them into a smaller gamut. This should result in smoother transitions between colors.
On the other hand, with Relative colorimetric intent, pastel tones are better preserved (are more faithful) and colors are scaled to the output profile white point, while the OOG saturated tones are compressed to the nearest color within gamut. So in that saturated area the relationship/gradation between tones is mainly lost. All of this means to me that while I will loose the most saturated colors, everything will look better because pastel colors look as I expect they should look, and everything is adjusted to the new white point, so as a whole the image looks as my eyes expect.
As I explained, in my images there aren’t lots of highly saturated colors and I’m not so worried about those than to pastel tones, so I’m fine with Relative colorimetric. If that’s not your case, if you need accurate saturated gradations, you may well be better using the Perceptual intent. That’s something you have to test with your own images.
In RT, you set the default rendering intent in:
- for your display: Preferences > Color Management > Monitor > Default rendering intent:
- for your printer: Preferences > Color Management > Printer (Soft-Proofing) > Rendering intent:
And again in RT, while editing an image, you can change the rendering intent used per image with this button:
(next to the soft-proofing and oog buttons)
The rendered icon in the screenshot is the Relative colorimetric rendering intent