Hi! I’m very interested in who thinks about it and what:
I really like editing the profile picture displayed on the RGB Rec 709 monitor.
Next, I will upload it to sRGB To upload it to instagram. Obviously, the colors will not be the same as they were originally.
When editing in RGB REC 709, I open an additional monitor (an additional window) and put sRGB there and adjust it a little bit.
Is there a way to “Efficiently” transform an image? REC709~sRGB is allowed via Gimp
Set your softproofing profile to sRGB.
Maybe I am missing something, but I am really confused by this assumption, as the gamut of sRGB and Rec 709 is precisely the same.
[the tone response encoding (“gamma”) is different, and the rec 709 is a full signal encoding standard so it has a lot of other stuff, but that is irrelevant for this discussion]
Hi. Thanks for your help! You and your colleagues responded so quickly that I was only able to take screenshots now. I am writing through a translator.
Output data It is set to sRGB And export too.
This is not the best example, but it will be indicative. Obviously, the image corresponds - Therefore, the “processing process is different” … I want to find a way to translate the image qualitatively. And the finished version in sRGB looked about the same as in REC709 RGB. I admit that I do not understand everything, I am just looking for ways to express myself.
The first screenshot is the Workflow.
The second screenshot is the sRGB export.
Hi! Thanks for the reply. I read your link and it really says that they are similar. Let’s figure it out! What do you think about this? ^
Adobe RGB is yet another profile.
It’s not about Adobe. It’s about colors and their interpolation.
You simply shouldn’t set your “display profile” to “linear Rec 709 RGB”, it’s nonsensical.
It’s also not a good idea to set your “working profile” to “Rec 709 RGB” either.
Maybe find another way (there are plenty of other modules to unleash your creativity) instead of messing w/ color management?
Hi! Thank you. That’s why I installed it. I like the way it is displayed when editing and on the screen.
I honestly don’t understand what you are asking for in this topic then. Do you want to replicate a “look” that you have achieved by messing up color management?
I think you shouldn’t mess with colour spaces, unless you know how colour management works and what you are doing when changing a colour space.
Colour management is a purely technical issue, not something to modify for creative purposes: its aim is to ensure that colour information is kept unchanged as far as possible along the whole chain from camera to output medium. And that in a way that is independant of the equipment you happen to use. That means you basically set up your colour management once, and then don’t touch it anymore (except for a few specific reasons).
Using a non-standard colour space just because it looks good on your monitor means you risk breaking the colour management for anyone else looking at your image. At best your image will get an extra conversion to the colour space of whoever is viewing or printing the image, at worst the image will be displayed as if it was already encoded in the expected colour space (usually not good).
Hi. Thanks! It’s available! As I understand it, the display is important and the final version is not matched.
I have seen information that it is better to choose Pro Photo as a workflow in Input and that some people choose Rec2O2O.
What do you say?
Neither of these is generally “better” than other options. It all depends on what you are trying to do; specifically, what kind of gamut do you need/have for your output. Unless you are mapping to a wide-gamut display, it makes little sense to work in a wide-gamut colorspace.
Generally, unless you understand these colorspaces and gamut, just stick to the defaults.
That you should use the defaults. They are the default for a reason. Do not change these things unless you fully understand the consequences.
Is it really useful to ask the same question again? Several answers implied that you should stick with the defaults until you have a need or at least a good reason to change them.
Usually an editing program has a reason to pick a particular working space. Changing that can be bad E.g. both Prophoto RGB and Rec2020 are horrible choices when you have to work in 8 bits/channel (not really relevant for darktable).
Unless your sources explain clearly why and where one is better than the other, ignore them. (Especially as both Prophoto and Rec2020 are much wider than you need in most situations).
And instead of wondering about colour spaces, learning why and how to calibrate and profile your display might be more immediately useful (and yes, those are two different steps).
I know you mentioned translation to English so just for context it would be good for you to look at and understand this…
https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.8/en/special-topics/color-management/color-spaces/
The input profile is one thing and the working profile is another in DT…There is also the display, output export, and histogram profiles and one more the softproofing profile. I think that is all of them…
Your display profile as noted should be the one specified and provided by the manufacturer or a calibrated profile if you have a device to do so.
The input profile will be selected by default and it will be specific for your camera and in general should not be changed again unless you are using a custom calibration that you have made…
The working profile is generally a wide gamut so you can use either prophoto or rec2020. Rec2020 in very very general terms I believe is the default because it does not introduce what some call imaginary colors and the gamut aligns well with the CIE color definition. Its also the standard for HDR content I believe. Prophoto has theroretically a wider gamut so many default to bigger is better but it also has primaries that impact certain colors as well. Realistically with the current display technology I dont’ think you are likely to notice a difference and in the end most files are still output to sRGB for display so again I don’t think either working space would make a huge difference…you could use some test images if you really wanted to and try to see a difference.
If you are talking output then you can use one of those if you work in high enough bit depth and its for downstream processing but for final output for display generally you are going for srgb or maybe P3…
All these work in concert to maintain a color managed workflow so you don’t just change them willy nilly for good look and if you see things not matching it can be that you are going from a color managed app to one that is not and that is the reason for things not looking the same…
Maybe the translator translated something wrong =)
I understand the difference between the profiles. I was interested in conversion.
Can delete a topic.
Thank you for your hard work!
It became clearer to me.
As Tamas said, the only difference between Rec.709 and sRGB are the gamma curves and they are close to identical.
I know of nobody that deliberately applies a Rec.709 profile to an image as opposed to sRGB.
sRGB profile assigned:
Rec.709 profile assigned:
Good luck with your quest …
Hi. Thanks! I have a strange process in general, I can put a low-pass filter in front of the input profile. I like the process and where it takes me.
