Bob writes ...
> >> I would think you might gain something if you perform tonal
> >> or color editing in PS: Might not results of the editing
> >> operation expand into the larger AdobeRGB gamut?
> >
> >In theory yes ... but the addition gamut would be beyond your
> >display, and you wouldn't be able to see what you're doing(?)
>
> But if changes do expand into the larger gamut it might
> affect printed output. If you're not "able to see what
> you're doing" in a larger gamut then you would equally
> not see what you're doing when editing a file that came
> in a larger color space from a scanner. So that limitation,
> if significant, wound not seem to influence choice of
> editing color space.
The choice is made more significant with PS6 ... it provides a few
tools for editting in a larger gamut (e.g., soft proofing and display
saturation control). My response was with respect to why use a larger
gamut when editting an image from a small gamut device.
For example ... a real example. Say you have two images of a
freshly painted blue door, from a small gamut device and a large.
Also say, the sun shining on the fresh gloss extends detail only into
areas the large gamut device can capture. While such detail will not
be evident on your display it exists none-the-less, but not at all in
the small gamut image. A knowledgeable PS user would be aware of
this, and appreciative of the PS6 tools.
Now assume the desired working color space is a medium gamut
AdobeRGB. If you expand the small gamut into medium it will not
create detail ... however, if you squash large into medium the
conversion will try to keep the detail (if rendering intent is
"perceptual" rather than "relative colorimetric"). The point is
"detail", and the question is it present and editable ... in one case
yes, the other no.
Getting back to the sRGB device and the utility of using AdobeRGB
instead. It is a difficult question. As editting spaces, both are
dependable, but a user will probably find more peers using AdobeRGB.
With regard to printers it depends on which respond better, but
AdobeRGB does extend better into cyans and yellows ... you would think
AdobeRGB would be better ... and I'll not ever argue with anyone who
converts a sRGB device space to AdobeRGB because it seems to work best
(even if the desired detail not existing in the original gamut did not
transfer).
I sometimes wonder if film-scanner users are aware of large gamuts
in film ... but most are. My own feeling is it is the detail which
makes most photographs interesting, and that detail isn't only a
matter for 2700ppi vs 4000ppi ... much of the detail is in the color!
shAf :o)
