[house]

Perhaps view the export using photoshop to minimize possible differences in colour management.

As mentioned, editing in deep colour reduces various artefacts that come from rounding the calculations. Its not an overall colour thing.

[Class A]

Exporting the image in LR as a sRGB Jpg (standard for me) and then minimising LR and using FastStone Image Viewer to look at the export. Even without side by side comparisons like I show in the OP (with the file in PS environment and its Export As preview window) I could tell something was off.

Have you enabled colour management in FastStone?

You have to do that manually.

Applications without colour management -- many OS viewers or older browsers -- will show images without the colour corrections stored in the monitor profile that was created when you calibrated the monitor.

If your monitor shows sRGB images correctly out of the box then there won't be much difference. However, if you have a wide gamut monitor, for instance, or the monitor's default rendering is just off then you'll see quite a bit of a difference between an image displayed in a colour-managed application vs a non-colour-managed application.

[biz-engineer]

Applications without colour management -- many OS viewers or older browsers -- will show images without the colour corrections stored in the monitor profile that was created when you calibrated the monitor.

I've been tryin to proof test what color management does, using two calibrated display, three apps, sRGB and Adobe RGB. And I found that every application that displays an image or a video does it through the monitor profile interface of the OS, regardless whether a color management option is selected or not. Color management options have nothing to do with monitor profile, color management interpolate image color space to match monitor color space if color spaces aren't the same, e.g Adobe RGB image sent to an sRGB monitor. The monitor profile is a layer located between the graphic card and any software using that graphic card to display anything, so basically, once a monitor profile is selected by the OS, that profile is used by all applications that display something on a the monitor. For example, enabling color management has no effect on the display of an sRGB JPEG image to an sRGB monitor, regardless of monitor calibration. Still with an sRGB monitor, an Adobe RGB JPEG image is displayed incorrectly if the color management option is disabled. Once the color management option is enabled the Adobe RGB JPEG image is displayed correctly on the sRGB monitor, as the Adobe RGB image color space is remapped to sRGB to match the monitor.

[BruceBanner]

Note that your monitor most likely only supports 8bit output.

Only advanced monitors support 10bit and you'd have to have a special (expensive) graphics card with the right connection to the monitor for a 10bit setup to work.

This may give you an indication as to why 8bit output isn't as bad as you think.

As others have pointed out, you need higher bit representations to keep the data malleable. If you start with 8bit and edit with 8bit you'll get all sorts of artefact (e.g., banding) once you start pushing the data. With the higher bit representation you get a lot more headroom to play with. Once all hues and tones have been pushed and pulled into the right place, they can be represented using 8bit without losing that much information.

My monitor is 10bits.

What bits are a lot of modern smartphone screens I wonder...

Ok I am convinced , starting off with more bits is better than not, even if the final end result is lesser bits.

Have you enabled colour management in FastStone?

You have to do that manually.

Applications without colour management -- many OS viewers or older browsers -- will show images without the colour corrections stored in the monitor profile that was created when you calibrated the monitor.

If your monitor shows sRGB images correctly out of the box then there won't be much difference. However, if you have a wide gamut monitor, for instance, or the monitor's default rendering is just off then you'll see quite a bit of a difference between an image displayed in a colour-managed application vs a non-colour-managed application.

Yup, CMS in the menu. I tried toggling it on and off and comparing, and whilst there is a difference it was far less than what you could see in the video I uploaded.

I guess now... moving forward... my issue is Soft Proofing, and the confusion I have around that.

My video I uploaded should hopefully explain why I started the thread in the first place. The very first time I noticed something was up was when I exported the Tiff from LR. When I perform this action I typically have LR set to open the folder in Explorer (upon completion), I then have a quick peep at the exported image using my default image viewer FS. LR can be closed at this time or minimised, but I didn't even need a side by side comparison, I could tell straight away something was not right and what I was seeing from the export in FS really was something different from what I was seeing in LR. This then prompted me to try other exporting methods such as taking the file into PS and using its Export As feature, and I found it quite interesting that here, even before the export was complete, that there was something really weird going on by the preview also being very odd looking (more odd than a genuine Export).

And so now I am not sure where all this leaves me...

Sure, its a good idea to edit 14bit RAWs in a 16 bit ProPhoto environment, but then when is a good idea to start Soft Proofing? I already create Virtual Copies, so I don't mind the idea that this stage is replaced with Creating Soft Proof copies, but if you can watch my video again you will see that the Soft Copy aspect doesn't exactly seem to be mirroring what an Export looks like in FS either :/

Really, the crunch is I have to edit something with what I am seeing within the LR/PS environment to accurately reflect when Exporting/Saving (to sRGB Jpg). I can't waste time editing one way and then exporting, and comparing and then deciding I need to go back, push some values (and in the process make the original non sRGB version look garbage), export and hope now that this second export looks better than the first attempt, and so on and so forth. This is where my mentality of being crippled by working in a more limited colour space at least should (in theory) be faster and not being greeted with nasty surprise export files.

What a mess...

[biz-engineer]

Is 16bit ProPhoto worth it if 99% of everything ends up 8bit sRGB Jpg?

IMHO, ProPhoto is for when professionals want to take advantage of printer having a color gammut larger than Adobe RGB, and it is not possible to soft proof it if your monitor color space is no larger than sRGB or not larger than Adobe RGB. If your monitor cannot handle more than Adobe RGB, then select Adobe RGB to tweak the photo using your display, but select ProPhoto 16bits RGB to export the file you are going to send to the printer, and cross finger that you will like the results

[Class A]

... I found that every application that displays an image or a video does it through the monitor profile interface of the OS, regardless whether a color management option is selected or not.

Perhaps you are running MacOS. It uses colour-management at the system level.

For Windows, your statement does not apply.

If a Windows application does not perform colour-management, the image will be rendered incorrectly.
How bad the effects are depends on the colour space differences and the default monitor behaviour.

Color management options have nothing to do with monitor profile

Of course they do.

This is very easy to see on a Windows system.

color management interpolate image color space to match monitor color space if color spaces aren't the same,

While the presence of a monitor profile supports colour space transformations, such as from AdobeRGB to sRGB, the profile is also used to compensate for any deviations the monitor has, e.g., from an sRGB response when it is running in sRGB mode.

For example, enabling color management has no effect on the display of an sRGB JPEG image to an sRGB monitor, regardless of monitor calibration.

Again, it is very easy to see that effect in Windows.

With a monitor that perfectly emulates or implements a colour space, such as sRGB, you indeed wouldn't see a difference between using a colour-managed application or a non-colour managed application (with images in the sRGB space). However, the majority of monitors produce some deviations that are then compensated by the monitor profile.

Note that monitor calibration and monitor profiling are two different things.

Monitor calibration indeed configures the graphics card such that the tonal range is correctly displayed on the monitor with the correct gamma curve. Some linear colour errors can be addressed by monitor calibration as well.

Monitor profiling produces a profile that is used for compensating for any colour errors that remain after the calibration.

IMHO, ProPhoto is for when professionals want to take advantage of printer having a color gammut larger than Adobe RGB,

ProPhoto is often used as an editing space, e.g., by Lightroom. Photoshop also supports it.

Some printers can print some colours outside the AdobeRGB colour space (which is smaller than the ProPhoto colour space) but not many.

it is not possible to soft proof it if your monitor color space is no larger than sRGB or not larger than Adobe RGB.

Obviously it is not possible to see colours on the monitor that the monitor cannot produce.

However, one can still use soft-proofing as a perceptual mapping of colours into the monitor space will allow one to validate those in-gamut colours. For out of gamut colours, some applications provide modes that highlight areas with out of gamut colours. If a monitor covers the AdobeRGB space pretty well (need not be 100%) then out-of-gamut colours will be pretty rare.

[Class A]

My monitor is 10bits.

What graphics card are you using?

Unless it is something like an Nvidia quadro or some of the AMD cards that support 10bit, chances are you are running the monitor with 8bit only.
You'll also have to use an HDMI or DisplayPort cable, DVI cables do not transmit 10bit signals.

I'll have to watch your video later, time for bed now.

[biz-engineer]

This is very easy to see on a Windows system.

You are correct. I initially thought exactly like you, I thought that the CMS feature in image software application was linked to the color profile selected for each of my monitors. But I was unable to get the same image have the same colors renders on my monitors regardless of CMS settings in my imaging applications. So I decided to design an experiement to figure out what was related to what. I took a color calibration chart, and displayed it on each of my monitors side by side, in three image display applications side by side, with and without CMS, with and without calibrated color profile in windows. I deducted what CMS exactly does. And thanks to the experiement, I'm now really satisfied that I have the same colors rendered on any of my displays or image application I

use, regardless if I use sRGB or Adobe RGB to export images to JPEGs.

[house]

Softproofing is naturally most useful for previewing colourspaces smaller than your monitor. It can show, by false colour or otherwise, which colours are out of gamut of a larger space but it can't accurately display a the colours of a larger colourspace. Makes sense if you think about it.

So in the case of printing soft proofing can be very useful. It can, if properly set up, allow you to tune the image for the output medium. A wide gamut workflow and softproofing for output should allow you to make the most of the raw data and massage it into the output colour space the best way you see fit.

[StiffLegged]

I became aware of the pitfalls of editing in 8-bit when I noticed the stepped histogram readout once some edits were made – it looked more like a bar chart than a distribution of luminosity values. Whether preparing for Web/social media or print, it's better to work in 16-bit, then reduce to 8-bit for the Intergooglegram.

[Class A]

You are correct.

I always am.

I am a HAL 9000 unit.

Let me put it this way, Mr. biz-engineer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

[BruceBanner]

I always am.

I am a HAL 9000 unit.

Let me put it this way, Mr. biz-engineer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

Stop being funny and go watch my video whilst I make another video to make matters more confusing

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Why not keep using Prophoto RGB
Many of the browsers we are using today do allow you to view pro photo rgb
Is Your Browser Color-Managed?
non of the browsers I am using today have no issue using that color space






My work flow now is to use prophoto all of the time for my editing copies I use 16bit prophoto and for anything done for the web I use 8bit prophoto

Your not going to have any real control over how your images will appear to the other viewer because much of this depends on how they apply profiles to their monitor and if they are not using any current browsers that's their problem

[biz-engineer]

"You are correct...." I always am.

That's the best recipe to be incorrect in the first place, and learn very slowly, learning require to question our abilities. The first step to know if we are correct if to consider that we might not be, so that we can verify that we are. That's why I have the habit to verifying assumptions from myself and others.

[biz-engineer]

Why not keep using Prophoto RGB

I'd ask the question: what is the benefit of using prophoto RGB instead of keeping image files in RAW? What am I missing here?