As CH says, aRGB was created as an input space for editing, not an
output space for display. The browsers might recognize aRGB (and
others) but that doesn't mean they're not converting to sRGB.
I work in sRGB for output since (except on rare occasion) I don't do my
own printing anymore. My favored print processors make it clear that
they expect sRGB and will convert it themselves if it isn't.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/9/2013 12:21 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> I believe/hope that her scans are 16 bit and at least aRGB, as she is
>> doing some extreme color editing on some of them.
>> With the proper conversion settings in PS, it will convert to 8 bit and
>> sRGB for the web without losing any bits, only
>> pulling them into the target color space. Better to do this at the end.
>> Doing it in the scan has the same possibilities
>> of loss, and limits what may be done in post.
>>
>
> aRGB was created for editing purpose, it REDUCE data (bit) lost when the
> edit involve shifting of RGB values. With a 16 bit image and no clipping on
> both ends, effectively you will not lost any data (16 bits is a lot when
> fianlly you only need 8 bits) even for sRGB. I believe aRGB was useful only
> on the old 8 bit ages.
>
> This is just my guess, I would like to see the reason why we still need
> aRGB.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|