Custom Colour Settings. what do you use?

Yes indeed Martin although there is one note with all this.
You based your findings with the use of Lightroom 2 default settings so anyone not using the default settings or using another program would get different results.

This is one of the problems with RAW, nothing is fixed so even if the camera makes a histogram from the RAW file it might not be the same as you would see on the computer and so even between programs there is an difference.

Every software read/process the information in the RAW file in their own way.

Thanks Martin!

What an interesting revelation!.

It never occurred to me that the histogram shown on the back of the camera would be affected by the settings when shooting in RAW mode. Obvious I guess, but just never thought of it.

I always shoot for ETTR in RAW mode and use the luminance histogram to warn me of clipping. But I have always noticed that the default matrix metering always shows an unexposed image on the histogram, and I tend to shoot again increasing exposure.

Clearly it's time to do some testing!

Thanks again!

Dick

@ Stefan:
The principle is getting your camera's histogram to be as close as possible to the outcome of the raw files histogram. Which Raw editor you use doesn't matter. If you are a follower of the ETTR method you want that camera reading to be as accurate as possible. There will be slight variations, no doubt. But.....you always will have a more accurate exposed Raw file. The main principle idea behind the ETTR method.

Malo 1961:

The histogram I am referring to is the histogram on your camera's display. And than...only the separated RGB one that shows the individual
RGB channels. Not the luminance histogram. The latter is useless. If you base your decisions on the latter it is very likely it shows No clipping while in reality the red channel is clipped. Often with sunsets, this happens.

And...I you don't mind, I skip my comments on Mr.k. Rockwell. IMO he is not worth any thoughts or even one printed letter. He is a dilettante, nothing more.

Appreciated Martin.
I read Rockwell as well as other threads. I also am no fan of his, however, he did point me in the right direction for fine tuning the AF on my D700.

Regards

Martin, then I think we are on one line.
Like you said there will be slight variation so I'm saying in my turn experiment with the values to get it so close as it can for your own system.
You use a K10D if I'm correct, a K7 or any other model might handle the JPG files differently so also that effects the results as well.
So if someone find they get a better comparable histogram with -1 contrast instead of -2 then that might be true for them.
That's all I'm saying.

I'm using a K10D and LR2 and your values seem to be spot on for me so kudos for that.

Even more on ETTR.

link

link

Regards

Martin, I don't think you have proved your point.

You have compared aRGB at Minus 2 with sRGB at Plus 2. That's apples and oranges.

I think you should have compared both at the same settings. And you should also have compared them at Neutral, though I would agree that if Minus 2 gives a better result empirically, then that is the one to use.

I think, too, that you are mixing up two completely different issues. First: where to set your JPEG settings, and second: what colour space to use.

I remain of the view that for my purposes (RAW to JPEG, no processing other than Silkypix, and very little printing) sRGB is going to provide less hassle, and (until I see evidence to the contrary) equally good results when viewed on-screen.

But thanks for the experiment. I just think you need to try the variations I outlined above - when you have more time!

Cheers

G

Well George, I think I did, but somehow I didn't explain it right to you.
I am not sure I can say it in other terms, but I give it a last try.

Can we agree that most users have their in camera settings applied with the following settings.( give or tale slight variations, user preference)
Colour space; sRGB
Sharpness; zero or +1
Saturation: zero or +1
Contrast: zero or +1

And that these settings only affect the in camera jpeg file, used to show us the histogram. as Pentax isn't able (yet) to present a histogram based on the raw data of the Pef file.

If somebody follows the ETTR method he wants to expose as much to the right without clipping the highlights.

His decision to overexpose, so the histogram is touching the far right of the graph is based on the graphic representation at the display of the camera.

So....basicly he is relying on a jpeg based histogram to get his Pef file exposed with as much data pushed to the lighter values.i.e. right side.

I said: To get a accurate readout you should set all the in camera settings in the menu to Minus 2 and use Adobe RGB as in camera colour space. Doing this will give you a more accurate histogram which should look as much as the histogram your Raw editor will show you when opening the Pef file.

The examples clearly show a big difference.

You said this.
No...that's not comparing apples and oranges. That's proofing my recommended setting will give you a more accurate camera based histogram which is used to determine your exposure.

I already mentioned I only went for the two extremes, but I don't think anyone could argue that the difference between my recommended settings and:
Colour space; sRGB
Sharpness; zero or +1
Saturation: zero or +1
Contrast: zero or +1
(these being more real world user settings)
Would make a lot of difference. You still would see a the differences like I showed in the posted examples.

Than you said:
I really don't understand what you try to say here, because doing what you suggest is exactly what most users do, and I don't agree with that. Hence my primary statement.

Following remark:
No mixing up issues from my part,sorry. All these settings are changed in camera by browsing through the in camera menu system.

I really don't know how else I can explain it to you. Both Stefan and Rieubleu seem to understand my explanation. (notice I don't say agree)
Let me conclude by saying you don't have to agree. I can only say...in fact Recommend to do your own testing if you have any doubts. And if you are sure I am not right...don't test or change. Use the method you are comfortable with. It's not like planning a manned mission to Mars.


Best regards,

George did you miss my comment, wasn't understandable or are you simply ignoring me?

The RAW file itself does not have a colour profile so it does not matter what you choose.
The only thing is that aRGB version of the JPG preview that is in the RAW is closer to the real RAW image then sRGB is and there for if you shoot RAW it's better to use aRGB.

Silkypix probable use just like Lightroom, the pro-photo RGB space when converting the RAW data in a workable image.
Pro-photo RGB is even bigger then aRGB and no monitor so far as I know can display all the colours. Those that can not be displayed get downscaled to the nearest-neighbour your monitor can display.

you're correct though to use sRGB when saving in JPG since the colour gradation is better then. You only have an amount of 8 bits for colour and since you have more colours with aRGB the steps between them need to be bigger to cover the full range.

I think the penny is starting to drop.

What you are saying, I think, is that by choosing Adobe RGB I am not in any way influencing later events because the RAW file does not use a colour space as such, or if it does, it uses a bigger one than either Adobe RGB or sRGB. So having used Adobe RGB in the camera, no harm arises, and there is no conversion to be done, when outputting to sRGB JPEG from RAW.

If that is the case, I apologise for wasting everyone's time.

I still remain to be convinced however that Minus 2 is the best setting for contrast, etc. I am prepared to believe it might be, but I don't understand why.

Thanks

G

Yep you got it George, you worded it better then I have

I'm also still in the mist with the Minus 2 bit myself, I see it's better but how that comes?
With minus 2 you should even lower the contrast where as 0 should be the default setting.
All I can think of is that Pentax applies more contrast as a standard to improve standard JPG output so that you get a good image in one go so to say for the user that don't use raw.

So the default is what pentax consider a good contrast and has nothing to do with values.

They should make a RAW profile or something like that, that makes a JPG preview but without any enhancements.

Forget for a moment contrast settings in relation to your Pef file.
Adjusting the settings I talk about to Minus 2 completely shuts off all
the affects to the camera generated jpeg based histogram. Forget the way that jpeg looks on your camera display. Concentrate on the histogram only when you use that to determine your exposure. That histogram gives you only a visual aid (like a tool) in achieving the right exposure.
Maybe this article will help you understand better. it's written by people who have English as their native language and might do a better job in explaining.


And by the way,IMO.... you are never wasting somebody's time

Signing off for a week now,

Happy shooting and good light to you all.

Have a great time, Martin, and thanks.

G

Well as the originator of this great post, I started to get confused by the bottom of the first page, but after reading Malo's considerable tome on the 'minus' settings, I have become more clearer in my understanding of this subject. I have done a few test shots and found that a far better histogram is shown when all are minus 2.

I have changed my settings now to minus 2 (except for Hue, whiich remains at ZERO). I had noticed that my previous setting (I gave at the start of this post) resulted in lopsided histograms (to the left).

cheers Malo. Thanks all. A great and useful post indeed.