Skip to main content

Color space changed from when a .DNG file was loaded to when an .onphoto file was saved

Comments

22 comments

  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    ON1's uses the ProPhoto colorspace while you are editing regardless of the colorspace of the original file. ProPhoto is a much wider colorspace producing less banding and color clipping type problems that can happen during editing. When the new .onphoto file was created it was automatically assigned the ProPhoto colorspace that the program uses.

    While editing, under the View menu is the command Enable Soft Proofing and below that is a sub-menu Profiles where you can choose which colorspace you want to see to check for color shifting or out of gamut colors. (There will be much less of this in ProPhoto.) When you export your photo you can choose the colorspace needed for its purpose.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Brian,

    What is causing PR to create an .onphoto file? I had already edited the .png file and it was saved as a png.
    I would be less bewildered if it was still a .png file - changed color space or not.

    Can I delete the original .png file and expect it to be contained in the .onphoto file?

    I copied this from a tread where the ProPhoto RGB colorspace was up:

    "The areas where PP RGB will contain more colors than Adobe RGB are in strong reds, oranges, greens & blues…if you images don't obtain those colors, you may well not see any actually differences in normal output…" (Jeff Schewe) 

    But if it does, you will!

    https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop/re-adobe-rgb-1998-vs-prophoto-rgb/td-p/5359674?page=1

    In Photoshop the prefered color space can be chosen. If I develop an image in LAB Color I know it will fade in colors and contrast when the color spaces for output to the Net or printing devices, typically sRGB and Adobe RGB has to be introduced. It can be rather disappointing, so I have developed my images in the Adobe RGB color space to avoid negative surprises. I get that such a choice is not given with PR. I may peek into the Soft Proofing feature to check if ProPhoto RGB has promised me more than is possible to reproduce with most output devices. That method is not comforting and it contradicts the wysiwyg concept. From the short time I have worked with PR I have got the impression of "theatrical vivid color rendering and extreme contrasts" from just small movement of the sliders. The natural transitions, the sweat spots, are not easy to nail. 

     

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    You added Layers to the original .dng file. Anytime you have more than one Layer the program stores the image in its proprietary  layered raw format as an .onphoto.

    Quit comparing ON1 to Photoshop and Lightroom. They work in entirely different ways and serve different purposes. Photoshop has features beyond photo editing that require the use of CMYK and other spaces that are not needed for digital photography. Internally, Photoshop uses the LAB colorspace, my preference when I was using Photoshop.

    Those sweat spot natural transitions that are so hard nail in RGB or sRGB are easier to get right in a wider gamut colorspace. Once the colorspace has clipped your colors you have lost all control over those missing colors. IMO it is much better to allow me that amount of latitude which I can then purposefully reduce as (if) needed.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Very well then. Is there any technical argument for keeping the .dng file? (it's actually greater in size than the .onphoto file).

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    I would, it is your original raw image file, right? That's a personal preference. Sometimes I keep the files that get created as stepping stones to my finished photo, other times I don't. It depends upon how easily I can recreate the missing steps if needed. After a while as I'm going through old stuff I may decide I no longer need something I've been keeping around and I get rid of them. I never delete the starting point though.

    Personally, not long ago I went through all the old .dngs I had created with DNG Converter and for those I could I stripped out the original RAW files that were embedded into them and trashed the .dngs. I was able to get better results from the original RAW file than the .dng created from it. That's a personal preference though. I know a lot of people like to use them.

    0
  • Rick Sammartino Community moderator

    I would never delete the original. What if I wanted to go back and process it differently someday. If I were going to delete anything it would be the onphoto and only after I converted it to a TIFF so that I don't lose my work.

    Something I do often if I'm using Layers is to do the Layer work first, then convert that to a TIFF and delete the onphoto, then continue processing with the TIFF.

    0
  • Nitin Chandra

    Eigil, I would not recommend removing the original file for a variety of reasons. The LR+PS combo also works in a similar fashion. For example, to do any layers/composite, you have to go into PS and save in some raster format (TIF/PSD). The ON1 format is proprietary and in case of any issues (ever), you would lose the original.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Hold your horses, guys. This is not my original raw file. I would never trash my "negative". I love your reaction.

    This .dng was the output from DeNoise AI after I had denoised (a copy of) my ARW file.

    Then I made the initial adjustments on this .png in PR, and it still came out as a .dng file.

    Then when I added a second layer (according to Brian) it was returned from PR as an .onphoto file.

    My reasoning is, that the .onphoto file contains the sum of the processes with the first and second edit, and this would make this dng redundant, i.e. ready for the trash can. I want to save the disk space of course - if possible. If I should keep this dng, it would double or triple the required space each time I introduced a second layer in such a primary .dng file.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Silence! - Then let me answer the question myself based on my novice experience with PR. The question slightly rephrased is this: should I worry about trashing the .dng file that was metamorphosed into an .onphoto file but still left for my household to decide whether I need it besides the .onphoto file or - if the .onphoto file is representing the total sum of both? 

    When I reopened the .onphoto image file in Develop - one of the primary changes - the lens correction - was now greyed out, i.e. not to change. Yes, the lens correction should be a done deal. The photo was taken with a specific lens, so - why bother about repeating that. But, what if I find out, that another lens profile does a better job in correcting my image?
    Actually - up front I realized that the profile dedicated for my lens didn't straight the horizon. I had to add a manual correction, which was difficult without a helping guideline (couldn't find that feature as a general aid). Luckily another lens profile, allegedly from the same lens manufacturer, did a better job, so I chose that one. But now I can't return and change this parameter.

    I have to conclude that with the adding of a new layer to the .dng file and the creation of an .onphoto file - PR left the non destructive principle.

    I deleted the .dng file. If I should keep it for the lone purpose of being able to change the lens profile and then do all the later editing all over again, the cost of disk space would be too high.

    Now, the answer to one question leads to another - what kind of creature is an .onphoto file?
    Is it still preserving all the raw properties of the .dng file? (apparently not?)

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    The .onphoto file format is ON1's proprietary format for layers raw files. You'll have to ask support about the internal details of the file but I wouldn't expect an answer, it is proprietary after all.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Brian,

    I would not interrogate ON1 on that question. I smell a variant of TIFF, and I think Adobe has the copyright, so I'll save the truth serum for another case. 

    PR works very well with the TIFF format. I have not experienced TIFF being less responsive to this or that tool as has been the case with C1 and ACR.

    The reason why I turned my attention to TIFF was, that if I converted my ARW file to a DNG and made the initial adjustments for lens, level and crop in PR, then these settings would not be passed to DeNoise AI, and the sharpening from that process would be somewhat reduced when the file had to be leveled later (if the adjustments were imbedded in the DNG file - then DeNoise AI would reject it or crash).

    So, why not make the initial 3 adjustments from the ARW file directly and then export the result to the source folder as a TIFF (and cancel out of the ARW editing).

    The TIFF loads into DeNoise AI via Send to ... without problems, and DeNoise AI let me choose where to save the result.

    Because my test image is the one that needs a new sky, I repeated the Send to .. to open the TIFF in Mask AI. It turned out well, and even though I was not prompted for a position to save, the masked TIFF file turned up with a "transparent" suffix in the browser.

    Then I just made the usual steps with new sky layer and further trimming in PR, and the result came out as an .onphoto file.
    PR seems to handle the TIFF as well as the raw files.

    I am a bit impressed by the AI Quick Mask in PR. I masked over tree tops and water against the sky, and I can see no difference in quality from AI Quick Mask to Topaz Mask AI. The only reason for choosing Mask AI was the easier compute brush and the filler cans.

    So I have become a TIFF guy - until further.

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    "So, why not make the initial 3 adjustments from the ARW file directly and then export the result to the source folder as a TIFF (and cancel out of the ARW editing).

    The TIFF loads into DeNoise AI via Send to ... without problems, and DeNoise AI let me choose where to save the result."

    This is my preferred method except I do keep the initial adjustments made before exporting to the RAW that gets sent to DeNoise.

    1
  • Rick Sammartino Community moderator

    I find it tricky sometimes to decide on a good workflow when using both On1 and Topaz. Often I need to use both sharpen and denoise but I get different results depending on which I use first. Then when creating the Tiff to send I need to make sure I've done everything where the RAW is needed first. For color balance I prefer the dropper in the Color Enhancer filter, but because of a bug, it's not working with Tiffs at all which complicates things even more.

    0
  • Nitin Chandra

    TIFF is an open file format and can be used by anyone. It also provides "Private Tags" for any proprietary information which readers are supposed to ignore while parsing a TIFF. ON1 could have implemented this, but...

    0
  • Rick Sammartino Community moderator

    I don't understand. I use TIFF with On1 all the time. Works great (except for the bug)

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Rick,

    I find the relationship between Topaz Sharpen AI and DeNoise AI somewhat strange. Probably a consequence of overlapping features during the development. DeNoise AI sharpens all the time, even when the slider is at zero, and often I find this sufficient as the primary sharpening. I primarily use Sharpen AI for motion blur or when focus is slightly off.

    An interesting observation - and I think it's not just my imagination - is, that images after being Topaz sharpened (in this case in DeNoise AI) have their sharpness degraded if they are later rotated in PR - even 1 degree. So, to me it's important to have the image leveled and preferably cropped with the raw file before the TIFF is generated.

    If you are talking about the eye dropper opposite the Auto button in the Tone & Color panel, then that one works as expected on my Win 10 PC. The Kelvin indicator is supposed to be replaced with a digit slider when editing TIFFs, probably because the Kelvin information is missing from the TIFF (but it's me guessing).

    Nitin,

    Could there be a difference between using the open TIFF format as a tool as opposed to use it as a sales object (i.e. commercially)?

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    Some sharpening is always needed after any kind of noise removal to compensate for the blurring induced by the denoise algorithms.

    The eyedropper Rick mentioned is in the Color Adjustment effect. It does not work on .tiff images.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Right, and DeNoise AI sharpens in a gentle way and yet sufficiently all the way to the output sharpening, as long as the ISO scale is not challenged improperly.

    The <-> eyedropper in Color Adjustment is a dead mother here too. I think I saw Dylan demonstrate it in a tutorial and he probably also observed the zero effect and hurried to another subject. Now I recognize it. 

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Here's an example of the sharpening I like - no harsh anything:

     

     

     

    PS: Why is Transform always inactive when Develop opens? i.e. blank dot opposed to blue.

    Has anybody reported the dead eyedropper in Color Adjustment?

     

    0
  • Brian Lawson Community moderator

    I'm pretty sure the eyedropper problem has been reported.

    I rarely use the Transform panel. I prefer it defaulting to off until I actually need to use it. It's the same reason we don't load up our images with all the different Effects we are not going to use and leave their controls set to 0. You won't see any difference in the look of the image but you would notice a hit in performance as all of that unnecessary overhead was processed to do nothing.

    0
  • Rick Sammartino Community moderator

    Yes, I reported the eyedropper problem and they were able to reproduce it.

    It only affects TIFF, it works on all other formats as far as I know.

    You don't see Kelvin with TIFF because that is only available for supported RAW files. Same thing with Camera profiles and highlight recovery.

    0
  • Eigil Skovgaard Hansen

    Rick,

    It's strange. To day I once more checked the scrub eyedropper in the Color Enhancer Effects filter - first with a raw file (ARW), then with a virgin TIFF file, then with a TIFF file returned from DeNoise AI, and finally with an .onphoto file.

    I am "sorry" to say :O] that in all cases the eyedropper worked on all parameters hue, saturation and brightness. One or two days ago it was absolutely dead.

    To make it extraordinarily bizarre the small icons in the down-right corner of the files in the browser disappeared when I chose Reset All from the dropdown menu. I actually reported that nothing happened, when I introduced this command, which was true a couple of days ago. I was told that that was the normal behavior. So much for the support. But now it actually works as everybody would expect.

    With this inconsistent behavior of PR from day to day it's hard to know when this software is up to its best and when it suffers from a temporary amnesia. Nothing has changed in the Win environment here from one behavior to another - at least not to my knowledge - and I'm the only user of the PC.

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.