• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Photoshop color space conversion errors measured in CIEluv

Photoshop color space conversion errors measured in CIEluv

October 4, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

It occurred to me that, what with CIEL*a*b* being the reference standard for the ICC color management scheme, that there might be some bias towards minimizing errors measured in Lab built into the Photoshop/ACE  algorithms. Lab is not perceptually uniform, although it tries hard, so things might be worse than they seem when Lab DeltaE is the criterion.

Fortunately, there is another color space with a different algorithm that has the same aspirations as Lab; that’s CIEL*u*v*. Lab and Luv share the definition of the luminance axis, but the two chromaticity components are calculated quite differently. Traditionally, Lab has been used in the print industry, while Luv holds sway in the world of emissive displays.

I re-ran yesterday’s tests with our 256 megapixel uniformly distributed random colors image to compute errors in Luv DeltaE. As is usual in a code-while-you-learn project like this, the program is growing:

colordiffcode1

The results?

From sRGB to Adobe (1998) RGB and back:

  • average error of 0.0020 CIELab DeltaE
  • average error of 0.0020 CIELuv DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0049 CIELab DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0035 CIELuvDeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.2121 CIELab DeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.1713 CIELuv DeltaE

This is not as good as we got doing the conversions in Matlab, but it is good enough that photographer should have to worry about damaging their images by making this set of color space conversions.

From sRGB to ProPhotoRGB and back:

  • average error of 0.0030 CIELab DeltaE
  • average error of 0.0034 CIELuv DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0026 CIELab DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0030 CIELuvDeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.0900 CIELab DeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.0605 CIELuv DeltaE

From sRGB to Lab and back:

  • average error of 0.0040 CIELab DeltaE
  • average error of 0.0047 CIELuv DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0033 CIELab DeltaE
  • standard deviation of 0.0028 CIELuvDeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.0875 CIELab DeltaE
  • worst-case error of 0.0556 CIELuv DeltaE

The Luv results are not materially different from the Lab ones.

The Last Word

← Photoshop color space conversion accuracy with random colors Benchmark color space conversion accuracy vs bit depth →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.