>>4448503
I have no idea if this will help or just make things more confusing
in picrel, A = human eye sensitivity, B = some madeup film's sensitivity (slide film with RGB dyes to not get into negative inversion etc), C = transmittance of the dyes in that film once it's been developed, D = LEDs in a film scanner
skipping the scanner sensor for this under the assumption it's tuned to the LEDs
I marked out a few points on B, sources of light in an imaginary scene
point 1 is about pure red in human vision, but the film doesn't pick it up very well (see in B), resulting in comparatively little red dye in the developed film, which unfortunately doesn't line up well with the red LED in the scanner either
unfortunately the film's red dye also lines up with the green LED, meaning IRL pure reds look brown at the end of this whole process
point 2 is kind of ideal case, basically pure blue and the film picks it up well and reproduces it well once developed, and the blue LED also aligns well
point 3 is heading into near-infrared, but the film is pretty sensitive there (who the fuck designed this), even though its red dye well overlaps both red and green in human vision; end result in NIR light leaves a strong red cast, which the scanner picks up well
but again due to the red dye getting picked up by the green LED, the result is green-brown
all of the above is 100% made up and unrealistic to illustrate worst possible case
like I said most of the time you're really not going to notice
(just ignore the little hump in human red sensitivity at the blue end of the spectrum that contributes to how we see purples)
>>4449139
digital color spaces can represent whatever you want, they're just a relative mapping to other color spaces
you could edit your photos in the "Ektachrome color space" from your pic if you wanted, and if your software and chosen display device supported it