michaelhawthorne
Member
i am shooting using km5d in sRGB should i print in sRGB or adobe RGB.
PLEASE HELP
PLEASE HELP
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
rgb or adobe rgb
- Thread starter michaelhawthorne
- Start date
CSharr
Leading Member
If you are just letting yor printer sort out the colour set it to sRGB.
--
Chris
Steven Major
Forum Enthusiast
For making prints I understand Adobe RGB is the way to go...insure all other software along the path to the printer is set the same.
Good Luck
Good Luck
T.D.
Forum Enthusiast
Is there a reason you're not shooting in RGB? You'll have more for the printer to work with as long as you set it to RGB as well. If you're shooting SRGB by intent, might as well keep the printer in that color space too, it won't print what's not in the image to begin with.
What profile does your printer expect?
Simple explanation:
sRGB is a MONITOR profile.
Adobe RGB is a printer profile.
That said, either can be used for either. And many ink printers use an sRGB profile.
If a dye-sub printer; I would shoot in Adobe.
Outputs are very subjective. Each person perceives colors differently.
Try both and go with what you find to be the most pleasing for your particular camera and printer combo.
AJM
Simple explanation:
sRGB is a MONITOR profile.
Adobe RGB is a printer profile.
That said, either can be used for either. And many ink printers use an sRGB profile.
If a dye-sub printer; I would shoot in Adobe.
Outputs are very subjective. Each person perceives colors differently.
Try both and go with what you find to be the most pleasing for your particular camera and printer combo.
AJM
srgb is not a monitor profie, it is a color space. A monitor profile is something that is created on a per monitor basis, each monitor is different, even if you have two monitor of the same exact kind, each monitor profile will be different. monitors age differently.
to create a profile first you must calibrate the screen and than a profile can be made, this is done using various monitor calibration hardware and software made by a number of companies, results will vary from each one.
I could talk for days on color management. it is somewhat difficult to fully grasp all the ins and out of. alot of people who think they know color management Don't. alot of people who call say they are experts in color management are NOT.
of the people who spend their time here on dpreview. digitaldog is one of the few that I agree with on most of his comments
to create a profile first you must calibrate the screen and than a profile can be made, this is done using various monitor calibration hardware and software made by a number of companies, results will vary from each one.
I could talk for days on color management. it is somewhat difficult to fully grasp all the ins and out of. alot of people who think they know color management Don't. alot of people who call say they are experts in color management are NOT.
of the people who spend their time here on dpreview. digitaldog is one of the few that I agree with on most of his comments
You shoot rgb you print rgb
You shoot adobe rgb you print adobe rgb, provided your printer can use adobe rgb input, not all printers can do this.
There is no point in shooting adobe rgb unless you want prints and you know ahead of time that the printer is capable of accepting this color space.
You shoot adobe rgb you print adobe rgb, provided your printer can use adobe rgb input, not all printers can do this.
There is no point in shooting adobe rgb unless you want prints and you know ahead of time that the printer is capable of accepting this color space.
rkligman
Leading Member
I don't buy that for a second, IF the following is true. If you shoot in Adobe RGB you get a wider gamut. In processing YOU can then determine which part of the gamut is important for the picture. If you shoot in RGB, then the choice is made for you.
If however you are not processing your images, then I agree, shoot in sRGB mode.
--
Rick Insane Diego...
colourgeek
Senior Member
Actually Adobe RGB is a monitor space too.
Some software has easy settings for assumed and or tagged images with one step colour options of sRGB or Adobe RGB. Such it is on the 9180, 8750 HP's. It is more aquestion of colour awareness at the printer level rather than it making false assumptions over the intial original source colours.
Yes but the printer is blind , all it wants is an instruction set to give you expected results.
--
Neil Snape photographer Paris http://www.neilsnape.com
rkligman
Leading Member
You don't necessarily see the colors but their information is there and as you increase your Saturation etc you are effecting these colors.
Check out this article and click on the High-End Inkjet link in the IN PRINT section.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
I like to use an analogy of humans vs. cats or owls. You walk around at night and you don't see very much because we can't detect things at that low of a level. But these other creatures can. Does it mean that they don't exist because you and I can't see it? Certainly not.
I'm no expert in this area but from what I've read, this is where I want to be. So far my images have not disappointed nor have my prints.
--
Rick Insane Diego...
I am familiar with the link you submitted, it is a very frequently quoted link and included in this link:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
I have no problem with the link you submitted, except that it offers no specific conclusions or examples. If you go to the smugmug site above, you will see a different tone. These guys/girls are printing all day.
Look at each item under their Getting great prints. No theory here. You can even see that a camera can capture colors outside the Adobe RBG range! This site in essence has the practical side of going from camera, to monitor, photoshop basic correction and printer so the prints look good.
For commercial photographers/graphic designers, the situation is different.
Here they must get color accuracy dead on. If they are preparing a commercial for MacDonald, they better have the red, yellow and white dead on. So they use different tools.
I am sure you get good prints, but I don't think it is because you are shooting using Adobe RGB. I think it is because you have a good camera, you took the time to learn its capabilities, you set the exposure properly, you know how to do some basic corrections with some photo editing software and finally you have a great printer.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
I have no problem with the link you submitted, except that it offers no specific conclusions or examples. If you go to the smugmug site above, you will see a different tone. These guys/girls are printing all day.
Look at each item under their Getting great prints. No theory here. You can even see that a camera can capture colors outside the Adobe RBG range! This site in essence has the practical side of going from camera, to monitor, photoshop basic correction and printer so the prints look good.
For commercial photographers/graphic designers, the situation is different.
Here they must get color accuracy dead on. If they are preparing a commercial for MacDonald, they better have the red, yellow and white dead on. So they use different tools.
I am sure you get good prints, but I don't think it is because you are shooting using Adobe RGB. I think it is because you have a good camera, you took the time to learn its capabilities, you set the exposure properly, you know how to do some basic corrections with some photo editing software and finally you have a great printer.
D
digidog
Guest
Yes and a synthetic one at that (built using pure math). However, sRGB was built to describe a theoretical CRT display based upon a very exacting set of values down to the ambient light this theoretical display would be found. There's also a tiny tweak to the gamma curve down in the deep shadows. But I'd agree it's a color space and not a display profile (although you can with some work, make most displays behave very close to this sRGB spec.
Adobe RGB isn't an output color space (printer color space) either but again, a totally synthetic color space. Now last I heard, Adobe was trying to define a reference media (what the color space should be based on for output) and I'm not sure if that reference media will be based on an emissive device like a display or not. The original origin of Adobe RGB (1998) was SMPTE-240M which was found in Photoshop 5.0. The spec's Adobe got from the SMPTE web site had a few numeric errors so Adobe had to rename the color space to Adobe RGB (1998). Good news is despite the typo's, the space behaved well so it's stuck around since 98.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
D
digidog
Guest
You purchase a wide gamut display (for big bucks). Or you ignore what you can't see and use the additional colors upon output (the K3 inkset of the new Epson's has a gamut that exceeds even Adobe RGB (1998) in some colors).
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
colourgeek
Senior Member
Back to the OP question;
Regardless of what the monitor can display, the printer is capable of printer a larger range of colour if the original working space is correctly saved/encoded in Adobe RGB. The monitor is only a digital portal into the image, a transient that only provides a resemblence of what the image really is. Today's high qual;ity printers can print more colour in many of the regions that are photo realistic than sRGB can maintain.
--
Neil Snape photographer Paris http://www.neilsnape.com
I don't think your answer is realistic. Look at the question again. The photo was taken in sRGB. How can you expand this color space to Adobe RGB?
My second point would be that a monitor provides, as you said, a "resemblence" of what the image really is. Why would a print provide a better resemblence of what the image really is?
Granted all the above.
The cost of wide gamut display is coming down, slowly. Maybe next year!
But then if I want to print Adobe RGB I will need a new printer. Maybe next year!
colourgeek
Senior Member
Yes I didn't see the photo was shot in sRGB. You can effectively expand gamuts but that's beyond what's actually on the market at this point. So if shot in sRGB nothing is going to improve any colours in the original encoded space. Correct leave it in sRGB why not.
Simply because the printers have a higher printable range than the monitor.
The stability and reliability repeatability of the current printers removes ambiguity of yesteryear and now eclipses monitor constant shifting and gamut/calibration issues.
5 years ago I believed it was the monitor that was to be relied upon. Today I believe it is the printer that is more repeatable and consistent to the actual data in the image.
This is a moot point if the images are for audio visual display but for anything printed it is rather then print that is the proof and the monitor a moving target.
--
Neil Snape photographer Paris http://www.neilsnape.com
technoid
Senior Member
absolutely.
Yes and no. There are many areas where the gamuts of printers exceed monitors, especially at midrange luminances (L 30 to 70). However, colors that are outside sRGB are not as common as many think.
Another gamut problem that is frequent but nearly un-talked about is monitor colors that are outside a printer's gamut. This occurs quite often when one of the 3 RGB channels is above 245 and the color is fairly saturated toward one (or two) of the three primaries. Fortunately, this is where Photoshop Proof view is most useful since the desaturated print from this effect is generally within the monitor's gamut.
That is my belief as well. Since printer profiling equip. is about 10x monitor profiling equip. this is a very good trend.
marty
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum