-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
sRGB vs Adobe RGB
- Thread starter LeonXTR
- Start date
Shoot raw and the question is moot. You will of course have the two as two of the options when opening the file. Both of your choices will reduce the colors your raw sensor will capture
--
http://www.christopherbroughton.com
--
http://www.christopherbroughton.com
Most people here shoot RAW, where the camera setting doesn't matter.
Adobe RGB has a larger color gamut that sRGB, but you'll have to convert everything to sRGB before putting it on the web anyway.
My guess is that very few people use the Adobe RGB camera setting. If you are concerned enough about color to consider Adobe RGB, you should be shooting RAW.
Adobe RGB has a larger color gamut that sRGB, but you'll have to convert everything to sRGB before putting it on the web anyway.
My guess is that very few people use the Adobe RGB camera setting. If you are concerned enough about color to consider Adobe RGB, you should be shooting RAW.
DotCom Editor
Veteran Member
Neither. First, RAW has no color space at all. It is, uh, raw.
As for processing and printing, which is completely separate from shooting, SRGB is a tiny, narrow color space that doesn't include zillions of colors my printer is capable of making. Ergo, SRGB is no good.
Same problem with ARGB. ANY modern printer can make some colors that lie outside the bounds of ARGB. If you edit in ARGB, you'll never even give your printer a chance to print those colors. Ergo, ARGB is no good.
For these reasons, I edit ONLY in ProPhoto RGB. This color space is larger than my printer's -- and that means my printer is free to print all the colors it is capable of.
You've spend thousands of dollars (pounds, euros) on your camera gear (maybe tens of thousands). So, why in the world would you castrate your work by using a color space far more restrictive than what your printer is capable of?
And it keeps changing as printer makers continue to introduce inks with wider and wider gamuts (Epson HDR, Canon Lucia, HP Vivera). Printer gamuts keep growing, but the gamuts of SRGB and ARGB are fixed in time -- 1995 or thereabouts. These are ancient, obsolete, restrictive standards.
I edit in eciRGBv2 because it has an L* gamma. It makes editing by the numbers a little easier. In eciRGBv2, middle grey's RGB value is 128, as opposed to AdobeRGB(1998) and sRGB's 2.2 gamma where middle grey is around 117 and ProPhotoRGB's 1.8 gamma which means middle grey is at 100. But I do a lot of reproduction work so I need to know something is going to print a certain value.
--
~K
--
~K
bronxbombers
Forum Pro
and ProphotoRGB, AdobeRGB or sRGB as needed for output.
AdobeRGB clips intensely saturated deep purples/scarlets and certain other super intense shades.
sRGB tends to badly clip fall foliage/sunsets/deep blue-green tropical water/flowers/brightly and deeply colored clothing.
AdobeRGB clips intensely saturated deep purples/scarlets and certain other super intense shades.
sRGB tends to badly clip fall foliage/sunsets/deep blue-green tropical water/flowers/brightly and deeply colored clothing.
MICHAEL_61
Senior Member
ProPhoto can hold those colors, but most monitors and printers won't be able to reproduce. If you're working for print publications, it will be even worse. It could be argued either way.
There is one major downside to ProPhoto that everyone should be aware of... it should not be used in 8bit/channel mode. There are a lot of cases when an image with a smooth gradient (sky, clouds, soft whites and pastels) in ProPhotoRGB becomes posterized and these stair-step patterns show up the the gradations. The problem is if you only have 256 steps from grey to red, now if that red isn't super saturated, then each step is smaller, if the red is ultra saturated, then each step becomes more and the eye notices a pattern in the gradation. Using 16bit/chan mostly negates this.
Another possible argument would be if you are editing for print and you know what printer and paper you will be going to, why not edit in the output profile? That way you know your printer would not clip (in Absolute/Relative Colormetric) or shift (Perceptual) colors from what you edited for.
--
~K
There is one major downside to ProPhoto that everyone should be aware of... it should not be used in 8bit/channel mode. There are a lot of cases when an image with a smooth gradient (sky, clouds, soft whites and pastels) in ProPhotoRGB becomes posterized and these stair-step patterns show up the the gradations. The problem is if you only have 256 steps from grey to red, now if that red isn't super saturated, then each step is smaller, if the red is ultra saturated, then each step becomes more and the eye notices a pattern in the gradation. Using 16bit/chan mostly negates this.
Another possible argument would be if you are editing for print and you know what printer and paper you will be going to, why not edit in the output profile? That way you know your printer would not clip (in Absolute/Relative Colormetric) or shift (Perceptual) colors from what you edited for.
--
~K
I shoot raw
and use color space appropriate for output
srgb mostly -- for web
ARGB for some printing
even wider gamuts in future
and use color space appropriate for output
srgb mostly -- for web
ARGB for some printing
even wider gamuts in future
Phil214757
Senior Member
I shoot RAW but I don't own the entire workflow for my sports work with the 7D. Every once in a while I'll see an image that looks like the wrong color space went to the printer so starting tonight that camera is is shooting sRGB.
The 5DMKII that is also shooting RAW will stay in Adobe RGB as I handle all of these myself.
--
Phil Agur
7D - 5DMKII - Dual Body Bag - Go 'L' and don't look back!
Got 7D? See http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167
The 5DMKII that is also shooting RAW will stay in Adobe RGB as I handle all of these myself.
--
Phil Agur
7D - 5DMKII - Dual Body Bag - Go 'L' and don't look back!
Got 7D? See http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167
MICHAEL_61
Senior Member
- Would you say it makes sense (assuming a decent monitor) to process in prophoto or adobe and then to convert to srgb in the end?
depends...
not a short answer...
portraits usually do fine in srgb and fuji frontier crystal archive matte prints srgb
and where clients buy from the web -they are already happy with srgb, because that is what they are seeing when they buy- srgb
but if you determine that you will print large someday on epson or wider gamut printer--eg scapes, then keep in prophoto and save at end of your process in prophoto, then create renditions from this (eg an srgb rendition. Once you cut the color space down during processing, you loose the wide gamut and have to go back to the raw and start again, so working smart is important to save time. That said, I have a $400 24inch IPS HPZR24W monitor which has 97% srgb gamut emulation. You have to spend $900+ on a 24 inch NEC or even more on an Eizo to get both wide gamut and good srgb emulation and then get a good spyder 3 elite costing another $180. When I want wide gamut, I have to go to my large print epson and do a 4x6's in wide gamut before printing large.
But most of my sales are on the web with portrait shots, so they are happy with srgb anyway since they have purchased what they saw in srgb. As the photographer, if you see the colors look tooney, then keep the shot in the wider gamut for printing on a wider gamut printer. I'd say for portraits, 95%+ of the shots don't look tooney, and it is only occasional clothes that stand out
The problem with majority of sub $900 wide gamut monitors is they do not do srgb emulation well. Then you can really mess up your web posting and sales on the web. So I happen to believe in the above process to ensure web posting is as close to srgb emulation as possible. The new HP e-IPS ZR24W monitor is incredible. HP just came out with a 30 inch IPS wide gamut monitor but early adopters are having some trouble calibrating it. But once they work out the calibration, the 30 inches is just an incredible window on the world. You need a monitor that does wide gamut and srgb emulation well and you need a calibrator if you go in this direction. I approach it a bit differently to keep the costs down and because I don't shoot scapes much - but shoot mostly portraits
not a short answer...
portraits usually do fine in srgb and fuji frontier crystal archive matte prints srgb
and where clients buy from the web -they are already happy with srgb, because that is what they are seeing when they buy- srgb
but if you determine that you will print large someday on epson or wider gamut printer--eg scapes, then keep in prophoto and save at end of your process in prophoto, then create renditions from this (eg an srgb rendition. Once you cut the color space down during processing, you loose the wide gamut and have to go back to the raw and start again, so working smart is important to save time. That said, I have a $400 24inch IPS HPZR24W monitor which has 97% srgb gamut emulation. You have to spend $900+ on a 24 inch NEC or even more on an Eizo to get both wide gamut and good srgb emulation and then get a good spyder 3 elite costing another $180. When I want wide gamut, I have to go to my large print epson and do a 4x6's in wide gamut before printing large.
But most of my sales are on the web with portrait shots, so they are happy with srgb anyway since they have purchased what they saw in srgb. As the photographer, if you see the colors look tooney, then keep the shot in the wider gamut for printing on a wider gamut printer. I'd say for portraits, 95%+ of the shots don't look tooney, and it is only occasional clothes that stand out
The problem with majority of sub $900 wide gamut monitors is they do not do srgb emulation well. Then you can really mess up your web posting and sales on the web. So I happen to believe in the above process to ensure web posting is as close to srgb emulation as possible. The new HP e-IPS ZR24W monitor is incredible. HP just came out with a 30 inch IPS wide gamut monitor but early adopters are having some trouble calibrating it. But once they work out the calibration, the 30 inches is just an incredible window on the world. You need a monitor that does wide gamut and srgb emulation well and you need a calibrator if you go in this direction. I approach it a bit differently to keep the costs down and because I don't shoot scapes much - but shoot mostly portraits
MICHAEL_61
Senior Member
bronxbombers
Forum Pro
No, but my wide gamut monitor sure displays a heck of a lot more than sRGB and I do fine photos where even AdobeRGB clips what I can see on display. AdobeRGB clips the wet red shirts on all of the surfers I just shot and on all of those photos of took of petunias in the backyard and on some lupines to name a couple recent examples.
bronxbombers
Forum Pro
But at least you have it saved and who knows what display or printer you use 2 or 4 years from now?
And my sunset and fall foliage photos, even the recent surfer photos where their wet red shirts were really intense, simply look way better on my wide gamut monitor than on my standard gamut display.
As for printing, sure my printer totally clipped the sunflowers at sunset yellow and couldn't show half of what my display could but OTOH my printer showed about 90% of the intense red shades of some fall foliage and sunset photos I took, shades that were totally gone or utterly dulled out on my standard monitor.
Most printers can print a lot of colors than can't be shown on sRGB displays even if they can't print all sRGB colors.
yeah that is true, certainly while editing at least
sometimes a final output jpg in adove or pro is still worth it though, often even, but for all the photos that don't need it, when outputting in 8bit is better just go back to sRGB
because then you need to go back and redo everything when you get a new printer or in a few years and would rather display on your stunning new paper thin 6k display, etc.
I say edit everything in prophotorgb 16bit mode in photoshop on a wide gamut monitor in native mode withotu reducing monitor contrast and make it the best you can. And then if you want to print or whatever then do a softproof targeting final desired output unit and do some final adjusts there.
The best method is to shoot in RAW and work with a program like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture. Because these programs can print directly from the RAW file, they convert from their internal color space to the printer color space. It means you don't have to worry about what that internal space is. When you export a TIFF or ar JPEG, you get to choose the color space, so you can export an AdobeRGB TIFF if the image is intended for a printing press and sRGB JPEG if it's for the web.
--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com
--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com
Hans Kruse
Senior Member
Shooting in RAW and setting the color space in the camera influences the histogram of the JPG that is embedded in the RAW file. This is also the picture which the histogram is based on. So set the picture style to standard, no contrast, no saturation and Adobe color space and you will get a better and more accurate histogram. This histogram will then be closer to what you will see in your RAW converter e.g. Adobe Lightroom.
--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com , http://www.hanskruse.com
Workshops -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/workshops
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hans-Kruse-Photography/271477435625
Neither format is better than the other in every case.
People automatically assume that "wider gamut" means it's better but they don't really put much thought into it. If you have a wider gamut but you still have only 24 bits (8 bits per color channel), the amount of actual data remains the same (saved as a JPEG).
sRGB isn't as wide as Adobe RGB but since it has the same number of levels in each color channel, sRGB offers smoother gradients. A sky in sRGB may look smooth but noticeably posterized with Adobe RGB.
Think of it in terms of ladders. sRGB and Adobe RGB ladders have the same number of rungs but the Adobe RGB ladder extends further up as well as underground; this gives you more options on what you can see. But sRGB's more closely-spaced rungs give you finer control.
Then there's compatibility. Save a JPEG with an Adobe RGB color space and it will look dull on the Web since hardly anyone is using a color-managed display setup. Since each "step" in color expands to a bigger leap with Adobe RGB, the numerical information is correspondingly compressed in storage (compared to sRGB). An OS/browser that doesn't realize it's displaying an Adobe RGB image will not "stretch out" those colors appropriately, resulting in a dull image.
People automatically assume that "wider gamut" means it's better but they don't really put much thought into it. If you have a wider gamut but you still have only 24 bits (8 bits per color channel), the amount of actual data remains the same (saved as a JPEG).
sRGB isn't as wide as Adobe RGB but since it has the same number of levels in each color channel, sRGB offers smoother gradients. A sky in sRGB may look smooth but noticeably posterized with Adobe RGB.
Think of it in terms of ladders. sRGB and Adobe RGB ladders have the same number of rungs but the Adobe RGB ladder extends further up as well as underground; this gives you more options on what you can see. But sRGB's more closely-spaced rungs give you finer control.
Then there's compatibility. Save a JPEG with an Adobe RGB color space and it will look dull on the Web since hardly anyone is using a color-managed display setup. Since each "step" in color expands to a bigger leap with Adobe RGB, the numerical information is correspondingly compressed in storage (compared to sRGB). An OS/browser that doesn't realize it's displaying an Adobe RGB image will not "stretch out" those colors appropriately, resulting in a dull image.
polansky
Leading Member
You make me laugh...
There is no monitor available that can handle pro photo RGB perfectly either.
Some EIZO monitors can handle 98.9% of the adobe rgb color space and they cost already a lot of money..
But what made me laugh is the fact that you are probably are editing files of which you don't know the outcome off... In a color space your monitor can't handle.
You will not perceive the difference on paper between Adobe rgb and pro photo rgb.
Altough you can perceive the difference between argb and rgb, if you are not being told you will never know either.
There is no monitor available that can handle pro photo RGB perfectly either.
Some EIZO monitors can handle 98.9% of the adobe rgb color space and they cost already a lot of money..
But what made me laugh is the fact that you are probably are editing files of which you don't know the outcome off... In a color space your monitor can't handle.
You will not perceive the difference on paper between Adobe rgb and pro photo rgb.
Altough you can perceive the difference between argb and rgb, if you are not being told you will never know either.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum