RGB vs sRGB I know tons of people must have this answer!

Andrew Visscher · Jan 15, 2004

Ok, now for the lighthearted stuff...

digidog said:
None of this is easy at first.
In May of 1990, about 2 months after Photoshop shipped and there
was no internet to discuss the application nor a single book on the
subject (just the Adobe manual), it wasn't easy for me to learn
Photoshop.

Sure makes me glad that I waited about 10 years, so I could take advantage of those books, forums, tutorials, etc. It was quite confusing until I suddenly realized: OH! There is information about this online! ...

Member said:
it wasn't easy for me to learn
Photoshop. I did it (do I get a prize? ).

I think the prize is that you now get advance use of products, and people pay to come to your classes...

Member said:
Color Management isn't
easy but neither is a lot of stuff at first. Do you remember the
first time you ever drove a 5 speed?

Sure, I remember -- the 5 speed was quite simple. That could be due to learning to drive with a 4 speed...

...

Andy

Wayne Larmon · Jan 16, 2004

Andrew Visscher said:
I think part of the problem that people have with a working space
other than sRGB is that they then treat that other space as if it
were sRGB at the time of printing. Hmmm... or maybe I'm just
remembering personal experience when I first "stepped up" to Adobe
RGB & then wondered why my prints suddenly looked worse.

Coud you clarify what you mean by "treat that other space as if it were sRGB at the time of printing"?

Do you mean printing without converting to a printer's profile? So that the colors would be muted like they are when looking at an Adobe RGB image in a non-color managed prigram?

Wayne Larmon

Andrew Visscher · Jan 16, 2004

Wayne Larmon said:
Andrew Visscher said:

I think part of the problem that people have with a working space
other than sRGB is that they then treat that other space as if it
were sRGB at the time of printing.

Click to expand...

Coud you clarify what you mean by "treat that other space as if it
were sRGB at the time of printing"?

Do you mean printing without converting to a printer's profile?
So that the colors would be muted like they are when looking at an
Adobe RGB image in a non-color managed prigram?

Yes, pretty much -- I meant that the print workflow isn't correct, so when a space other than sRGB is used, the 'incorrectness' really shows up. The problem could be at either point:

If they print from a non profile aware program, or send the file to some lab that assumes all files are sRGB, the file's color space is now assumed to be something else, or even nothing at all. This appears to be the problem with those pro wedding/portrait photographers whose sites say that you should not work in AdobeRGB, since your prints will look washed out. Well, yes, they will look that way if you don't know how to properly deal with your image's color space.

If you print from PS and have the print dialog's Source Space set correctly (and your image is correctly tagged), but then set the destination incorretly, you can easily mess up the print. Let's say you find that you can print to a destination of Same as Source and get a nice print for your sRGB images -- you've tweaked your driver settings and you are happy with the results; you don't know a thing about profiles & don't care, since your prints look so good. Next, you hear that you should use AdobeRGB, since it is a 'better' space and holds more colors. Great! You work on our next image in AdobeRGB, then print the same way as before... and suddenly wonder why the print looks so bad. Obviously, using AdobeRGB was a really bad idea and it should never be used since it may hold more colors, but those colors are wrong!

That's the long version of why I said understanding how to print 'properly' is more important than which space you work in... or it is at least a first step.

Andy

med007 · Jan 16, 2004

Andrew Visscher said:
Wayne Larmon said:

Andrew Visscher said:

I think part of the problem that people have with a working space
other than sRGB is that they then treat that other space as if it
were sRGB at the time of printing.

Click to expand...

Coud you clarify what you mean by "treat that other space as if it
were sRGB at the time of printing"?

Do you mean printing without converting to a printer's profile?
So that the colors would be muted like they are when looking at an
Adobe RGB image in a non-color managed prigram?

Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much -- I meant that the print workflow isn't correct,
so when a space other than sRGB is used, the 'incorrectness' really
shows up. The problem could be at either point:

If they print from a non profile aware program, or send the file to
some lab that assumes all files are sRGB, the file's color space is
now assumed to be something else, or even nothing at all. This
appears to be the problem with those pro wedding/portrait
photographers whose sites say that you should not work in AdobeRGB,
since your prints will look washed out. Well, yes, they will look
that way if you don't know how to properly deal with your image's
color space.

If you print from PS and have the print dialog's Source Space set
correctly (and your image is correctly tagged), but then set the
destination incorretly, you can easily mess up the print. Let's say
you find that you can print to a destination of Same as Source and
get a nice print for your sRGB images -- you've tweaked your driver
settings and you are happy with the results; you don't know a thing
about profiles & don't care, since your prints look so good. Next,
you hear that you should use AdobeRGB, since it is a 'better' space
and holds more colors. Great! You work on our next image in
AdobeRGB, then print the same way as before... and suddenly wonder
why the print looks so bad. Obviously, using AdobeRGB was a really
bad idea and it should never be used since it may hold more colors,
but those colors are wrong!

That's the long version of why I said understanding how to print
'properly' is more important than which space you work in... or it
is at least a first step.

Andy

RonMatta · Jan 17, 2004

Andy + digidog thx, that was it i just wanted to get cleared exactly. Because we have discussed this matter also between some friends, and its clear now !
Ron
--
It depends just on Your Imagination ...

Sheld · Jan 26, 2004

Actually, I think maybe even the yellows in the flowers wouldn't benefit. Based on this gamut diagram, ONLY clipped Greens benefit, and then only if the secondary color is blue. Am I correct?

Sheld said:
I'm understanding this a bit bitter. I couldn't find very many
photos that I've taken that would benefit from Adobe RGB. But I
found one that I took with my Kodak DC4800, prior to retiring it.
Adobe RGB helps with the greens that are clipped. So, to find a
good candidate for Adobe RGB, look for a photo with the RGB(G=255)
and either RGB(B=very small) or RGB(R=very small). The yellow
flowers in this photo are an example. Clipping in general was
very problematic for the DC4800, and, of course the DC4800 has no
support for Adobe RGB! But the concept still holds....

Adobe RGB does not help normal clipping for (255,255,255) since the
gray scale for Adobe RGB is the same as the gray scale for sRGB.
"GREEN" clipping is obviously quite a bit rarer than white clipping.

-- bigger, http://www.sheltx.com/photos/halfsize/DCP_3730.jpg

I couldn't find any examples form my Canon G3, which does support
RAW and has a 12 bit D/A converter. I haven't taken pictures of
flowers with my G3. I get an occasional bright yellow, but the few
examples I found were either pastel or not quite clipped.

Shel

pmlegene · Jan 26, 2004

R Stacy said:
It was real pain to have to go back through and
convert every image (over 100) to sRGB.

Photoshop offers batch processing. You could have done that job with just a few mouse clicks.

Vaughn T.Winfree · Jan 26, 2004

This has been a great thread to review... I have been having the same problem with color space. Just when you think you figure it out, something throws a wrench in it...
Most people on the Web tell me I should be using Adobe RGB.

But I have found by trial and error and by what my local Pro Lab specifications require is to use sRGB for the files to print.

When images captured in Adobe RGB are displayed on my Srgb based monitor,or printed with an sRGB printer, the resulting image does look to have low chroma... As far as my printing goes, most of my work is sent out to a lab... By following their recommendations by using sRGB from beginning to end, my photos are looking to be more consistent to what I expect from the print. The end product. To me that is all that matters.

From RAW, I import into PS CS as a 16 bit TIFF @ 250DPI in a sRGB color space... I can either send the TIFF or the photo is later converted to a JPEG 8 bit sRGB for print at the lab. Their specs for their Kodak printer that will produce beautiful 20x30 prints....This seems to work best for me at this time... But I am always looking to improve my process.

I will be the first to admit that I am still learning, and will continue to do so.

But to date, Adobe RBG has not helped me much at all.. The Adobe RBG photos from RAW conversion look almost plastic in comparison when looking at the same photo in sRGB. If anyone can explain this I would love to hear about it. Even recommended settings are welcome for me to test out.... Take care

Vaughn T. Winfree

Sheld said:
Sheld said:

I'm understanding this a bit bitter. I couldn't find very many
photos that I've taken that would benefit from Adobe RGB. But I
found one that I took with my Kodak DC4800, prior to retiring it.
Adobe RGB helps with the greens that are clipped. So, to find a
good candidate for Adobe RGB, look for a photo with the RGB(G=255)
and either RGB(B=very small) or RGB(R=very small). The yellow
flowers in this photo are an example. Clipping in general was
very problematic for the DC4800, and, of course the DC4800 has no
support for Adobe RGB! But the concept still holds....

Adobe RGB does not help normal clipping for (255,255,255) since the
gray scale for Adobe RGB is the same as the gray scale for sRGB.
"GREEN" clipping is obviously quite a bit rarer than white clipping.

-- bigger, http://www.sheltx.com/photos/halfsize/DCP_3730.jpg

I couldn't find any examples form my Canon G3, which does support
RAW and has a 12 bit D/A converter. I haven't taken pictures of
flowers with my G3. I get an occasional bright yellow, but the few
examples I found were either pastel or not quite clipped.

Shel

Click to expand...

--
Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

Andrew Visscher · Jan 26, 2004

Most of this has been covered elsewhere in this very thread (or maybe it was a similar one active at the same time this one was...)

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
But I have found by trial and error and by what my local Pro Lab
specifications require is to use sRGB for the files to print.

If that is who you want to use, then make sure you give them files in sRGB. If you start in AdobeRGB, you have to convert the files to sRGB for that lab to be able to print them reasonably.

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
When images captured in Adobe RGB are displayed on my Srgb based
monitor,or printed with an sRGB printer, the resulting image does
look to have low chroma...

If you shoot in AdobeRGB, but treat the resulting file as sRGB, of course it will look undersaturated. Similarly, shooting sRGB and treating it as AdobeRGB will cause it to be oversaturated.

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
The end product. To me
that is all that matters.

And that it where it comes down to you working in whatever way satisfies you.

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
But I am
always looking to improve my process.

Perhaps give a color-manged lab a try, once you understand CM?

Is your monitor calibrated/profiled?

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
But to date, Adobe RBG has not helped me much at all.. The Adobe
RBG photos from RAW conversion look almost plastic in comparison
when looking at the same photo in sRGB. If anyone can explain this
I would love to hear about it.

See above comments regarding why your AdobeRGB images look bad in an sRGB process. In this thread, see my posting: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=7304222

Also pay attention to digidog's posts. (I didn't re-read everything, so I don't remember who else to point out.)

Finally, since I don't have a website to post anything... I cheat and point people towards other people's great tutorials. (Besides, why repeat what is already out there...)

See:

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/tips/ (Especially the Assign vs. Convert tutorial, among others.)

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ (Feature Articles on the next page)

Andy

Andrew Visscher · Jan 26, 2004

Sheld said:
Actually, I think maybe even the yellows in the flowers wouldn't
benefit. Based on this gamut diagram, ONLY clipped Greens benefit,
and then only if the secondary color is blue. Am I correct?

Not necessarily... you are only looking at a 2D representation of the gamut comparison for those 2 spaces. ColorThink (from http://www.chromix.com/ ) will allow you to see a 3D comparison. I don't know what other programs might be able to do that.

Andy

Vaughn T.Winfree · Jan 26, 2004

Perhaps give a color-manged lab a try, once you understand CM?

Is your monitor calibrated/profiled?

Answer..Yes.. I use the Spyder Pro with Optical on a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19 inch CRT.
Vaughn

Andrew Visscher said:
Vaughn T.Winfree said:

But I have found by trial and error and by what my local Pro Lab
specifications require is to use sRGB for the files to print.

Click to expand...

If that is who you want to use, then make sure you give them files
in sRGB. If you start in AdobeRGB, you have to convert the files
to sRGB for that lab to be able to print them reasonably.

Andrew Visscher said:

When images captured in Adobe RGB are displayed on my Srgb based
monitor,or printed with an sRGB printer, the resulting image does
look to have low chroma...

Click to expand...

If you shoot in AdobeRGB, but treat the resulting file as sRGB, of
course it will look undersaturated. Similarly, shooting sRGB and
treating it as AdobeRGB will cause it to be oversaturated.

Andrew Visscher said:

The end product. To me
that is all that matters.

Click to expand...

And that it where it comes down to you working in whatever way
satisfies you.

Andrew Visscher said:

But I am
always looking to improve my process.

Click to expand...

Perhaps give a color-manged lab a try, once you understand CM?
Is your monitor calibrated/profiled?

Andrew Visscher said:

But to date, Adobe RBG has not helped me much at all.. The Adobe
RBG photos from RAW conversion look almost plastic in comparison
when looking at the same photo in sRGB. If anyone can explain this
I would love to hear about it.

Click to expand...

See above comments regarding why your AdobeRGB images look bad in
an sRGB process. In this thread, see my posting:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=7304222

Also pay attention to digidog's posts. (I didn't re-read
everything, so I don't remember who else to point out.)

Finally, since I don't have a website to post anything... I cheat
and point people towards other people's great tutorials. (Besides,
why repeat what is already out there...)

See:

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/tips/ (Especially the Assign vs.
Convert tutorial, among others.)

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ (Feature Articles on the next page)

Andy

--
Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

Joe Wilson · Jan 26, 2004

http://www.iccview.de - it allows you to graph (for free with a web based tool) profiles in 3d and compare them

Andrew Visscher said:
Sheld said:

Actually, I think maybe even the yellows in the flowers wouldn't
benefit. Based on this gamut diagram, ONLY clipped Greens benefit,
and then only if the secondary color is blue. Am I correct?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily... you are only looking at a 2D representation of
the gamut comparison for those 2 spaces. ColorThink (from
http://www.chromix.com/ ) will allow you to see a 3D comparison. I
don't know what other programs might be able to do that.

Andy

--
http://www.joesimages.com

Laurentiu Todie · Jan 26, 2004

Just when you think you figure it out, something throws a wrench in it...

Here's a wrench : )
Most monitors cannot display Adobe RGB.
(I was tempted to say ALL and it wouldn't be a big lie)

jrc · Jan 26, 2004

Vaughn T.Winfree · Jan 27, 2004

Exactly........... But the Adobe RGB monitors and printers are coming to a store near you.. In da near future.

Listen... I do not discount Adobe being better.. But until the computer systems, monitors, and printers get up to speed as using Adobe RGB as every day display standard, I may just stick with what my pro lab told me to do..Which is sRGB from start to finish..
Vaughn

Laurentiu Todie said:
Here's a wrench : )
Most monitors cannot display Adobe RGB.
(I was tempted to say ALL and it wouldn't be a big lie)

--
Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

MAC · Jan 27, 2004

digidog said:
This debate about sRGB verses Adobe RGB boils down to how much data
does your capture device produce and how do you want to use it (now
and in the future).

So imagine you have a digital camera that as the ability to capture
8 stops of tonal range (dynamic range from highlight to shadow).
You have a button that can cause the A2D converter to only give you
6 stops. Your printer can only produce 6 stops of data.

The debate becomes this. Do you capture/store/use all 8 stops even
though you may not (today, with this printer) have the ability to
use that data or do you throw away the extra 2 stops since your
printer can't possibly use it?

Personally I'd rather have the 8 stops, get 6 stops on print and
know that if someday, I want to switch printers, one that has more
than 6 stops, I have the data to use. I gain NOTHING by throwing
away the additional data. The file isn't bigger, the file isn't any
more inaccurate to edit. So, sRGB or Adobe RGB? Up to you. One has
more color possibilities than the other. Its as simple as that.

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

digidog · Jan 27, 2004

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
But to date, Adobe RBG has not helped me much at all..

Because you're not using correctly (sorry).

If you place or send an Adobe RGB file to a device that doesn't expect Adobe RGB, you're going to get bad results. Adobe RGB is an editing space. Files need to be converted from editing spaces to output space and each output device has a different need. Putting images on the web means someone is viewing the files on an output device (their display). Outside of ICC savvy applications, that output device is much closer to sRGB than Adobe RGB so you simply don't want to put Adobe RGB images on a web page.

If you had the right output profile for your printer(s) and sent the file through that to produce output RGB, then Adobe RGB wouldn't be a problem.

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
The Adobe
RBG photos from RAW conversion look almost plastic in comparison
when looking at the same photo in sRGB.

Because you are viewing them incorrectly. A file in Adobe RGB duplicated and converted to sRGB will appear the same in Photoshop. The opposite is true. IF you view them outside of Adobe Photoshop or ICC savvy applications, sRGB is closer to the aimpoint of your output device (in this case a display) so it looks 'better'. That doesn't discount Adobe RGB which would look virtually identical in an ICC savvy application which knows how to take both files and preview them accordingly

digidog · Jan 27, 2004

Vaughn T.Winfree said:
Exactly........... But the Adobe RGB monitors and printers are
coming to a store near you.. In da near future.

I've got an early release of the Mitsubishi TDF225WG that has 97% of the Adobe RGB gamut. That's what Mitsubishi says and based on custom display profiles I've made and plotted, it's indeed correct. Talk about some saturated previews. Simply amazing. The technology exist (it will not come cheap).

And even if you don't have a display that can show all these colors, there ARE plenty of devices that can print the colors. That's today and with relatively inexpensive printers that many of you already own!

Andrew Visscher · Jan 27, 2004

digidog said:
I've got an early release of the Mitsubishi TDF225WG that has 97%
of the Adobe RGB gamut. That's what Mitsubishi says and based on
custom display profiles I've made and plotted, it's indeed correct.
Talk about some saturated previews. Simply amazing. The technology
exist (it will not come cheap).

I was waiting to see if you would comment on that monitor.

So... are you in any position to have heard when it might be released? Have they mentioned any price range? Thanks.

Andy

digidog · Jan 27, 2004

Andrew Visscher said:
So... are you in any position to have heard when it might be
released? Have they mentioned any price range? Thanks.

No firm info on either. I suspect it's going to be quite expensive! It's a speciality item for sure.

RGB vs sRGB I know tons of people must have this answer!

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

digidog

Guest

digidog

Guest

Well-known member

digidog

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts