srgb vs adobe 1998

Started Aug 28, 2012 | Discussions
Norwin Regular Member • Posts: 162
srgb vs adobe 1998

Dear Leica M9 Friends,

I have been advised by a photographer who's work I admire that I should convert my camera from rgb to adobe 1998, and honestly I don't know how. Nor, do I know if it is even possible?

Please great Leica masters, tell me if this M9 grasshopper can make the adjustment to Adobe 1998 and tell me how to do it!

Please. Please. Please.

With my respects,

Norwin1

1JB Senior Member • Posts: 1,078
Re: srgb vs adobe 1998

The conversion is done by whatever software you use when you open the file. ACR for example allows you to select it when opening the dng file and you can set it in your preferences in PS.

OP Norwin Regular Member • Posts: 162
Re: srgb vs adobe 1998

thank you for your reply, however, I do not use PS. I do use Lightroom. And, if there is a way to convert into Adobe 1998 in Lightroom, I don't know how to do that.

Please. tell me how do I?

janlu
janlu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,132
Re: srgb vs adobe 1998

If you shot with your Leica in DNG ... raw indeed .... the pictures have not a colorspace , you have all the full color range of the camera if you can display it with your monitor , Adobe Rgb is useful if you had an Adobe RGB gamut monitor and printer , if not the device will compress the pictures in its own space.... i.e. SRGB .....

Remenber ... ther DNG files have not a colors space but if you have an Adobe Rgb device it can display better the colors gradation , AdobeRGB has more large gamut than standard SRgb but if you don't have the right output-device i would not worry about this..... !!

Best , Gianluca
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gianlucanardini/

Olaf Ulrich Contributing Member • Posts: 953
Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998

Norwin wrote:

I have been advised by a photographer who's work I admire that I should convert my camera from sRGB to Adobe RGB 1998, and honestly I don't know how. Nor, do I know if it is even possible?

Sure it's possible ... but it's bad advice in the first place. Just because he creates admirable work, it doesn't necessarily mean he knows what he's talking about.

For JPEG files, better stick with sRGB. For prints, it makes sense to shoot in DNG format and print in Adobe RGB colour space (or even greater colour spaces when the printer permits)—but in order to do this, there's no settings required on the camera ... well, with the obvious exception to set the recording format to DNG (or better yet, DNG+JPEG).

mskuma Forum Member • Posts: 93
Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998

The advice here is right - just shoot RAW, and worry about colour space later - usually sRGB is fine. Regarding printers, many dye-sublimation printers 'prefer' (are tuned to accept) sRGB space images as input. Check what the printer needs.

Michael.

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,319
Re: srgb vs adobe 1998

Norwin wrote:

thank you for your reply, however, I do not use PS. I do use Lightroom. And, if there is a way to convert into Adobe 1998 in Lightroom, I don't know how to do that.

Please. tell me how do I?

Are you working with raw files or JPEG files?

For raw files, what you set the camera to with regards to color space is irrelevant. Color space is applied at raw conversion time. Lightroom uses the ProPhoto RGB working color space in a 16bit environment for editing, and you set the output color space in the Export module ... either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. The M9 knows that color space is irrelevant when capturing raw files only and disables that command.

If you're working with JPEG files, then you set the color space using the Color Management function in the Menu list. You use Adobe RGB in-camera color space only when you know you're going to edit the JPEGs after the fact, otherwise leave it on sRGB. Adobe RGB applied to JPEGs nets a little more edit ability, nothing much more. You always want what you post to the web be set to sRGB.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Olaf Ulrich Contributing Member • Posts: 953
Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998

Godfrey wrote:

Adobe RGB applied to JPEGs nets a little more edit ability ...

No, it doesn't. Instead, the edit ability remains exactly the same. There are 8 bits per channel either way.

Applying Adobe RGB 1998 to JPEG files makes sense only when the files will get printed—but then, shooting in raw format makes even more sense. Either way it requires a fully colour-managed workflow and an operator who knows how to deal with it. JPEG files that are meant for the Internet and to be viewed on computer monitors (or worse yet, TV screens) should be sRGB—in particular when the viewing monitors are not the photographer's. Of course, at shooting time, it usually is not yet known where the picture is going to end up. So it doesn't make sense trying to decide about that at shooting time.

Of course you can always change the colour space after the fact. But changing a JPEG file's colour space from Adobe RGB 1998 to sRGB is a bad thing, and switching from sRGB to Adobe RGB 1998 is even worse. Many mis-interpret this as a good reason to prefer Adobe RGB 1998 over sRGB—but that's a misconception. It's better not to change a JPEG file's colour space at all. Keep in mind that, in a way, JPEG format and sRGB colour space belong to each other. Most devices that accept pictures in JPEG format also expect them to be in sRGB colour space, and vice versa. Combining JPEG format with a colour space other than sRGB means asking for trouble. Technically, it's possible of course, but in terms of handling and usage, it makes sense only for the initiated who are aware what the consequences of an unusual colour space are and how to deal with them ... and you'll be surprised how many professional graphic designers and picture editors have no idea what a colour space is.

That's why I shoot in DNG+JPEG format and in sRGB mode always. This way, I have JPEG files for quick access and hassle-free handling, and DNG raw files for anything else. If I really need a JPEG file in Adobe RGB 1998 colour space (seldom) then I create one from the DNG file.

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,319
Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998

Olaf Ulrich wrote:

Godfrey wrote:

Adobe RGB applied to JPEGs nets a little more edit ability ...

No, it doesn't. Instead, the edit ability remains exactly the same. There are 8 bits per channel either way.

Doesn't matter. Adobe RGB (1998) has a larger gamut than sRGB, so you can make more edits to a JPEG captured in Adobe RGB without clipping than you can with sRGB. That's why you have a little bit more editability. It's not a huge difference, but it's still an advantage and an increased range.

You're not "applying Adobe RGB to JPEG" when you set this as an in-camera JPEG option. You're converting the raw data the camera captures to an RGB channel image with an Adobe RGB colorspace model, then using the JPEG compression algorithm to output the final image.

Beyond that, because sRGB has a smaller gamut than Adobe RGB which is also completely enclosed by the Adobe RGB gamut, you can losslessly convert an sRGB colorspace image to Adobe RGB colorspace. Converting an Adobe RGB colorspace to sRGB is never lossless because some downsampling interpolation is required, but done correctly the conversion losses can be minimal and it maximizes the rendering quality for most computer displays since sRGB colorspace was designed to model the imaging capabilities of the 8-bit computer display.

(Adobe RGB (1998) was designed to model the imaging capabilities of a CMYK web press, which has a larger gamut with a softer contrast curve than a computer display, thus the difference between the two colorspace models and the reason for their existence. Neither are optimal or capable of expressing the full range of color gamut achievable with a modern 12- to 16-bit image capture sensor: that requires a 16bit per component quantization space and ProPhoto RGB colorspace.)

I strongly recommend working with raw files (DNG format natively from the M9) in Lightroom and exporting finished work to the appropriately required format and colorspace. It's how you can get the best quality from the Leica M9, and indeed from any camera.

-- hide signature --
OP Norwin Regular Member • Posts: 162
Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998

The photographer I admire, shoots only in black and white. And, I shoot only in Black and White too. And, of course, only in raw...however, what he get's in his raw shots is the most amazing depth and coarseness and reality looking photos...which I still want to capture too.

Thus, its' immaterial to me to shoot in Jpeg, as I don't use Jpeg. I shoot in raw on my M9 as it gives me the most latitude to improve upon...however, with all the above written, I am still not technical enough to understand whether I can change the setting to Adobe 1998 if that is my choice...and, if it is a choice, how do I do it?

I think I understood it has to be done in LR, if so, then where and how do I do it in LR?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads