sRGB vs AdobeRGB

[claybreaker]

I have sporadically used AdobeRGB capture on my cameras for scenes that I though had an especially wide color palette. Honestly, I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of prints produced of the same scene captured in both AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm assuming that I'm gaining some benefit from capturing in AdobeRGB and having prints made by printers who can process AdobeRGB pictures.

I understand that sRGB is the standard for electronic transmission and display, and many printers calibrate to sRGB, so it is what I use the vast majority of the time.

For those who DO capture in AdobeRGB, when do you use it, why, and how much benefit do you see?

 

[Lord Brain]

There can be a big benefit with saturated scenes. Someone here once posted autumn leaves backlit. They were far more true to life in aRGB than sRGB.

Plus, the camera raw file doesn't have a color space. During conversion, you can even select Pro Photo RGB if you want.

 

[Biological_Viewfinder]

Adobe is meant for printing in CMYK. It has nicer skin tones. A wedding photographer would shoot AdobeRGB, but a landscape or macro photographer would not benefit from it.

From what I understand, you don't get more colors you gain a different version of color. So, if your computer, camera, monitor, printer combination will use 16-bit color then you get exactly that and not more or less. The "wider" color space is only wider with the colors that CMYK overlap with the RGB; so that you end up with a lot more skin tone colors than green for instance.

The sliders in photoshop are all 8-bit regardless of whether you use a 16-bit or 32-bit color depth, raw or jpeg; the sliders are all 8-bit. White is 255,255,255. That's 8-bit color.

16-bit is 65,536 shades of red, green, and blue. So true white would be 65,536, 65,536 , 65,536.

AdobeRGB is still RGB as the name suggests, but it is shifted to represent printing in CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black). But 16-bit is still 16-bit, regardless of whether it is sRGB or AdobeRGB.

The shifted effect makes for much nicer skin tones, but other subjects such as brightly colored or landscape scenes suffer losses under AdobeRGB as it is not displayed properly.

Additionally, websites are sRGB, so if you shoot and process AdobeRGB and then post it on the web, then it is changed to sRGB and the conversion is forced and very general and results in appearing off-color. It is much like letting the be resize your image, which results in poor sharpening and jagged.

Essentially it comes down to preference during post-processing, skin tones, and if you are preparing a print. Some people enjoy post-processing the Adobe colors; but if you are working with skin tones or preparing to make a print then Adobe can be better for you. If you're posting on the web, then sRGB is the output.

I have shot both over my career for years at a time and I almost always had more realistic and pleasing results with sRGB, except when I was specifically doing portrait work.

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

[claybreaker]

The bulk of the additional color space gained by using AdobeRGB is in the green-cyan area, which is why I have used it for gardens and foliage pics, and assumed it made some sort of difference in my prints. It does make a difference on my monitor, which shows nearly 100% of AdobeRGB.

 

[Charles McRobert]

The bulk of the additional color space gained by using AdobeRGB is in the green-cyan area, which is why I have used it for gardens and foliage pics, and assumed it made some sort of difference in my prints. It does make a difference on my monitor, which shows nearly 100% of AdobeRGB.

To be certain: You cannot convert to a wider gamut after the fact.

Also noteworthy: ProPhoto gamut includes impossible colours.

 

[gollywop]

Hard to know where to begin with this one.

Adobe is meant for printing in CMYK.

Virtually all printers are CMYK, and virtually all inkjet printers are designed to be driven with RGB information, regardless of whether it is sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, or whatever RGB. The printer software (with the proper printer/paper profile applied) converts the RGB data from any such RGB profile to CMYK. There is nothing special about Adobe RGB in this context.

It is true, however, that many good inkjet printers today have gamuts that are close to that of Adobe RGB, and, thus, one would not be taking advantage of their potential using a narrower gamut such as sRGB.

It has nicer skin tones. A wedding photographer would shoot AdobeRGB, but a landscape or macro photographer would not benefit from it.

This is not so. Anyone wanting a larger color space would benefit from using Adobe RGB over sRGB. Only those photographers (of any subject) who are only processing for the web might find it easier to stick with sRGB from beginning to end.

Fortunately, for those who shoot raw, there is not an issue, since the raw data have no color space.

From what I understand, you don't get more colors you gain a different version of color.

You do indeed get more colors (wider gamut) with Adobe RGB than with sRGB. Here are their comparative gamuts:



That is a significant difference, particularly in the more saturated regions.

There are no different "versions" of the colors, although colors that are the same in the different color spaces will have different RGB triples to denote them.

So, if your computer, camera, monitor, printer combination will use 16-bit color then you get exactly that and not more or less. The "wider" color space is only wider with the colors that CMYK overlap with the RGB; so that you end up with a lot more skin tone colors than green for instance.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The sliders in photoshop are all 8-bit regardless of whether you use a 16-bit or 32-bit color depth, raw or jpeg; the sliders are all 8-bit. White is 255,255,255. That's 8-bit color.

This is not true either. While many sliders indeed have a 0-255 range, this is a holdover and is treated relatively. If one has specified 16 bits in PS, white is not (255,255,255). Actually, PS's 16-bit facility is actually only 15 bits, and white is (32768,32768,32768). Here is a sample value from PS's Info of a white pixel.



You can specify what values to use by clicking the eyedropper-+. Note above the RGB values are labeled 16-bit.

16-bit is 65,536 shades of red, green, and blue. So true white would be 65,536, 65,536 , 65,536.

As noted, PS's 16-bits are actually only 15. 32768 is the maximum value.

AdobeRGB is still RGB as the name suggests, but it is shifted to represent printing in CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black). But 16-bit is still 16-bit, regardless of whether it is sRGB or AdobeRGB.

All RGB profiles are shifted to CMYK when printing. There is nothing special about Adobe RGB here.

The shifted effect makes for much nicer skin tones, but other subjects such as brightly colored or landscape scenes suffer losses under AdobeRGB as it is not displayed properly.

??????

Additionally, websites are sRGB, so if you shoot and process AdobeRGB and then post it on the web, then it is changed to sRGB and the conversion is forced and very general and results in appearing off-color. It is much like letting the be resize your image, which results in poor sharpening and jagged.

This is about the only thing you've said here that is correct. If you are posting on the web, even if you've used Adobe RGB, you are well advised to convert to sRGB before posting. Some webpages and browsers are able to deal properly with this kind of color management, but you can't count on it.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[digidog]

I have sporadically used AdobeRGB capture on my cameras for scenes that I though had an especially wide color palette. Honestly, I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of prints produced of the same scene captured in both AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm assuming that I'm gaining some benefit from capturing in AdobeRGB and having prints made by printers who can process AdobeRGB pictures.

Here's a video for you (and a file for testing):

The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:

This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print.

Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error.

Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.

Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB.

High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Low Resolution (YouTube):

I understand that sRGB is the standard for electronic transmission and display, and many printers calibrate to sRGB, so it is what I use the vast majority of the time.

Close. There is no such thing as an sRGB printer! That's because sRGB and all RGB working space are based on an emissive display, many theoretical. Many labs demand sRGB to make it faster and easier to run lots of files through their front end. It's for their benefit not yours. sRGB is suboptimal for output to any printing device (never seen one's gamut that isn't larger than sRGB in some areas of color space as seen below using printers that are not known to have especially large color gamuts):

Red plot is sRGB's gamut. Colors are those that would clip using it to these printers.

For those who DO capture in AdobeRGB, when do you use it, why, and how much benefit do you see?

I capture raw which has no defined (colorimetric) color space. IF you shoot JPEG's, you must decide to set the internal conversions to sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998). The later provides the option for both, not the former!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[digidog]

Adobe is meant for printing in CMYK.

Not really... now ColorMatch RGB, who's gamut isn't that much larger is (due to it's gamma encoding).

Adobe RGB is really a hack. That is, it was originally called SMPTE-240 when introduced with other RGB working space in Photoshop 5. Problem was, the spec's for this was uploaded to the web incorrectly and Adobe used them as such. The SMPTE told Adobe, you got it wrong, so they changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998)! Funny but true.

It has nicer skin tones. A wedding photographer would shoot AdobeRGB, but a landscape or macro photographer would not benefit from it.

Unless the wedding takes place around saturated colors that photographer can capture and wishes to reproduce.

From what I understand, you don't get more colors you gain a different version of color.

Correct! Color gamut defines the range, not the number of colors. The number of colors (actually, device values) is defined by the encoding:

So, if your computer, camera, monitor, printer combination will use 16-bit color then you get exactly that and not more or less.

Exactly! But some values are not colors in some color spaces (we can't see em):

http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf

The "wider" color space is only wider with the colors that CMYK overlap with the RGB; so that you end up with a lot more skin tone colors than green for instance.

Not really....

This might help:

Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut

A pretty exhaustive 37 minute video examining the color gamut of RGB working spaces, images and output color spaces. All plotted in 2D and 3D to illustrate color gamut.

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov

Low Res (YouTube):

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[digidog]

It is true, however, that many good inkjet printers today have gamuts that are close to that of Adobe RGB, and, thus, one would not be taking advantage of their potential using a narrower gamut such as sRGB.

Often, significantly larger than Adobe RGB (1998). And for a long time. Case in point, an Epson 2200 (really old unit) compared to Adobe RGB (1998):

Orange is Adobe RGB (1998). Colors outside it from Epson 2200 (would clip)

Take a modern Epson, the differences are much larger.

Adobe RGB (1998) isn't large enough for encoding colors a modern ink jet printer can produce.

ProPhoto, no issue.

And there's this recommendation for those of you working with raw data in an Adobe raw converter which uses ProPhoto RGB color gamut for processing:

Here's what Adobe recommends (if you believe they understand color management as I do)



--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[gollywop]

It is true, however, that many good inkjet printers today have gamuts that are close to that of Adobe RGB, and, thus, one would not be taking advantage of their potential using a narrower gamut such as sRGB.

Often, significantly larger than Adobe RGB (1998). And for a long time. Case in point, an Epson 2200 (really old unit) compared to Adobe RGB (1998):

Orange is Adobe RGB (1998). Colors outside it from Epson 2200 (would clip)

Take a modern Epson, the differences are much larger.

Adobe RGB (1998) isn't large enough for encoding colors a modern ink jet printer can produce.

ProPhoto, no issue.

And there's this recommendation for those of you working with raw data in an Adobe raw converter which uses ProPhoto RGB color gamut for processing:

Here's what Adobe recommends (if you believe they understand color management as I do)

Right.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Jon Tr]

I have sporadically used AdobeRGB capture on my cameras for scenes that I though had an especially wide color palette. Honestly, I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of prints produced of the same scene captured in both AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm assuming that I'm gaining some benefit from capturing in AdobeRGB and having prints made by printers who can process AdobeRGB pictures.

I understand that sRGB is the standard for electronic transmission and display, and many printers calibrate to sRGB, so it is what I use the vast majority of the time.

For those who DO capture in AdobeRGB, when do you use it, why, and how much benefit do you see?

Is your camera set to JPEG and aRBG?

Just asking because it should not matter if you are shooting RAW.

 

[graybalanced]

As noted, PS's 16-bits are actually only 15. 32768 is the maximum value.

The way that is written, whether intentionally or not, feeds the myth that PS is not doing 16 bit, which causes misplaced outrage on forums every couple years or so. It is 16 bit. Source of below text: http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1709190&seqNum=2

High-Bit Photoshop

If an 8-bit channel consists of 256 levels, a 10-bit channel consists of 1,024 levels, and a 12-bit channel consists of 4,096 levels, doesn’t it follow that a 16-bit channel should consist of 65,536 levels?

Well, that’s certainly one way that a 16-bit channel could be constructed, but it’s not the way Photoshop does it. Photoshop’s implementation of 16 bits per channel uses 32,769 levels, from 0 (black) to 32,768 (white). One advantage of this approach is that it provides an unambiguous midpoint between white and black (useful in imaging operations such as blending modes) that a channel comprising 65,536 levels lacks.

To those who would claim that Photoshop’s 16-bit color is really more like 15-bit color, we simply point out that it takes 16 bits to represent, and by the time capture devices that can actually capture more than 32,769 levels are at all common, we’ll all have moved on to 32-bit floating point channels rather than 16-bit integer ones.

 

[Biological_Viewfinder]

The guy didn't seem to be asking for an engineer's response.

I disagree with what you disagree with me about. I don't really care if you used graphs to explain your viewpoint either. If the Original Poster wanted a response, he got one, wrong or right. Showing off how well someone can research the internet or locate graphs doesn't mean anything. If you wanted to do that, you should've done what the other guy did and given a url link. LOL!

Regardless of whatever you say about it, and I don't have a PHD in the field or really care to get one, but my experience has been that the CMYK colorspace of AdobeRGB is really best for skin tones and printing and not much else.

It isn't wider. It isn't more color. LOL! It's just different colors. And really so what if it is more color in engineer-speak. In plain English, it's not worth very much. In real life, it's not a big deal. In fact, it might even be less actually useable color because of how devices interpret and translate it back to sRGB.

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

[digidog]

The guy didn't seem to be asking for an engineer's response.

Is that your assumption or he told you? Should he be interested in knowing the reply to him from you is technically incorrect? I suspect he and other lurkers might....

I disagree with what you disagree with me about. I don't really care if you used graphs to explain your viewpoint either. If the Original Poster wanted a response, he got one, wrong or right.

A right answer is usually (always?) preferable than a wrong one. Sorry, much of what you write is simply wrong.

Look you wrote something that's utterly untrue: Adobe is meant for printing in CMYK. You were corrected. If you don't like being corrected, don't post text that has zero bearing in fact or science.

IF you're curious (and I kind of doubt you are), what Adobe RGB SMPTE-240M-40M was designed for, here you go bud:

https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis/ch02s06.html

Good luck finding anything there (or elsewhere) about output to CMYK! Now maybe you read this and accepted it as fact. Sorry, you were lied to. Take it up with whoever pulled the wool over your eyes about Adobe RGB and CMYK. It's not true! Probably this incorrect sentence on Wikipedia:

It was designed to encompass most of the colors achievable on CMYKcolor printers

I provided the actual history of Adobe RGB and above, the origins of SMPTE-240M which Adobe got wrong. Them's the facts.

You wrote this too, it's also untrue: AdobeRGB is still RGB as the name suggests, but it is shifted to represent printing in CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black). Nope. Like all RGB working spaces, they are designed as theoretical emissive devices (hence RGB).

IF you fully (partially) understand basic color management, you'd know that Adobe RGB (1998) has notning to do with CMYK and that CMYK is an attribute of a CMYK ICC profile that produces that color space from any RGB data.

I'm sorry that reality and facts continue to ruin your life.

Showing off how well someone can research the internet or locate graphs doesn't mean anything.

To you.

Regardless of whatever you say about it, and I don't have a PHD in the field or really care to get one, but my experience has been that the CMYK colorspace of AdobeRGB is really best for skin tones and printing and not much else.

Since you're not the OP, should we care? Do you have anything useful to post to the OP on the subject or just your disinterest in further education on the topic?

It isn't wider. It isn't more color. LOL! It's just different colors. And really so what if it is more color in engineer-speak. In plain English, it's not worth very much. In real life, it's not a big deal. In fact, it might even be less actually useable color because of how devices interpret and translate it back to sRGB.

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

As noted, PS's 16-bits are actually only 15. 32768 is the maximum value.

The way that is written, whether intentionally or not, feeds the myth that PS is not doing 16 bit, which causes misplaced outrage on forums every couple years or so. It is 16 bit.

Also, not all data, in fact not much data truly is encoded as 16-bit. Photoshop can take a 10-12-14-bit encoding and still use the 15+1 bit 'math' for processing.

It's akin to this idea that 24 bit encoding defines 16.7 million colors. That's not true IF we define properly what color is. It defines 16.7 million device values. I can assure everyone here that in ProPhoto RGB, 0R/0B/255G is not a color. It is a device value.

Notice Jeff is very careful to talk about levels, or color definitions, not colors in the URL you provided. Device values = color definitions, not necessarily color(s).

 

[Charles2]

I have sporadically used AdobeRGB capture on my cameras for scenes that I though had an especially wide color palette. Honestly, I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of prints produced of the same scene captured in both AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm assuming that I'm gaining some benefit from capturing in AdobeRGB and having prints made by printers who can process AdobeRGB pictures.

I understand that sRGB is the standard for electronic transmission and display, and many printers calibrate to sRGB, so it is what I use the vast majority of the time.

For those who DO capture in AdobeRGB, when do you use it, why, and how much benefit do you see?

Your choice in the camera affects the camera JPGs, not the raw files.

You are correct that the Web is still an sRGB place. So are most ordinary monitors. And some printing services accept only sRGB files.

The Adobe RGB color space is better if you have a monitor that displays nearly all of it. It's better if the printing service will accept it, and if you print yourself on an inkjet printer meant for photography.

As for ProPhotoRGB, you can find endless arguments about it in the Printing forum. Keep in mind not only the evidence, logic, and relevance in the statements people make, but also whether they are motivated by enthusiasm for photography as a hobby or profession versus motivated by techno pride, their business interest, etc.

 

[Biological_Viewfinder]

Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!!!!!

I thought this was a forum for communication, not an engineer's physics convention where if you don't have an 8 page answer with graphics then you can't talk.

 

[digidog]

Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!!!!!

I thought this was a forum for communication, not an engineer's physics convention where if you don't have an 8 page answer with graphics then you can't talk.

The reason there's so much ignorance is that those who have it are so eager to share it. -Frank A. Clark

 

[digidog]

Charles2 wrote: As for ProPhotoRGB, you can find endless arguments about it in the Printing forum. Keep in mind not only the evidence, logic, and relevance in the statements people make, but also whether they are motivated by enthusiasm for photography as a hobby or profession versus motivated by techno pride, their business interest, etc.

Which is why I recommend people test their workflows; output some saturated imagery to the device of your choice, try a few working spaces, see what happens.

 

[gollywop]

The guy didn't seem to be asking for an engineer's response.

I disagree with what you disagree with me about. I don't really care if you used graphs to explain your viewpoint either. If the Original Poster wanted a response, he got one, wrong or right. Showing off how well someone can research the internet or locate graphs doesn't mean anything.

None of this came from the "internet." It came directly from local sources (ColorSync and Photoshop itself) that contradict your erroneous information.

If you wanted to do that, you should've done what the other guy did and given a url link. LOL!

No URL links are required. Some intelligence and understanding of the matters are.

Regardless of whatever you say about it, and I don't have a PHD in the field or really care to get one,

This I believe.

but my experience has been that the CMYK colorspace of AdobeRGB is really best for skin tones and printing and not much else.

You, then, should keep to them for your own benefit; but not for others'. It's fine to defile your own tent. The leaks only drip on you. But you do others a big disservice inviting them to your party.

It isn't wider. It isn't more color. LOL! It's just different colors.

Colors do not differ. They may be referred to in different ways, but a given color is a given color. For someone who prides himself on binary depiction, you are pretty foolish. The number 10 does not differ from the number 2 just because someone has changed the base.

And really so what if it is more color in engineer-speak. In plain English, it's not worth very much.

What is 'it'? And what's with the childish repetition of LOL?

In real life, it's not a big deal.

What is 'it'?

In fact, it might even be less actually useable color because of how devices interpret and translate it back to sRGB.

What is 'it'?

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand what they're talking about and those who don't.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg