Do you shoot AdobeRGB?

[vvizard]

How do you set up your cams? With a predefined "set" with all values to "0" (or possible other values), or do you use AdobeRGB?

[vvizard]

Or maybe you shoot raw all the time, that's an option :)

[G3]

Yes, I use AdobeRGB. And I shoot RAW sometimes and large Jpeg sometimes. Depends on the situation.

[PhotosGuy]

300D: I've been using Parameter 2 & RAW most of the time, but am open to suggestions.

[IanD]

RAW for all my "nature" shots. Bike racing gets large Jpeg with everything turned off. Family BBQ's and the like, large Jpeg. Everything gets run through PSCS.

[Vegas Poboy]

Adobe RGB always, it's the most common all around format. RAW 80% of the time the rest is Jpeg Large Fine and thats for when I'm doing fast action and don't have the time to wait on the buffer to clear.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I shoot raw and convert to ProPhoto RGB using C1.

Regards,

[maderito]

I shoot in Adobe RGB and send Adobe RBB prints to my printer which undoubtedly has a smaller gamut than Adobe RGB but probably larger than sRGB (my eye cannot really tell).

I convert Adobe RGB images to sRGB color space for web display.

I archive all images in Adobe RGB color space with the hopes that someday printers and monitors will better display its larger gamut. :)

[Conor]

ive never really played with this setting


is it something i SHOULD be using?

ive got it on the default standard setting currently......

what does this setting do compared to the standard default setting?

[PacAce]

I shoot RAW all th time so it doesn't matter what color space I set the camera for. Used to convert to sRGB since I was only putting the pictures up on the web but I recently started using Adobe RGB as my work space since I'm going to be printing my pictures in the form of a calendar.

[Cordell]

There is no compelling reason to use AdobeRGB unless you are doing specialized print work or required by the printer. Nearly ALL printers end up converting your digital file to sRGB, so to me there is no benefit to AdobeRGB's larger color space. Some will argue that you have more information to start with; again, not beneficial in most cases. Remember that the more you convert a file from one color space to a different one the more you actually loose. If a particular color is not within the gamut of sRGB it will be tossed or "retrofitted" anyway during conversion. Test it to see for yourself. Shoot the same exact scene with one in sRGB and the other in AdobeRGB.

Simply call a list of printmasters and ask them. Don't go on the words of people who don't do the printing themselves.

Check out this article
http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

[PacAce]

There is no compelling reason to use AdobeRGB unless you are doing specialized print work or required by the printer. Nearly ALL printers end up converting your digital file to sRGB, so to me there is no benefit to AdobeRGB's larger color space. Some will argue that you have more information to start with; again, not beneficial in most cases. Remember that the more you convert a file from one color space to a different one the more you actually loose. If a particular color is not within the gamut of sRGB it will be tossed or "retrofitted" anyway during conversion. Test it to see for yourself. Shoot the same exact scene with one in sRGB and the other in AdobeRGB.

Simply call a list of printmasters and ask them. Don't go on the words of people who don't do the printing themselves.

Check out this article
http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

I used to think along your line of thinking, too, until it dawned on me that if you're using the sRGB work space and you need AdobeRGB, then you're sol without having to go back and redo everything if you want the colors in the "extended" areas of the AdobeRGB gamut. However, if you start out with AdobeRGB in the first place, it's a simple matter of converting to sRGB.

And also, I haven't seen any compelling reason NOT to go with AdobeRGB, either.

[G3]

There is no compelling reason to use AdobeRGB unless you are doing specialized print work or required by the printer. Nearly ALL printers end up converting your digital file to sRGB, so to me there is no benefit to AdobeRGB's larger color space. Some will argue that you have more information to start with; again, not beneficial in most cases. Remember that the more you convert a file from one color space to a different one the more you actually loose. If a particular color is not within the gamut of sRGB it will be tossed or "retrofitted" anyway during conversion. Test it to see for yourself. Shoot the same exact scene with one in sRGB and the other in AdobeRGB.

Simply call a list of printmasters and ask them. Don't go on the words of people who don't do the printing themselves.

Check out this article
http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

I used to think along your line of thinking, too, until it dawned on me that if you're using the sRGB work space and you need AdobeRGB, then you're sol without having to go back and redo everything if you want the colors in the "extended" areas of the AdobeRGB gamut. However, if you start out with AdobeRGB in the first place, it's a simple matter of converting to sRGB.

And also, I haven't seen any compelling reason NOT to go with AdobeRGB, either.

I agree. I don't always know for sure what all uses I'll have for a particular shot. If I shoot in AdobeRGB, at least I'll still have that original copy in that color space. I have PS CS set up for Adobe RGB also.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

There is no compelling reason to use AdobeRGB unless you are doing specialized print work or required by the printer. Nearly ALL printers end up converting your digital file to sRGB, so to me there is no benefit to AdobeRGB's larger color space. Some will argue that you have more information to start with; again, not beneficial in most cases. Remember that the more you convert a file from one color space to a different one the more you actually loose. If a particular color is not within the gamut of sRGB it will be tossed or "retrofitted" anyway during conversion. Test it to see for yourself. Shoot the same exact scene with one in sRGB and the other in AdobeRGB.

Simply call a list of printmasters and ask them. Don't go on the words of people who don't do the printing themselves.

Check out this article
http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

Sorry, the advice to shoot sRGB is horsefeathers. It's based on the lowest common denominator, digital printing for dummies principle. If you do your own printing with a desktop inkjet such as an Epson 2100/2200 or the R800 and many other makes and models, you are just throwing away colour, if you use sRGB. I have a bunch of gamut plots (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/27_gamuts.htm) that that show such printers are capable of printing colours that are outside the gamut of sRGB. There are also some images that show these "larger-than-sRGB" colours do happen occur in "average scenes".

Commercial printshops that request sRGB are taking the same approach - don't care about the best quality, just want to avoid hassle. On top of that, it's not as if shooting sRGB makes life any easier in post-processing.

If you are never, ever going to use images for something other than web display, perhaps, sRGB is OK, but for anything else you are giving up colour range for no obvious benefit.

Regards,

[mwinog2777]

Check this out for best advice how to set up camera:

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/products/eos10D/settings.jsp

[jens1204@earthlink.net]

I have used the standard color setting for three years with canons and I always do a custom white balance. The color have been great. Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored. I have switched back to standard RGB AKA srgb and my color quality is back. I found this strange because supposedly the adobe color space is much larger so I thought the images would become that much more vibrant. For me that was not the case unfortunately.

[Cordell]

I have used the standard color setting for three years with canons and I always do a custom white balance. The color have been great. Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored. I have switched back to standard RGB AKA srgb and my color quality is back. I found this strange because supposedly the adobe color space is much larger so I thought the images would become that much more vibrant. For me that was not the case unfortunately.

This is my point. Testing takes you to a place where you know for sure. Asking is great. Testing is better. Simply call your printer to ask. Most likely they will tell you sRGB! Again, if you shoot specialized work that requires AdobeRGB, of course you should go with it. However, on a normal daily shoot for most of us sRGB is a better method to avoid the dull muddy colors that result from conversion. There is nothing gained and you end up tweaking the image again.

[PacAce]

Check this out for best advice how to set up camera:

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/products/eos10D/settings.jsp

I wouldn't necessarily call it the "best advice" on how to set up a camera. I would call it a good guideline for starting out with if you don't know what the different options do.

Case in point, if I want to shoot RAW, why would I want to set the camera to Large/Jpeg?

Case in point, if I live in Europe, why would I want to set the video to NTSC?

[maderito]

Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored.

You must have been sending Adobe RGB color data to a printer, monitor and/or image editing application that was expecting sRGB. When you change from an sRGB to Adobe RGB, you have to adjust your workflow.

For example, if you're working with JPEGs, the images will come out of the camera as untagged and have to be assigned the Adobe RGB profile. In Photoshop, you have to change your RGB color working space to Adobe RGB. When you print, you may have to embed the Adobe RGB ICC profile in the image. And so on...

"Dull skin tones" is a classic tip off that there may be a color profile mismatch somewhere in the workflow.

[PacAce]

I have used the standard color setting for three years with canons and I always do a custom white balance. The color have been great. Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored. I have switched back to standard RGB AKA srgb and my color quality is back. I found this strange because supposedly the adobe color space is much larger so I thought the images would become that much more vibrant. For me that was not the case unfortunately.

Did you see the note at the bottom of p. 58 (10D) or p. 55 (DRebel) regarding the AdobeRGB, ICC profile, the image you get using it, etc.?

[maderito]

I have used the standard color setting for three years with canons and I always do a custom white balance. The color have been great. Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored. I have switched back to standard RGB AKA srgb and my color quality is back. I found this strange because supposedly the adobe color space is much larger so I thought the images would become that much more vibrant. For me that was not the case unfortunately.

This is my point. Testing takes you to a place where you know for sure. Asking is great. Testing is better. Simply call your printer to ask. Most likely they will tell you sRGB! Again, if you shoot specialized work that requires AdobeRGB, of course you should go with it. However, on a normal daily shoot for most of us sRGB is a better method to avoid the dull muddy colors that result from conversion. There is nothing gained and you end up tweaking the image again.

Cordell,

Is your point that working in Adobe RGB requires more knowledge on your part about color management?

If you are working in Photoshop using the sRGB color space, you only have to configure a few color management options differently to change to Adobe RGB. Once done, your Adobe RGB colors will look the same or better compared to sRGB.

If you have to convert an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB to send to your local printer or to your favorite web hosting site, make a copy and then do the conversion in PS. The colors will NOT be dull.

If you are not working with color managed image editing applications, you may be better off avoiding Adobe RGB.

My limited experience with printshops and online printing services is that they are very rigid. They aim for predictability and are more likely to ask you to conform to their constrained working conditions then adapt to yours. I've always felt that I should try to understand their constraints and not impose the same on myself.

[Cordell]

I have used the standard color setting for three years with canons and I always do a custom white balance. The color have been great. Then about a month ago I switched to abobe RGB and the skin tones on my subjects became very dull and almost mud colored. I have switched back to standard RGB AKA srgb and my color quality is back. I found this strange because supposedly the adobe color space is much larger so I thought the images would become that much more vibrant. For me that was not the case unfortunately.

This is my point. Testing takes you to a place where you know for sure. Asking is great. Testing is better. Simply call your printer to ask. Most likely they will tell you sRGB! Again, if you shoot specialized work that requires AdobeRGB, of course you should go with it. However, on a normal daily shoot for most of us sRGB is a better method to avoid the dull muddy colors that result from conversion. There is nothing gained and you end up tweaking the image again.

Cordell,

Is your point that working in Adobe RGB requires more knowledge on your part about color management?

If you are working in Photoshop using the sRGB color space, you only have to configure a few color management options differently to change to Adobe RGB. Once done, your Adobe RGB colors will look the same or better compared to sRGB.

If you have to convert an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB to send to your local printer or to your favorite web hosting site, make a copy and then do the conversion in PS. The colors will NOT be dull.

If you are not working with color managed image editing applications, you may be better off avoiding Adobe RGB.

My limited experience with printshops and online printing services is that they are very rigid. They aim for predictability and are more likely to ask you to conform to their constrained working conditions then adapt to yours. I've always felt that I should try to understand their constraints and not impose the same on myself.

Yes Woody, I've always worked in a color managed environment (PS CS and C1 Pro) including monitors, printers, etc. Not that AdobeRGB requires any additional work on the part of the photographer in terms of process, but the image ends up converted on the end of the printer back to sRGB. Now depending on the type of image and the colors within it you can have color shifts. If it is something extremely critical and judged by an eagle eye you may have slight issues on your hand.

All I am saying is talk to a knowledgable experienced print master. Both AdobeRGB and sRGB can give you great results, BUT in most cases there is nothing gained by using AdobeRGB over sRGB. Considering that many print shops ask for the image in sRGB is a bit obvious to me. I actually don't know of any that ask or accept AdobeRGB without charging a fee. My guess is they charge you a fee because they will end up converting.

Here is a contact who can assist. Of course if you see what you want in one image over another that is the best one for you.

steve@pechmanimaging.com 317-271-3480 800-777-0221

Steve has worked both ends of the spectrum from capturing the shot to printing the images in their print facility. Now I've only talk to Steve about this issue. I then talked with two other print shops (White House Custom Colors and a small local shop who prints digital images) and confirmed what Steve said. Before all of this though I did try AdobeRGB and did not see any gain in it. But that was my findings. Your could very well be better.

Cordell

[vvizard]

WOW thanks. I actually asked this cause I haven't used my 70-200 too much lately, but on the last occasions it did see action, my images came out with a very gray cast. Like fog. Usually it was easily corrected with auto-levels, or one some occasions, manually setting the levels for best results. it happens on my 50mm prime too, but not nearly to the same extent. The results still get very good after I correct levels, but sure, I loose information and gain some grain on the process, and that's unwanted stuff..

I've always used AdobeRGB in the camera, but can never remember my zoom giving so bad results as I've seen lately (as said, quite a time since I used it now). But when thinking back, I've ditched Photoshop in favor of Gimp since the last time I did any serious action with the 70-200 zoom. And Gimp doesn't complain, when opening AdobeRGB, but neither does it have an option for changing colour-modes (only between rgb, grayscale, index). I think I fire up photoshop and see if the images turn out the same, or there are a difference. Cause either my camera or zoom-lens have run into some serious trouble now (hopefully not), or I have to revert it back to sRGB, even though I loose some info, I definetly don't loose as much as this "gray-haze" problem is causing me..

[vvizard]

Nope, Photoshop displays my AdobeRGB files the same way, so it's not a problem with Gimp not coping with AdobeRGB. Then I believe my recent shots with this lens have had some serious whitebalance-problems... I always use AWB.. Well aware that's not the best thing, but at least it's seldom "way off", ass I will risk by setting a Kelvin-value manual. What's your experience with forcing whitebalance-stuff like "daylight"? Does this really work great in daylight, or do you manually set it either from a image on the card, or in the kelvin-scale?

[maderito]

All I am saying is talk to a knowledgable experienced print master. Both AdobeRGB and sRGB can give you great results, BUT in most cases there is nothing gained by using AdobeRGB over sRGB. Considering that many print shops ask for the image in sRGB is a bit obvious to me. I actually don't know of any that ask or accept AdobeRGB without charging a fee. My guess is they charge you a fee because they will end up converting.

My main interest in this thread was not on debating the merits of sRGB vs. Adobe RGB. I simply pointed out earlier in the thread that "dull" and "washed out" colors arise when you feed Adobe RGB image data (say from your camera) to an sRGB device (say your monitor) without making the proper conversion.

sRGB is fundamentally designed as a standardized working color space for average RGB monitors. sRGB omits saturated colors printable by desktop inkjets and by printing presses whereas Adobe RGB does not. I agree with you that if you don't plan to try and take advantage of the expanded color gamut - or you can't see the difference - then don't bother with Adobe RGB.

As you note, editing images in Adobe RGB is not inherently more difficult (some argue that it is easier). The only issue is that you have may have to convert the image to other color spaces for web viewing, photography reproduction services, or industry printshops.

When Sports Illustrated calls you to put YOUR pic on the front cover, they'll want your Adobe RGB version - http://www.siphoto.com/?canon10D.inc :)

Here's a link to a straightforward presentation on working in different color spaces when preparing work for printing: http://www.promarketinc.com/technical/mr_colorspaces_pt1.html

I'm signing off on this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I always use AWB.. Well aware that's not the best thing, but at least it's seldom "way off", ass I will risk by setting a Kelvin-value manual. What's your experience with forcing whitebalance-stuff like "daylight"? Does this really work great in daylight, or do you manually set it either from a image on the card, or in the kelvin-scale?

vvizard,

I've been using 5200K as my white balance setting for a little while know to see whether this would help. My shooting is mostly outdoors often with fill flash. My feeling (without being real systematic) is that using this fixed WB has actually reduced the amount of WB adjustments I make in C1.

I'd so give it a try - there's nothing really to lose by it anyway.

Regards,

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Yes Woody, I've always worked in a color managed environment (PS CS and C1 Pro) including monitors, printers, etc. Not that AdobeRGB requires any additional work on the part of the photographer in terms of process, but the image ends up converted on the end of the printer back to sRGB. Now depending on the type of image and the colors within it you can have color shifts. If it is something extremely critical and judged by an eagle eye you may have slight issues on your hand.

All I am saying is talk to a knowledgable experienced print master. Both AdobeRGB and sRGB can give you great results, BUT in most cases there is nothing gained by using AdobeRGB over sRGB. Considering that many print shops ask for the image in sRGB is a bit obvious to me. I actually don't know of any that ask or accept AdobeRGB without charging a fee. My guess is they charge you a fee because they will end up converting.l

Since I do all my own print I cannot speak with any direct experience of commercial printers. My printers are capable of printing colours outside sRGB and even outside Adobe RGB. So I prefer to work with Prophoto RGB as my working space and use a mixture of custom and generic print profiles.

Andrew Rodney and Ethan Hansen are recognised colour management and print experts. Their opinions of print shops who insist on sRGB are scathing and their advice is simple: go to another printer.

Ethan Hansen provides free custom profiles for Costco customer. Costco uses printers like the Frontier and Noritsu that are often said to work only with sRGB. I've plotted several of Ethan's profiles here (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/27_gamuts.htm) (choose sRGB as the first profile). The plots clearly show that colours outside sRGB can be produced by these printers. You can see from the image gamut plots at the bottom of the page that it's not unusual for these colours to be appear.

Regards,

[Cordell]

I guess this can go on forever like the RAW vs JPEG discussions. I have two digital photography books which were published only one year apart and one says AdobeRGB and the other says sRGB. Goes to show you everyone "see" things different.

Ahhhhh the beauty of options. :D

Peace

[slin100]

Roger,

The gamut comparisons on your site are great. The gamut of the Epson 2200 is huge, as is the S9000 w/ Pictorico Glossy. Interestingly, the S9000 with Canon Glossy Pro is much worse, only slightly bigger than sRGB. Is the Pictorico paper really that much better or were different inks used?

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Roger,

The gamut comparisons on your site are great. The gamut of the Epson 2200 is huge, as is the S9000 w/ Pictorico Glossy. Interestingly, the S9000 with Canon Glossy Pro is much worse, only slightly bigger than sRGB. Is the Pictorico paper really that much better or were different inks used?

Steven,

I can't say for certain because I just plotted the Pictorico profiles that they made available on their site, I assume they used Canon inks. I don't have any other info'.

Regards,

[theoldmoose]

I'm with Roger on this one; why throw away data if you can shoot in a larger color space to begin with? You can always subtract later, but adding back what wasn't there in the first place will be less than satisfactory.

I always shoot RAW, and develop with C1 into AdobeRGB. I would use ProphotoRGB, but the Digital Rebel version of C1 doesn't allow outputting to any color spaces other than sRGB and AdobeRGB.

That will become a moot matter in a few weeks, though, as C1 is dropping their entry-level low cost Digital Rebel version, and forcing upgrades to LE. Current Digital Rebel customers will get advantageous upgrade pricing, but that has not been posted, yet.

C1LE, in any respect, is still a good deal, for the price. And I believe that you can choose alternate output spaces (other than sRGB and AdobeRGB) with it. Another item to be aware of, though, is that PhaseOne is dropping support for Win98/SE/ME with the new 3.5 release.

That leaves my four-year old laptop out in the cold :cry:

[slin100]

I'm with Roger on this one; why throw away data if you can shoot in a larger color space to begin with?
If you're not shooting RAW, then it might make sense to shoot in a smaller color space because there will be a smaller risk of banding. After all, an 8-bit JPEG can only cover so much color space before quantization effects become noticeable.

[theoldmoose]

Um, I think the point was to not only develop to AdobeRGB space, but to also shoot RAW. I guess I kind of took that for granted.

RAW records 12 bits (at least in Canon cameras, so far). JPEG is just a loss (pun intended) to start with, and only gets worse the more you fool with an image during post-processing.

If you always nail the shot right on the money, then shoot JPEG, if you will.

I'm not good enough to do that with any confidence, so I shoot RAW and develop to AdobeRGB 16-bit TIFFs, so I get a second chance, even if the eventual usage can only use 8 bits and sRGB.