Parameter Setting or Adobe RGB For Raw Shooting

[dsze]

If I'm shooting in RAW on my 300D, am I correct in thinking that the parameter settings don't do anything? Is it then better/more efficient to set the camera to Adobe RGB rather than a parameter setting?


-daniel

[psk4363]

Hi Daniel,

You're absolutely correct re both of your questions - parameter settings have no effect of you shoot in RAW, and Adobe RGB is the better setting as it covers a wider colour space.

Cheers,
Barry

[scottbergerphoto]

If I'm shooting in RAW on my 300D, am I correct in thinking that the parameter settings don't do anything? Is it then better/more efficient to set the camera to Adobe RGB rather than a parameter setting?


-daniel
The parameter setting affect the embedded JPEG and you can use them as the settings for the Raw conversion if you choose to do so. Some photographers use the embeded jpegs to quicky show clients their results, so the parameters are useful. Personally when I shoot Raw I use Adobe RGB for the larger color gamut.
Regards,
Scott

[dsze]

Thanks! Thats pretty much what I thought, but wanted someone more knowledgable to confirm. For my purposes, I think the larger gamut is more important than the JPG. Is there anyway to adjust the size of the JPG that is saved with the RAW file with the current Canon 1.1.1 firmware?


-daniel

[slin100]

Is there anyway to adjust the size of the JPG that is saved with the RAW file with the current Canon 1.1.1 firmware?

Yes. The size of the JPG can be set using CFn 8.

[yb98]

Is there anyway to adjust the size of the JPG that is saved with the RAW file with the current Canon 1.1.1 firmware?

Yes. The size of the JPG can be set using CFn 8.

No, not with the canon firmware. But with the hack firmware yes.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The same thing that applies to the parameter settings.. also applies to Adobe RGB...

ie; It does not effect the raw image....

All selecting Adobe RGB does is tell the conversion program to use Adbobe RGB by default.. but just like parameter settings.. you don't need to have the camera in Adobe RGB to then convert the RAW file to a file with an Adobe RGB color space... :)

[slin100]

Is there anyway to adjust the size of the JPG that is saved with the RAW file with the current Canon 1.1.1 firmware?

Yes. The size of the JPG can be set using CFn 8.

No, not with the canon firmware. But with the hack firmware yes.
Sorry. I didn't notice the OP had a 300D. What I said is definitely true with the 10D.

My memory is faulty but I also seem to recall that 300D RAW files embed two JPGs: a thumbnail-size and a larger one. I'll see if I can find the article that mentions this.

[tommykjensen]

Can someone expand on this?

I just took a RAW shot and converted it first with the sRBG..... profile saved it, then I converted the same RAW shot and converted it with the Adobe profile and saved it.

When I compare the 2 shots I don't see any difference?

[yb98]

It depends on which software you use to view the pics. Not All viewers take into account the profile.
If you open your pics with photoshop you will probably see a difference.

Yacine.

[CyberDyneSystems]

...indeed.. what software are you using?

also... if you were to view th two images in there proper working spaces .. there is no guarantee that you will be able to see any difference..

Adobe RGB allows for a larger color gamut.. ie more colors are possibe in the image.. but this does not mean that the image you take will have more color.. nor that the image you take will reveal the additional color space...

[tommykjensen]

I just viewed the test images in PS CS and see no difference.

Does anybody have an example that show the difference?

[dsze]

If I am correct, I think what happens when you have the parameters set is when you convert from RAW to JPG in PSCS, PS recognizes the new JPG as an sRGB file. When I have the camera set to Adobe RGB, and then convert to JPG, PS automatically recognizes the new JPG as an RGB, not sRGB.

So, if I have parameters set on my 300D and convert the RAW to JPG in PS, I am essentially asking PS to work with a smaller gamut (sRGB) and if I have camera set to Adobe RBG, then PS is working with the larger gamut, which may or may not even be noticable in every shot, but it can't hurt to have the larger gamut available......right?

-daniel

[tommykjensen]

I just compared the histograms and they are different.

The image in adobe colorspace

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/adobe.jpg

The histogram

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/adobe_histogram.jpg

The image in srgb colorspace

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/srgb.jpg

And the histogram

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/srgb_histogram.jpg


Anybody see the difference in the actual image?

[Roger_Cavanagh]

The whole point of colour management is to get consistent colours across systems. The two pictures don't look quite the same in my browser (IE) because PCs "default" to using the sRGB space (more or less). Images in larger colour spaces, such as, Adobe RGB will tend to look flat and unsaturated.

Loading these images into Photoshop, they look very similar, which is what you expect and want. Depending on the colours in the original subject, sRGB may clip some colours that Adobe RGB does not. However, the colours are different as you can see from these gamut plots of the image data:

sRGB

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/linked/200406/srgb-plot.jpg

Adobe RGB

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/linked/200406/argb-plot.jpg

The outline in the plots is the sRGB profile.

Regards,

[dsze]

How did you get those Gamut plots? Those are nice.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

How did you get those Gamut plots? Those are nice.

They are from ColorThink (www.chromix.com).

Regards,