Colorspace: sRGB or Adobe

[tommykjensen]

Can someone explain the advantages of using Adobe colorspace?

I know it is supposed to be a larger colorspace, but what does that really mean? Is it possible to see a difference between the 2? I know for web I should use sRGB.

Since most of my photos go on the web I am curious as to weather it is worth shooting in Adobe and convert 99% of the photos to sRGB in order to have the advantage of the Adobe color space in other situations which I don't know what could be?

Someone gave me an URL that can create a model of the 2 color spaces but it really don't say me much as to why I should use Adobe. The url is: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/gamutmodel.html

[chris.bailey]

If you always process for the web it is very unlikely you will see any difference unless you have carried out some hefty levels changes. Its a bit like the RAW vs Jpeg and 16 vs 8 bit. Theres no right or wrong, just what gives you the results you want. To me it costs nothing to shoot in RAW convert in 16 bit and use Argb colour space. Its one more less thing to blame when it does not turn out as expected.

[steven]

There are some colors that cannot be represented in sRBG that can be in Adobe RBG, it was mentioned in a class i was in, think it was bright yellows and some greens.
So if you have a picture that has strong yellows and you go to sRBG they will have to be mapped into a yellow that sRBG has.

If you are processing RAW you can see what the different color spaces clip by using the histogram.
keep an eye on the histogram and then switch between the different color spaces. If the picture contains any colors that are going to be cliped you will see that in the histogram.

[CyberDyneSystems]

All my cameras and applications are set to Adobe RGB working space.

When I "save for the web" in PS,. I do not take any further steps to convert working space..

I do not know if "save for the web" converts automatically (it might) or if it just works out that the images still look o-kay even with the wrong color space for web viewing.. but it does allways seem to work out;)

[Scottes]

I do not know if "save for the web" converts automatically (it might)...

It doesn't, and you should. I think you've either been very lucky or have not compared the two images side-by-side, and I'm guessing the latter.

When I Save For Web my action does Image... Convert to Profile... sRGB and then Image... Mode... 8-bits. (which is usually uneccessary but the action is used for more things).

See here for more info: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52276&highlight=srgb+adobe

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmmm... I'm going to have to look at this when I get home....

I know that my color management is a bit "off" (hope to fix it all soon with the help of Tom and a Spyder pro ;) ... but even when I look at my uploaded images from another PC I am quite happy with the results...

But I better try this.

[Scottes]

As ScottBergerPhoto found out, the "wrong" images looked OK, but just looked much better when done "correctly." When you compare them side-by-side it's a world of difference.

[KennyG]

Something else to think about - nearly all printers work in the sRGB colour space, apart from those used in high-end professional labs. If you print at home then you may as well work sRGB throughout.

[Scottes]

If you print at home then you may as well work sRGB throughout.

I don't agree with this - mainly because I'm an anally-retentive fanatic about it. You have less chance of clipping colors in Adobe RGB, thus you have more chance of retaining details in those color edges where Adobe RGB is larger than sRGB.

Practically speaking most people can't tell the difference. Especially if they don't do things like check for Out Of Gamut colors in a Proof stage before printing. How many people do that? Didn't think so.

Also, what you don't know won't kill you. If you never compare an 8-bit sRGB inkjet print to an Adobe RGB 16-bit LightJet print then you'll be happy to know that your inkjet is the best you can do.

[PacAce]

Something else to think about - nearly all printers work in the sRGB colour space, apart from those used in high-end professional labs. If you print at home then you may as well work sRGB throughout.

If you have one of the Canon BJ printers, Canon highly recommends using the Adobe RGB color space when shooting with digital cameras that also support the Adobe RGB color space. This is because these printers are capable of a wider color gamut that sRGB.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Indeed I do have a Canon printer! :)

Frankly,. I don't convert to 8 bit before printing either...

:rolleyes:

[tim]

This subject seems quite complex to me - not so much the theoretical differences between color spaces, just what to do in practice. Does anyone know of a good tutorial anywhere on the net that explains a bit of theory and what to do in practice?

Edit - clarification.

[mphoto]

As you undoubtedly already know there have been volumes of information posted to the web on the sRGB vs Adobe RGB issue. I found the following sites helpful, if not conclusive:
http://www.photomigrations.com/articles/0409400.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/thebigpicture/colorspaces.mspx
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/o_Color_Management/_Color_management.html?page=4
http://www.nulab.com.au/newsletter/november2004/sRGBViaAdobe.htm

Happy reading :)

[tim]

Thanks for the links mphoto. The 2nd two articles seem to disagree with the 1st two.

I think i'll work in Adobe RGB, convert to sRgb for web display, and convert to whatever the printer wants for getting hard copies.

[Bodog]

To add to the confusion: I just checked the manual for my Epson 2200. Epson reccommends ColorMatch RGB as the source profile for RGB image files. :confused:

[poke]

I use an Epson R210, and when I use Adobe RGB to print, the results are far better than sRGB.

[Spatch]

Scottes,

Are you sure save for web does not convert to sRGB. I am sure I read somewhere that it did. As a result, I went back through a load of web pictures and resaved them using the save for web.

Mark.

[Spatch]

Scottes,

I have just done a test (on PS 6.0 as it is all I have here at work) and it does appear that save for web does alter the ICC profile to sRGB. My working space is sRGB, I opened an sRGB image and converted the profile to aRGB and saved it. When I opened it again it asked what I wanted to do with the profile mis-match (I left it as aRGB). I then saved for web. When I opened the saved for web version I was not asked about the proile mis-match (and indeed, the colour profile appeared to be sRGB on the open image). I, therefore, assume that it had changed it to sRGB during the save for web function.

I am also assuming that PSCS will work in the same way as PS 6.0 when it comes to save for web.

Mark.

[Scottes]

I just opened an sRGB image and did a Save For Web ensuring that ICC Profile was not checked.

I then converted it to Adobe RGB and did the same thing.

I opened both, and got warnings on both - my working space is Adobe RGB and neither file had an ICC profile attached so I got the message that both images did not have an embedded color profile. On both I assigned sRGB because this is what any browser will do, effectively.

The difference between both images was clear. The image converted to sRGB before the save looked like the original. The Adobe RGB did not.


Only IE for the Mac (as far as I know) will honor ICC profiles embedded in an image (and it's not enabled by default). Every Windows browser will - thanks to the OS actually - assume that an image is sRGB regadless of the profile since the profile is ignored. I'm not sure how other OSes handle things.

For Web posting.... Since almost all users' systems will assume sRGB and almost all will ignore the profile anyway then it only makes sense to convert to sRGB and Save For Web without embedding the profile. (Not embedding the profile saves 1.5-3KB and we are trying to save download times.)

[Spatch]

OK, I have just had another go, and yes, without the ICC profile checked it gets saved without a profile, if the ICC box is checked then it will save it with its current ICC profile attached.

I can see your point that it needs to be sRGB before conversion to make sure that it will be read correctly by another browser.

[scottbergerphoto]

Adobe RGB or ProPhotoRGB are the preferred spaces to convert Raw to regardless of your preferred output because it reduces the likelihood that you will clip color channels, so says Bruce Frasier in Real World Adobe Camera Raw. In addition, if you use a 1DMII, using AdobeRGB eliminates the problem of clipped reds, so says Imaging Resource.

I have noticed a dramatic difference in my web postings since I started converting my Adobe RGB images to sRGB before "saving to web". Thanks Scottes and PacAce.

I use an Epson 2200 and it's color gamut is much larger then sRGB. For some color gamut plots of ink jet printers check out:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/27_gamuts-1.stm

Regards,
Scott

[tommykjensen]

I just opened an sRGB image and did a Save For Web ensuring that ICC Profile was not checked.

I then converted it to Adobe RGB and did the same thing.

I opened both, and got warnings on both - my working space is Adobe RGB and neither file had an ICC profile attached so I got the message that both images did not have an embedded color profile. On both I assigned sRGB because this is what any browser will do, effectively.


I have just tried this and I see a difference, not a big one but a difference. I used ThumbsPlus, which supports colorspace, to flip between the 2 photos.

But I am still not sure if I should switch my 20D to record the photos in Adobe and convert all to sRGB?

[PacAce]

LOL :lol: We're back to square #1 with Tommy's original question. :lol:

Tommy, if I were in your shoes, with the bulk of your photos going up on the web instead of being printed out, I would stick to using sRGB. Then, during those rare moments when you want to print something out using the wider color gamut, you can convert the RAW using Adobe RGB and then edit the photo for printing. This way, it'll save you from having to convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB 99% of the time you are processing your raw images.

However, the downside to doing this is that you may end up double processing an image you really want printed, the first time with it being processed in sRGB and then, when you realize that it's a photo worth printing, you going back and processing it again in Adobe RGB.

[tommykjensen]

But if the camera shoots in sRGB don't i potentially loose information? Or does the colorspace (in camera) not matter when I shoot raw most of the time?

[chris.bailey]

But if the camera shoots in sRGB don't i potentially loose information? Or does the colorspace (in camera) not matter when I shoot raw most of the time?

If you shoot in RAW the colour space is irrelevant. Its only when you convert out of RAW that you have to decide what colour space to map into.

[Scottes]

I say Adobe RGB until the very end, regardless. It's like the old 8-bit or 16-bit argument. IMHO you work in the largest space possible (Adobe RGB and 16-bit) and save to the final space (8-bit and sRGB) when it makes sense.

Set the camera to RAW & Adobe RGB and work like this until the end. You'll capture more colors, lose less colors while processing, and the final product will be the best possible for the output - whether that is 8-bot sRGB JPG or 16-bit Colormatch TIFF.


PS: Tommy, some (many?) image will show very little change in that test. Pick a bright, colorful, saturated image and try it again.

[tommykjensen]

Ok I'll try that. Thanks.

[scottbergerphoto]

I say Adobe RGB until the very end, regardless. It's like the old 8-bit or 16-bit argument. IMHO you work in the largest space possible (Adobe RGB and 16-bit) and save to the final space (8-bit and sRGB) when it makes sense.

Set the camera to RAW & Adobe RGB and work like this until the end. You'll capture more colors, lose less colors while processing, and the final product will be the best possible for the output - whether that is 8-bot sRGB JPG or 16-bit Colormatch TIFF.


PS: Tommy, some (many?) image will show very little change in that test. Pick a bright, colorful, saturated image and try it again.
I whole heartedly (and a portion of my spleen as well) agree!
Scott

[tommykjensen]

Ok so I found a photo with more bright colors and did Scottes test again. Here I see a clear difference primarely in the red colors.

The top photo is sRGB all the way.

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/testcolorspace.jpg

[tim]

Ok so I found a photo with more bright colors and did Scottes test again. Here I see a clear difference primarely in the red colors.

The top photo is sRGB all the way.


Would you mind clarifying slightly? What color space were they taken in, what was the processing done, etc. Ta.

[tommykjensen]

The photo was shot in raw. I did Scottes test described below.

Originally Posted by Scottes
I just opened an sRGB image and did a Save For Web ensuring that ICC Profile was not checked.

I then converted it to Adobe RGB and did the same thing.

I opened both, and got warnings on both - my working space is Adobe RGB and neither file had an ICC profile attached so I got the message that both images did not have an embedded color profile. On both I assigned sRGB because this is what any browser will do, effectively.

Then I just resized and put the 2 images together in one for easy compare.

[tim]

Did they look the same inside photoshop?

[tommykjensen]

No not after I had saved them and reopened them.

[Scottes]

This is really a great example of why this confuses people so much. If you just look at the bottom photo it really looks fine. Only when you put them side-by-side do you really see the difference. And it's quite a difference.

Also, some photos barely show a difference. For instance, ignore the car and look at everything else. It's hard to notice a difference even when compared side-by-side. So if the image doesn't extend into the extreme colors (> ~200 value) you'll barely tell the difference. But at the extremes (> 230 value) then the difference is quite large. And if the original color doesn't even exist in sRGB then it's very noticeable.

[mbze430]

Usually images from Adobe converted to sRGB, the red clips...because Adobe's has a large Red gamut area. That is why you see the first image with "harsher" reds.


As for workflow. For web. If your working space is Adobe RGB, you need to first convert it to sRGB. However, DO NOT ASSIGN a profile to it. This would be appropriate for web display.

If you convert AND tag, you or the next person will be double profiling the image. This is particular true if the other person is color managed. Because the software now uses the tagged information to display an "already" converted sRGB image.

Hope that clarify things up.

[tim]

Hope that clarify things up.

Not in the slightest, for me at least. I think it's time for a trip to the library.

[scottbergerphoto]

Not in the slightest, for me at least. I think it's time for a trip to the library.
It's not that complicated, really! If you shoot in Adobe RGB, as I think you should, before you "save for web", convert the file to sRGB. Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB. In the save for web dialog box, it doesn't matter whether you check off the ICC box or not, because web applications ignore the ICC profile. That's why AdobeRGB images look duller on the web. Web applications think everything is in sRGB.
In addition, If you listen to PacAce, Maderito, and Scottes you can't go wrong. If you do a search for their posts in the Post Processing Forum, you'll learn alot more then you will in a book.
Scott

[Scottes]

If you listen to PacAce, Maderito, and Scottes you can't go wrong.

Thanks Scott, but in all honesty I have to recommend against listening to everything I say.
:lol:

[tommykjensen]

Thanks Scott, but in all honesty I have to recommend against listening to everything I say.
:lol:

I can agree on that, especially about that poutine stuff :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Belmondo]

Thanks Scott, but in all honesty I have to recommend against listening to everything I say.
:lol:
Especially on culinary matters.

[scottbergerphoto]

If you'll notice, I was very careful to say the posts in the Post Processing Forum. not the Betty Crocker Bakeoff forum. :p
Scott

[Scottes]

Tommy, just because you don't like cheese doesn't mean poutine isn't good. OK, it's not good for you...

Tom, if you just try making my chili you'll have different thoughts. VERY different thoughts.

[Belmondo]

Tom, if you just try making my chili you'll have different thoughts. VERY different thoughts.

I'm going to make it. I just have to make sure I have about 3 days back-to-back for all the steps required. I read the recipe to my wife, and she agrees it sounds awfully good.

Time will tell.

[Scottes]

If you'll notice, I was very careful to say the posts in the Post Processing Forum. not the Betty Crocker Bakeoff forum. :p
Scott

Hmm. Good point. My posts in the PPF are pretty safe I guess.
Stay away from my Chat posts, though. Totally useless trash. Useless.

[Scottes]

I'm going to make it. I just have to make sure I have about 3 days back-to-back for all the steps required.

You want easy chili, go to Wendy's.
You want good chili, you gotta work for it.

Luckily it's worth it.

[scottbergerphoto]

How do I get the recipe?

[Belmondo]

How do I get the recipe?

You'll probably have to send him money. That's wht he made me do. ;)

[Scottes]

Scott I'll PM it to you.

[mbze430]

Actually Mozilla will be releasing a web browser that is ICC awared. IE should follow suit. So it is more of a heads up.

[PacAce]

I say Adobe RGB until the very end, regardless. It's like the old 8-bit or 16-bit argument. IMHO you work in the largest space possible (Adobe RGB and 16-bit) and save to the final space (8-bit and sRGB) when it makes sense.

Set the camera to RAW & Adobe RGB and work like this until the end. You'll capture more colors, lose less colors while processing, and the final product will be the best possible for the output - whether that is 8-bot sRGB JPG or 16-bit Colormatch TIFF.


PS: Tommy, some (many?) image will show very little change in that test. Pick a bright, colorful, saturated image and try it again.

OK, I guess this is where we part company, Scott. :mrgreen:

Here's my spin on this. The Adobe RGB gives you more saturated colors than the sRGB color space, right? Now, if the final image is going to be converted to sRGB and displayed on an sRGB monitor, then why go to the trouble of adjusting the color saturations in A-RGB only to have the final color saturation watered down by converting to sRGB and possibly having a color shift in an image that you worked so hard to get "right" in the first place in A-RGB. Now, if you work real hard to get the color just "right" in sRGB, you won't have to worry about the possibility of the color shifting on you when you're all done.

I don't think the 8-bit vs 16-bit analogy applies here since we're not really losing data, per se. We're just working with less color saturation to begin with when using sRGB. And you'll know exactly how the colors will come out when you're done, instead of hoping everything comes out the same when it's converted to sRGB at the end if working with A-RGB.

NOTE: My argument above is given only for images that are always being processed for the web only. But I personally work with Adobe RGB all the way since I do prints and webs.

[Scottes]

My argument above is given only for images that are always being processed for the web only.
Whether web and/or print, I'm not so sure you're using the best possible methods.

What happens when one piece of processing pushes colors beyond the sRGB boundary and then another pulls them back in? Say you increase contrast and this pushes some reds past the sRGB limit and this clips them. But then it looks too saturated so you decrease the red saturation and this pulls them back into the sRGB space. These two steps would clip some reds by staying in sRGB the whole time. If you had stayed in Adobe RGB you might have retained the details in the high reds.

The conversion from Adobe RGB to sRGB has a preview button so you can see if colors go out of whack. If the preview shows clipped details then all you can do is cancel the profile conversion, decrease saturation to preserve details, and then convert again. But the conversion process does a pretty darn good job of mapping colors to the new space, whereas the contrast and saturation adjustments don't care at all.

I'll stay with Adobe RGB. In fact, I've debated many times about processing in ProPhoto RGB, which is even larger than Adobe RGB. But I just haven't spent the time to really compare the two. Since this would also make some [slight] changes to my workflow I want to see if it will be worthwhile first.

[chris.bailey]

Whether web and/or print, I'm not so sure you're using the best possible methods.

What happens when one piece of processing pushes colors beyond the sRGB boundary and then another pulls them back in? Say you increase contrast and this pushes some reds past the sRGB limit and this clips them. But then it looks too saturated so you decrease the red saturation and this pulls them back into the sRGB space. These two steps would clip some reds by staying in sRGB the whole time. If you had stayed in Adobe RGB you might have retained the details in the high reds.

The conversion from Adobe RGB to sRGB has a preview button so you can see if colors go out of whack. If the preview shows clipped details then all you can do is cancel the profile conversion, decrease saturation to preserve details, and then convert again. But the conversion process does a pretty darn good job of mapping colors to the new space, whereas the contrast and saturation adjustments don't care at all.

I'll stay with Adobe RGB. In fact, I've debated many times about processing in ProPhoto RGB, which is even larger than Adobe RGB. But I just haven't spent the time to really compare the two. Since this would also make some [slight] changes to my workflow I want to see if it will be worthwhile first.

As very few monitors, printers or other output devices cover the ProPhoto Gamut how would you know. Its the old if a tree falls in the woods and theres no-one there to hear it does it make a sound, routine.

[Scottes]

As very few monitors, printers or other output devices cover the ProPhoto Gamut how would you know. Its the old if a tree falls in the woods and theres no-one there to hear it does it make a sound, routine.

And that's one of the things I've wondered about, and why I haven't gone to it yet.

However, what about if I get a new great printer in a year or two which DOES support it? Will I then wish to go back and re-edit the images?

[PacAce]

Whether web and/or print, I'm not so sure you're using the best possible methods.

What happens when one piece of processing pushes colors beyond the sRGB boundary and then another pulls them back in? Say you increase contrast and this pushes some reds past the sRGB limit and this clips them. But then it looks too saturated so you decrease the red saturation and this pulls them back into the sRGB space. These two steps would clip some reds by staying in sRGB the whole time. If you had stayed in Adobe RGB you might have retained the details in the high reds.

The conversion from Adobe RGB to sRGB has a preview button so you can see if colors go out of whack. If the preview shows clipped details then all you can do is cancel the profile conversion, decrease saturation to preserve details, and then convert again. But the conversion process does a pretty darn good job of mapping colors to the new space, whereas the contrast and saturation adjustments don't care at all.

I'll stay with Adobe RGB. In fact, I've debated many times about processing in ProPhoto RGB, which is even larger than Adobe RGB. But I just haven't spent the time to really compare the two. Since this would also make some [slight] changes to my workflow I want to see if it will be worthwhile first.

Scott, I'll have to take a closer look at your argument and think about it a little bit more. But for now, I'll just say that I work exclusively with adjustment layers where available and they are virtually non-destructive so pushing color passed the sRGB limit in one step and then pulling them back in another would not be a problem for me. (Yet another reason for working with layers and adjustment layers. :mrgreen: )

[Scottes]

Yet another reason for working with layers and adjustment layers.

Great point. No doubt.

But to me, adjustment layers are just too hard.

Old dog, new tricks....
:-)

[tim]

It's not that complicated, really! If you shoot in Adobe RGB, as I think you should, before you "save for web", convert the file to sRGB. Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB. In the save for web dialog box, it doesn't matter whether you check off the ICC box or not, because web applications ignore the ICC profile. That's why AdobeRGB images look duller on the web. Web applications think everything is in sRGB.
In addition, If you listen to PacAce, Maderito, and Scottes you can't go wrong. If you do a search for their posts in the Post Processing Forum, you'll learn alot more then you will in a book.
Scott

I thought save for web converted to sRgb itself - it doesn't? I'll have to start doing that.

[Scottes]

I thought save for web converted to sRgb itself - it doesn't? I'll have to start doing that.

Definitely not, as confirmed by a couple of us on Page 1.

[PacAce]

Great point. No doubt.

But to me, adjustment layers are just too hard.

Old dog, new tricks....
:-)

Adjustment layer tools are just like the image adjustment tools. They do the exact same thing. The only difference is that they create a new layer on top of you image to effect the adjustment change instead of making the change outright on your original image. And the good part is that you can go back to the adjustment layer (by double-clicking on that layer) and make more or less adjustments to what was already done. Or just delete the layer altogether and you're back to the original image. And even better yet, you can control how much of the adjustment you apply to the image by varying the opacity of the adjustment layer and this is something that you can't do with the image adjustment tools.

Give it a try. Next time, instead of going for the "Image > Adjustments > Levels" (or what have you), try "Layers > New Adjustment Layer > Levels" instead.

When you're all done, just convert from A-RGB to sRGB, if appropriate, and Save for Web. The only thing to watch out for is when applying sharpening. You have to appy USM to the actual image instead of one of the adjustment layers. Or, you can flatten all the layers together and then apply sharpening.

[Scottes]

Give it a try.

Oh, I have, and I know what they do, and I'd advise anyone and everyone to use them. No doubt.

I just don't. It's a masochistic thing. But I always figure that if I mess up then I will go back to the beginning and do the whole thing over again. Sounds silly, but this doesn't happen often (I'm blind to my own flaws) and the time difference between doing it and seeing a flaw usually means that I've learned something new since then. So I'll do everything again, and end up fixing 2 or 3 flaws along the way.


Note: I DO NOT recommend this to anyone. You should use Adjustment Layers. Absolutely. I have my twisted, flawed reasons for not using them. Eventuallly I will decide to use them, but until then you should use them and tell me how wrong I am.
:-)

[PacAce]

Oh, I have, and I know what they do, and I'd advise anyone and everyone to use them. No doubt.

I just don't. It's a masochistic thing. But I always figure that if I mess up then I will go back to the beginning and do the whole thing over again. Sounds silly, but this doesn't happen often (I'm blind to my own flaws) and the time difference between doing it and seeing a flaw usually means that I've learned something new since then. So I'll do everything again, and end up fixing 2 or 3 flaws along the way.


Note: I DO NOT recommend this to anyone. You should use Adjustment Layers. Absolutely. I have my twisted, flawed reasons for not using them. Eventuallly I will decide to use them, but until then you should use them and tell me how wrong I am.
:-)

LOL :lol: Fair enough, Scott! :D

[Scottes]

Yeah, I ain't too bright sometimes.
:-)

[canon2od]

Everything I have read about Adobe RGB vs. sRGB has convinced me to work in aRGB.

SRGB is suggested for web stuff. Does this mean emailed photos or photos posted on a web site, or does it mean both?

[RAitch]

I swear I red something somewhere that said to convert your image to either LAB or CMYK before printing for the best result. If that's the case, it shouldn't matter what you shoot in regarding print quality.

Personally, I've been shooting in aRGB and working PS in aRGB. I've been saving JPEGs without converting to 8-bit sRGB first. I'm going to have to look into this.

I would recommend always shooting in aRGB and setting PS to work with aRGB since you'll be working with the most information possible. Since PS can convert colour spaces so easily, that shouldn't be an issue.
If somebody never or rarely ever uses PS to clean up images, it would be silly for them to use aRGB. I think that's the only case where you would 'want' to shoot in sRGB IMHO.

[Duder]

I'm fairly new to all this, but I've been shooting in RAW, converting to 16-bit Adobe RGB, performing all editing in 16-bit Adobe RGB and then saving as 8-bit high quality jpeg. I'm pretty sure this gives me better results than shooting in sRGB/8-bit HQ-jpegs, editing those jpegs, and then resaving them.

Also, when I convert a bunch of photos for the web, I use a batch action that resizes then converts profile to sRGB.

[tim]

I'm fairly new to all this, but I've been shooting in RAW, converting to 16-bit Adobe RGB, performing all editing in 16-bit Adobe RGB and then saving as 8-bit high quality jpeg. I'm pretty sure this gives me better results than shooting in sRGB/8-bit HQ-jpegs, editing those jpegs, and then resaving them.

I would strongly suggest you try both and get it clear in your mind which is better. The camera produces some pretty nice JPGs, depending how good you are you may or may not be able to do better with RAW yourself. The better the photographer you are, the less PS work you need to do, and the less benefit you get from RAW.

[Duder]

I would strongly suggest you try both and get it clear in your mind which is better. The camera produces some pretty nice JPGs, depending how good you are you may or may not be able to do better with RAW yourself. The better the photographer you are, the less PS work you need to do, and the less benefit you get from RAW.

I should clarifiy, I started off shooting exclusively in jpeg after I got the camera, but I recently tried out RAW and can see definite benefits under certain conditions. So, now I try to be a bit more discerning about whether to shoot in jpeg or RAW depending on the circumstances. So I'll still use jpegs, but when I do shoot RAW, the above procedure is what I use. ;)

[UncleDoug]

I would strongly suggest you try both and get it clear in your mind which is better. The camera produces some pretty nice JPGs, depending how good you are you may or may not be able to do better with RAW yourself. The better the photographer you are, the less PS work you need to do, and the less benefit you get from RAW.

I'd agree and disagree.

You need to find out for yourself what file format works for you.

However....

Speaking from the fine-art printing end of things I may be splittinghairs but a JPEG will never come close to a TIF created from a RAW file. The compression of JPEG immediately begins to degrade the image. And if you JPEG the JPEG, you have alsorts of problems.
Shooting RAW does not mean you are a "lousy" shot, it means you want the most information possible for you to creat a print. From this RAW file you can create a JPEG, TIFF, anything you want with little to no degredation. If RAW meant "lousy shot", then I'd submit anyone shooting formats larger than 35mm is wasting their time. Also, this is the magic of digital photography. You are not stuck with what you get from the developer. You do not have to scan film and THEN process in PS. If the image you took does need a tweak RAW provides the best means for you to combat issues that need to be dealt with to finish and polish your vision of the image.
If you shoot JPEG, you can create a TIFF or anything you want as well but with degredations from what the RAW file can deliver.

Not shooting in RAW is like shooting a roll of 35mm getting the prints and photo CD and throwing away the negs.

[tim]

Doug, I shoot RAW 95% of the time, and I understand the theory behind it and the advantages/disadvantages. For people who aren't used to RAW pictures taken in JPG will look better, because JPG does contrast and sharpening automatically. There are many good reasons to shoot RAW, and there are also many good reasons to shoot JPG (ie workflow speed and lack of experience by the shooter).

[canon2od]

I just saved my first raw photo in tiff format. The 7 meg raw file went to a 23 meg tiff file, is this normal??

[PacAce]

Doug, I shoot RAW 95% of the time, and I understand the theory behind it and the advantages/disadvantages. For people who aren't used to RAW pictures taken in JPG will look better, because JPG does contrast and sharpening automatically. There are many good reasons to shoot RAW, and there are also many good reasons to shoot JPG (ie workflow speed and lack of experience by the shooter).
Tim, for what it's worth, if one is using the Canon RAW converter programs (EVU or DPP), the software will always default to using the settings that were set in the camera. It's the same settings that would have been applied to the JPG image if the shot were taken in JPEG instead of RAW. So, what that means is that, worse case situation, the TIFF or JPEG image from a converted RAW file will be no worse than if the image were taken in JPEG format. It can be better if the photographer is really good with editing but it'll never be worse if nothing else is done to the converted image.

[UncleDoug]

Tim, for what it's worth, if one is using the Canon RAW converter programs (EVU or DPP), the software will always default to using the settings that were set in the camera. It's the same settings that would have been applied to the JPG image if the shot were taken in JPEG instead of RAW. So, what that means is that, worse case situation, the TIFF or JPEG image from a converted RAW file will be no worse than if the image were taken in JPEG format. It can be better if the photographer is really good with editing but it'll never be worse if nothing else is done to the converted image.

Good point. Same with PSCS.
You open the RAW and default (camera) "adjustments" are used.
In essence the same processing the camera does.
Also, if you shoot RAW+JPEG you have both.....if you don't want to use PSCS or another app to convert the RAW's to JPEG"s. Right now file size/card space may be an issue for some shooting RAW+JPEG, but with everything else in the electronics industry memory will be dirt cheap soon.

JPEG"s right out of the camera are great, but limit the post processing quality.

If you are just strting out in the digital camra game by shooting RAW+JPEG you have the RAW file to go back to once ones editing skills have improved. This could take an ok image to the next level.

[karjar]

Having read this thread, after being pointed to it from another thread, I have a question that won't go away in my mind. Maybe I have something wrong in my thoughts. If I should in aRGB, and have my application color spaces set to aRGB, should my monitor be set with an aRGB color profile? It seems to me that I will only *see* the color gamut based on the the least variable?

[CyberPet]

To confuse you all a bit more:

You can save jpegs in Adobe RGB and post them on the web.... if the web browser handles to show that color space, the image will look ok. But in web browsers who can only handle sRGB, the image will look awful.

And.... you can also "throw away" the color space of both the Adobe RGB *AND* the sRGB file, so there's no profile at all in the image. Yes, it sounds odd, but sRGB which is the format that is mostly used on the web can be thrown away (to use a "generic" sRGB, but can look odd on one screen and not on another).

Confused yet? :D

[UncleDoug]

If I should in aRGB, and have my application color spaces set to aRGB, should my monitor be set with an aRGB color profile?

Ultimately your monitor needs to be calibrated/linearized and profiled, and then the monitor should be set to that profile. This profile describes how your monitor renders color.

AdobeRGB is an intermediate/adjustment/working color space that does not describe the performance of a device.

[Mernya]

I swear I red something somewhere that said to convert your image to either LAB or CMYK before printing for the best result. If that's the case, it shouldn't matter what you shoot in regarding print quality.

I'm not a 'photographer', I'm a web developer and (formerly) a graphic designer. So, it's just my 2 pennies, but that's my background.

You work in the mode that is best for the situation, that gives you the best output with the least amount of tradeoffs. Sometimes, those tradeoffs are time (it is easier to work with JPEGs straight to print than RAW), for example.

Print gamuts are TOTALLY different than display gamuts. So yes, if you are printing to a four color device, you should be working in CMYK. If it was a perfect world, you would just be working in CMY, but we have a hard time making a mix into a rich black. Subtractive Color and Additive Color are two different ways of dealing with color, and that makes a world of difference when doing color management from screen to print.

LAB Color is actually how Photoshop sees your image. Internally, everything is LAB. LAB is the closest color model that we use that mimics the way our eyes work. L (Rods), AB (Cones - Red/Green - Blue/Yellow). Notice the similarity between the types of color blindness? LAB is an -excellent- mode to work in, especially for luminosity issues. Sharpening the L Channel will give you good results when the edges get too funky. I've also mentioned that it is one of the fastest ways to convert a color image into a decent B&W image.

Back to the RGB debate...

There is the math. It's hard to argue. AdobeRGB has a wider gamut than sRGB. But it all comes down to workflow (both the work of it) and the flow of it, especially that end part. The ending is what it is all about, right? If your image is going on the web, color calibration is virtually completely out of your hands. Everyone's monitors are different. Lighting conditions in one place will cast a color on one person's view, while improper refresh rates or a improper contrast or color balance will ruin another. You have no way to manage them! And to what end is the image on their computer for? Are you trying to get a sale of a print or something? That's going to be in another gamut/color space, too.

Do what looks best to you, with an amount of work that is acceptable. If you don't mind the work of dealing with RAW images, converting one way, and back another, go ahead. If you work in ARGB, I don't see much of a practical reason for converting to sRGB if you are putting 800x600 images on a web gallery. The process of saving as a JPEG will actually alter your colors, too. In the end, you may be fighting a losing battle, all for a little more saturation on one monitor.

When I design for the web, I use -no- working profile.

[UncleDoug]

When I design for the web, I use -no- working profile.

Mernya,

Do you follow any form of color management practices in your computer environment?

[Mernya]

Actually, I do when I am not being web specific, but at work, that's rare. If I am not designing sites, I'm coding and that really doesn't pose a need for CM. When I did print work, it was totally different. Some practices can be rigorously anal, but there are things that anyone can do to improve their space, as you know.

Even as lax as I am now with things (I don't print at work, so I have no profiles for that), I do get a little nuts when I see people with weird color casts on their screens, bad refresh rates, etc. I run a dual-monitor set up at work and home (home currently sucks), and my work screens are the same 17 NEC Monitors profiled and matching in gamma/color. I do knock out my overhead fluorescents and I am away from the windows. I'm stuck in a cube, but I keep as much stuff that could color cast away from the monitors that I can. If I work on something in conjunction with marketing, we do generally use color working spaces, but most of their stuff is generic and we use a lot of spot color.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly anti-color management. I'm just an advocate for practical color management for the right person in the right environment. A lot of people are just not set up to do it and for taking pics to put on a web gallery, they aren't going to get a lot of benefits for the time spent. There are exceptions aplenty (especially in the over saturated area).

[tommykjensen]

Ok, I am going to bring this back to life.

I just realized that a photo I just uploaded looks "dull" in the colors.

PS CS2 working space is sRGB
Photo is sRGB
Monitor profile is the monitor specific that came with Samsung Syncmaster 213T. (Setting it to sRGB does not change anything).

In PS C2 the colors look ok.
In explorer the colors does not look ok, especially the green color. (regardless if ICC profile is attached or not).

Here is a screenshot with both photos on screen at the same time.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/colorspace.jpg

[UncleDoug]

Ok, I am going to bring this back to life.

I just realized that a photo I just uploaded looks "dull" in the colors.

PS CS2 working space is sRGB
Photo is sRGB
Monitor profile is the monitor specific that came with Samsung Syncmaster 213T. (Setting it to sRGB does not change anything).

In PS C2 the colors look ok.
In explorer the colors does not look ok, especially the green color. (regardless if ICC profile is attached or not).

Here is a screenshot with both photos on screen at the same time.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/colorspace.jpg


I'm in a Mac environment looking at the image via Safari and Exploder.
From your screen capture I'm percieving the web display as to be a bit flat or desaturated as compared to the PS version, in both browsers. But they are not "too" far off from eachother.

[tommykjensen]

I'm in a Mac environment looking at the image via Safari and Exploder.
From your screen capture I'm percieving the web display as to be a bit flat or desaturated as compared to the PS version, in both browsers. But they are not "too" far off from eachother.

The one on the left is inside PS, I forgot to mention that. I think the difference is very noticable, at least on my screen.

[Scottes]

It looks like a classic case of profile mis-match. There's a very definite difference to my eyes.

I have to ask - can you absolutely double-check everything? Check that the image you open is definitely sRGB, the workspace is sRGB, and you save as sRGB.

The next thing would be the process... Where does the image originate? If you default PS to sRGB it should open the image without complaint or comment (unless you disabled that somehow??). If you try to Convert To Profile then you should see that the image is currently sRGB. How are you saving, with Save for Web? is the "Save ICC" checkbox (or similar) checked and thus enabled to include the sRGB info? What happens if you close all images and then open the last image saved? That is, do you get a comment or complaint about the color space?

[UncleDoug]

Saved your image to my desktop.

sRGB is the profile.

In hopes of not adding more confusion to this, in the screencapture,
I PERCIEVE that the 2 images ARE different.
Just not DRASTIC in their differences.

Ones own PERCEPTION of color ads a variable to all of this.

[tommykjensen]

It looks like a classic case of profile mis-match. There's a very definite difference to my eyes.

I have to ask - can you absolutely double-check everything? Check that the image you open is definitely sRGB, the workspace is sRGB, and you save as sRGB.

The next thing would be the process... Where does the image originate? If you default PS to sRGB it should open the image without complaint or comment (unless you disabled that somehow??). If you try to Convert To Profile then you should see that the image is currently sRGB. How are you saving, with Save for Web? is the "Save ICC" checkbox (or similar) checked and thus enabled to include the sRGB info? What happens if you close all images and then open the last image saved? That is, do you get a comment or complaint about the color space?

I just enabled the warnings on profile mismatch.

The photos was shot as jpg not raw and it was shot sRGB.
When I open it in PS I get no warning (I do if I open another one with does not have the profile so that works).
I have tried saving via save for web both with and without the ICC profile
I have also tried save as.

When I use save for web I just noticed that the color "loss" already occurs when I bring the save for web dialog up?

[tommykjensen]

Saved your image to my desktop.

sRGB is the profile.

In hopes of not adding more confusion to this, in the screencapture,
I PERCIEVE that the 2 images ARE different.
Just not DRASTIC in their differences.

Ones own PERCEPTION of color ads a variable to all of this.

But its enough to make me unhappy about the result (and I am even slightly colorblind ! Probably should not have said that :lol: )

[Scottes]

When I use save for web I just noticed that the color "loss" already occurs when I bring the save for web dialog up?
Definitey a profile mis-match... That's how I notice when I forget to convert to sRGB before using Save For Web.... Is it possible that your Save For Web is defaulting to AdobeRGB? (Is that even possible?)

[tommykjensen]

Definitey a profile mis-match... That's how I notice when I forget to convert to sRGB before using Save For Web.... Is it possible that your Save For Web is defaulting to AdobeRGB? (Is that even possible?)

I don't know but I just booted my windows 2000 (I just switched to new pc and XP) and it displays the same behavior. This is very annoying...

I will check all my settings.

[UncleDoug]

But its enough to make me unhappy about the result (and I am even slightly colorblind ! Probably should not have said that :lol: )

No worries.
People have said that about me from time to time. :rolleyes:

[tommykjensen]

I think my problem is solved now.

I did change the color profile in windows xp display settings yesterday but apprently that change does not take effect until after a reboot.

Today it looks ok and I don't see the color "loss" when opening the save for web dialog as I did yesterday.

Thanks to everybody who tried to help, this is weird stuff....

[Scottes]

Oh, I didn't even realize that XP could do that. That would certainly mess things up - you were seeing some images "double-profiled" - sRGB applied twice - which would also cause this problem.

I'll have to remember this...

Glad it's cleared up.

[UncleDoug]

This is interesting and good to know.

I'm moving to a windows box for our RIP shortly.

This will come in handy. :D