Most common Color Space / Bit Depth for web based photos

Most Common Color Space and Bit Depth --

What is the most common color space (sRGB/Adobe/Pro) and bit depth (16/32)? I read through the "Sticky", as well as several Photoshop Books, mostly ending up with conflicting advice.

The 'composite' advice seems to be ProPhoto for RAW and especially for printing, sRGB for Tiff and general web viewing, with various opinions for the use of Adobe RGB.

Another argument is 8 vs 16 bit depth. One proponent says always use 16, while another says use 8, and that many of the tools in PS don't even support 16 bit.

I'm trying to smooth out my workflow and find myself constantly switching profiles between PS and LR depending on the file type. Would be much easier to have one defined color space and bit depth across the board. The output for these photos will be 99% web based, not print.

Appreciate any input/advice...

For web: sRGB, 8-bit.

I work fully in AdobeRGB, from the camera to the last moment when I've done finishing a TIFF. Once I export to JPG, then I change the colour space or leave it alone depending on the purpose of the file. Obviously, when I convert to CMYK for printing the RGB colour space becomes moot.

When I deliver files to clients, I give them three versions of the same photo in JPEG format:

1. HR: High resolution (original size [Sans cropping if crop was needed, of course]), AdobeRGB, 300 ppi.
   
2. Web: 2500 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   
3. SM (social media): 640 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   

You need to learn to differentiate between advise that is focused on editing and advise that is focused on end use. Editing should always be done at the maximum resolution and bit depth.... as much of it as possible in RAW. When moving to Photoshop 16 bit TIFF or PSD (Photoshop elements only supports 8 bit for most images which is poor).

When outputting for the web size matters so it is usually JPEG (which is 8 bit) in sRGB.

The web is built on sRGB 8 bit files, just do it.

The fewer times you change color space the better, this goes for print of the web. There are not many wide gamut (16 bit) output devices, until your output is 16 bit there is really no reason to work in 16 bit.

I'd say most serious photogs are shooting and archiving RAW files, so down the road if you choose another output method you just go back and export the file as something else.

Alveric wrote in post #17841428
For web: sRGB, 8-bit.

I work fully in AdobeRGB, from the camera to the last moment when I've done finishing a TIFF. Once I export to JPG, then I change the colour space or leave it alone depending on the purpose of the file. Obviously, when I convert to CMYK for printing the RGB colour space becomes moot.

When I deliver files to clients, I give them three versions of the same photo in JPEG format:

1. HR: High resolution (original size [Sans cropping if crop was needed, of course]), AdobeRGB, 300 ppi.
   
2. Web: 2500 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   
3. SM (social media): 640 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   

All files are 8-bit depth, but I keep the master TIFFs @ 16-bit, unless some filter or other procedure has forced me to go down to 8-bit.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17841461
You need to learn to differentiate between advise that is focused on editing and advise that is focused on end use. Editing should always be done at the maximum resolution and bit depth.... as much of it as possible in RAW. When moving to Photoshop 16 bit TIFF or PSD (Photoshop elements only supports 8 bit for most images which is poor).

When outputting for the web size matters so it is usually JPEG (which is 8 bit) in sRGB.

My Take-Away from these two posts: STAY locked in Adobe RGB from Camera-LR-PS in 16 bit RAW or TIFF (as applicable). Switch to 8 bit sRGB on final JPEG output for web (or appropriate Color Space for Printing).

One last question.. Have noticed some banding on the web display of several of my 16 bit TIFFS exported for web usage, the banding is prominent in the deepest blacks. I don't see this banding on my monitor, but its definitely noticeable via web browser. Is the result of a webpage resizing/resampling, a reduction from 16 to 8 bits, or using a ProPhoto/Adobe Colorspace that's not compatible?

Appreciate the input provided so far, thanks guys.

Alveric wrote in post #17841428
For web: sRGB, 8-bit.

I work fully in AdobeRGB, from the camera to the last moment when I've done finishing a TIFF. Once I export to JPG, then I change the colour space or leave it alone depending on the purpose of the file. Obviously, when I convert to CMYK for printing the RGB colour space becomes moot.

When I deliver files to clients, I give them three versions of the same photo in JPEG format:

1. HR: High resolution (original size [Sans cropping if crop was needed, of course]), AdobeRGB, 300 ppi.
   
2. Web: 2500 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   
3. SM (social media): 640 px on the long edge, sRGB, 150 ppi.
   

All files are 8-bit depth, but I keep the master TIFFs @ 16-bit, unless some filter or other procedure has forced me to go down to 8-bit.

PPI is a print parameter. It has nothing to do with files and/or their sizes, or resolutions.

Print a 5000 pixel-wide photo 100 inches wide, you get 50 PPI. Print the same photo at 5 inches wide you get (if the printer could do it) 1000 PPI.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17841468
The web is built on sRGB 8 bit files, just do it.

The fewer times you change color space the better, this goes for print of the web. There are not many wide gamut (16 bit) output devices, until your output is 16 bit there is really no reason to work in 16 bit.

I'd say most serious photogs are shooting and archiving RAW files, so down the road if you choose another output method you just go back and export the file as something else.

Another vote for sRGB/8-Bit throughout the workflow

Thanks..

Brisket: there IS reason to work in 16-bit per channel. Yes, while even 8-bit and its 16.7 million possible RGB colour definitions are more than the number of unique colours the human eye can distinguish, and certainly much more than the number of unique colours we can print**, the larger the number of bits the more flexibility we have when editing. By working in 16-bit we can avoid artefacts like banding and other noticeable eyesores: every bit opens up gaps between some adjacent pixel values and smooshes others together, reducing the number of shades**.

I'll stick with a 16-bit workflow and convert to 8-bit only the final output, as that file is not expected to be heavily modified or to be changed at all. I also warn clients about JPG being a lossy format and to avoid continuously modifying and saving the files I give them.

_______________
**Chavez, Conrad and David Blatner. Photoshop CS4 for Photographers. Berkeley: Peachpit, 2009.

DanangMonkey wrote in post #17841481
Another vote for sRGB/8-Bit throughout the workflow

Thanks..

Unless you're working with a clunker of a computer, say a Pentium III with a 2.5 GB hard drive and 512MB in RAM, there's really no reason to downgrade your workflow. Heck, LR uses ProPhoto, which is a larger colour space than AdobeRGB.

Alveric wrote in post #17841486
Brisket: there IS reason to work in 16-bit per channel. Yes, while even 8-bit and its 16.7 million possible RGB colour definitions are more than the number of unique colours the human eye can distinguish, and certainly much more than the number of unique colours we can print**, the larger the number of bits the more flexibility we have when editing. By working in 16-bit we can avoid artefacts like banding and other noticeable eyesores: every bit opens up gaps between some adjacent pixel values and smooshes others together, reducing the number of shades**.

I'll stick with a 16-bit workflow and convert to 8-bit only the final output, as that file is not expected to be heavily modified or to be changed at all. I also warn clients about JPG being a lossy format and to avoid continuously modifying and saving the files I give them.

_______________
**Chavez, Conrad and David Blatner. Photoshop CS4 for Photographers. Berkeley: Peachpit, 2009.

Alveric.. that led to my last question... I was using 16 bits and converting to 8 bit output for web, will this cause the banding in the blacks that I'm seeing? If that's the case I need to stay in 8 bit for editing to ensure that WYSIWYG between editing and output.

Now you can see why this is so confusing...different opinions even among seasoned pros, and all sound credible. There were just as many disagreements and conflicting information provided within the "sticky", hence my asking for clarification in a new thread: https://photography-on-the.net …php?t=296149&go​to=newpost

sRGB, 8 bit, JPEG or PNG.

Kirk

DanangMonkey wrote in post #17841496
Alveric.. that led to my last question... I was using 16 bits and converting to 8 bit output for web, will this cause the banding in the blacks that I'm seeing? If that's the case I need to stay in 8 bit for editing to ensure that WYSIWYG between editing and output.

Now you can see why this is so confusing...different opinions even among seasoned pros, and all sound credible. There were just as many disagreements and conflicting information provided within the "sticky", hence my asking for clarification in a new thread: https://photography-on-the.net …php?t=296149&go​to=newpost

Can you post the problem image?

Can you process said image both ways: one version in full 16-bit since exporting from RAW and one in 8-bit? What's your workflow? And what software programs are you using?

for those that use LR, you have no choice in the colourspace that is used internally for processing images. LR uses it's own specific colourspace, which isn't totally available in any eternal editor. If you are going to have to edit in PS or another application, and you might then want to go back and perform additional edits in LR, that will require changes to colours, then it is best to use 16 bit ProPhotoRGB as your editing colourspace in PS. By doing this you will only be changing the gamma curve, the colour primaries will remain constant between the programs. This is the least amount of change possible.

If you are dealing with exporting a RAW file from LR as a finished item, the image doesn't actually get assigned a colourspace until you export the file. So as long as you are using an appropriate colourspace for the intended final use you are good to go. If that is going to be a JPEG for web use then it will have to be 8 bit (standard JPEG only supports 8 bit) and you should use sRGB. If you are printing direct from LR to a printer then you will use whatever the appropriate profile for your printer/ink/paper combinations is. For other files for printing you should use whatever colourspace the printing service tell you to use. This last can be quite difficult at times, or they just won't mention it, in which case using sRGB is probably the best option, if any colourspace is ever assumed it will usually be sRGB.

My usual workflow is shoot RAW and process in LR. As well as the RAW processing I use LR as my do everything photographic program. I always apply keywords etc to make finding images very easy. About 97% of my images are processed only in LR, and stay as RAW's until I need to export an image for a particular purpose. The approximately 3% of images that need processing in PS are done as 16 bit ProPhotoRGB PSD's, which are included back into the LR catalogue for final output processing. I only create an output file when I have the need for them, once they have been used they are deleted. Files that are sent to the pro labs that I use get the lab provided colourspace in a Quality 80 JPEG. If there is no specific profile for the medium then the file is sent as sRGB. All files for web use are again saved as a sRGB JPEG file of appropriate resolution. Since the LR export methods (including direct printing, or print to file) use the PPI value as part of the algorithm to calculate the exact amount of output sharpening to apply, as well as the specifically defined parameters, I always set the PPI value to match the correct final output value. For screen use that is usually 100 PPI which is about right for most monitors, at least up to 1080P resolution. For printing it will be whatever the printer will be printing at, based on file resolution and print size.

Please note that my advice is based on using LR as the main application for image processing and output generation. If you are using a different workflow, different advice would be appropriate. I think a big part of the problems with this subject is that specific workflow options can make a difference to what would be the most appropriate choices.

Alan

There are a lot of variables, including your software, your monitor, and your viewing software...

In your editing software, start out with "Soft Proofing", viewing your shots in your "web-based" (sRGB) color space. If your upload is not good, adjust and test again!!

DanangMonkey wrote in post #17841478
My Take-Away from these two posts: STAY locked in Adobe RGB from Camera-LR-PS in 16 bit RAW or TIFF (as applicable). Switch to 8 bit sRGB on final JPEG output for web (or appropriate Color Space for Printing).

The suggestion to store everything as aRGB and then convert is not good advice. Both aRGB and sRGB carries 16.7 Million hues. That which is in one color space may not also exist in the other color space...so some colors MUST be lost in any conversion!

Think of this analogy...two counting systems with the ability to store 1000 values.

• Counting system A can store from 0 thru 999 in increments of one.
  
• Counting system B can store from 0 thru 1998 in increments of two.
  
• It is said that Counting system B is a 'larger counting space' than Counting system A...1998 is a bigger number than 999, right?!
  
• But both only contain 1000 values!!!
  

• Shoot RAW. Convert from 16-bit Prophoto to 8-bit sRGB for printing at Costco
  
• Shoot RAW. Convert from 16-bit Prophoto to 8-bit sRGB for sharing on the web.
  
• Shoot RAW. Convert from 16-bit Prophoto to 8-bit aRGB when your printer supports aRGB input files directly, never send aRGB if you have to convert to sRGB
  
• Shoot RAW. Convert from 16-bit Prophoto to CYMK when your offset printer needs CYMK color separations