Canon Adobe RGB vs sRGB

After being a dedicated Adobe Camera Raw user for many years, I've decided to use Canon's software (Zoombrowser/RIT (Raw Image Task)) for my Raw conversions... despite it's slow workflow, it's IQ is the best by far.

One thing I've noticed that seems odd, in fact, the exact opposite of what I would expect, and what I've seen in other Raw converters.

When I select sRGB as the color space, and output format from RIT, the image looks normal, both in RIT, and in output.

However, when I select adobe RGB for the color space, the image (both in preview, and the output file in Photoshop), becomes MORE saturated, and MORE contrasty, with more blocking of the shadows, and more blowing out of the highlights.

Because adobeRGB is a bigger gamut, I would expect the opposite to happen. In fact, that's how Adobe Camera Raw behaves, so I would often use adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB because this would prevent colours from becoming oversaturated, and highlights and shadows from being lost.

Here is an example of what I am getting:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Btw, I have "Adjust Color Of Images Using Monitor Profile" selected, as the preview in RIT matches what I get when I open the files in Photoshop Cs4 exactly.

HOWEVER, if I turn that option off, the preview in RIT works as I would suspect, with the image becoming desaturated with Adobe RGB selected. BUT, the images in Photoshop still look as before/above.... Adobe RGB image is much more saturated and contrasty than the sRGB image.

Ok, so here is out of camera JPG's. Once again the Adobe RGB is more saturated and contrasty than the sRGB.

Images opened in PS CS4, and the Adobe RGB has been converted to sRGB before being added to the sRGB image.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Heh! I admit, I'm looking this from a laptop, so YMMV, but my monitor has been calibrated. I'm viewing with Internet Exporer so it is not colormanaged. All the pics look pretty much the same to me.

Tony, I guess the difference can be subtle on some monitors, especially the 2nd image.
However, the Adobe RGB is definitely more saturated and contrasty, which is the opposite of what it should be I think.

Thanks for posting!

Well, I am not sure about the logic here, but from a purely visual point of view I think the AdobeRGB look better

Interesting comparison. I've always shot in SRGB. Never really saw a big difference in both color spaces. So, I've always stuck with sRGB for convenience. Is that hemp for consumption or what?

drisley wrote in post #8710702
What is interesting is, if I output from Adobe Camera Raw, files that are Adobe, sRGB, and ProPhoto, this doesn't happen. The files look as they should (with Adobe RGB being slightly more muted than sRGB)

I'm not sure what makes you say this. An image should look exactly the same, regardless of colour space, if the profile handling is performed correctly, and the images are being viewed in a colour-managed environment.

It sounds like your colour management practices are all wrong. The fact that you say ...

drisley wrote in post #8710514
In fact, that's how Adobe Camera Raw behaves, so I would often use adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB because this would prevent colours from becoming oversaturated, and highlights and shadows from being lost.

... makes me wonder what your Photoshop Color Settings are? It sounds like you've got them set to "Monitor Color" or something equally awful.

Very interesting.... Please show me how to apply adobe RGB vs. sRGB. All my pictures defaults to sRGB instead of adobe RGB.

jdizzle wrote in post #8711037
Interesting comparison. I've always shot in SRGB. Never really saw a big difference in both color spaces. So, I've always stuck with sRGB for convenience. Is that hemp for consumption or what?

LOL! I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to mention the Hemp! LOL

Damo77 wrote in post #8711060
I'm not sure what makes you say this. An image should look exactly the same, regardless of colour space, if the profile handling is performed correctly, and the images are being viewed in a colour-managed environment.

It sounds like your colour management practices are all wrong. The fact that you say ...

... makes me wonder what your Photoshop Color Settings are? It sounds like you've got them set to "Monitor Color" or something equally awful.

Hmm, AFAIK, my colour management is ok, but perhaps you misunderstand.

Yes, when converting from one profile to the next in PS, the images don't shift. My PS Colour Settings are not set to monitor, that's a big no-no. As an advanced PS user for about 12 years, I know that's wrong. I'm using NA General Purpose2 atm, but I have tried other options.

The extra saturation of the Adobe RGB image is the same in all colour managed software, whether it's PS, Firefox, or Windows 7 Photo Viewer.
The same applies to print.

Here are the 2 jpg's output from the camera, one in Adobe RGB, and one in sRGB.

http://www.mediafire.c​om/download.php?wmm2qz​mxnqt

The Adobe RGB is more saturated and contrasty than the sRRB, causing some clipping in the colours, shadows, and highlights (reflected on the histogram). This is exactly the opposite of what I would expect from a larger colour gamut, and exactly opposite of how Adobe Camera Raw reacts to Raws.

Btw, kouasupra, you select your color space in camera if you shoot JPG, or in your Raw converter.

I appreciate everybody's feedback.

Ok for kicks, here are the JPG's out of camera (no PS used), viewed in the colour managed Firefox 3.5.

Again the sRGB image on the left is less saturated than the Adobe RGB on the right.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

drisley wrote in post #8711210
Ok for kicks, here are the JPG's out of camera (no PS used), viewed in the colour managed Firefox 3.5.

Again the sRGB image on the left is less saturated than the Adobe RGB on the right.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Yes, to the unknowing, the Adobe RGB "looks" better, however, this is the opposite of what should be happening. The Adobe RGB image should be muted, thus saving colours from being blown out, etc. This is how all the software I have behaves with RAW's, except for Canon's software, and the camera itself for JPG's.

Why should the colours in Adobe RGB be more muted? I would have expected the opposite. sRGB is a narrower gamut and therefore can 'express' less range in colours. There should be more range of colours in the Adobe RGB and to me that is what your photos show. Less range of colours (sRGB) would logically result in less contrast because the true range of colours cannot be rendered. I think your examples show this as well.

drisley wrote in post #8711170
Btw, kouasupra, you select your color space in camera if you shoot JPG, or in your Raw converter.

Thank you, I didn't realize Adobe RGB would make that much of a different compare to sRGB.

GCFlora, I think you may have hit the nail on the head!

I thought about it, and yes, in fact, the colours shouldn't be more muted, unless you are viewing an image in a software that is not colour managed. So for kicks, I opened the images in Internet Explorer, and sure enough, the adobe RGB was in fact muted and desaturated.

So I guess what threw me off was that Canon software, and cameras, map colour profiles differently than say, Adobe Camera Raw.

In Adobe Camera Raw, when I select Adobe RGB for output, the histogram "shrinks" leaving more room on each side (shadows, and highlights) and prevents clipping of colours and detail.

However, with Canon software/in-camera, when using Adobe RGB, the histogram "expands" which brings the shadows, highlights, and colours closer to clipping.

And yes it makes sense that the Adobe RGB would appear more saturated because it's a larger gamut trying to be displayed on monitor with a narrower profile. And the wider gamut being displayed in Photoshop, will in fact show a wider histogram too.

It all makes sense to me now.

Btw, kouasupra, I would suggest until you do more research about colour management, perhaps stick with sRGB. You will run into problems with Adobe RGB, and images will actually look worse (less saturated etc) if you don't have a proper workflow, software settings, and a calibrated monitor.

Rene Damkot has some great links full of information on the subject.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=296149
http://www.getcolorman​aged.com/