color space question

I was under the impression that if i shoot in raw it has no color space and i can just choose one later in post. is this incorrect and should i be choosing adobeRGB even when shooting raw?

that would suck cause i shoot raw + small jpeg and i want the jpegs to be in sRGB so i can post on the web without processing.

stay in srgb for everything.

You are correct that RAW has no color space until it is defined in conversion. Choosing sRGB or aRGB in camera when shooting RAW will only affect the histogram and in camera JPG preview.

When shooting RAW+JPG it will be the color space for only the JPG as you state.

Shockey wrote in post #11685961
stay in srgb for everything.

Because...?

You want to stay in srgb for just about anything web-based because that's the only color space most web browsers see accurately. If you are in srgb and you upload a photo to facebook, it won't look any different than when you were color correcting it in photoshop.

THere you go. Now others who have the same question will know why! If you go to the bottom of this page ("Similar Threads"), you will see that this type of question has been asked many times.

Kirk

I'm still learning/trying to figure out color spaces myself. what's the benefit of using aRGB? for print?

josullivan79 wrote in post #11686352
I'm still learning/trying to figure out color spaces myself. what's the benefit of using aRGB? for print?

Sticky:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=707058

^perfect! thx much for that! I just asked that off a whim as the OP posted his question ...didn't go searching yet

josullivan79 wrote in post #11686352
I'm still learning/trying to figure out color spaces myself. what's the benefit of using aRGB? for print?

There are scenes where you may have bright/saturated colors that push outside of sRGB but can be managed in aRGB -- think bright flowers or bright saturated fabrics. In those conditions, you may do better both using the aRGB color space in the camera with the RGB histogram to fully capture things and retain those colors in your jpeg without underexposing and in your processor to have manage things in your Raw file and finally to be able to print to a printer that actually handles the aRGB gamut properly.

Now, that sounds nice, but there are problems there that can bite you if you don't know what exactly you are doing in post processing images like this. For example, when you shoot Raw+jpeg you have "locked in" that color space with the brighter colors in a way that may be problematic if, say, you need to convert them to the sRGB color space for the Web or for others to view in a non-color managed application.

Also, consumer monitors tend to have a more narrow color space so that even with your Raw files what you see on the screen will likely not be accurate with one of these aRGB images if in fact it contains colors that are out of the sRGB gamut.

You can use tools to work with these images -- the color histograms in your software, for example, and, if you have Photoshop using the Soft Proof function with out-of-gamut warnings will help you to manage things. You will need to consider both printing issues and also the fact that when you want to convert an image for the Web you will want to convert it to the sRGB color space and that could mean doing some tweaking to the color channels to bring them into line.

So, especially when you shoot Raw+jpeg, setting your camera to sRGB can be considered "safe" -- your histogram in the camera will reflect that meaning that using the RGB histogram will enable you to keep your exposure for bright/saturated colors in line and your jpeg will be Web-ready.

As you go, you may want to experiment, especially using the Raw files and various techniques there to squeeze more out of your image and out of a print, but then realize that your jpegs don't have as much latitude there and will bang up against limits earlier. And, such experimentation means that you will be pushing against limits even with Raw files.

tricky500 wrote in post #11686282
You want to stay in srgb for just about anything web-based because that's the only color space most web browsers see accurately. If you are in srgb and you upload a photo to facebook, it won't look any different than when you were color correcting it in photoshop.

Not quite true, its just the face that most consumer monitors still emulate the sRGB color space. Because most browsers are "dumb" the fact that they don't pay attention to color space in cases where the saved color space matches closely the color space spanned of the monitor.

In the case of my monitor, the NEC P221W, a non-color managed application only shows the image correctly if the image is saved in the aRGB color space. Otherwise images saved in the sRGB color space look oversaturated. It's the exact reverse problem of a person with a sRGB monitor viewing a aRGB image in a non color-aware app.

kirkt wrote in post #11686219
Because...?

just

Shockey wrote in post #11687055
just

Well, that helps

sRGB has it's uses. But so have AdobeRGB and other working spaces.

If your output is for web or "send out" printing, sRGB is a good choice.

Another, often overlooked reason for using sRGB (regardless of picture destination), is the plain absence of out-of-sRGB colors in the image itself.

If, at a given bit depth, we use a larger than needed working space, we are putting at the image's disposal an additional set of colors that it has no use for, at the expense of reducing the number of available color tones in the gamut segment that the image actually depends on.

kirkt wrote in post #11686219
Because...?

Because...
... Most commercial photo printers want sRGB files, or (if they don't ask for sRGB) they first convert files from aRGB to sRGB before printing the photo...so the point of aRGB is lost in the conversion to the narrower color space.

Try to even find a commercial photo printer that prints aRGB directly, without conversion.