sRGB or Adobe?

[RHVC59]

I'm trying to decide if I should continue shooting using adobe color or just stick with the sRGB color space that my Nikon D80 defaults to. I understand that Adobe allows for more color possibilities in hte image, but the images just do not seem as saturated and vibrant at those shot with sRGB...

Any one have a strong opinion one way or the other?

 

[fenno]

i've always heard that Adobe RGB is a larger color space, which is good. you mention that the sRGB photos coming out of your camera seem more vibrant and saturated -- i don't know if there are any properties of the color spaces that could be causing this, but did you check to see if your camera is applying any kind of saturation to the photos in the sRGB setting that it is not applying in the Adobe setting? if not, you could always just spruce up the saturation in photoshop.

 

[Cliff3]

Any one have a strong opinion one way or the other?

Yes, shoot raw and convert to a specific color space when you've identified the target for the image. If you're posting to the web, use sRGB. If you're editing the image, use ProPhoto. If you're printing, use whatever the printer directs you to use.

 

[jaduffy108]

As Cliff3 mentioned...it depends on the final format.

I shoot RAW (NEF) with sRGB in camera because I feel that color space best matches the LCD display on the camera.

In the RAW converter of your choice, for best quality, use ProPhoto. sRGB is a very limited color space.AbodeRGB is much better...with ProPhoto even better. Also, if you use PS...set it to ProPhoto too.

 

[alphaod]

If you use Adobe RGB make sure you do some post processing or your colors won't be WYSIWYG

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, so I just changed my Aperture to Proofing Profile to ProPhoto RGB, anything else I need to know? What about exporting? If I right click and export the image, Im guessing it will use the ProPhoto RGB Profile?

 

[ChrisA]

Hmm, so I just changed my Aperture to Proofing Profile to ProPhoto RGB, anything else I need to know? What about exporting? If I right click and export the image, Im guessing it will use the ProPhoto RGB Profile?

If you export a photo it needs to be sRGB. Most of the world is not color managed and will not even look inside the file to see what color space it is and just assume sRGB. So it had better really be sRGB or all those dumb applications will have guessed wrong and the color will not be right. Unless you know who you are sending the image to make it sRGB.

Back to choosing a space: The wider the gamut the wider the steps between color. Also a wide gamut does not look good on a device that can't display it and "clips". ut wide gamut are best for post processing as long as you export in sRGB

 

[wheelhot]

If you export a photo it needs to be sRGB. Most of the world is not color managed and will not even look inside the file to see what color space it is and just assume sRGB. So it had better really be sRGB or all those dumb applications will have guessed wrong and the color will not be right. Unless you know who you are sending the image to make it sRGB.

Ah that sucks, then what is the point of doing your work in ProPhoto RGB if the world would just see it as sRGB?

 

[alphaod]

If you export a photo it needs to be sRGB. Most of the world is not color managed and will not even look inside the file to see what color space it is and just assume sRGB. So it had better really be sRGB or all those dumb applications will have guessed wrong and the color will not be right. Unless you know who you are sending the image to make it sRGB.

Back to choosing a space: The wider the gamut the wider the steps between color. Also a wide gamut does not look good on a device that can't display it and "clips". ut wide gamut are best for post processing as long as you export in sRGB

If you are switching the color space, odds are you will be shooting in RAW, so you're probably doing post processing anyways.

 

[RHVC59]

First thanks all for taking the time to reply to my question.

If you are switching the color space, odds are you will be shooting in RAW, so you're probably doing post processing anyways.

Alphaod ProPhoto is a new term for me. Color from one device to another has always been a hassle. I was hoping that by shooting in Adobe rgb it make the work flow a little more streamline.

Yes I am also shooting RAW on my D80. This settings also gives me a jpg and a RAW file.
Anyway according to KenRockwell.com, the D80 has three color modes to shoot in:
"Color Mode Ia (one-a, sRGB) is default. It's normal and boring.

Color Mode II (two, Adobe RGB) gives dull colors. Don't touch this unless you really know what you're doing and print your own work. See Adobe RGB vs. sRGB.

Color Mode IIIa (three-a, also sRGB) gives bolder colors. "

I use CS3 to and Adobe Camera Raw 4.6.0.30 to "develop" my images.

I wonder if Color mode IIIa is Nikons version of ProPhoto...

Maybe when I wake up tomorrow someone at Apple or Adobe will have come up with more more consistent and simplified streamlined work flow, them again maybe I will wake up the economy will have straighten it self out...

 

[covisio]

I could be wrong here, but are we sending someone down the wrong path?
If the user is shooting in raw, then during processing, they get to choose the profile to process in. Okay, lets use ProPhoto, because of its wide gamut. This makes sense, we want to assign a profile to the file that retains as much information as possible.
I would say that the file should be kept in this profile at all times, and let downstream applications and devices process the profile as appropriate, i.e. when printing to your home inkjet, you let the application (i.e Photoshop, Aperture, or the print driver) convert your source profile to the appropriate printer profile at the point of output. You can set your proofing profile to that of your printer and preview the effects of this profile at any time, but this way you are not destroying the fundamental integrity of the file by physically converting from one profile to another.

 

[Cliff3]

Someone was asking about color the other day in a different thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/659045/

Yes I am also shooting RAW on my D80. This settings also gives me a jpg and a RAW file.
Anyway according to KenRockwell.com

(snip)

I use CS3 to and Adobe Camera Raw 4.6.0.30 to "develop" my images.

I wonder if Color mode IIIa is Nikons version of ProPhoto...

Maybe when I wake up tomorrow someone at Apple or Adobe will have come up with more more consistent and simplified streamlined work flow, them again maybe I will wake up the economy will have straighten it self out...

The color space/mode only affects the jpeg created by the camera, or if no jpeg is created, then the small jpeg stored with the raw file and used to generate histograms and such. The raw file has no color space until it is processed by an application. The 3 color modes are all just different flavors of aRGB.

I could be wrong here, but are we sending someone down the wrong path?
If the user is shooting in raw, then during processing, they get to choose the profile to process in. Okay, lets use ProPhoto, because of its wide gamut. This makes sense, we want to assign a profile to the file that retains as much information as possible.
I would say that the file should be kept in this profile at all times, and let downstream applications and devices process the profile as appropriate, i.e. when printing to your home inkjet, you let the application (i.e Photoshop, Aperture, or the print driver) convert your source profile to the appropriate printer profile at the point of output. You can set your proofing profile to that of your printer and preview the effects of this profile at any time, but this way you are not destroying the fundamental integrity of the file by physically converting from one profile to another.

Read my reply in the other thread.

 

[147798]

I am new to RAW and have a couple of follow-up questions.

I understand the point that RAW has no color space (or, more specifically, does it have a wide-open color space much broader than everything else?), and that you could develop and choose the color space that makes sense (sRGB for the web, because most everything assumes sRGB, a different color space if you are printing, based on what the printer can handle, etc.).

But what if you do things like order books from Apple (via e.g. iPhoto). Should I just default to sRGB? Though it's printing, it's certainly not a printer under my control, so I'm assuming there's no way to tell what their printer color space is...?

 

[Cliff3]

I understand the point that RAW has no color space (or, more specifically, does it have a wide-open color space much broader than everything else?)

Raw is not an acronym, by the way, so there is no need to capitalize it. Until a raw file is processed by a raw converter, it merely contains the raw data straight off the sensor. That sensor data is proprietary to the camera manufacturer. The notion of color space isn't relevant until the file is converted and the mapping of raw sensor data into colors within a specific color space is a part of that conversion.

No idea on publishing books from iPhoto, but I would assume it creates whatever it needs from the source files. You can freely convert a file from one color space to another within Photoshop, for example.

 

[147798]

Though the RAW data doesn't have a color space defined, LR, Ap, iPhoto, etc. must use some kind of color interpretation to represent the RAW data on-screen, no?

on a side note -- RAW is not an acronym, but is useful to capitalize, as it's easier to understand in context. From what I've seen, the convention is mixed. Here's a book that capitalizes RAW in it's title: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-RAW-Photography-Andy-Rouse/dp/186108515X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Here's the wikipedia page on RAW, where the article itself mixes it's convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format flopping between "raw" and "RAW" But I digress...

 

[Cliff3]

Though the RAW data doesn't have a color space defined, LR, Ap, iPhoto, etc. must use some kind of color interpretation to represent the RAW data on-screen, no?

The first thing those programs do when they open a raw file is run a raw converter against it. ACR is integrated with LR and uses ProPhoto as its color space. If you open a raw file with PS, then ACR is the first dialog you see - aRGB is its default color space but you can (and probably should) override that and use ProPhoto instead. I don't use Aperture or iPhoto.

 

[147798]

The first thing those programs do when they open a raw file is run a raw converter against it. ACR is integrated with LR and uses ProPhoto as its color space. If you open a raw file with PS, then ACR is the first dialog you see - aRGB is its default color space but you can (and probably should) override that and use ProPhoto instead. I don't use Aperture or iPhoto.

As I'm just getting started, I'm using free stuff -- DPP, where I can manage the color space and iPhoto, where I can't, though I'm developing my RAW in DPP, so iPhoto's space is not really important, I suppose.

Thanks for the help.

 

[anubis]

It's my understanding that all web browsers and web applications display images in sRBG. If an image comes out of the raw converter with AdobeRBG, and your final product is for display on the internet, it will have to be converted to sRBG anyway, and then you basically lose the advantages of both color spaces. If your final product is print without having to go through a convert-to-JPEG step, then you can explore the use of other color spaces. My final products all have to be converted to high resolution JPEG for display on a web page and being sent to the printers anyway, so i stay in the sRBG space.

 

[147798]

It's my understanding that all web browsers and web applications display images in sRBG. If an image comes out of the raw converter with AdobeRBG, and your final product is for display on the internet, it will have to be converted to sRBG anyway, and then you basically lose the advantages of both color spaces. If your final product is print without having to go through a convert-to-JPEG step, then you can explore the use of other color spaces. My final products all have to be converted to high resolution JPEG for display on a web page and being sent to the printers anyway, so i stay in the sRBG space.

I could be mistaken, but can't a JPG handle more color spaces than just sRGB? So, you might create a sRGB jpg for web viewing from certain RAW file, but maybe a different jpg from with a different profile for printing. (?)

 

[Cliff3]

I could be mistaken, but can't a JPG handle more color spaces than just sRGB? So, you might create a sRGB jpg for web viewing from certain RAW file, but maybe a different jpg from with a different profile for printing. (?)

It can. The idea is basically to keep your options open until you have to commit to something. With respect to color spaces, ProPhoto has the largest gamut, so you are best off working in that color space until you need to create output for a specific device (monitor, printer, whatever). At that point and with the requirements of the specific output device in mind, you modify your image accordingly and soft proof to make sure the resulting output is going to meet your needs and expectations.

 

[147798]

It can. The idea is basically to keep your options open until you have to commit to something. With respect to color spaces, ProPhoto has the largest gamut, so you are best off working in that color space until you need to create output for a specific device (monitor, printer, whatever). At that point and with the requirements of the specific output device in mind, you modify your image accordingly and soft proof to make sure the resulting output is going to meet your needs and expectations.

If RAW doesn't have a color profile specifically, when you say "stay in ProPhoto" -- can you do a jpg in ProPhoto and then re-render a new jpg in sRGB (to check colors for, say, printing). Or is it, I would imagine, best to render the sRGB file from the RAW?

 

[Cliff3]

If RAW doesn't have a color profile specifically, when you say "stay in ProPhoto" -- can you do a jpg in ProPhoto and then re-render a new jpg in sRGB (to check colors for, say, printing). Or is it, I would imagine, best to render the sRGB file from the RAW?

The raw file needs to be rendered somehow before you can view it or otherwise use it. That is the job of a raw converter. A raw file is analogous to an undeveloped piece of film and there are several processing options available for the conversion process. It is not associated with a color space. It has a suggested color temperature associated with it (aka: white balance), but that can be overridden. And so on.

In Lightroom, raw files are rendered on the fly along with subsequent modifications, so the original file remains intact. Aperture works the same way.

A jpeg coming from the camera is more like a Polaroid - the camera has done the film processing internally and the jpeg is the resulting photo. You can crop it and do some other edits, but basically it represents a 'developed' image.

I work mostly with LR and it deals directly with the raw files. If I need to do something in Photoshop, then LR creates a copy of the image in a PSD file (a non-compressed and very flexible format) and hands that off to Photoshop. That branch of the image then remains as a PSD file and is permanently forked from the original raw file. I don't create jpegs until I need a jpeg. At the point I create the jpeg I evaluate the requirements of the target for that jpeg and create what is relevant for that target. Most of the time it's for a computer screen, so the jpeg is kept on the small side and associated with the sRGB color space.

 

[147798]

The raw file needs to be rendered somehow before you can view it or otherwise use it. That is the job of a raw converter. A raw file is analogous to an undeveloped piece of film and there are several processing options available for the conversion process. It is not associated with a color space. It has a suggested color temperature associated with it (aka: white balance), but that can be overridden. And so on.

In Lightroom, raw files are rendered on the fly along with subsequent modifications, so the original file remains intact. Aperture works the same way.

A jpeg coming from the camera is more like a Polaroid - the camera has done the film processing internally and the jpeg is the resulting photo. You can crop it and do some other edits, but basically it represents a 'developed' image.

I work mostly with LR and it deals directly with the raw files. If I need to do something in Photoshop, then LR creates a copy of the image in a PSD file (a non-compressed and very flexible format) and hands that off to Photoshop. That branch of the image then remains as a PSD file and is permanently forked from the original raw file. I don't create jpegs until I need a jpeg. At the point I create the jpeg I evaluate the requirements of the target for that jpeg and create what is relevant for that target. Most of the time it's for a computer screen, so the jpeg is kept on the small side and associated with the sRGB color space.

I think I got it. Set LR to render in ProPhoto as you work on the file, then create the jpg (or other output) with the color profile you need for the purpose (e.g. maybe sRGB for web viewing).

This has been really helpful. I have downloaded a LR trial twice now, but that was before I started getting into RAW. I'll likely revisit it, as I'm finding the DPP/iPhoto combo to be a bit limiting. Thanks for the tips on LR, and the education on color profile/spaces.

 

[jaduffy108]

I could be wrong here, but are we sending someone down the wrong path?
If the user is shooting in raw, then during processing, they get to choose the profile to process in. Okay, lets use ProPhoto, because of its wide gamut. This makes sense, we want to assign a profile to the file that retains as much information as possible.
I would say that the file should be kept in this profile at all times, and let downstream applications and devices process the profile as appropriate, i.e. when printing to your home inkjet, you let the application (i.e Photoshop, Aperture, or the print driver) convert your source profile to the appropriate printer profile at the point of output. You can set your proofing profile to that of your printer and preview the effects of this profile at any time, but this way you are not destroying the fundamental integrity of the file by physically converting from one profile to another.

If you are using PS, NX2, LR, AP, etc to color manage your images...then it's best to turn off the color management in your printer driver before printing. Otherwise, you're getting color management on top of *your* color management. Not good.

 

[waiwai]

sRGB is industry standard