Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   RGB Working spaces (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t246636-rgb-working-spaces.html)

Matti Haveri 11-05-2003 05:47 PM

RGB Working spaces
 
I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best
to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is
generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.

Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?

Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
(1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This
isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous
options.

I'm going to print the images at a shop as 6x4" glossy images, if that
matters.

--
Matti Haveri <matti.haveri@sjoki.uta.fi> <http://www.sjoki.uta.fi/~shmhav/>

Bill Hilton 11-05-2003 06:19 PM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
>From: Matti Haveri matti.haveri@sjoki.uta.fi

>I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best
>to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is
>generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.


I've also read "RW Photoshop" and also the more detailed "Real World Color
Management" ... I think what they mean is Adobe RGB has the right sized gamut
for printing on inkjets, film recorders, Light Jet 5000's etc, while sRGB's
more limited gamut is still fine for other things like images destined for the
web and print shops that use Fuji or similar printers.

>Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
>IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
>
>I'm going to print the images at a shop as 6x4" glossy images, if that
>matters.


I would leave them as sRGB since most of these printers are expecting sRGB. In
theory converting to AdobeRGB gives you access to a wider gamut if you were to
increase saturation or change hues or do other things that might be helped with
a wider gamut, but given you are printing at a shop they'll go right back to
sRGB so it's advantageous to just stay in sRGB.

Personally if I'm scanning film I usually use AdobeRGB as the working space
unless there are certain colors I know would benefit from a wider gamut (mainly
yellows), in which case I use Joe Holmes' Ektaspace 5, which has a wider gamut
that more closely matches film. These images would typically be targeted for
printing and if I'm going to jpeg some of them for the web I convert to sRGB
just before the jpeg conversion to get a better gamut match for the web.

With our digital camera if the image is RAW and destined for print I take
advantage of the camera's AdobeRGB option, but if the image is a jpeg or is not
headed for printing but rather the web I just leave it as sRGB. So picking the
right working space depends in part on where the image comes from (ie, how wide
the gamut of the capture device or medium) and also the gamut of the device it
will be output on.

Bill



WharfRat 11-05-2003 06:46 PM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 

> I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best
> to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is
> generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
>
> Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
>
> Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
> editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
> typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
> (1998) as the best working space!?
>
> Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This
> isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous
> options.

---
You should bring in the file without a profile assigned.
Then "Assign" a Profile to the file.
-
Your camera records much more information
than sRGB will let you access.

MSD


Eric Gill 11-05-2003 06:59 PM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
Matti Haveri <matti.haveri@sjoki.uta.fi> wrote in news:matti.haveri-
0C2FBD.19472605112003@plaza.suomi.net:

> Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?


If you're not using RAW format, there is little point. Your images have had
their color data truncated to fit into the smaller color space and
assigning them to another won't bring it back.

RAW, however, preserves everything the camera shoots, which is generally
more than any of the standard color spaces. You'll need to fiddle with the
pics more, and of course shooting in RAW burns memory card space like mad,
but it's the ultimate answer for color.

Which camera?

<snip>

Flycaster 11-05-2003 07:17 PM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
"Matti Haveri" <matti.haveri@sjoki.uta.fi> wrote in message
news:matti.haveri-0C2FBD.19472605112003@plaza.suomi.net...
> I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best
> to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is
> generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
>
> Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
>
> Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
> editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
> typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
> (1998) as the best working space!?
>
> Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This
> isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous
> options.


Depends on your output. If you're going to a mini-lab or Walmart/Costco
photo printer, leave it in sRGB since most of their machines (primarily Fuji
Frontiers) are set up for that color space: iow, you'd just have to
re-convert back before sending it out, and there's no advantage gained.
OTOH, if you're going to a 6-7 color home inkjet, to CMYK, or to a high end
digital photo printer, convert the file to ARGB98 and work away. Either way
you probably won't notice much difference, except for a few super saturated
colors (notably, deep blues).

Last, in Elements (IIRC) the only way to "convert" from sRGB to ARGB98 is to
strip the sRGB profile when you do a save-as, then re-open and save again,
this time with ARGB98.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Mike Russell 11-05-2003 09:34 PM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
Matti Haveri wrote:
> I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is
> best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color
> gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
>
> Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
>
> Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
> editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
> typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
> (1998) as the best working space!?
>
> Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)?
> This isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the
> previous options.
>
> I'm going to print the images at a shop as 6x4" glossy images, if that
> matters.


I'd stick with sRGB.

Adobe RGB has several problems - if you simply assign it to your newly
captured images, which I don't recommend, you will be jacking up the
saturation. There is a small possibility that this will create some
saturated colors that cannot be displayed without clipping.

The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless
you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web,
printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles,
or otherwise posting them.

All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that much,
whichever choice you make. BTW - if you want a cheap and easy way to look
at these gamuts, check out the Curvemeister gamut viewer:

http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/gamutviewer/
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net



George Kerby 11-06-2003 01:24 AM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
On 11/5/03 11:47 AM, in article
matti.haveri-0C2FBD.19472605112003@plaza.suomi.net, "Matti Haveri"
<matti.haveri@sjoki.uta.fi> wrote:

> I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best
> to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is
> generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
>
> Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
>
> Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
> editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
> typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
> (1998) as the best working space!?
>
> Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This
> isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous
> options.
>
> I'm going to print the images at a shop as 6x4" glossy images, if that
> matters.

Generally the sRGB space is for Web/monitor and Adobe RGB is for
printing/reflective. My Photoshop defaulted to sRGB. You need to set your
defaut space to Adobe RGB for 4" x 6" prints and go from there.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


l 11-06-2003 08:09 AM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
In article <M1eqb.4895$zq.427@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mike Russell" <geigyREMOVE@pacbell.net> wrote:

> The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless
> you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web,
> printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles,
> or otherwise posting them.


These situations will be a smaller problem if you get your Proof Setup
correct and edit in Proof Colors view. Of course one must then re-edit
in another Proof Colors if one is very, very concerned about the way the
images will diplay on a web page.

But I wouldn´t worry about web pages. It is all too likely that the
audience will have a screen that is neither calibrated nor able to
display even the sRGB gamut in full. Whatever you do, the colors will
very likely be biased somehow when they hit the screen of average Joe.

..lauri

Waldo 11-06-2003 08:42 AM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
> OTOH, if you're going to a 6-7 color home inkjet, to CMYK, or to a high
end
> digital photo printer, convert the file to ARGB98 and work away. Either

way
> you probably won't notice much difference, except for a few super

saturated
> colors (notably, deep blues).


I wouldn't recommend CMYK for a consumer inkjet printer: de Windows printer
driver converts CMYK back to sRGB, the printer converts it back into it's
device CMYK again. This results in ugly prints (at least it did with my
printer...).

Waldo




Mike Russell 11-06-2003 09:47 AM

Re: RGB Working spaces
 
> "Mike Russell" <geigyREMOVE@pacbell.net> wrote:
[re using Adobe RGB instead of sRGB]
>> The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others
>> unless you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on
>> the web, printing them from an application that does not recognize
>> embedded profiles, or otherwise posting them.


..lauri wrote:
> These situations will be a smaller problem if you get your Proof Setup
> correct and edit in Proof Colors view. Of course one must then re-edit
> in another Proof Colors if one is very, very concerned about the way
> the images will diplay on a web page.


It's true you can use Soft Proofing that way, provided you have the
"Preserve Color Numbers" box checked in the Custom Proof setup, but this is
not really the way to accomodate multiple uses of an image, and this is one
of the few remaining ways to produce an image that is out of synch with its
embedded profile.

Rather, use Convert to Profile to convert the colors to sRGB before saving
for web. Save for Web does the same as far as color is concerned.

Soft Proofing is actually designed for a slightly different purpose: to
preview your image in another color space. For example, with a suitable
"paper proof", and "Preserve Color Numbers" un-checked, soft proofing
allows you to view how your image will look when printed on a particular
inkjet printer/paper combination, or a variety of other image viewing
circumstances.

> But I wouldn´t worry about web pages. It is all too likely that the
> audience will have a screen that is neither calibrated nor able to
> display even the sRGB gamut in full. Whatever you do, the colors will
> very likely be biased somehow when they hit the screen of average Joe.


It's true that many people don't calibrate their systems in any way. It's
also true that no browser recognizes embedded profiles. But putting an
Adobe RGB image on the web, or emailing one, is guaranteed to look drab to
the recipient. Some of those may be in a position to particularly
appreciate your images. If you are a professional, this translates to
dollars lost.
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.