Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Colour space in camera advice needed

Reply
Thread Tools

Colour space in camera advice needed

 
 
ukbrown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
What is the perceived wisdom for colour space in your camera.

1. Pick Adobe 1998 because it has a larger gamut than srgb. Leave all your
photos in and any you upload to be printed convert to srgb
2. Leave the camera in srgb

Will photos in Adobe 1998 format look any different once uploaded to my web
pages or should they be converted to srgb.

The main reasons for using Adobe seem to be that this is what most inkjet
printers print with. I do not do that much printing but noticed that the
colour space was a bit broader. If I shoot in Raw I take it that in
Photoshop I should be using Adobe 1998. My Canon camera manual recommends
not using Adobe, hence my confusion.

Any good beginners articles on what seems to be an incredibly detailed area
welcome. I am quite happy to go away and read.

Thanks
Ukbrown
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
>ukbrown writes ...
>
>What is the perceived wisdom for colour space in your camera


Shoot RAW mode and the color space defined in-camera is ignored. You
assign a space when you convert the RAW file later.

If shooting jpeg then it's a personal choice, sRGB for web images,
AdobeRGB for print images is common but many shoot AdobeRGB and convert
the profile later for web files, and many shoot sRGB and print them, so
it's a matter of choice.

>Will photos in Adobe 1998 format look any different once uploaded
>to my web pages or should they be converted to srgb.


You should convert to sRGB first because the same color has a different
numerical value in sRGB vs AdobeRGB and saturated colors look dull if
not converted. This is because the web browsers don't use the ICM
color management flow so ignore the profiles and sRGB values are closer
to what the web browser will display.

If you want to see an example here is a cardinal with very red colors
converted from RAW into three working spaces, wide gamut ProPhotoRGB,
AdobeRGB and sRGB. These were saved as jpegs without converting the
ProPhoto or AdobeRGB files to sRGB first.

The "red" of the feathers is represented roughly by 144/86/46 in
ProPhoto, 200/77/39 in sRGB and 158/53/0 in AdobeRGB ... a
color-managed program like Photoshop will read the profile tag and show
roughly the same colors but a non-color managed app like your web
browser will simply ignore profiles and see these as very different
colors. Download these and assign the correct profiles in Photoshop
and you'll see they look similar. Convert the ProPhoto or AdobeRGB
images to sRGB and they will look similar on the web. Don't convert
and they look terrible.
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/hilton_adobergb.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/hilton_srgb.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/hilton_prophoto.jpg

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
On 22 May 2006 13:18:47 -0700, Bill Hilton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> You should convert to sRGB first because the same color has a different
> numerical value in sRGB vs AdobeRGB and saturated colors look dull if
> not converted. This is because the web browsers don't use the ICM
> color management flow so ignore the profiles and sRGB values are closer
> to what the web browser will display.


Nitpick: I believe that recent versions of Safari on the Mac do
understand color space information, at least to some extent.

-dms

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
> Daniel Silevitch writes ...
>
>Nitpick: I believe that recent versions of Safari on the Mac do
>understand color space information, at least to some extent


For several years a few browsers have been "color managed" but there
are two problems ... very few people use those browsers, and most jpegs
for the web have the tags stripped out to save a few bytes, so the
profile info isn't available in most images anyway ...

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
On 22 May 2006 15:10:36 -0700, Bill Hilton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Daniel Silevitch writes ...
>>
>>Nitpick: I believe that recent versions of Safari on the Mac do
>>understand color space information, at least to some extent

>
> For several years a few browsers have been "color managed" but there
> are two problems ... very few people use those browsers, and most jpegs
> for the web have the tags stripped out to save a few bytes, so the
> profile info isn't available in most images anyway ...


Well, there is that.

Did the test jpgs that you posted have embedded profiles? When I looked
at them in Safari 2.0, they were visibly quite different from each
other, especially the ProPhoto one.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2006
> Daniel Silevitch writes ...
>
>Did the test jpgs that you posted have embedded profiles?


No. I used Photoshop's 'save for web' and the default is to strip out
the ICC profiles, though there's an option to leave them in. I think
AdobeRGB adds around 500 bytes, ProPhotoRGB around 1,000 bytes and sRGB
almost 4,000 bytes to *each* image, so that's why they are stripped out
by default.

> When I looked at them in Safari 2.0, they were visibly quite
> different from each other, especially the ProPhoto one.


If they did have profiles and you were using a color managed browser
then they would look very similar, which you can show by downloading,
opening in Photoshop and assigning the right profile (if you have the
missing/mismatch warning set it will prompt you automatically).

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2006
On 22 May 2006 16:19:06 -0700, Bill Hilton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Daniel Silevitch writes ...
>>
>>Did the test jpgs that you posted have embedded profiles?

>
> No. I used Photoshop's 'save for web' and the default is to strip out
> the ICC profiles, though there's an option to leave them in. I think
> AdobeRGB adds around 500 bytes, ProPhotoRGB around 1,000 bytes and sRGB
> almost 4,000 bytes to *each* image, so that's why they are stripped out
> by default.


That's what I thought, because I've seen examples of jpgs with embedded
profiles, and Safari gave similar-looking images for the different
spaces, whereas Firefox gave very different looks.

I'm mildly startled that Firefox doesn't support color management; I
wonder whether it's on the to-do list.

>> When I looked at them in Safari 2.0, they were visibly quite
>> different from each other, especially the ProPhoto one.

>
> If they did have profiles and you were using a color managed browser
> then they would look very similar, which you can show by downloading,
> opening in Photoshop and assigning the right profile (if you have the
> missing/mismatch warning set it will prompt you automatically).


I don't have Photoshop, but I'll take your word for it.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
ukbrown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2006

On 22-May-2006, "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If shooting jpeg then it's a personal choice, sRGB for web images,
> AdobeRGB


So basically I should not be worried about the differnece in colour space
size.

Thanks for the detailed reply.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2006
On 22 May 2006 15:10:36 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> Daniel Silevitch writes ...
>>
>>Nitpick: I believe that recent versions of Safari on the Mac do
>>understand color space information, at least to some extent

>
>For several years a few browsers have been "color managed" but there
>are two problems ... very few people use those browsers, and most jpegs
>for the web have the tags stripped out to save a few bytes, so the
>profile info isn't available in most images anyway ...
>
>Bill



If I read the notes correctly, Firefox (PC and Mac) are both
ICC-aware as is Internet Explorer on the Mac.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Behind the lens of the camera which took the iconic first colour picture of Earth from space me Digital Photography 0 05-17-2012 11:56 PM
What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit? Scotius Digital Photography 6 07-13-2010 03:33 AM
Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of 8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Christian Seberino Python 21 10-27-2003 04:20 PM
Re: Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Ian Bicking Python 2 10-23-2003 07:07 AM
Stack space, global space, heap space Shuo Xiang C Programming 10 07-11-2003 07:30 PM



Advertisments