AdobeRGB or sRGB?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bigfeet, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. bigfeet

    bigfeet Guest

    First of all, thank you to all those that helped with my earlier posts.
    I've finally taken the leap and gone digital (350D and Tamron
    17-55/2.8) and very happy so far.

    My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    files as well?

    Thanks
    bigfeet, Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. bigfeet wrote:
    > First of all, thank you to all those that helped with my earlier posts.
    > I've finally taken the leap and gone digital (350D and Tamron
    > 17-55/2.8) and very happy so far.
    >
    > My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    > AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    > files as well?


    RAW files can be assigned any color space on conversion to JPEG, PSD or
    TIFF files.

    If you are using a local processor, you're probably better off with
    sRGB, but if printing at home or using a custom lab, aRGB might be
    better, as it has a larger gamut.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bigfeet <> wrote:
    : First of all, thank you to all those that helped with my earlier posts.
    : I've finally taken the leap and gone digital (350D and Tamron
    : 17-55/2.8) and very happy so far.

    : My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    : AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    : files as well?

    I am not 100% sure about your camera (no personal experience) but I
    believe that raw bypasses the color space setting (sRGB/aRGB). Personally
    I use aRGB when I am going to be loading this image into an adobe product
    for editing and printing. But if you do not use adobe products for this,
    you would be better off using sRGB as this is the standard useable by the
    widest possible number of products. JMHO

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, Sep 14, 2006
    #3
  4. > My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    > AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    > files as well?


    The answer to the first part of your question gets very complicated very
    quickly. The brief answer is that they're "colour spaces" that give
    monitors, printers, etc., guidance on how the colours in the photograph
    should be represented. Color space information is added after the RAW
    data is processed into an image, so, no, they don't affect RAW.

    sRGB is the "standard/default" colour space used in most
    non-professional environments, and is the one that works best in the
    very common scenario of "no colour space at all." Since you need to ask
    the most basic question, you should put the setting on sRGB and leave it
    there until you understand enough about the subject to know why you'd
    want to change it.
    Derek Fountain, Sep 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Derek Fountain <> wrote:
    >> My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    >> AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    >> files as well?

    >
    >The answer to the first part of your question gets very
    >complicated very quickly. The brief answer is that they're
    >"colour spaces" that give monitors, printers, etc., guidance on
    >how the colours in the photograph should be represented. Color
    >space information is added after the RAW data is processed into
    >an image, so, no, they don't affect RAW.
    >
    >sRGB is the "standard/default" colour space used in most
    >non-professional environments, and is the one that works best in


    sRGB is the standard for the Internet, professional as well as
    non. If you want to post pictures on a web site, they should be
    restricted to a sRGB color space.

    >the very common scenario of "no colour space at all." Since you
    >need to ask the most basic question, you should put the setting
    >on sRGB and leave it there until you understand enough about the
    >subject to know why you'd want to change it.


    That is basically good advice. It is in particular true because
    many printers, and print shops, use sRGB. For those that don't,
    aRGB may or may not be appropriate either.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 14, 2006
    #5
  6. > sRGB is the standard for the Internet, professional as well as
    > non.


    In what way? I was unaware of any colour management standard being
    applied to the Internet. Who decided on that standard, where is it
    documented, and who is supposed to abide by it?
    Derek Fountain, Sep 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Derek Fountain <> wrote:
    >> sRGB is the standard for the Internet, professional as well as
    >> non.

    >
    >In what way? I was unaware of any colour management standard
    >being applied to the Internet. Who decided on that standard,
    >where is it documented, and who is supposed to abide by it?


    http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB
    http://www.color.org/sRGB.html

    "Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft propose the addition of
    support for a standard color space, sRGB, within the
    Microsoft operating systems, HP products, the Internet, and
    all other interested vendors."
    Version 1.10, November 5, 1996


    http://www.srgb.com/basicsofsrgb.htm

    "It has been standardized by the International
    Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) as IEC 61966-2-1."

    See every HTML specification since HTML 3.2 Reference
    Specification dated January 14, 1997.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 15, 2006
    #7
  8. > See every HTML specification since HTML 3.2 Reference
    > Specification dated January 14, 1997.


    Well I'm damned. The hours I've spent looking through the HTML spec over
    the years, and I never spotted that.

    Of course, the HP/Microsoft proposal is just that - a proposal, and a 10
    year old one at that. CSS doesn't carry the 'rendering-intent' property
    proposed, and there is no requirement for the use of colour management
    in any Internet technology that I'm aware of. Browsers don't use colour
    management anyway.

    Interesting though. I consider myself educated. :eek:)
    Derek Fountain, Sep 15, 2006
    #8
  9. bigfeet

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Derek Fountain <> wrote:

    > > See every HTML specification since HTML 3.2 Reference
    > > Specification dated January 14, 1997.

    >
    > Well I'm damned. The hours I've spent looking through the HTML spec over
    > the years, and I never spotted that.
    >
    > Of course, the HP/Microsoft proposal is just that - a proposal, and a 10
    > year old one at that. CSS doesn't carry the 'rendering-intent' property
    > proposed, and there is no requirement for the use of colour management
    > in any Internet technology that I'm aware of. Browsers don't use colour
    > management anyway.
    >
    > Interesting though. I consider myself educated. :eek:)


    Browsers *do* use color management, just in different ways from
    browser to browser. That's why sRGB is the safest bet, making it a
    de-facto standard if not an official one.
    Paul Mitchum, Sep 15, 2006
    #9
  10. bigfeet

    tomm42 Guest

    bigfeet wrote:
    > First of all, thank you to all those that helped with my earlier posts.
    > I've finally taken the leap and gone digital (350D and Tamron
    > 17-55/2.8) and very happy so far.
    >
    > My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    > AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    > files as well?
    >
    > Thanks


    I would use Adobe RGB in the camera, if your pics are going only to the
    internet use sRGB. If you feel you are going to print aRGB is a better
    start. I found our local drugstore uses an aRGB model after a number of
    pictures I sent them came back looking flat. At 19 cents a print, not a
    crisis. Adobe RGB can always be converted to sRGB, but the other way
    you still only have the truncated sRGB color.

    Tom
    tomm42, Sep 15, 2006
    #10
  11. tomm42 wrote:
    > bigfeet wrote:
    >> First of all, thank you to all those that helped with my earlier posts.
    >> I've finally taken the leap and gone digital (350D and Tamron
    >> 17-55/2.8) and very happy so far.
    >>
    >> My question is: What is the difference, a setting on the 350D, between
    >> AdobeRGB or sRGB? Is it only relevent to JPEGs or would it affect RAW
    >> files as well?
    >>
    >> Thanks

    >
    > I would use Adobe RGB in the camera, if your pics are going only to the
    > internet use sRGB. If you feel you are going to print aRGB is a better
    > start. I found our local drugstore uses an aRGB model after a number of
    > pictures I sent them came back looking flat. At 19 cents a print, not a
    > crisis. Adobe RGB can always be converted to sRGB, but the other way
    > you still only have the truncated sRGB color.
    >

    T-

    I wonder if you missed the many answers already given, as you posted off
    the original?

    IAE, it would seem an isolated case where a local drugstore uses aRGB.
    Did they tell you that or did you ascertain via testing?

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 15, 2006
    #11
  12. > Browsers *do* use color management, just in different ways from
    > browser to browser.


    How so? My Firefox browser under Linux isn't doing any colour management
    - there's no colour management in the entire system.

    A quick check of Firefox under Windows shows no difference in the
    rendering of an image with an embedded profile compared to the same
    image without a profile. So how do browsers use colour management?

    --
    <a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
    http://www.derekfountain.org/
    Derek Fountain, Sep 16, 2006
    #12
  13. bigfeet

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Derek Fountain <> wrote:

    > > Browsers *do* use color management, just in different ways from
    > > browser to browser.

    >
    > How so? My Firefox browser under Linux isn't doing any colour management -
    > there's no colour management in the entire system.


    Actually, linux is getting better about this, especially since the
    release of lcms.

    > A quick check of Firefox under Windows shows no difference in the
    > rendering of an image with an embedded profile compared to the same image
    > without a profile.


    If the two images are both the same color profile and that color profile
    happens to be sRGB then it could be that Firefox is assuming sRGB. Or it
    could be honoring one profile and assuming sRGB for the other.

    > So how do browsers use colour management?


    In different ways from browser to browser, like I said. :) Some
    browsers honor the embedded profile, some browsers default to sRGB, some
    browsers use the monitor profile, and some browsers ignore the profile
    altogether.

    sRGB was designed to represent the color profile of an average CRT
    monitor. So if you embed an sRGB profile, then browsers which honor
    profiles will know what to do, browsers which assume sRGB will be
    correct, and browsers which use the monitor profile or ignore the
    profile altogether will probably be close, since sRGB is basically a
    generic monitor profile.
    Paul Mitchum, Sep 16, 2006
    #13
  14. 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >Derek Fountain <> wrote:
    >
    >> > Browsers *do* use color management, just in different ways from
    >> > browser to browser.

    >>
    >> How so? My Firefox browser under Linux isn't doing any colour management -
    >> there's no colour management in the entire system.

    >
    >Actually, linux is getting better about this, especially since the
    >release of lcms.


    Since *1998*, when lcms was initially released. Linux has had
    managed color since roughly about the same time that it became
    available on MS Windows.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 16, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Garrison

    Colorspace - AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion (ImageMagick?)

    Jim Garrison, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,997
    Jim Polaski
    Sep 30, 2003
  2. Jim Garrison

    Re: Colorspace - AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion (ImageMagick?)

    Jim Garrison, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Jim Garrison
    Sep 30, 2003
  3. Paul

    sRGB or AdobeRGB Colour Space?

    Paul, Nov 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    437
  4. Alfred Molon

    Converting from AdobeRGB to SRGB

    Alfred Molon, May 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    754
    Steffen Kluge
    May 16, 2006
  5. Alfred Molon

    If AdobeRGB is better, why does sRGB exist?

    Alfred Molon, Jul 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    728
    Mark Roberts
    Jul 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page