Colour space in camera advice needed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ukbrown, May 22, 2006.

  1. ukbrown

    ukbrown Guest

    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
     
    ukbrown, May 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ukbrown

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >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
     
    Bill Hilton, May 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 22 May 2006 13:18:47 -0700, Bill Hilton <> 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, May 22, 2006
    #3
  4. ukbrown

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > 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
     
    Bill Hilton, May 22, 2006
    #4
  5. On 22 May 2006 15:10:36 -0700, Bill Hilton <> 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, May 23, 2006
    #5
  6. ukbrown

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > 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
     
    Bill Hilton, May 23, 2006
    #6
  7. On 22 May 2006 16:19:06 -0700, Bill Hilton <> 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, May 23, 2006
    #7
  8. ukbrown

    ukbrown Guest

    On 22-May-2006, "Bill Hilton" <> 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.
     
    ukbrown, May 23, 2006
    #8
  9. On 22 May 2006 15:10:36 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <>
    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
     
    Raphael Bustin, May 23, 2006
    #9
    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. Lionel

    Colour space conversion in C1 PRO v1.3?

    Lionel, Jan 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    317
    Lionel
    Jan 14, 2004
  2. fake name

    what is colour space?

    fake name, Mar 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    621
  3. Tor Lillqvist

    Colour blindness, photography and colour management

    Tor Lillqvist, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,114
    Waldo
    May 24, 2004
  4. Paul

    sRGB or AdobeRGB Colour Space?

    Paul, Nov 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    457
  5. Scotius
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    949
    krishnananda
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page