adobe or srgb

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don, Aug 15, 2004.

  1. Don

    Don Guest

    What is the advantage to setting your digital camera to Adobe rgb instead of
    standard or other setting?

    regards
     
    Don, Aug 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Don"
    Wider color gamut (range of colors), which better matches what good inkjet
    printers or calibrated monitors can print or display. The narrower gamut of
    sRGB is a better match for web images, where the assumption is most people are
    viewing them on non-calibrated monitors with non-color managed applications. I
    always work in Adobe RGB or, for scanned film, Ektaspace (which has an even
    wider gamut) and then for web images convert to sRGB after resizing, since it's
    easy to go from a wider gamut space to a narrower one.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. To the OP:

    Most color labs will convert the image back to sRGB so there is
    no advantage if you are having someone else print your work. As a matter
    of general fact some labs will even charge you to do so.


    Wider color gamut (range of colors), which better matches what good inkjet
    printers or calibrated monitors can print or display. The narrower gamut of
    sRGB is a better match for web images, where the assumption is most people
    are
    viewing them on non-calibrated monitors with non-color managed applications.
    I
    always work in Adobe RGB or, for scanned film, Ektaspace (which has an even
    wider gamut) and then for web images convert to sRGB after resizing, since
    it's
    easy to go from a wider gamut space to a narrower one.

    Bill[/QUOTE]

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Aug 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Don

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Gregory Blank
    This is *only* true for the low-cost labs printing on the Frontier-type
    machines. They are set up for the lowest common denominator color space
    because most of their customers are sending in jpegs and using the camera
    default sRGB.

    Every lab I'm aware of that does fine art printing with LightJets or Chromiras
    or Durst Lambdas or the Epson 9600 or other high-end printers will prefer (and
    certainly expect) files in a wider gamut space like AdobeRGB. Basically the
    Frontier machines have taken over the type of customer who used to shoot color
    negative film and get C-41 type processing and prints at the local One Hour
    Photo kiosk, while the fine art labs have taken over the kind of customers who
    used to get custom Ilfochromes printed from transparencies, to over-simplify a
    bit.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Don

    Clyde Torres Guest

    Bill,

    White House Custom Color out of Minneapolis, MN does my custom printing.
    They are dam good and accept sRGB only. I don't know what printers they
    use, but they are excellent.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde Torres, Aug 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Don

    YoYo Guest

    Don how do you print your photos?

    Most color printers only print sRGB so
    if its aRGB then it gets converted to
    sRGB.

    Don't believe me then try yourself, take
    2 photos on a tripod same lens, settings
    etc.. then either print or have printed
    and see if your printers or eyes can
    tell the diffrence. Don't go by what you
    see on monitor go by what you see
    printed.

    sRGB will 99% of the time print better!

    message
    digital camera to Adobe rgb instead of
     
    YoYo, Aug 16, 2004
    #6
  7. This is *only* true for the low-cost labs printing on the Frontier-type
    machines. They are set up for the lowest common denominator color space
    because most of their customers are sending in jpegs and using the camera
    default sRGB.[/QUOTE]

    Is the OP/typical digicam shooter willing to pay $16.50 per 8x10 or does
    he have a calibration apparatus so he can gang proof the images using
    the Lambda or Lightjet?
    Could not one change the Colorspace in Photoshop to suit those needs?
    I seem to recall hearing that Adobe Colorspace is beyond what the
    printing paper can do and is mainly a useful profile if one intends to
    have the images offset printed.

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Aug 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Don

    jpc Guest


    One disadvantage of wide gamut color spaces is if you are doing
    extensive 8 bit corrections with curves, levels etc--any manupulation
    that turns a historgram into a series of spikes--you may end up with
    more color banding because the 256 available color tones are more
    widely seperated. If, on the other hand, you are working with RAW
    files and are using 16 bit editing programs like Photoshop CS, using
    adobeRGB might give you better prints.

    Another point is that while human brains are programed to pick out
    slight color differences when they they are next to each other--a
    holdover from the days when the ability to see the yellow lion hiding
    in the yellow grass significantly improved your chances of passing on
    your genes--our brains aren't that good at remembering absolute color
    differences. When you view prints from two different color spaces side
    by side you might see differences, but if you hung them in two
    different rooms and conducted a 'blind" test, I suspect even the most
    avid proponents of wide gamut colors spaces might have difficulty
    telling which was witch.

    jpc
     
    jpc, Aug 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Don

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    jpc wrote:

    Hi...

    Would you mind speaking about this spiking just a bit
    more?

    I seem to end up with it once in a while... and have
    no idea how I do it..

    Thanks in advance, and take care...

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Aug 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Don

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Clyde Torres"
    Next time you're in there ask them what kind of printer they use. I'll bet
    it's a Frontier and not a LightJet or similar laser printer.

    If you're happy with your prints that's what matters most though!

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Don

    jpc Guest

    Suppose you have a badly underexposed picture--let say by two stops-
    and you pull up the levels comand in your favorite editing software.
    The histogram will be shoved over to one side of the display. Now
    when you adjust the levels to salvage the picture, the software take
    the least black pixels--the ones with a value of around 64, 64,64
    --and adjusts them so it outputs them as white (255,255,255). All
    lower value pixels are then adjusted to the one of the 64 color values
    that that the software still has to work with. As a result the
    histogram, which is jsut a graph of the number of color or tone levels
    in the image,appears spiky.

    The problem is not that the histogram is spiky but that with 8 bit per
    color channel images--the usual 24 bit high color that monitors
    display--you only have 256 levels to work with.The only solution is to
    shoot in RAW mode, save your images as 16 bit images, and then edit
    with a software package like PhotoshopCS that support 16 bit editing.


    jpc
     
    jpc, Aug 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Don

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Gregory Blank
    Those are two good questions, but ones the original poster didn't ask :) Yes,
    it costs more to get prints from a custom lab with a $130,000 LightJet than
    from a lab with a $15,000 Fuji Frontier, but at one of the best labs in the US
    you can get a 16x20" LightJet for $20 if you do all the pre-flighting (
    http://www.calypsoinc.com/ they'll gang them for you though). And yes, you
    have to work on a calibrated system to get the full benefits of wider color
    spaces. So it's more expensive and more work.
    Sure, but it only makes sense to go from a wider gamut to a smaller gamut. You
    gain nothing by converting from a smaller gamut like sRGB to a wider gamut
    space like AdobeRGB.

    That's the best argument I can think of for using AdobeRGB as your capture
    space and as your working space with the 10D ... you're capturing as many
    shades and tones as possible and then later in the flow if you want to output
    to a narrower gamut device (like the web or a printer set for sRGB) you can do
    Image > Mode > Convert to Profile and select sRGB and you're set. But if
    you've converted to sRGB at capture and using it as your working space you
    can't go the other way, to a wider space, and regain what you lost.
    The gamut is wider than most paper/ink combos but then sRGB's gamut is
    *narrower* than most paper/ink combos. So again, you can convert from a wider
    gamut space to a narrower space (like a profile for a LightJet paper, for
    example) easily enough in Photoshop, but once you've clipped the colors into
    sRGB you can't recover them.
    No, the CMYK gamuts are narrower than most LightJet and good inkjet gamuts,
    except often for yellows. If you have Photoshop 6, 7 or CS you can see the
    differences by loading some printer ICM profiles (you can get the LightJet
    profiles Calypso uses from the link above, and you can download Epson 2200
    profiles from Epson, for example), then opening an image with saturated colors
    (use a test pattern if you don't have something really saturated), then do View
    profile, then do View > Proof Setup > Custom and under "Profile" select one of
    the LJ profiles to see how many additional colors a wider gamut printer can
    handle.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Don

    Bill Hilton Guest

    I seem to recall hearing that Adobe Colorspace is beyond what the
    I plotted the gamuts of sRGB and AdobeRGB on an ICM Viewer program, together
    with a typical CMYK profile and a LightJet Glossy profile, you can see it here
    .... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/icm.htm Basically there are a lot of
    colors (tones and shades) that are dropped when you convert to sRGB. For
    inkjets like the 2200 the Photo Black inks are close to the gamut of the LJ
    print, the Matte Black inks on softer art papers are closer to CMYK. All are
    wider gamut than sRGB though.

    If you want to see an example make up a blank image in Photoshop using AdobeRGB
    with a white background, fill several adjacent squares with different shades of
    pure red (start with rgb = 230/0/0 and keep bumping the red up by 5 for each
    new square). You can see the shades of red on your screen (at least I hope you
    can!). Now convert this to sRGB and all of these colors shift up, most of them
    clipping to 255/0/0 ... in other words you lost all those tones.

    If you want to see how this impacts a real image I can show you plenty of shots
    from the Red Rock country of Utah and Arizona that look fine in AdobeRGB but
    lose tones and shades when converted to sRGB for the web.

    Doesn't really matter to me which church you worship at, the Church of Every
    Little Bit Helps No Matter How Much Extra Work (St. Ansel is our patron saint!)
    or the Church of Ease and Convenience and Good Enough is Good Enough (Wal-Mart
    is our Chapel!), but I do think people should know the differences between
    using the two working spaces and decide based on the facts. If you capture the
    file and work on it in AdobeRGB (or Ektaspace for saturated color films) you
    can always convert to sRGB later in the flow, but if you capture in sRGB you
    can't go back.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 16, 2004
    #13
  14. Don

    andrew29 Guest

    Just to add to this, I've uploaded
    http://www.littlepinkcloud.com/gamut.png, showing Adobe RGB and sRGB,
    and the red outline is an Epson 9600 with glossy paper. It's pretty
    obvious from this why sRGB really won't do. Indeed, it's interesting
    to see that the printer exceeds Adobe RGB in a few places.

    One place where I disagree with you: it's sRGB that's based on HDTV
    phosphors, not Adobe RGB.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Aug 16, 2004
    #14
  15. Both posts are good answers, Its a lot to digest at first.
    But I tend to agree with the Ansel every bit helps part.

    Maybe I should invest in that color spyder?




    I plotted the gamuts of sRGB and AdobeRGB on an ICM Viewer program, together
    with a typical CMYK profile and a LightJet Glossy profile, you can see it
    here
    ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/icm.htm Basically there are a lot of
    colors (tones and shades) that are dropped when you convert to sRGB. For
    inkjets like the 2200 the Photo Black inks are close to the gamut of the LJ
    print, the Matte Black inks on softer art papers are closer to CMYK. All are
    wider gamut than sRGB though.

    If you want to see an example make up a blank image in Photoshop using
    AdobeRGB
    with a white background, fill several adjacent squares with different shades
    of
    pure red (start with rgb = 230/0/0 and keep bumping the red up by 5 for each
    new square). You can see the shades of red on your screen (at least I hope
    you
    can!). Now convert this to sRGB and all of these colors shift up, most of
    them
    clipping to 255/0/0 ... in other words you lost all those tones.

    If you want to see how this impacts a real image I can show you plenty of
    shots
    from the Red Rock country of Utah and Arizona that look fine in AdobeRGB but
    lose tones and shades when converted to sRGB for the web.

    Doesn't really matter to me which church you worship at, the Church of Every
    Little Bit Helps No Matter How Much Extra Work (St. Ansel is our patron
    saint!)
    or the Church of Ease and Convenience and Good Enough is Good Enough
    (Wal-Mart
    is our Chapel!), but I do think people should know the differences between
    using the two working spaces and decide based on the facts. If you capture
    the
    file and work on it in AdobeRGB (or Ektaspace for saturated color films) you
    can always convert to sRGB later in the flow, but if you capture in sRGB you
    can't go back.

    Bill[/QUOTE]

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Aug 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Don

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Monitors are generally analog, and have no color depth of their own.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 16, 2004
    #16
  17. Don

    eawckyegcy Guest

    He is saying that because the number of bits devoted to the pixel --
    24 -- is the same in both Adobe and sRGB, and that Adobe is a larger
    space than sRGB, then it follows that the distance between perceptual
    points must be larger in the Adobe space and this has consequences
    when bits hit the phosphors, the paper, or whatever.

    Various information about this and other colour things can be googled
    with ease. A nice compendium is:

    http://www.brucelindbloom.com

    (Click on "Info" and then "Information about RGB Working Sets"; the
    difference between Adobe and sRGB isn't terrifically exciting, but the
    colour calibration freaks love this stuff anyways...)

    The answer to the original question is fairly straightforward: if you
    want to make pretty prints, then Adobe RGB is probably the better
    choice. If you just look at your work on a monitor, then sRGB is
    advised. If you just can't make a choice, you can record a raw image
    (if you can), flip a coin, do both, don't bother, or the like. Your
    choice is informed by your subsequent use of the image, plus the fact
    that you probably shouldn't convert between Adobe RGB<->sRGB.

    In effect, the original question is the digital version of the analog
    question: should I shoot slides or negatives?
     
    eawckyegcy, Aug 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Don

    jpc Guest

    Yup and they are 'always' analog cause except in the Matrix the world
    is very analog. And at some point in the signal train the stream of
    bits in what is commonly known as 24 bit color are turned into analog
    voltages which accelerate elctrons which hit phospers which emit
    photon which ... and so on. That's what I meant :)

    jpc
     
    jpc, Aug 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Don

    Chris Brown Guest

    However, at least on the Canon cameras, the sRGB/AdobeRGB setting has almost
    no useful effect when using RAW, since you can set it in the convertor after
    the fact. As you point out, it can lead to posterisation problems with JPEG,
    which does make its inclusion in the camera's settings of somewhat
    questionable value.
     
    Chris Brown, Aug 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Don

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I keep hearing this all the time, that Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than
    sRGB, but what exactly does it mean ?

    Suppose you have two 24 bit TIFFs, one Adobe RGB, the other sRGB. Can't
    both display 16 million colours (2^24), both have the same gamut ? Gamut
    is the range of colours, isn't it? Or does perhaps Adobe RGB use
    different primary colours than sRGB ?
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.