sRGB v Adobe RGB 1998?.Which is the Best..

Gilly B

Gilly B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,264
Name
Gillian
Edit My Images
Yes
I read somewhere awhile ago that you should set everything to sRGB and forget about the alternative.

I have just read an article in Amateur Phototgrapher 31/3/07 that sRGB is only for monitor and web display and that if you intend to print, then you should use Adobe RGB 1998 - especially if you are an enthusiast or professional. What do you guys use and why? :thinking:
 
I chop and change, depending on which article I've read recently.

There are many mixed views out there.

There are some that say there are quite discernable differences between the two.
And there are also other people who will say that you need super duper eyes to be able to tell the difference.

Personally I shoot in RAW, so at shooting mode, it's irrelevant.
When it comes to RAW conversion, I work in Adobe. I then edit in CS2 in Adobe, saving for web after a final conversion to sRGB.

Why? Because many stock libraries require submissions in Adobe RGB.
 
I was reading about sRGB and adobe on wikipedia the other day. have a look.
 
Snap!

I work in adobe rgb for editing and printing and then convert to srgb for images that are going to the web.

Also look at the "color settings" under the "edit menu" and see if the intent is set to "perceptual" in the "conversion options" (you may need to click more options to reveal this choice).

By default it is set to relative colormetric, which is a setting that changes colours in your images to the closest match when converting colour spaces. This is fine for website buttons and art type images with fewer colours and less detail but not ideal for photographs that tend to have subtle gradients.

Perceptual also does a much better job when converting to printing press CMYK.

Sorry if you knew this, just thought I'd mention it :)
 
photo-edits said:
Snap!

I work in adobe rgb for editing and printing and then convert to srgb for images that are going to the web.

Also look at the "color settings" under the "edit menu" and see if the intent is set to "perceptual" in the "conversion options" (you may need to click more options to reveal this choice).

By default it is set to relative colormetric, which is a setting that changes colours in your images to the closest match when converting colour spaces. This is fine for website buttons and art type images with fewer colours and less detail but not ideal for photographs that tend to have subtle gradients.

Perceptual also does a much better job when converting to printing press CMYK.

Sorry if you knew this, just thought I'd mention it :)
Click to expand...

Know it! I don't even understand it!!!

I am going to have to read what you have said several times to try and understand Perceptual, colormetric Blah-de Blah. I seem to get one learning curve sorted and there is an even bigger one waiting for me.

Okay - what do I have to read and learn now? :bang: :gag: :(

Thanks for helping out guys. I will go and take a look at the link Brummie Tx
 
I shoot in raw, convert to ProPhoto RGB (in 16-bit mode) for editing, then convert to the required format before saving the output file.

A simplistic way of putting it:

Adobe RGB (1998) offers a wider range of colours more coarsely graduated.
sRGB offers a narrower range of colours (though this includes some not in the Adobe space) more finely graduated.

As parts of Adobe RGB (1998) fall outside the range of colours that are used by normal monitors, home printers, or online and high street labs, then unless you are intending to use high-end commercial printing you will lose more detail than with sRGB.

Better to have more colours within the range that you can see and use at the expense of a greater range than to have more colours you will not use at the expense of detail.

Most likely if you need to use Adobe RGB (1981) you will know about it in advance, otherwise if I had to chose between the two I would use sRGB. If you use one and convert to the other you are discarding information as you can only use the space where they overlap.

But by using the much larger ProPhoto RGB space, which encompasses both the Adobe and sRGB spaces, you get the benefit of being able to convert to either space without losing any colours.

Michael.
 
But surely when you convert from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB, any colours that fall into ProPhotos gamut, that arent in the sRGB range, get dropped?

So you have a chance of losing *more* colours?
 
Aha! I understand that Michael. I shoot in RAW all the time now and use Adobe Camera Raw to convert. My default is sRGB IEC61966-1? I don't know what the code means. In the drop down menu, I can see ProPhoto RGB. Do I need to use that then? At the moment, after converting using 16 bit, I then convert to 8-bit. Sounds like a minefield out there.
 
If you intend to print you really need some understanding of colour management, you also need a colour profile for the printer/paper you are using and to know the correct setting for colour management in photoshop.

With Epson paper (which I use) they give you loads of info on storage and drying times but I had to make many emails to Epson to get the colour management settings in photoshop. I also had to download the profile from
Epson, it was not with the printer !

Here is some info on colour management for Photoshop 7

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7_colour/ps7_1.htm

You also need to calibrate your monitor, there is Adobe gamma that comes with photoshop, you have to find it on the disc with custom download and look for it in control panel. You can also buy products to really get the monitor correct and its probably best not to have any light shining on the monitor
when your doing critical work to match the colour, brightness, contrast on the monitor to print.

Its a pain in the ass but worth it because you save money on ink and paper
the faster you get it correct.
 
Gilly B said:
Know it! I don't even understand it!!!

I am going to have to read what you have said several times to try and understand Perceptual, colormetric Blah-de Blah. I seem to get one learning curve sorted and there is an even bigger one waiting for me.

Okay - what do I have to read and learn now? :bang: :gag: :(

Thanks for helping out guys. I will go and take a look at the link Brummie Tx
Click to expand...

Sorry I lost this thread for some reason.

Anyway Michael has explained it very well.(something I have trouble doing :thinking:)

If you have an image in adobe rgb and use the save for web function you see that it goes flat and darkens, if you first convert to srgb and then save for web you see no difference, so it is really dependant on what you are going to do with the image.

Using perceptual conversion means that when you convert fron Adobe rgb to srgb or much more importantly CMYK (if you are sending an image to press)there is a very good chance that you will not be able to see any change at all.

Using the relative colormetric system can leave nasty graduations on printed images.

I hope at least some of what I say has made sense :shake:
 
Being a simple soul, I shoot in Adobe RGB98, process in the same, store files in the same and and only convert to sRGB when I publish to tinterweb or want to print ( i dont understand enough [read "be bothered to try to understand"] about colour management to attempt printing in anything but what you see is what you get).

Hey presto, jobs done, enough time left over to watch Grendel and Janice flirt ;)
 
I use sRGB for everything! it looks fine on the net....and prints perfectly well too.! :thumbs:
 
Keltic Ice Man said:
I looked in Cs2 and can only see RGB - which is this? and how do i swap one to the other in CS2?
Click to expand...

Look under the colour management option (i think it's under the edit menu - not sure as away from my PC just now) - not Mode as I suspect you are doing.

I too output to aRGB and convert to sRGB for the web.
 
I read something the other day that some monitors can't show all the colours of the aRGB colour space...... In this case sRGB is probably a better option.
 
was reading an interesting document the other day about workflows in photoshop. The author of the document made the good point that actually you shouldn't work in either aRGB or sRGB because you are essentially cropping the colours in your images unnecessarily early on in the process. i.e. you are losing detail straight away. He recommended working on proPhoto RGB and only convert to sRGB or aRGB at the end of processing depending on the purpose the photos will be used for. proPhoto RGB is much wider than both aRGB and sRGB, and on top of that it also contains many more colours. aRGB actually only contains the same number of colours as sRGB, they are just spread out more in the gamut of colours available. I don't know the maths or enough theory to be able to prove this. But that is my understanding of how it all works based on reading a few articles tutorials etc.
 
donerboy said:
was reading an interesting document the other day about workflows in photoshop. The author of the document made the good point that actually you shouldn't work in either aRGB or sRGB because you are essentially cropping the colours in your images unnecessarily early on in the process. i.e. you are losing detail straight away. He recommended working on proPhoto RGB and only convert to sRGB or aRGB at the end of processing depending on the purpose the photos will be used for. proPhoto RGB is much wider than both aRGB and sRGB, and on top of that it also contains many more colours. aRGB actually only contains the same number of colours as sRGB, they are just spread out more in the gamut of colours available. I don't know the maths or enough theory to be able to prove this. But that is my understanding of how it all works based on reading a few articles tutorials etc.
Click to expand...

Very interesting but as far as I know 20/30D's and similar cameras can only capture in either sRGB or Adobe RGB(1998) ?

Can this colour profile you mentioned be set on our cameras? If not I suppose it makes sense, still, to capture in Adobe RGB and revert to sRGB as late as possible(?):shrug: :thinking:
 
if you shoot in RAW it doesn't matter what you set your camera to, as its not used for the RAW format. It only affects the JPEG format saved in camera. If you only shoot in JPEG format with the purpose of saving to the web, then sRGB is appropriate for in camera. At the same time, i think most photo printers like jessops et al expect JPEGs to bein sRGB format and compensate/allow for that when printing. So unless you are dealing with a pro printer for a magazine or something like that and capturing in JPEG on camera, sRGB is all you need. Most of the time if you are needing to worry about delivering aRGB images for a printer then you would have captured the image in RAW to start with and converted to the appropriate profile at the end anyway.
 
:bang: :bang:

This is doing my head in



This is the same file open at the same time in both PS CS3 and in Irfanview. The PS version is the one I want. The colour is so much brighter. The Irfanview is much duller. In other words, the 2 different programs are displaying the colour info in different ways (so its not a monitor issue). I had thought I'd got the colour in CS3 set to sRGB, but I can't find the menu function that tells me.

Nor can I work out in CS3 how to change from Adobe RGB to sRGB. Any clues would be immensely appreciated. (I know that most web browsers can't cope with Adobe RGB and that sRGB is what's required. And therefore that the easy way out is to use CS3's save to web tool, but that creates another issue - all the EXIF data gets chucked, which I don't want. And its a pain as well - its soooo slow)

(It all started when I decided I should really be shooting in RAW - and by God I'm tempted to go back to jpg, but I can see that the results I can get from RAW could be so much better - if only I understood how to get there)

TIA

:bang: :bang:
 
I don't know how CS3 is different from CS2 but the places you need to check in CS2 are:

Edit > Color Settings
Settings should read European General Purpose which will set your working space to sRGB and convert any files you open to that space.

Then in View > Proof Setup have Windows RGB ticked.
Finally to see how the image will look online View > Proof Colors (but don't use proof when editing).
 
PXL8

Thank you - that's very helpful. Those were the settings I couldn't find.
 
If you want more information Have a read of this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

I have issue with the article you mentioned claiming you should be using Adobe RGB for print.

I'm a graphic designer and so colour profiles and print specs are quite important.

Unless you are using a company such as Photobox (which use an RGB process to expose photographic paper) then the printers are going to print using CMYK colour space anyway.

If you print on a photographic printer at home it's going to use CMYK (even those printers with more than 4 inks are CMYK printers).

Companies like Photobox provide you with their own colour profiles that match their printers so you can guarantee that what you see on screen is what's printed.

aRGB is a very specific colour space and really requires you to have all of your equipment calibrated to get the most out of it.

So in many cases it's a bit of a moot point.

It's important if you want to display your pictures online (in which case use sRGB simply because everyone else will be)

Panzer
 
Ihavent read anything above, but believe me adobe dosnt display on the web, but does print nicely.

1178657973-IMG_0596.jpg



Hosted on Fotki

ill let you all guess which is which, but the only difference, one is srgb, one is adobe rgb, both look the same in CS3
 
This could be the slowest reply ever, but anyway...

Marcel said:
But surely when you convert from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB, any colours that fall into ProPhotos gamut, that arent in the sRGB range, get dropped?

So you have a chance of losing *more* colours?
Click to expand...

The colours do not get dropped but translated into ones that are in the sRGB colour space, or whatever other one you are using.

Think of it as being similar to resizing images. You work on a high resolution copy and then downsample to suit your output. You are loosing pixels but, assuming you are using something like bicubic resizing, you retain more detail than if you had simply started with a lower resolution photo.

Michael.
 
If you are only ever going to be using your images on the web, then you are probably fine sticking to sRGB for everything. sRGB will also be fine for simple printing e.g. through jessops/snapfish at 6x4.
 
Gilly B said:
Aha! I understand that Michael. I shoot in RAW all the time now and use Adobe Camera Raw to convert. My default is sRGB IEC61966-1? I don't know what the code means. In the drop down menu, I can see ProPhoto RGB. Do I need to use that then? At the moment, after converting using 16 bit, I then convert to 8-bit. Sounds like a minefield out there.
Click to expand...

The code after sRGB is just its official designation as an international standard so can be ignored, but yes, just select the ProPhoto RGB option from there and then work as usual. The only change is that when you save a file for output you need to convert it to sRGB which can be done by selecting Image > Mode > Convert to Profile... and select the destination as the sRGB option.

Also, as a quick shorthand if you are using Save to Web you do not need to manually convert to 8 bits as the dialogue will do it automatically for you. Unfortunately you do need to convert the colour space though, otherwise no conversion will take place and instead you will get very dull desaturated images as web browsers (and the Save to Web dialogue) will try to display them as if they were in sRGB.

Overall the only difference of using ProPhoto RGB is simply that one extra conversion step at the end, which out of laziness I have recorded it as an action so it becomes one click.

Michael.
 
Marcel said:
But surely when you convert from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB, any colours that fall into ProPhotos gamut, that arent in the sRGB range, get dropped?

So you have a chance of losing *more* colours?
Click to expand...

mij said:
The colours do not get dropped but translated into ones that are in the sRGB colour space, or whatever other one you are using.
Click to expand...

It actually depends on what type of rendering intent you use during conversion.

Perceptual doesn't drop out of gamut colours but at the cost of banding.

Relative Colormetric does drop out of gamut colours but provides finer graduation for the colours that are in gamut.

It's swings and roundabouts do you want more saturated colours or better gradients?

For me the deciding factor is the 8bit limitation for printing so I just use sRGB throughout my workflow and it's the most WYSIWYG solution for screen and print.
 
The conversion has to be done at some point anyway if you are shooting in RAW. Working in sRGB from the start really only changes where you do the conversion. Either lose the colours straight away and work in sRGB or wait til you have done the processing (and do the processing with the most information possible) and lose the colours when you convert to an appropriate profile for what you are doing.

From what I have read, professionals choose to convert to sRGB or an appropriate profile after processing as it means they are always working with the maximum amount of information possible. But again for us everyday users, working in sRGB all the time is most likely fine.

if the above doesn't make sense, let me know I'll edit it to be clearer. (makes sense to me :D )
 
This is where the mis-understanding about colour space starts. Having a larger space isn't always a good thing nor will it mean you have more data to edit with UNLESS your destination is 16bit and can reproduce all of the colours in the working space.

The destination space is the limiting factor on what data you can use, if you edit in a larger space then at some point you are either compressing or throwing data away when you convert to the output profile.

As an example imagine a simple red to black gradient. For simplicity lets say sRGB's most red value is 255 whereas ProPhoto is 399. You can edit away using all those extra reds but at some point you need to convert to your destination space. At this point two factors come into play, bit depth and how closely the spaces match each other.

Unless you're spending a lot of money on prints or have a high-end printer with specialist drivers you will be printing 8bit data. So immediately you need to convert those 400 shades of red to 256 and how that happens depends on the rendering intent and how the working space and destination space line up.

If the print is being done at a photolab then it's back to sRGB and all those extra reds are either clipped or squashed which results in banding. Either way you lose the extra saturation from ProPhoto and all the data you had available during editing was for nothing.

The simple fact is that you'll only ever has as many colours as the destination space provides. Keeping the workflow in colour spaces that are closely matched minimizes the potential for data loss as you move to the destination space.
 
Totally agree with that. Thats why i keep saying that sRGB is probably fine for most people. The real problems arise when the destination colour space is not necessarily known to start with or where the image will be used for different purposes with different colour spaces.
 
Well, I've read countless articles about colour management now, I've tweaked various boxes and changed countless settings.

I still can't get images to display on the net as they do in photostrop. In fact I don't even know what setting it was on to start with :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top