Jump to content

X-Vario jpg colour space


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

 

I'm a committed Apple Aperture user and thus need to rely on the jpegs out of the camera until they provide

 

I have found the reds and greens a bit over saturated when using AdobeRGB colour space and swapped to sRGB - much to my surprise.

 

What have other people found works for them?

 

Phil

 

(Ah I've posted in wrong section - please could a moderator move this to x-vario area?)

Edited by peggers
wrong section
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got a calibrated monitor? Is it capable of rendering Adobe RGB? Basically sRGB is not a colour space to use when editing images. `The gamut is too small, however when rendering on the Internet it is the preferred end colour space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thank you for your reply. Yes I have a fully profiled and calibrated monitor. Getting good match to my prints.

 

The issue is with the cameras jpegs. Although I can use Adobe camera RAW to get better results from the RAWs whilst I wait for Apple to catch up, I have found the sRGB setting better for OOC jpegs, and just wondered if others had seen similar

 

Btw bigger is not always better when it comes to choice of colour space - this website has some well written articles:

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always use jpegs in the sRGB colour space. The issue with jpegs in aRGB is that you have the same number of disctrete steps (8 bit file) over a larger area. This leads to more potential posterisation and banding because the gaps between the steps is larger. I'll take a smoother looking file over a few more colour choices any day. This is especially important with skys and skin tones, which both show the effects of the smaller bit depth quickly.

 

So yes, I think sRGB is better for jpegs out of camera.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

JPG files are produced in sRGB. The JPG rendering always includes the large reduction in gamut to fit within sRGB as far as I am aware.

The discussion gets a lot more complicated regarding viewing/editing on any device .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always use jpegs in the sRGB colour space. The issue with jpegs in aRGB is that you have the same number of disctrete steps (8 bit file) over a larger area. This leads to more potential posterisation and banding because the gaps between the steps is larger. I'll take a smoother looking file over a few more colour choices any day. This is especially important with skys and skin tones, which both show the effects of the smaller bit depth quickly.

 

So yes, I think sRGB is better for jpegs out of camera.

 

Gordon

 

But if you have a printer that supports Adobe RGB it is a waste of colour to drop down into a smaller space, as the lost colours can never be recovered. Your argument about 8 and 16 bits is completely valid, but it has nothing to do with the colour space.You are confusing colour depth with colour space. One can edit in 16 bits in any colour space you choose. Lightroom does so standard in Prophoto, without even giving you a choice.

 

For anybody using Photoshop it should be a second nature to edit in 16 bits and Adobe RGB. And to use raw files. JPG files are not meant to be edited in anything but a most basic manner,

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are mistaken, Geoff. Jpg does support Adobe RGB as far as I am aware.

Hi Jaap. What do you mean by 'support Adobe RGB'? Yep I suppose that you can set the larger colour space in the camera when shooting JPEG but I don't follow why you would do that in practice. Racing tyres on your Jaguar for traffic commuting ;-)

 

The defacto standard for JPEG of course is sRGB and that is what is expected for web and for normal commercial printing processes too.

For web in particular most browsers are not colour space aware and almost all monitors cannot display larger than sRGB, assuming that they were calibrated to something close to correct in any case.

Yes you can open a file in a larger colour space as well. However that does not restore the information lost when the file has been saved as a JPEG of course. The other danger is that you are going to see unexpected shifts should you fail to save in sRGB before uploading for example.

 

At least it seems rational to me if shooting JPEG that you follow the common standard.

I guess that we are talking in general about the philosophies and advantages/disadvantages of of shooting raw vs. JPEG too?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel, it is all a bit academic really, as I normally use raw, but the camera does offer the option of shooting JPG in Adobe RGB. Most printers will accept Adobe RGB nowadays, so I don't quite undrstand why you would want to limit yourself from the start. Just before using a web application is the moment to drop down into sRGB imo. Not even embedding the profile I would say.

My monitors render Adobe RGB quite nicely, btw ;)

But you are right in a way, MAC screens are sRGB only and wider gamuts can give unexpected results.

It is another reason to get a good monitor for editing, I guess.....

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...