Marquinius Posted March 23, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now I'm sure that I'm just a tad tired and not really concentrating, but does it matter if I safe (or post on this forum for that matter) a black and white photo in sRGB or AdobeRGB (1998)? I mean, would anyone see a difference on screen? For color, I understand the concept and have read my stack of books, documents, posts and whatnot. But for B&W? Never really thought about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Hi Marquinius, Take a look here B&W and sRGB/AdobeRGB (1998). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sandymc Posted March 24, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 24, 2011 Maybe, but you'd have to look really closely; Adobe RGB's gamma curve doesn't have the "kink" in it that the sRGB gamma curve has in it, so if an Adobe RGB image was displayed on a unmanaged screen, it might be possible to see a difference in the deep shadows. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted March 25, 2011 Share #3 Posted March 25, 2011 Marco, excellent question. I did some exhaustive tests a few years ago & continue to come back to this issue after some B&W conversions didn't meet my expectations. In a long, roundabout way, I looked at various ways to make the conversions & looked closely at how making the conversions from images processed in the LAB space differed from ProPhoto & Abdobe RGB. In the end, as Sandy noted, it is a matter of the equipment you use in your workflow. With a well calibrated display/monitor I found a lot of differences and not just in the shadows. The most important variable became how the image was processed from the start and the final "print-ready" color image. Getting the color image "correct" was essential to obtaining the optimal B&W conversion. The best B&W work I have done was processed first in the LAB color space to get definitive number values that were replicable. From there one can either make conversions or retool in another color space, ProPhoto or Adobe RGB. Making sure that the image remains as imagined throughout the process is imperative. Corrections are often required in each step & vigilance is required. One need only look at images from William Palank, Rolo & Jeff Plomley to view their vigilant quest of rendering the colors that are their trademarks. Of course, you need to make interesting pictures first, or it just doesn't matter at all. Always pleased to see you back at home, in the venue you spearheaded to bring to life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 25, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 25, 2011 Getting the color image "correct" was essential to obtaining the optimal B&W conversion. A too magenta color image gives more bite in B&W... An M8 without IR/UV filter gives sharper B&W images… Do not know what sRGB and Adobe1998 do in this respect Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted March 25, 2011 Sandy, Ben, Otto, thanks for picking this up! I'm almost there, but am still a little confused. I realize and understand the concept of starting out with a) an interesting photo (how true ) and working that to the max color wise. I find my self using more time on the color part than on the B&W part, or at least as much. And I can underwrite the relevance of a calibrated screen vs how you saved an image. But the reason I started thinking about this topic, is that a lot of people DON'T have a calibrated screen, or worse, have a typical office machine or laptop. Of course all photos, whatever the way you saved them, would lose quality on such a screen. But we all say "save in sRGB for screen". So what does that mean vs B&W? Would you see the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB? In B&W? As I said, almost there. @Ben: always good to be back home And still working hard at reaching that next step (after step, after step ... ahhhh, it's a journey!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 26, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 26, 2011 I tested this 2 years ago, at the start of my digital processing, so I'm not sure whether I did it all right, but in print B&W-images that had been converted in Adobe98 were a tad sharper and color images a bit more realistic (sRGB a bit more saturated). The difference between two random slide films however is much bigger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted March 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Otto, Again thanks for looking into it, but I'm really wondering about SCREEN images. In print I know my way around and know that sRGB just is too shallow a color depth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted March 26, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 26, 2011 Otto, Again thanks for looking into it, but I'm really wondering about SCREEN images. In print I know my way around and know that sRGB just is too shallow a color depth. Marco, in a fashion, this is a straw dog issue. As I mentioned, when you start out in a large gamut space like LAB or ProPhoto, there's a lot more information in the image. When you "Save to sRGB" that gamut shrinks considerably, as does the information (details) that was in the image before. Each screen manufacturer has their own implementation, so in a way, each individual user is in their own universe of color space. In the world of print, the results are much easier to compare, because it's unified. You view a real brick & mortar object, not an interpreted one. Of course, the printed image isn't always congruent with the image you processed on a screen (). Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 27, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2011 Learn something new every day! I've always read or been told that Adobe 1998 and sRGB were both based on gamma 2.2. A little research after reading Sandy's post reveals the truth! For my own interest, but also on-topic. Here are two versions of the same image, one with a full tonal scale and lots of near-blacks, both processed with Adobe 1998 as my working space, but one converted to sRGB on saving, while the other was saved direct from 1998 without conversion. On my screen the "1998" image is a bit more open in the deep shadows. Hmmmm..... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/147045-bw-and-srgbadobergb-1998/?do=findComment&comment=1626508'>More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 27, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 27, 2011 So what does that mean vs B&W? Would you see the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB? In B&W? I do all my post processing in Adobe RGB and convert to sRGB for web posting as a matter of routine (along with sizing, sharpening etc) rather than knowing I'll see a difference in every image. In colour I may see a difference depending on the image, some bold colours can get muted if left in RGB, subtle colours I can't see much difference. For 'B&W' its even more difficult to see, but I go on the basis that B&W images are not colourless, or mine aren't at least. Coming from wet darkroom background I would choose papers by tone, warm or cool, because this is a subtle part of the expression. Additionally very few good photography books are printed in greyscale, B&W is hardly ever neutral black-to-white, even for HCB's prints and books. So in post processing B&W I do the same, decide on the colour. Now that tone can be very subtle, but if its going to come across I'm guessing the best way for people to see it is convert to sRGB anyway as part of the routine of getting it ready for the web. I can't take into account other peoples monitors but if you are posting on a photographers forum its probably more likely they will be calibrated. So if it still looks like the original RGB image when converted to sRGB I can leave the tone as it is, or if I see a difference (and the simple act of making it smaller can affect how you see the tone's and colour) I can alter the sRGB tones and colour and assume this will be what others see. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted March 27, 2011 Andy, Just to make absolutely sure I'm getting this right: the top photo is saved in sRGB and the bottom one in Adobe1998? On my screen the bottom one has a much better tonality and is a little warm. The top one, however, has more info in the deep shadows, albeit that it is more greyish. @Ben: it took me some time to realize that indeed it's a straw dog discussion. With screen differing, software rendering differing, set up in rooms differing and calibration differing, it is truly a mind staggering venue to try to show to "you" what "I" see on my screen. The solution is simple: I'll print some of my photos and all you guys and girls are welcome in my house to come and discuss them. On a serious note: that's why I love to go to photo exhibitions, with real printed photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 27, 2011 Share #12 Posted March 27, 2011 One marked "1998" in the lower right corner is Adobe 1998. "Much better tonality" is a subjective thing. I.E. I think the segeant's eyes "pop" more in sRGB - but the area under the hat between eye and ear is much too "black" in sRGB. Some people like grade 4 paper - some like grade 2. You are right that in showing pictures via digital media, one is always at the mercy of the audience's equipment. A problem musicians have faced ever since the creation of the Victrola. Some people will listen to your oh-so-carefully-mastered song on a $20,000 stereo system, and some will use this : http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.128606854.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reiver Posted March 27, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 27, 2011 I use for b&w prints an Epson R285 with Ultra Carbon Ink Schwarzweiss-Tinten: farbenwerk.com the descriptions that I 've got with the ink told me I have to use adobe 1998. The results are very good. Its not directly an answer to your question, but maybe it could help you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted March 28, 2011 One marked "1998" in the lower right corner is Adobe 1998. "Much better tonality" is a subjective thing. I.E. I think the segeant's eyes "pop" more in sRGB - but the area under the hat between eye and ear is much too "black" in sRGB. Some people like grade 4 paper - some like grade 2. You are right that in showing pictures via digital media, one is always at the mercy of the audience's equipment. A problem musicians have faced ever since the creation of the Victrola. Some people will listen to your oh-so-carefully-mastered song on a $20,000 stereo system, and some will use this : http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.128606854.jpg Andy, This is turning into a delightful thread: I just remembered my first turn table "Trio Track" ... looked just the same. Had it coupled to an old radio (tubes galore) with one speaker (that was 1 inch in diameter. But boy, did I have fun (being six or some such, loooooong time ago) And on the photography side: you just showed that if you put the focus in your photo "just right", you don' t even see tha text in the right hand corner. I was totally fixated on the guys eyes. Well done indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share #15 Posted March 28, 2011 I use for b&w prints an Epson R285 with Ultra Carbon Ink Schwarzweiss-Tinten: farbenwerk.com the descriptions that I 've got with the ink told me I have to use adobe 1998. The results are very good. Its not directly an answer to your question, but maybe it could help you. Ricardo, Whatever: thanks for taking the time to think about it. And Terry Pratchett is my fav ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted April 6, 2011 Share #16 Posted April 6, 2011 I convert my B&W photos to greyscale in PS as gamma 2.2. I use this for printing and screen display. It seems to work fine but maybe I am doing something wrong? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.