Color space to Adobe not sRGB?

[Migs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friends:

 

Is there any way to change the color space to Adobe or similar when shooting RAW? I only have sRGB and it is greyed out at that.

 

Thanks,

 

Migs

[andybarton]

Check out the FAQs at the top of this section. Post 2

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers.html#post1373524

[Paul J]

Just to clarify though as the FAQ doesn't give peace of mind. You don't need to set a colour space for RAW files. It's RAW data and doesn't need a colour space. It's only your computer and monitor that needs and sets this info and will render the colour at what ever your monitor is set to read. You then process the RAW file according to your needs at what ever colour space you desire.

 

JPG is a different thing altogether and it's there for convenience and is a pre developed imaged.

[Migs]

Hi Paul:

 

It's just that on my Nikons one selects the color space in camera even in RAW format AND sRGB is the least of my choices!

 

But thank you for clarifying it.

 

Regards,

 

Migs

[haroldp]

Hi Paul:

 

It's just that on my Nikons one selects the color space in camera even in RAW format AND sRGB is the least of my choices!

 

But thank you for clarifying it.

 

Regards,

 

Migs

 

With Nikons in Raw, you are adding a color space to the exif data so the raw processor can select it by default. You can always change it in Raw processing.

 

... H

[Double Negative]

Same reason "Sharpening, Color saturation and Contrast" are grayed out when shooting DNG... They don't apply to RAW/DNG.

[Reds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RAW files don't have a colour space - they're just RAW data, and you appy a colour space to them in post, when they are saved in another format.

 

If you select Adobe RGB on your Nikon, it's only applied to any JPEGs that are saved in camera.

[01af]

It's just that on my Nikons one selects the color space in camera even in raw format ...

Still, the colour space setting does not affect your raw files in any way. It's just another meta data entry ... similar to, say, the time and date of capture, or your camera's serial number, which also don't affect your image data in any way. There's a reason why it's greyed out in the Leica.

 

 

... and sRGB is the least of my choices!

As a matter of fact, in general it's the best of all choices. You should select anything but sRGB only if you know exactly what you're doing, what the consequences are, and how to deal with these.

[Migs]

Thank you very much for the illustrating reply. In many web sites it says: "Adobe RGB 1998 clearly has a larger gamut than sRGB"

 

Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

 

I don't claim to know much about gamut, but somewhere it was suggested to me to use Adobe because sRGB was better suited to web display.

 

Anyways, the most important thing is that RAW color space comes in later. I don't shoot jpeg anyway.

 

Thanks!

 

Migs

[Migs]

This quote may be useful regarding color space:

 

from: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB – What you need to know

 

"So, you have to watch out when you open an image with Adobe Photoshop. You typically have set up your Photoshop installation to operate in a specific color space. I have set mine to use Adobe RGB. Whenever Photoshop is instructed to open an image with an assigned color profile that deviates from the standard color space, it will ask you which color space to use? None, or the Photoshop default (in my case Adobe RGB), or the assigned color space (usually sRGB). It does not matter which setting you use, because Photoshop will automatically convert the image into the selected color space (which is good).

But you always have to keep the selected color space in mind when finally saving the photo file as JPEG from Photoshop. Clients usually don’t want RAWs, TIFF is also quite rare these days. They want a JPEG, and now you know that you need a color space assigned to that JPEG. And most printers and screens are calibrated for sRGB, not AdobeRGB. That’s why you should always convert the color space from Adobe RGB to sRGB prior to handing out the photos, or publishing them on the web. Please pay attention that you should convert the photo and not just assign the sRGB color profile to the photo."

[jaapv]

But note when you convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB that all colors that are out of gamut are lost and cannot be recovered when reconverting to a wider color space. So make your choice for Adobe RGB or Prophoto at raw conversion when you know what you are doing and only drop down into sRGB when needed. Personally I tend to use Prophoto (and I have an Adobe RGB capable monitor)... It is very useful imo to have a completely color-calibrated workflow. But beware of the pitfalls of “invisible” colors.

[Migs]

In my experience a completely calibrated workflow is a "holy grail". Nothing could be more problematic than to establish this

 

I wont go into my experience calibrating my printer with my screen as it would be a tragic-comedy.

[OwinThomas]

I don't claim to know much about gamut, but somewhere it was suggested to me to use Adobe because sRGB was better suited to web display.

 

Migs the best way to look at colour spaces is to use the box of crayon analogy. Basically, you have 2 different boxes of crayons, one with 10 crayons, this will be sRGB and the other box has 48 crayons, this is the AdobeRGB. Once you figure that out then colour spaces and gamuts are a piece of cake.

[01af]

Migs, the best way to look at colour spaces is to use the box of crayon analogy. Basically, you have two different boxes of crayons, one with 10 crayons, this will be sRGB, and the other box has 48 crayons, this is the Adobe RGB. Once you figure that out then colour spaces and gamuts are a piece of cake.

Good grief ...

 

With that analogy in mind, you'll never understand colour management. In fact, both boxes have exactly the same number of crayons ... but crayon no. 37 from one box is not the same as crayon no. 37 from the other box. Neither box is better than the other; they're different, and they serve different purposes.

[jaapv]

In my experience a completely calibrated workflow is a "holy grail". Nothing could be more problematic than to establish this

 

I wont go into my experience calibrating my printer with my screen as it would be a tragic-comedy.

 

Not at all. It is essential to get it right, most of us do. Never heard of a calibrated screen, pinter profiles and soft proofing?

 

there is a lot to be found on the internet. try here for simple basics ;

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm

[OwinThomas]

Good grief ...

 

With that analogy in mind, you'll never understand colour management. In fact, both boxes have exactly the same number of crayons ... but crayon no. 37 from one box is not the same as crayon no. 37 from the other box. Neither box is better than the other; they're different, and they serve different purposes.

 

Yes I understand that but was illustrating a point not being supremely and technically accurate

 

Colour management to the uninitiated is a vastly complex subject, or to paraphrase Arthur C Clark, it is magic, I don't mean that in a derogatory way Migs, just kicking someone off his high horse:D. My analogy was a very simplified and basic explanation. The point being that sRGB has a smaller gamut than AdobeRGB.

 

If you can think of a more simpler way of explaining it go ahead, be my guest

 

Oh and by the way I've been using a colour managed workflow for a number of years now, thanks for asking.

[OwinThomas]

Migs have a look at this set of videoes from The Luminous Landscape team Camera to Print and Screen. There is a FREE 21 minute preview of a Lightroom 3 B&W Workflow on that page too, well worth a look.

 

Or there is a cut down version, just going over the colour management process, personally I went for the full version.

 

There was also an older version of this called Camera to Print, but not sure if it is available these days, I couldn't find a link in the LuLa store.

 

Wikipedia link for colour space

 

If you really want to go for a deep dive then I suggest a book by Peachpit Press called Real World Color Management but it may be a bit deep, if you are just starting out on the CM path, well worth it though once you're on your way.

[CalArts 99]

Don't worry too much about the specific color space, just be consistent and be sure files are tagged. Unless you're somebody who photographs dyed textiles or color pigments or stuff outside of the natural world, it's doubtful you'd miss something that may sit outside of a particular gamut. Some work better than others but that's due to the device itself. Plus most people are in their own universe, i.e., a self contained world of devices (capture/viewing/printing) and aren't working in a design environment with multiple users, or using a service bureau, nor doing any pre-press work. There are no real big issues to contend with in a self-contained system.

 

Work in a space that 'works.' e.g., sRGB for web or A98 for an Epson branded inkset, etc.. And if you work in sRGB, A98, LAB, Bruce, or whatever, you may well be changing the file tag depending on the output device anyway (Lambda versus inkjet, etc..) And it's also not unusual to make certain file adjustments in specific color spaces (like sharpening, blending, color replacements, etc.) and then convert back when outputting to a specific device.

[jaapv]

Let’s not throw LAB into the pot - it is a different kettle of fish and only complicates matters.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[01af]

... was illustrating a point not being supremely and technically accurate

I don't see how a plain wrong explanation can illustrate anything. It doesn't simplify things; it makes them harder to understand. There's a difference between misconception and simplification.