Adobe RGB or sRGB with M8?

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, I confess this one has always eluded me. Besides a narrower color gamut in sRGB, what are the differences between the two? How does it apply to the M8? What do you suggest to use? I've very often read that sRGB is better for portrait work, but I've always used Adobe RGB, even for portraits, studio, nudes... Which one do «M8 veterans» (yes, in the digital photography world, I guess 5 months of use confers the title veteran) use? And why? And, unless I'm missing something, I suppose your whole workflow must have the same color space if you want to avoid surprises. Right?

 

Thank you for your lights on this matter

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[albertknappmd]

I have been using DMRs for the past two years and the Adobe RGB (1998) is your only real choice. Why? Because it's gamut far exceeds that of sRGB (the Microsoft color space.) Both are dwarfed by proPhoto which in a few years will become the universal color space until it too is swallowed up.... Use Adobe RGB in LR or Camera RAW or whatever as well as in Photoshop and you won't have to worry about conversion and loss of data etc...

[jaapv]

aRGB, and convert to sRGB for web use. My printing lab insists on uncompressed TIFF's in aRGB, so I have no choice, really.

[AlanJW]

The gamut IS the difference. My understanding of sRGB is that it for publishing to the web. I am not sure what magazines require for CMYK printing -- that may be sRGB as well. Wider gamuts are better for printing to ink jets. Since I do not submit to magazines, I have used Adobe RGB in all of my digital cameras.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Let's see if I can explain this further the color gamut in Adobe RGB has a much larger range in color, Srgb has a much shorter range .Basically RGB see's and records more color depth to a file.Now when you shoot RAW it makes no differnce in the camera but your raw converter should be set on RGB or a bigger Color gamut like ProPhoto or Colormatch. The M8 exceeds the color gamut of RGB so at least you want to work in the highest color gamut to do any manipulation to the file and also in 16 bit. This is the least distructive way of working your images and after your done than you can convert it to srgb for the web and for some printing places.

 

Not done. For in camera jpeg shooters that RGB or SRGB setting actually does something to the files because it is processing in camera , i always recommend RGB to squeeze as much as you can out of the sensor, now here is the rub shooting jpeg. The M8 as I mentioned has a much larger color gamut than RGB right , if you shoot jpeg in RGB than you are cutting out all that extra color gamut. This is one reason most folks don't shoot jpeg in camera, besides the control factor of raw processing. So in essence you cutting of color that would normally be there in the raw file. Now shooting srgb is even worse because than your cutting even more than RGB does. frankly this is not really a good thing to be doing , your just losing too much data BUT the saving grace in all this that with the M8 you can shoot DNG and Jpeg. So at least you have a raw to squeeze every drop out of that image and than you have a quick jpeg for uses that may not be that important or archivally important.

Hope that helps

[like_no_other]

You know that most screens show sRGB at best? Eizo offers a very expensive monitor which is able to show aRGB. Maybe you loose some colours when printing on the basis of sRGB pictures.

 

I hope this link may help you and puts the following discussion into the right perspective.

sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

 

Best regards,

Philip

[roubaix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't mean to jack the thread, but as a related issue, is there any need to shoot anything other than DNG alone- skip JPEG altogether...

 

As a beginner, maybe I'm confused.

 

Peter

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Peter in a word no but that comes from a picky Pro. But reality is yes , folks that shoot for the media or sports just don't have time for Raw files they need to upload to there editors within minutes of shooting something , so jpeg is the only real option there. I personally don't shoot jpegs very often at all but that is me and i want the control after i shoot to the files. But as a hobbyist and want to learn and has the time and wants the best they can get out of the file than raw is a great way to go. This is a real debatable issue becuase some folks don't want the hassle either of raw processing, it's more face time in front of a screen that some just don't want to do. Which is fine but if you want the be all you can be motto than raw is the way to go

[like_no_other]

Don't mean to jack the thread, but as a related issue, is there any need to shoot anything other than DNG alone- skip JPEG altogether...

 

As a beginner, maybe I'm confused.

 

Peter

 

 

Theres's a link for you too.

 

RAW vs JPG

 

You can substitute RAW by DNG, its in principle in this context the same.

[roubaix]

Thanks folks,

 

In the short time I've have my M8 (about 6 weeks), I've played with RAW (I'm a finicky person) and love the ability to, for example, adjust WB. Also, it took me about a night to adopt a quickie workflow that takes almost no time. I can't imagine ever going back to JPEG without a compelling reason...

 

Appreciate your time and insight.

 

Peter

[eronald]

I'm not as pro as Guy, and I don't have the leisure to housetrain my clients. So the Raw is Raw, but the Jpegs are sRGB. They get'em, it's the color space with which they'll do the least damage.

 

Did I ever tell you about the lady AD who said "You take bad pictures, you dont know how to work the models, the colors are bad, the lighting is bad, we'll never work with you again, but we'd like to know where you got those wonderful colorful images you showed us to get the job!

 

Edmund

[newyorkone]

When shooting raw, isn't the color space just a notation? You should be able to open the file in any color space when editing but by default it will choose the tagged color space.

 

Please correct me if my understanding of this is incorrect.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Steve for RAW that is correct i is just a tag that goes with the files . It is up to your RAW converter to make any of those changes. Normally some raw converors will just default to the RGB space when it brings the images unless you have your perfernces set up differently . But yes for RAW it is a tag only

[ChrisC]

.... unless I'm missing something, I suppose your whole workflow must have the same color space if you want to avoid surprises. Right?.....

 

Olivier - The wacky world of colour spaces can be confusing, and there are colour spaces larger than Adobe 98 RGB [often referred to as aRGB] that many of us use as our working space.

 

As has been stated before, your colour space ought to be just big enough to contain all the available colour information you want to retain in your file. The large colour gamut of the M8 cannot be contained by aRGB, as I understand it, and some workers will convert their M8 RAW files into a larger colour space than aRGB for archiving, and then work a duplicate file for a known intended output [for example CMYK off-set printing]. When you convert into a smaller colour space [e.g. going from aRGB to sRGB] you throw away subtle colour information at the outer edges of the aRGB colour space.

 

Your archived file, lets say in aRGB for example, may well contain colour information that you have not seen because you might only have viewed the image on an sRGB monitor, or seen it published in a CMYK colour space. The colour space conversion [it is argued by clever people like Joseph Holmes] is a clumsy and damaging one, and when sending a large colour space file to an ink jet printer, it is better to allow the printer's driver to translate the file into the printer's native colour space.

 

I, and some others here, use photoshop to ASSIGN [not convert] a different colour space than the working colour space from a range of colour spaces downloaded to our computer. We do this to play with different colour effects on the image file, but test the effect by proof printing. Assigning a colour space, unlike converting, can be repeated to test how the colour of a file behaves in a chosen colour space without the file being irreparably changed. Assigning, does not throw colour information away.

 

If you only make images for sRGB display and will never do otherwise, it might make sense to work all your files in sRGB. If your images have differing outputs [for example web, inkjet, and CMYK] it makes sense to archive your files in aRGB or bigger, and supply files to clients in aRGB, or convert for them if requested to do so. It's a case of 'horses for courses'.

 

I am sure I could have done better explaining this, but I had hoots of fun last night and am feeling rather hungover. I hope I haven't passed it on to you.

 

.........................Chris

[RSL]

I have been using DMRs for the past two years and the Adobe RGB (1998) is your only real choice. Why? Because it's gamut far exceeds that of sRGB (the Microsoft color space.) Both are dwarfed by proPhoto which in a few years will become the universal color space until it too is swallowed up.... Use Adobe RGB in LR or Camera RAW or whatever as well as in Photoshop and you won't have to worry about conversion and loss of data etc...

 

Albert, Yes, proPhoto has a much wider gamut than Adobe RGB, but it's so wide it includes colors that are outside the visible spectrum. It's great stuff to work with in Photoshop, but when you get ready to print you're very likely going to get some gamut warnings and color shifts. Adobe RGB is a lot closer to the capabilities of your printer.

[like_no_other]

Albert, Yes, proPhoto has a much wider gamut than Adobe RGB, but it's so wide it includes colors that are outside the visible spectrum. It's great stuff to work with in Photoshop, but when you get ready to print you're very likely going to get some gamut warnings and color shifts. Adobe RGB is a lot closer to the capabilities of your printer.

 

 

I have one question. You write about working in photoshop. I assume that includes working with colours of course. For the reason that pro photo is significantly larger than sRGB or aRGB I see a critical points I would like to ask you how relevant this is in your practical PS work:

 

Assumed your monitor only shows colours within sRGB your working with the colours should be a real blind-flying because you don't see what you get. Does this make sense at all?

[Englander]

Besides gamut, the colorspaces have gamma as well and it differs between colorspaces.

 

Because of color limitations of our monitors, the more visible difference is the difference in gamma and those of you who use Lightroom can prove this to yourselves. Set ProPhoto as your color space ("16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving color details in Lightroom") in both LR preferences and in ACR preferences. Open any file in LR that has a wide range of contrast and color. Look at the image in "fit" and in the navigator window. The navigator window uses 2.2 sRGB. It will usually look punchier than your main window.

 

The reason for working in a colorspace that has a gamut large enough to encompass all your data even though you cannot see it on current monitors is because you do not want to throw any data away: even if you cannot see it now, with changes in equipment you may be able to see it later and will regret having lost data. Using too large a color space can lead to posterization especially with 8 bit.

 

The best rule is to work in a large enough colorspace and then convert it down for a particular purpose. The M8 allows for ECI-RGB and some RAW converters such as Raw Developer will work in that space which is an international standard color space that is popular in Europe and was developed by the ECI (European Color Initiative). A

page with details on this color space can be found here:

http://www.eci.org/eci/en/044_working_colour_spaces.php

 

I'd say it sort of falls into the medium-wide gamut range like

AdobeRGB or EktaSpace, its a bit smaller than EktaSpace and a bit

bigger than AdobeRGB. It uses a gamma of 1.8. Definitely smaller than

ProPhoto but tuned to the typical gamut range of a high end

printed output.

 

Joe

[RSL]

Besides gamut, the colorspaces have gamma as well and it differs between colorspaces.

 

Because of color limitations of our monitors, the more visible difference is the difference in gamma and those of you who use Lightroom can prove this to yourselves. Set ProPhoto as your color space ("16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving color details in Lightroom") in both LR preferences and in ACR preferences. Open any file in LR that has a wide range of contrast and color. Look at the image in "fit" and in the navigator window. The navigator window uses 2.2 sRGB. It will usually look punchier than your main window.

 

The reason for working in a colorspace that has a gamut large enough to encompass all your data even though you cannot see it on current monitors is because you do not want to throw any data away: even if you cannot see it now, with changes in equipment you may be able to see it later and will regret having lost data. Using too large a color space can lead to posterization especially with 8 bit.

 

The best rule is to work in a large enough colorspace and then convert it down for a particular purpose. The M8 allows for ECI-RGB and some RAW converters such as Raw Developer will work in that space which is an international standard color space that is popular in Europe and was developed by the ECI (European Color Initiative). A

page with details on this color space can be found here:

ECI - Colour standards |::| Working colour spaces

 

I'd say it sort of falls into the medium-wide gamut range like

AdobeRGB or EktaSpace, its a bit smaller than EktaSpace and a bit

bigger than AdobeRGB. It uses a gamma of 1.8. Definitely smaller than

ProPhoto but tuned to the typical gamut range of a high end

printed output.

 

Joe

 

Perfect! Philip, does this answer your question? It's the same idea as shooting raw versus .jpeg. You want everything you can get when you're working on it, but once you're ready to print you need to look at the limitations of your printer.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well said Joe on expanding that down to working in PS.

I personally use Joseph Holmes D3

[like_no_other]

To RSL and Joe

Sure, I understand the principle that it makes sense to gather and preserve as much original data as possible, concerning the gammut and data format (RAW/DNG).

 

But I think sometimes it's overrated as the one and only reasonable solution for all amateur photographers and all photo sujets.

for example .factors such as

..having no perfect calibration of the equipment chain,

..having more fun shooting the final photo with in-camera jpg,

..using sophisticated features that some cameras provide with jpg such as dynamic range optimization which produces results that are difficult to get with ps post processing etc.

 

can have a higher priority than applying consequently largest gammut and RAW/DNG to all photos only to go the secure way for 1-10% of your photos in which the broader basic data may make a visible or important difference in the final result.

 

Fine that Joe put the post processing into perspective by recommending a medium sized colour space with the intention to find a balance between disadvantages resulting from blind flying ps work because of given monitor restrictions (sRGB) and the advantages of using a large colour space. I take this as a valuable recommendation resulting from his sophisticated experiences as a photographer (checked you website, Joe).