Color Management: sRGB or Adobe RGB?

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Example of shooting Adobe RGB JPEG in-camera, making adjustments in Capture One, and exporting back to JPEG using the DCI(P3) RGB profile. The in-camera JPEGs, though not necessarily superior, are unique and incredibly difficult to duplicate from the DNG. I suspect Leica is applying different levels and/or curves adjustments to each RBG color channel.

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!

Edited August 19, 2019 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

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

[ralphh]

1) only is the screen is capable of displaying more than rgb (unlikely).

2) colour space is not related to dynamic range. Absolute black does not get blacker in Adobe rgb. 0 and 255 are the same and there are the same number of graduation (256 per channel) in every colour space. Adobe RGB swaps finer transitions for greater intensity of colour.

3) as many web browsers cannot display anything other than RGB I'd say theres no such thing as a web ready P3. 

[hdmesa]

21 minutes ago, ralphh said:

1) only is the screen is capable of displaying more than rgb (unlikely).

2) colour space is not related to dynamic range. Absolute black does not get blacker in Adobe rgb. 0 and 255 are the same and there are the same number of graduation (256 per channel) in every colour space. Adobe RGB swaps finer transitions for greater intensity of colour.

3) as many web browsers cannot display anything other than RGB I'd say theres no such thing as a web ready P3. 

Most current Apple iMacs, laptops and mobile devices display P3 gamut as do some other devices. P3 lets you drive a wider gamut to P3 capable devices and sRGB devices display as sRGB LINK. Why not use the widest gamut possible since P3 is sRGB-compatible?

Quote

In September 2017, Apple unveiled the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus with support for P3 color. They also unveiled the iPhone X which also covers 100% of P3 color. In October, 2017, Google released the Pixel 2, which covers 95% of the P3 color standard, and the Pixel 2 XL, which covers 100%.

You're right about dynamic range – I should have only said "wider gamut". 

Safari and Firefox support P3. Not sure about IE and Chrome.

Edited August 20, 2019 by hdmesa

[ralphh]

24 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Most current Apple iMacs, laptops and mobile devices display P3 gamut as do some other devices. P3 lets you drive a wider gamut to P3 capable devices and sRGB devices display as sRGB LINK. Why not use the widest gamut possible since P3 is sRGB-compatible?

You're right about dynamic range – I should have only said "wider gamut". 

Safari and Firefox support P3. Not sure about IE and Chrome.

You are correct that many devices can now display more than RGB, but if the main reason for shooting Adobe RGB jpeg is to import to lightroom to export back to P3 jpeg I'd suggest RAW is a better format. You can always delete the raw files after export to P3 if space is a concern. 

[stephanjaeger]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb ralphh:

You are correct that many devices can now display more than RGB, but if the main reason for shooting Adobe RGB jpeg is to import to lightroom to export back to P3 jpeg I'd suggest RAW is a better format. You can always delete the raw files after export to P3 if space is a concern. 

When you refer to RGB, are you actually referring to sRGB? I realised in your lasts posts that you consistently refer to RGB, so I wonder if you mean sRGB?

Thanks for the clarification,

Stephan

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The chart below also makes clear that shooting in DNG RAW and exporting to Display P3 is the best way to go: a decent portion of online viewers will be able too see the P3 gamut, the rest will see sRGB.

An image in a large colour space that is rendered on a screen in a smaller one will look washed out and flat, unless the browser one uses is able to convert. I do not know whether all browsers are already P3-enabled.

 

15 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Example of shooting Adobe RGB JPEG in-camera, making adjustments in Capture One, and exporting back to JPEG using the DCI(P3) RGB profile. The in-camera JPEGs, though not necessarily superior, are unique and incredibly difficult to duplicate from the DNG. I suspect Leica is applying different levels and/or curves adjustments to each RBG color channel.

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!

Nice, but once you have used Adobe RGB it makes no sense to convert to P3 to gain colour. The colours that were out of gamut will not be restored by converting to a larger colour space.The rendering will always remain the smallest space used. In fact, converting Adobe RGB to P3 will put part of the greens out of gamut. It won't add the extra bit of green, yellow and red that P3 shows over Adobe RGB because those colours were  already cut off. The only way to get the full P3 gamut is to shoot raw, process in Prophoto and dumb down to the colour space of your choice on export of the image. As soon as you use a smaller colour space on the way, the out of gamut colours are lost irretrievably.

Still, it is not a bad idea to convert to the P3 gamut when rendering for a P3 device, as any out-of-gamut greens from Adobe RGB will be brought into the colour space, but you will be shrinking your colour rendering for devices that can handle Adobe RGB, like the better printers and high-end monitors.

You cannot expand a gamut by converting to a larger colour space.

[ralphh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, stephanjaeger said:

When you refer to RGB, are you actually referring to sRGB? I realised in your lasts posts that you consistently refer to RGB, so I wonder if you mean sRGB?

Thanks for the clarification,

Stephan

Yes, sorry, phone spell check was very insistent and I was too lazy to fix it. I do mean sRGB 

Edited August 20, 2019 by ralphh

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

An image in a large colour space that is rendered on a screen in a smaller one will look washed out and flat, unless the browser one uses is able to convert. I do not know whether all browsers are already P3-enabled.

 

Nice, but once you have used Adobe RGB it makes no sense to convert to P3 to gain colour. The colours that were out of gamut will not be restored by converting to a larger colour space.The rendering will always remain the smallest space used. In fact, converting Adobe RGB to P3 will put part of the greens out of gamut. It won't add the extra bit of green, yellow and red that P3 shows over Adobe RGB because those colours were  already cut off. The only way to get the full P3 gamut is to shoot raw, process in Prophoto and dumb down to the colour space of your choice on export of the image. As soon as you use a smaller colour space on the way, the out of gamut colours are lost irretrievably.

Still, it is not a bad idea to convert to the P3 gamut when rendering for a P3 device, as any out-of-gamut greens from Adobe RGB will be brought into the colour space, but you will be shrinking your colour rendering for devices that can handle Adobe RGB, like the better printers and high-end monitors.

You cannot expand a gamut by converting to a larger colour space.

I didn't say you gain any color going from Adobe RBG to P3. I was saying you end up with a wider range of colors than had you shot only in sRBG and your image is being displayed on a P3-compliant device.

I've never read that P3 "washes out" the same way Adobe RBG does. If you can find a source for that, I'd be interested to know (and not from old articles written before P3 became more widely supported).

If printing, of course you'd want to send originals in a non-converted space and let the print shop handle the color management.

It's too bad camera manufacturers have not replaced Adobe RBG with P3 (plus the option to shoot 16-bit PNGs in addition to the 8-bit JPEGs).

9 hours ago, ralphh said:

You are correct that many devices can now display more than RGB, but if the main reason for shooting Adobe RGB jpeg is to import to lightroom to export back to P3 jpeg I'd suggest RAW is a better format. You can always delete the raw files after export to P3 if space is a concern. 

To this and the quote above as well – I didn't mention the obvious, that it's better to start in RAW and go straight to the color space of your choice because that's already been mentioned several times in this thread

Edited August 20, 2019 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

LINK

Quote

In the old issue there was some confusion about using non-sRGB colorspaces on the Web. The assertion was made that all colors are converted into sRGB. This used to be true, but is no longer true. CSS Color 4 allows colors to be specified in a range of colorspaces, and image-p3 is one of the built-in options. Hopefully this answers the question about "how could people actually use that on the Web".

 

[Jared]

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I didn't say you gain any color going from Adobe RBG to P3. I was saying you end up with a wider range of colors than had you shot only in sRBG and your image is being displayed on a P3-compliant device.

I've never read that P3 "washes out" the same way Adobe RBG does. If you can find a source for that, I'd be interested to know (and not from old articles written before P3 became more widely supported).

If printing, of course you'd want to send originals in a non-converted space and let the print shop handle the color management.

It's too bad camera manufacturers have not replaced Adobe RBG with P3 (plus the option to shoot 16-bit PNGs in addition to the 8-bit JPEGs).

To this and the quote above as well – I didn't mention the obvious, that it's better to start in RAW and go straight to the color space of your choice because that's already been mentioned several times in this thread

As long as the application is color space aware (and I believe all current browsers are, but older ones are not) you shouldn’t see washed out colors.  The browser or software application will adjust colors as required—converting to sRGB if necessary for a given display.

If, however, the application displaying the P3 image is NOT color space aware for some reason—rare but certainly not impossible if used by a general internet audience—P3 colors will, indeed, be wrong.  Since P3 Display uses a D65 white point it probably won’t be terrible, but it will necessarily be less saturated than intended since will only use a part of the sRGB gamut.  Reds in particular, if memory serves, will look less intense.  Not as bad as losing greens like you do with Adobe, but it would still matter. 

Likely, most viewers would have color space aware applications these days, so it may not be a bad choice choosing P3.  It won’t hurt anyone running a modern browser, and it will help those viewing on, at a minimum, modern Apple devices.  But it’s not the “safest” choice.  That remains sRGB.

[jaapv]

I rather doubt whether the vast majority of viewers will see any difference between an sRGB or P3 image on a P3 monitor. 

[ralphh]

 

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

I rather doubt whether the vast majority of viewers will see any difference between an sRGB or P3 image on a P3 monitor. 

agreed - even side by side I doubt most people would notice much difference for most images, except those specifically chosen to highlight the differences

Edited August 21, 2019 by ralphh

[mbphotox]

1. Let's not forget that most people use uncalibrated screens anyways.

A friend showed me his edited holiday photographs on his macbook pro after being very disappointed by their "washed out/flat" appearance on my calibrated monitor.
Ever since that, I'm afraid that my contrasty images will burn peoples retinas when viewed on retina displays.. LoL

 

2. Also, all the photo viewing tools on Windows do NOT accept embedded profiles in the images and will end up showing hilariously ugly images. I have no such issues when I show the pictures directly on my TV.

[Jared]

Yes, it’s true that 

8 hours ago, mbphotox said:

1. Let's not forget that most people use uncalibrated screens anyways.

A friend showed me his edited holiday photographs on his macbook pro after being very disappointed by their "washed out/flat" appearance on my calibrated monitor.
Ever since that, I'm afraid that my contrasty images will burn peoples retinas when viewed on retina displays.. LoL

 

2. Also, all the photo viewing tools on Windows do NOT accept embedded profiles in the images and will end up showing hilariously ugly images. I have no such issues when I show the pictures directly on my TV.

Yes, the vast majority of monitors are not profiled, but it’s pretty rare for a modern screen to be all that far off unless you have messed with it.  Certainly a MacBook Pro (which won’t even let you make adjustments aside from brightness) should be reasonably close to accurate unless there is something really wrong.  In any event, it’s something completely beyond your, or any photographers, control so I wouldn’t worry about it.

As far as Windows... the process of managing ICC profiles is not identical to Mac OS, but it’s not correct to say Windows does not accept embedded profiles.  Windows Photo Viewer certainly does.  Photoshop for Windows does.  Most (if not all) current Windows web browsers certainly do.  In fact, I can’t think of a Windows photo app that doesn’t.  It is, perhaps, a little easier to mess the process up on Windows.  For example, have a monitor profile step on the toes of the embedded image profile, or ask Windows Photo Viewer use the default profile vs the embedded one.  But Windows is just as color space aware as Mac OS.  

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, mbphotox said:

1. Let's not forget that most people use uncalibrated screens anyways.

A friend showed me his edited holiday photographs on his macbook pro after being very disappointed by their "washed out/flat" appearance on my calibrated monitor.
Ever since that, I'm afraid that my contrasty images will burn peoples retinas when viewed on retina displays.. LoL

 

2. Also, all the photo viewing tools on Windows do NOT accept embedded profiles in the images and will end up showing hilariously ugly images. I have no such issues when I show the pictures directly on my TV.

We’ve seen examples of people preferring uncalibrated TV screens for editing on this forum...

[ralphh]

I can see a clear side-by-side difference between my two screens.  One is a Asus ProArt that is factory calibrated and came with a certificate.  The other is an Eizo coloredge properly calibrated with a Spyder and the Eizo software (guess which I use for editing )

That said, if i put them back to back so I couldn't see them at the same time I probably couldn't see the difference.

The orange and peach pencils below are very different and the colour temperature of the greys is quite different.  Both are same size, same resolution, same referesh, same 100% sRGB, same colour temp (6000k).

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!

Edited August 22, 2019 by ralphh

[mbphotox]

did you check the "certified" monitor with your calibration tool from the Eizo?
I'm using an Eizo myself and half been very happy so far.

[hdmesa]

21 hours ago, ralphh said:

 

agreed - even side by side I doubt most people would notice much difference for most images, except those specifically chosen to highlight the differences

Where you see the biggest difference is in the darker shadows where the sRBG will be more blocked up. But I would imagine to get the full potential of P3, you'd need a 16-bit PNG, which of course would be large files not supported by most (all?) online forums and social media sites.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[ralphh]

16 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Where you see the biggest difference is in the darker shadows where the sRBG will be more blocked up. But I would imagine to get the full potential of P3, you'd need a 16-bit PNG, which of course would be large files not supported by most (all?) online forums and social media sites.

 

I completely disagree with that statement. It's only in the most saturated colours (the furthest from pure black / white / grey) that it makes any difference having a bigger colour space.  You are still confusing dynamic range with colour space.

 

16 minutes ago, mbphotox said:

did you check the "certified" monitor with your calibration tool from the Eizo?
I'm using an Eizo myself and half been very happy so far.

No need; I have no doubt the Eizo is the right one.  Unlike the Eizo there is no way to make a hardware adjustment to the ASUS so I'll just leave it.  The difference is not enough to be annoying.

I only bought the ASUS because I wanted a second screen of the same size and spec at 1/4 the price of a second Eizo.  To be fair to the ASUS, it is miles better than most screens i've used; mine is just a bit unfortunate in that it's sitting next to an Eizo

Edited August 22, 2019 by ralphh

[mbphotox]

Once I get a bigger office again, I'll certainly use my 23" Dell Ultrasharp screen again, just to have a vertical "preview" monitor for my portrait edits.
I hope, I'll be able to get it at least somewhere close to what the Eizo shows, as in "neutral".