Lets take a poll, do you shoot in Adobe 1998 or sRGB?

The differences so far...

Adobe 1998 wider colour gamut, sRGB smaller colour gamut.

Adobe 1998 used in professional world when printing etc, magazines etc. sRGB used by commerical labs for printing and in web use.

So which should I use? Should I just convert from sRGB to Adobe 1998 if I want to submit somewhere, or even on RAW conversion. Or should I be shooting Adobe 1998 for wider gamut and convert to sRGB for when having lab prints done? As long as the image is colour profiled one way or another, does it really make much difference and matter that much?

Just wondered what you lot did and if the more pro people shot Adobe 1998?

Also how have you set your Colour Settings in Photoshop? It automatically installs with web graphics default which in RGB uses sRGB. Or should we set to Europe Prepress defaults which sounds more correct and uses Adobe 1998 in RGB?

I have worked for a design and printers and they didn't really follow any particular proceedure. I think this only worked as we did the work and outputted from the same machine and printed in house so colour remained constant. It would be more important if sending to a different machine. When outputting in CMYK for lith printing should the ICC profile be euroscale as opposed to US web SWOP? Or should the decision be made depending on what paper type is being printed on? At the end of the day though the printers would make the final colour adjustment decisions and try to best match to a proof, so even though we tweak colour ever so slightly and choose one profile over another for slightly more accurate colours, the final print can vary due to printers! All you have to do is look at two copies of the same magazine bought at different times, sometimes it is easy to see say on the back page advert, the block colour being a slight different shade, even though supposed to be the same thing. So why then do we tweak so very slightly when print process has much more leeway?

Plus colours look different in different lighting etc. So why do we stress so much about a slightly bigger gamut that we can't even see a difference when compared side by side?

I can't answer all your questions sky, but here is what I do and why.

I shoot in Abode RGB because I like having as much colour information as I can and just can't see any reason to throw it all away. ARGB is my default setting in Photoshop, with US Web Coated Swop for CMYK.

Most monitors now can't use the full ARGB gamut, but some can - and picture quality on those monitors is pretty stunning. I plan to get one when my ancient CRT finally bites the dust (hopefully a few years away yet). Someday most monitors will have a wider gamut and then I think sRGB files may begin to look a bit washed out.

My home inkjet has a wide gamut similar to ARGB so I output to the printer in that format: I love rich saturated colours and beautiful prints and so I am after all the quality I can get.

I change any pictures that are for email or web output to sRGB and finalise them in that colour space. Having a separate e-workflow in sRGB means I no longer get unpleasant surprises about how my pictures look on websites or emails.

---

My DCM Gallery

If colour managment is not your forte and you want a simple workflow that will hold no suprises then shoot and process in srgb, if you want full control and the percieved increase in quality then shoot in ARGB.

But if you choose argb then you need to be working in 16 bit all the way through the process or the advantages of a bigger colour gamut are negated because a bigger gamut does not mean more colours (both srgb and argb have excactly the same amount) just that those colours are streched over a wider gamut.

For the perfectionests amongst you (and in that case you should be shooting in the Pro colour space) you should be choosing your colour space based on the image as some are more suited to one space than another and even converting from argb to srgb ( not for web) results in a loss of quality compared to shooting in that space in the first place.

Ok Questions

1-Did you know the only monitors that can display the full gamut of argb cost the price of a new small car.

2- hold your hands up those who can look in the DCM mag (or any other) and say hand on heart which printed full page images were shot in srgb or not and belive me a lot were as they are taken with cameras that only shoot in srgb.

3-Will the same people who now say but you should always shoot and work in 16 bit be saying  you should alway be working in 128 bit when photoshop supports 128 bit even though it debatable if the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit can be seen now.

Sorry its a bit tongue in cheek but the flame wars that start about colour spaces never fail to amuse me.

By the way to the original question if you shoot in raw then what colour space you shoot in is a mute point as a raw image contains no color space and you can choose the colour space that suits the image on conversion and if your not then you are only shooting in 8 bit and argb is not your best choice.

Hers a link to the best and sensible explanation I have seen.

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

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

Short answer, I shot Adobe 1998.  Much the same reason as Eileen, I don't want to throw away that data.

By the way, you can't convert from sRGB to Adobe 1998.  sRGB has less colour than Adobe 1998, and once you've shot in sRGB you can't then later add that missing colour.  You can obviously shoot in Adobe 1998 and then remove some colour to convert to sRGB.   See, I've learened something on here

Oh, and I no longer stress about it

Just to add to the basket, there is another PRO RGB that's out, which has an even wider space than Adobe 1998 and should suit HDR photography.  With regards to printing, they say that one day printers will be able to show these increased ranges, so you may as well shoot in them now to future proof yourself.  TV's can now display these ranges, so I guess printers could one day.

 

---

martin_hurton:

  TV's can now display these ranges, so I guess printers could one day.

 

Sorry Martin but there is a difference between HDR and color gamut as far as TV's are concerned.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

martin_hurton:

Just to add to the basket, there is another PRO RGB that's out, which has an even wider space than Adobe 1998 and should suit HDR photography.  With regards to printing, they say that one day printers will be able to show these increased ranges, so you may as well shoot in them now to future proof yourself.  TV's can now display these ranges, so I guess printers could one day.

Martin - I believe the largest colour space available to date is Adobe's ProPhoto which to the best of my knowledge isn't selectable in any cameras at this time. As Paul has indicated, the very few monitors that can 'see' this wide gamut cost an arm and a leg, or small car as he puts it. The only future proofing one has, and again as Paul points out, is to shoot RAW which doesn't have a colour space (in fact it's black and white) until processed and a colour profile attached. I would agree with Paul that for those that really don't know what they are doing, or really have an interest in such matters and shoot JPG's could do a lot worse than set their cameras to sRGB and follow this through in Photoshop or what-have-you preferences. In most instances one needs the eyes of an eagle to tell the difference anyway.

Hi Paul, ok, I stand corrected regarding the TV point   Also, I wrote my reply whilst you were writing yours, I'm a much slower typer as you know

Alan, the Pro RGB space that I was talking about was the Pro Photo RGB that was actually developed by Kodak.  It doesn't need to be selected in camera as it is an option in some RAW convertors and is actually using the full capabilities of the sensor, unlike 1998 and sRGB which discard information that is actually captured.

There was an article about it sometime ago.  I'll see if I can find it.

Anyway, this is a bit like the Canon v's Nikon or Jpeg v's RAW argument and there will never be a right or wrong answer, it's personal choice.  I'll stick with AdobeRGB as mentioned above (my photoshop software doesn't support ProPhoto RGB).

 

---

Do I shoot in Adobe 1998?
No.

Do I shoot in sRGB?
No.

I shoot in RAW and then I decide the colour space I want depending on where and how that image is going to be used.

---

martin_hurton:

Hi Paul, ok, I stand corrected regarding the TV point   Also, I wrote my reply whilst you were writing yours, I'm a much slower typer as you know

Alan, the Pro RGB space that I was talking about was the Pro Photo RGB that was actually developed by Kodak.  It doesn't need to be selected in camera as it is an option in some RAW convertors and is actually using the full capabilities of the sensor, unlike 1998 and sRGB which discard information that is actually captured.

There was an article about it sometime ago.  I'll see if I can find it.

Anyway, this is a bit like the Canon v's Nikon or Jpeg v's RAW argument and there will never be a right or wrong answer, it's personal choice.  I'll stick with AdobeRGB as mentioned above (my photoshop software doesn't support ProPhoto RGB).

 

No problem Martin

 And yes you are correct about Pro Photo RGB, it was actually called Kodak Photo Pro in 1991 when I was given it by a USA Kodak lab technician I used to discuss colour managment with on line.

 

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

craftysnapper:

Ok Questions

1-Did you know the only monitors that can display the full gamut of argb cost the price of a new small car.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1023320

This is the monitor I've seen recently - it has 96% of the ARGB gamut and costs a good bit less than the price of a small car but still too much for me. I am hoping that it or a similar one will cost around half as much in a few years time when I need to buy a replacement.

3-Will the same people who now say but you should always shoot and work in 16 bit be saying  you should alway be working in 128 bit when photoshop supports 128 bit even though it debatable if the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit can be seen now.

The difference between 16 bit and 8 bit shows in my work when I process images. 16 bit gives me much more latitude than I had before. I don't routinely over-process images but it is helpful to be able to make changes without too much loss of quality. I don't know anything about 128 bit but would certainly look into it at some time in the future if I thought it worth doing so.

Sorry its a bit tongue in cheek but the flame wars that start about colour spaces never fail to amuse me.

Colour management is an extremely complex area. I have spent much more time and energy on this subject than I would like because I want to consistently print images that look like they do on screen.

It is true that discussion on this subject is often marred by people who are more interested in scoring points than in helping or informing others.

By the way to the original question if you shoot in raw then what colour space you shoot in is a mute point as a raw image contains no color space and you can choose the colour space that suits the image on conversion and if your not then you are only shooting in 8 bit and argb is not your best choice.

Hers a link to the best and sensible explanation I have seen.

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

Thank you for the link.

---

My DCM Gallery

I think there's a very important point that everyone seems to be missing here.. I shoot exclusively in raw (camera allowing) and I use both srgb and adobe rgb (because I have two same brand camera) and it basically saves me a massive headache with the naming conventions conflicting.

Now when I say I shoot in raw (and srgb\argb) I suppose that means that the colors are limited in some way and are only as good as the converter in the camera\the colour gamuts. The point I think ppl are missing is after you get them off your camera what then? I use the biggest gamut possible i.e. pro photo rgb simply because when I'm editing I like to think I allow the software the biggest possible choice of colours available to use. I'm sure if you've ever tried to edit a gradiented sky on an 8 bit jpeg you'll know exactly what I mean!

Sure I suppose there is a good case for not using pro photo because essentially be it print or web output they'll be converted down to a smaller gamut but I think the big point is I want (and I'm sure most ppl want it also) my images to look as good as possible before I convert them!

As for printing exactly like you see on screen good luck! With srgb and adobe rgb the best you can do is come as close as dammit and for that you'll need at least a good calibration device and a good quality printer\monitor which are also calibrated (printer should be calibrated with every ink\paper combo you use and if you change it you recalibrate).

---

Browse My Gallery

BPITW 8/9th Sept 07 - 16/17th Feb 08

It might also be worth pointing out that imho a lot of people get confused between a 'colour profile' that is attached to an image and the 'colour space' chosen in the working space.

Using Lightroom as an example and shooting in RAW. There is no 'colour profile' i.e. sRGB or Adobe RGB attached to the raw data. When imported into Lightroom, Lightroom will render this file (still without 'colour profile') and display it in it's own working space of Adobe ProPhoto, or Melissa as it's sometimes known and referred to. Owners of monitors that can 'see' this wide gamut will benefit over those whose monitors will only display the sRGB gamut and as Paul previously intimated, whether the untrained eye will notice the difference is debatable. Anyway, the point is - you are now editing your RAW file in a 'working space' (Adobe ProPhoto if set) even though the file itself hasn't as yet been assigned a 'colour space'.

Upon exporting the file, say to Photoshop for further editing, a 'colour profile' will now be added depending on what you have set up in Preferences. This can be also be  Adobe ProPhoto, Adobe RGB or sRGB but whichever is chosen it is important to remember that this is a 'colour profile' that is being attached to the file and is different to the 'working space'. To some it makes sense to continue in the Adobe ProPhoto setting until such time as the decision is made as to where the end file is destined to go. If the file, or at least a copy of it, is destined for the web then upon 'saving out' of Photoshop then it makes sense to save a jpg file with the sRGB colour profile attached to it. That's one advantage of shooting RAW - you can save out in multiple formats with different colour profiles if you so wish whilst still retaining the unadulterated RAW file/data.

I myself have both Lightroom and Photoshop set up as Adobe ProPhoto as it affords me the greatest latitude - whether I can capitalise on this greater latitude at this time is questionable as for one thing my monitor is a general run of the mill thing. Never-the-less having it set up so affords me 'continuity', meaning I don't have to give any thought to it later. If RAW files are required to be sent to Photoshop for framing etc then this is done in the TIFF format with the ProPhoto colour profile attached. With this I don't get any pop-up warnings in PS about mismatched profiles etc. The final edited image is then brought back into LR and sits alongside the original RAW image. If I then wish to post a copy of this image to my gallery for instance I Export the image in the jpg format and attach a sRGB profile.

Printing is something else altogether and to honest have never accurately worked out what is going on behind the scenes. For sure, a RAW image without a colour profile cannot be printed as such, and yet in LR it is possible to send a RAW image directly to the printer. In this case, and accepting that most printers work in the sRGB space then it stands to reason that a little bit of conversion 'magic' is taking place behind the scenes.

sky blue:

I have worked for a design and printers and they didn't really follow any particular proceedure. I think this only worked as we did the work and outputted from the same machine and printed in house so colour remained constant. It would be more important if sending to a different machine. When outputting in CMYK for lith printing should the ICC profile be euroscale as opposed to US web SWOP? Or should the decision be made depending on what paper type is being printed on? At the end of the day though the printers would make the final colour adjustment decisions and try to best match to a proof, so even though we tweak colour ever so slightly and choose one profile over another for slightly more accurate colours, the final print can vary due to printers! All you have to do is look at two copies of the same magazine bought at different times, sometimes it is easy to see say on the back page advert, the block colour being a slight different shade, even though supposed to be the same thing. So why then do we tweak so very slightly when print process has much more leeway?

Plus colours look different in different lighting etc. So why do we stress so much about a slightly bigger gamut that we can't even see a difference when compared side by side?

When I talk about printers here I mean the people who work on the lith machines, not a printer a machine. We provided a proof print with the best colour and they adjust the lith machines to best match. It's how they balance the four colours. They match as best they can but trust me it doesn't seem an exact science and like I say two runs of the same prints can look (fairly) noticeably different. Apart they both look fine, but together you can see a difference. It's the same when cutting down. I would have placed very accurate crop marks on the page and they never hit them 100% with the cutting machine. So altho I laid stuff out accurate to the exact millimeter, and correct colour by the tiniest tweak, it seemed a bit pointless when there was so much more leeway when printed, cut and assembled. So photographers seem to go to the furthest lengths possible to get a tiny weeny bit more gamut or whatever, when I really don't think you would ever tell a difference in print. And like I say it depends what light you are viewing the page or screen in, or how your monitor and other people's monitors are calibrated so every image will look slightly different. So the lengths people go to seem a bit daft and efforts slightly wasted.

From working as a designer in a company with on site commerical printers I have not only done the design work, but also laid out for print, seen the plates being made up, and the work being printed on the press. I have seen the process from start to finish and the concensious was that if it looked ok then it was ok. Yes they matched to proofs, but really there was way more leeway in the printing process than the tiny tweaks I made on the computer. It makes me feel like the perfectionism of gamuts, different monitors and calibrations is slightly wasted as at the end of the day, in a magazine or book print you are just not going to see a difference.

Eileen:

craftysnapper:

Ok Questions

1-Did you know the only monitors that can display the full gamut of argb cost the price of a new small car.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1023320

This is the monitor I've seen recently - it has 96% of the ARGB gamut and costs a good bit less than the price of a small car but still too much for me. I am hoping that it or a similar one will cost around half as much in a few years time when I need to buy a replacement.

Eileen this is good marketing speak but bear in mind that talking percentages like that does then take into account that the Srgb space covers  roughly 95% of the Argb space so in reality you are gaining a 1% increase over a srgb monitor, that remaining 3% is a lot more than it seems hence the small car prices for a 100% argb monitor.

Please do not take my reply as something opposed to your way of colour managing or work flow or trying to score points I'm just trying to point out that it is usally over hyped for the result you get in print and some times the best advise for some people is to keep it simple and not worry to  much about it and get caught up in the this is the best way because it is the most complicated and the experts advice it discussion.

And note I have not a actually told anyone which colour managment I use or which is the best way for them ,but tried to put it into perspective rather than demoralise people just coming to the hobby who read this stuff then do it because they feel they have to and then get into trouble with this tangled web called colour managment.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

I have just had a look at my two RAW converters both come with Canon cameras. DPP and Image browser (mac) or zoom broweser (PC). With both of them you can select either colour space sRGB or Adobe RGB. I never really looked at that before, just converted as it was (sRGB). I shoot in combined RAW and JPEG with camera set to sRGB. I was wondering whether I should change my camera to Adobe RGB and if my old pics were gona be on the wrong settings. However from this thread I realise that cos I always shot combined RAW and JPEG and I always go back to a RAW and work up from that, I can always change the colour space whenever I work a RAW up. It doesn't matter what my camera is set to, or was set to, I can select colour space when converting RAWs. So that puts my mind at ease quite a bit. I like RAWs, it's like having a negative. If you mess up the print one time, you can always go back and print another in a better way (in film terms). Having just jpegs is like having just prints, if you have a bad print there's not much you can do about it.