What's the difference between adobe rgb and s rgb?

the manual of my 350d and r1 say that if I choose adobe rgb color mode , the

images will loose intensity on my monitor.

 

I'm using a calibrated LCD PC monitor, and wanna try adobe rgb mode on my 350d

and r1, does that mean what I'm seeing in my monitor is not accurate? How can

I edit the color accurately then?

 

And lastly, will my favorite photo store where I print my images, could print

the images accurately in terms of color intensity, in accordance to adobe rgb

mode? Thier printer is very big and probably cost the same as an suv.

This is something I know the answer to, but I'm terrible at explaining.

 

I just spent 5 mins typing a reply, and realised that I am still terrible at explaining. So I'll let someone else answer this.

.

 

AdobeRGB has greater color saturation and gamut than srgb, and so AdobeRGB is suitable for most printers to use what they offer.

 

srgb is "standard" or "screen" rgb, suitable for display only, offering fewer saturated colors than any printer.

 

43,000 other answers at

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=difference+between+adobergb+and+srgb&btnG=Google+Search

 

Let us know if it matters to you, Mars, and share some (srgb) examples! ;-)

 

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

It would be far better to read the many threads that this is already explained in in the photo.net archives.

.

 

PS -- Properly profiled display screens and properly profiled printer/ink/paper combinations SHOULD come close to your predictions.

 

I find it's an iterative process, and misprints sell for w-a-y less to friends while I'm on my way to the exact print I prefer. I always capture in AdobeRGB since it's reducible to SRGB, but SRGB can hardly be expanded accurately to AdobeRGB since some saturation gamut has already been lost.

 

Some people don't mind or notice.

 

 

Note that you "should" get a printer profile from your local photolab and use it to "proof" on screen, otherwise, you're probably gonna have that iterative sequence of guessing what pleases you.

 

We're all going through this.

 

I find that photography is, after all, both an art and a science.

 

Pick your path, and let us know how it goes!

 

Me? I vacillate between art and science, and never seem to master either sufficiently, so far ...

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Mars C,

 

You will lose intensity on you monitor only if you use a non-colour managed workflow. With a colour managed workflow (which it sounds like you have) you won't lose intensity though there may be colours in the file that your monitor cannot reproduce (such are called out of gamut). Only very expensive LCD monitors can reproduce the entire gamut of Adobe RGB.

 

Most printers reproduce a colour gamut significantly larger than sRGB hence why people use larger gamut spaces like Adobe RGB (or even ProPhoto RGB). My printer will reproduce almost all of the Adobe RGB gamut though neither is strictly included in the other.

 

Your lab is the only one that can tell what colour space they want your image to be in. They may have a custom printer profile for you to apply, the may take it in the Adobe RGB working space, or they may use sRGB even though their printer is capable of a much larger gamut (many Fuji Frontier operators do this).

Here's a sample of srgb , straight from my r1, I like the color, but when I photo shoot a person, the skin color sometimes look so saturated. when I tried to use the adobe rgb with saturation turned down, the skin color looks just right, I'm afraid If I print in that mode the color wont look the same.<div></div>

.

 

Earlier: "... It would be far better to read the many threads that this is already explained in in the photo.net archives..."

 

Such as?

 

Let's look at the results of a [AdobeRGB verses SRGB] search -- 117 threads - -PICK ONE (I dare ya!):

 

Digital Darkroom Forum: Prints and Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

Prints and Adobe RGB vs. sRGB. Marissa C. Boucher' , mar 02, 2005; 06:34 pm ... So if I drag an image from the Adobe RGB CRT over to the sRGB LCD, ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BLur - Similar pages

 

Digital Darkroom Forum: Color management Adobe RGB vs ProPhoto RGB ...

As for BetaRGB versus AdobeRGB, they are similar, but their color disposition ... The example link to a Photoshop PSD file is 500x500 in 16-bit RGB (sRGB as ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D9gR - Similar pages

 

Digital Darkroom Forum: RGB Vs SRGB

Should I be shooting in Adobe RGB or SRGB and set my PS to match my camera. I've read all my books and they say RGB is best.......but I'm lost if my lab ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HE8E - Similar pages

 

Digital Cameras Forum: Canon 10D sRGB vs AbobeRGB

As you can see, the shot is the same, the bloody lighting is the same, and the only difference is the left shot was made in AdobeRGB vs sRGB on the right. ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AmVP - Similar pages

 

Nikon Forum: Does anyone use colour mode sRGB IIIa for landscapes?

I normally use Adobe RGB on my Nikon D70 (RAW) and have read that sRGB IIIa is optimised for landscapes. I have never used this setting (and I am two weeks ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Db52 - Similar pages

 

Digital Cameras Forum: With EOS10D, use color space Adobe98 or sRGB?

Shoot in Adobe RGB, in RAW mode, and then change to the sRGB color space only if necessary. Many kinds of printers and some monitors accept and can ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007BRT - Similar pages

 

Digital Darkroom Forum: 10D RAW and selecting sRGB or Adobe RGB

There's an interesting article in this month's Digital Photo Pro magazine by Rob Sheppard on sRGB versus Adobe RGB. To sum things up, he says it's a "myth" ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008k4D - Similar pages

 

Digital Darkroom Forum: sRGB vs. convert to monitor profile

sRGB is designed to reflect the color gamut of displays, and is on the "snappy side", whereas Adobe RGB images appear flat when ignored. ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gx4z - Similar pages

 

Canon EOS Forum: Sorry - sRGB or AdobeRGB for me?

Last week's discussion of thie sRGB vs. AdobeRGB debate. ... For Pete's sake, the question was "sRGB vs AdobeRGB", NOT the old tired jpeg/raw boondoggle. ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FzOG&tag= - Similar pages

 

Digital Darkroom Forum -- Color Management>Color Space

Why do my shots look superior on my LCD (sRGB) vs my CRT(Adobe RGB)? by Marissa C. Boucher' (2005-12-06).

I'm sorry if this question been asked so many times before, but thanks to you all, I now understand a little , and will read all the links you gave me in my own time.

 

I'll continue shooting argb from now on, as I learned that nothing is really lost on printing as long as the printer is capable.

The <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/colorcontrol.mspx">color control applet</a> from MS (needs Win XP) provides a good visual representation of the range of colors that each colour space can reproduce, click on the magnifying glass on the profiles tab and you can overlay one colour space over another.

Just shoot RAW and don't worry about Color Space. The solution is too easy.

This image illustrates the difference between sRGB colorspace and Adobe RGB colorspace:

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/sRGB-colorspace.jpg"><br>

<br></center>

As you can see, sRGB is a smaller colorspace and fits within the Adobe RGB ('aRGB' for

short) environment. Most monitors and print devices have a "native" gamut similar to sRGB

so when rendering aRGB images to such targets <b>without</b> colorspace/profile

aware software doing a color space translation, the images will look flat and inaccurate.

<br><br>

To edit color accurately, you need a calibrated monitor and and color managed image

editing application. Outputting a file for a printer requires that you know what kind of

printer the target is and, ideally, have a profile to convert to specifically for that printer. As

a default for when you do not have that information, after you finish editing and have

saved your work, do a colorspace conversion to sRGB and Save As to a new file, specifically

for printing purposes.

<br><br>

Godfrey

I will still insist that AdobeRGB only provides a -final product- advantage over sRGB *if* you are shooting targets that have a lot of gamut range to being with. Fauna in open sunlight, hot paint jobs on hot rods, etc. Most has the rest is simply workflow pragmatics, which are not relevant to my point above.

 

That's really nice your printer *might* have the ability to exceed sRGB's gamut range, but so what. If you aren't shooting subjects that are filling your dSLR's sensor color intensity range, and most of the time your aren't, then it doesn't make much difference.

 

A good workflow and requirements of that workflow should take precedence over anything else though.

Hi to all,

 

I have something to report, I just printed 12 pieces 8x12 pix, using srgb on some and argb on some, on my favorite photo store.

 

I forgot to tell the person to leave the images "as is" when printing . but always told him or her before.

 

I retuned After 20 minutes, some of the prints looks so over exposed , while some looks ok,

 

It turns out that it is standard procedure for them to correct the exposure, unless told not to do so. Unfortunatly what is correct for me is not correct for them.

 

Any way, I'll just charge this to experience, I should always remember to tell the person in charge to leave my images "as is".

 

I wont bother with Argb, though , if not for its more accurate color presentation on my r1, The srgb on the r1 looks too vivid for my taste no matter how I adjust it. added to the fact that the r1 is very limited in adjustment for color, just -1, 0 and +1. that leaves me no option than to use the argb, which suits my taste better , in the r1.

 

I dont usually shoot in raw, cause I dont like the added workflow that comes, shooting with it. But maybe if I find a scene, that I think is worth it, maybe I will shoot it in raw.

 

By the way , Thanks a lot for your replies.

-->I will still insist that AdobeRGB only provides a -final product- advantage over sRGB

*if* you are shooting targets that have a lot of gamut range to being with

 

The only thing Scott knows LESS about color management is Mac's.

 

He wrote this dribble in another post on sRGB and I asked him to clarify what he's talking

about (provide some matrix to define what he means by "a lot of gamut") and in his usual

fashion, ran away.

 

So, what on earth does it mean? How do you decide? First of all, you have to understand

the advantages and disadvantages of wider gamut working spaces and their effect on what

you shoot and output. IF you shoot RAW, doesn't matter a lick (RAW is RAW, it has no color

space and hence no "gamut" until you first render an image and then decide what color

space you want to encode this data into). IF you set the camera for either sRGB or Adobe

RGB (1998), and don't shot RAW, you have no options here; the rendering is automatic and

the encoding is one

or the other. OK, so its clear that Adobe RGB (1998) has a larger gamut potential than

sRGB. But what are you shooting? While I'd never do anything as silly as Scott and say "this

image will fit into sRGB and this will not" without having real data (more below), you can

surmise that if you shoot say a gray card, it would fit within sRGB. We're not talking about

a scene gamut that has saturated colors. But what about other stuff? If you shoot a

"saturated" scene in sRGB, there's no question you have a far, far greater potential of

clipping colors the camera captured than if you used Adobe RGB (1998). Considering you

can convert from a larger color space to a smaller color space (but not the other way), and

considering you're not shooting RAW and want colors at your disposal for output, pick

Adobe RGB (1998). You can always convert to sRGB for output to say the web.

 

Both color spaces will preview virtually identically in Photoshop or any application that

understands color management. OUTSIDE these applications, Adobe RGB will preview

incorrectly but so will everything anyway (it's just a matter of degrees how inaccurate it

will be).

 

Also consider your output device (not only the one you use today but the one you might

use in 5 years). The gamut of the Epson K3 inks EXCEEDS Adobe RGB (1998) in some

saturated colors. Be nice to have as much color as possible to use when you print, no?

 

Then there's scene gamut. There are TONS of images that fall outside even Adobe RGB

(1998). How do I know? Well I shoot RAW and use Adobe Camera RAW which provides a

Histogram that shows clipping based on one of the four possible color spaces and as you

toggle them, you can visually see if it will fit or not within those spaces. I'm hoping we see

something like this in Lightroom. Point is, you can pick the encoding color space that best

fits using this visual feedback within the Histogram. Or, you could simply use ProPhoto for

your RAWS (in 16-bit please) if you're lazy and know that you've picked the biggest space

possible for the largest gamut possible (the alternate in the context of this discussion is

picking Adobe RGB (1998) on the camera).

 

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

If you want to simply things, you can just select ProPhoto RGB in 16-bit and be done.

 

Among color geeks, there's some debate about squeezing the gamut of the capture into

the closest gamut of the options for color space. There are four in ACR, three in LR. The LR

team always handles ProPhoto RGB (internally and externally) EXCEPT when you export

(there you have the additional options for sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998). That said, you can

simply set everything for ProPhoto RGB since:

 

1. It's the widest gamut color space option and

2. Virtually every scene will fit within it and you can convert to a smaller space from there.

 

Just do it in 16-bit.

 

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

I'm bemused by those photographers who insist on not shooting raw and not using a large gamut color space, and not taking advantage of 16bit. Sometimes they are vehement about it and the virtues of shooting 8bit sRGB jpegs.

 

My working hypothesis is that they are, at heart film shooters, who long for the destructive development process that results in the film negative , thereby getting 'closure' or finality to the exposure, and can say "This is it. This is done." The non-destructive nature of digital stresses them and the sometime vehement irrationality of their rationales might properly be considered an emotional vertigo.

 

8-)

 

--

 

Don E

<I>He wrote this dribble in another post on sRGB and I asked him to clarify what he's talking about (provide some matrix to define what he means by "a lot of gamut") and in his usual fashion, ran away. </i><P>No, I just ignore people who claim to be an experts on color but refuse to post a single color image of their own. I mean seriously dude, I can rent the same level of expertise in this area from any local printing lab for $12.50 an hour. Do you actually know how to use a digital camera, or desperate to elevate yourself beyond the local $12.50 an hour print shops by confusing the hell out of shooters who have no intent of using RAW and want an examples of sRGB vs AdobeRGB? <P>I've also noticed you tend to avoid any thread where somebody claims they can't see the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB and I tend to be the sole proponent. When it comes the *theoretical* though, you come in guns a blazing, then call me a coward for refusing to waste time with another "expert" who doesn't have any photographic content. <P><I>The gamut of the Epson K3 inks EXCEEDS Adobe RGB (1998) in some saturated colors. Be nice to have as much color as possible to use when you print, no? </i><P>I don't print to K3, I don't print to glossy papers which are typically where the highest gamut ranges reside, and neither do most shooter. Those that have an Epson with the new inks should have figured this out on their own. If they haven't, you'll of course harass them to ship their images to a lab using native AdobeRGB vs the local lab that provides the same results.<I><P>Point is, you can pick the encoding color space that best fits using this visual feedback within the Histogram</i><P>Which is exactly what I said, except it saves a lot time to anticipate this when shooting given the camera sensor is the limit and not the color space. Shooting every bit of possible capture data and sorting it out after the fact, which is the religion you've been shoving down the throats of everybody, is not a practical solution for everbody. <P>Who gives a flaming sh_t you use an Apple?

<I>My working hypothesis is that they are, at heart film shooters</i><P>I'd be the last to give cause to film shooters, but I'm noticing a lot of non RAW shooters in this thread and others have a lot better photographic work than what you have posted. <P>Just like film shooters who bash digital because there are other photographers using the medium who are better than them, I'm noticing the same trend with RAW shooters who can't handle somebody taking better images than they with simple JPEGs. How dare somebody not proclaim B&W film as superior to digital capture, or not want to use a RAW workflow, 16-bit files, and AdobeRGB.

--> Do you actually know how to use a digital camera, or desperate to elevate yourself

beyond the local $12.50 an hour print shops by confusing the hell out of shooters who

have no intent of using RAW and want an examples of sRGB vs AdobeRGB?

 

Well Scott, good boy, you actually replied to a message.

 

OK, I'll bite (sorry for the others here, this WILL be OT).

 

Scott, when you were probably a very young and ill behaved lad, I had graduated from Art

Center College of Design with honors with a BA in Photo, shot for GTE, Disney, Apple,

Forbes, etc. Even before that I was hand picked to work for 7 months by the LAOOC to

shoot the 84 Olympic games (I was one of only 50 shooters IN THE WORLD) who had

access to document this little event. When you were picking your noise, I was working (on

a Mac) in Photoshop 1.0.7 and providing clients retouching work when most

photographers didn't know a pixel from a pickel. I was with Tony Stone Stock images when

it wasn't fashionable to do so. My first digital camera was the Kodak DCS-1 when you were

probably learning how to mix D76.

 

Now I'm not going to knock your photographic abilities (I've seen your page here on Photo

Net and it wouldn't be fair to comment). If you'd like to see some of my images, I'd be

happy to send you down to the library to find LA Workbook or the Creative Black Book

where my ad's appeared. That I left (actually retired thank you) from the brutal business of

photography back in 1994 to leave the competitive market in LA to live the better life in

beautiful Santa Fe NM should in no way lead you to believe that I have no photo

experience. I had 2nd assistants that had more talent than you will ever dream of having

(ops, sorry I tried not to comment on your abilities).

 

-->I've also noticed you tend to avoid any thread where somebody claims they can't see

the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB and I tend to be the sole proponent

 

Send me an address, I'll print you examples and those 2-3 others, who haven't clearly

defined how their images were captured or proceeded or printed and didn't see the

difference in no way in my mind or based on my tests and experiences provide any

credence do your argument.

 

-->I don't print to K3,

 

Oh and if you close your eyes, the gamut of what you're imagining is pretty low I'll bet. I

guess there must be very few people using 2400/4800/9800 printers and the sales

figures of Epson are (unlike you) delusional.

 

-->HistogramWhich is exactly what I said, except

it saves a lot time to anticipate this when shooting given the camera sensor is

the limit and not the color space

 

Digital cameras don't have a color gamut or a color space.

 

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

"I'd be the last to give cause to film shooters, but I'm noticing a lot of non RAW shooters in this thread and others have a lot better photographic work than what you have posted." Scott

 

They show a lot better work than you do, too. I don't claim to be a Photographer. I use photography for website development. If dedicated photographers can't take a better picture than I can, then there is something wrong with them, not me 8-) That is not the point. I'm not arguing for digital and against film, just as I would not argue Mac vs PC, Nikon vs Canon, or participate in any of the other ancient usenet trolls. That is all so old. I'm younger than that now.

 

"Just like film shooters who bash digital because there are other photographers using the medium who are better than them, I'm noticing the same trend with RAW shooters who can't handle somebody taking better images than they with simple JPEGs. How dare somebody not proclaim B&W film as superior to digital capture, or not want to use a RAW workflow, 16-bit files, and AdobeRGB."

 

I don't doubt there's a need for some to assert their choices as some sort of proof of their skills and genius. I am not doing that, either. My choices are rational and always experimental. I'll slog my way through photography as best I can. For me digital means I can always have the exposed but undeveloped "film" -- never destroyed and always available for developement -- is the very thing that makes digital attractive. Otherwise I'd buy back my old film gear and be content (you know a lot more about film than I do. I've read your posts re: films and film cameras and appreciate them).

 

For others, not having to develop, but to get an image like a polaroid on steriods is the thing that makes digital attractive, I guess.

 

Different strokes, eh?

 

--

 

Don E

<I>the manual of my 350d and r1 say that if I choose adobe rgb color mode , the images

will loose intensity on my monitor.</I><P> Not in my experience but most monitors can

barely display a full sRGB gamut let alone athe full Adobe RGB(1998) gamut. but your

dsiplay system (monitor + graphics card should do a pretty good job of mimicing both

once it is accurately calibrated and profiled. I can seethe difference on mine and my

monitor is (unfortunately) nothing special.<P><I>I'm using a calibrated LCD PC monitor,

and wanna try adobe rgb mode on my 350d and r1, does that mean what I'm seeing in my

monitor is not accurate? How can I edit the color accurately then?</I>No it doesn't - -as

long as your monitor is indeed acuately calibrated and profiled.<P><I>Will my favorite

photo store where I print my images, could print the images accurately in terms of color

intensity, in accordance to adobe rgb mode? Their printer is very big and probably cost the

same as an suv</I>Size isn't everything. The keys to getting an accurately printed photo

are first havingan accurate profile for their printer and paper combination. can they

provide you with one/ individual Monitors and printers are devices and each has its own

characteristics for turning data into color. What this in essense means isthat without an

accurate profile, feeding a monitor or printer equal amounts of Red, Green, and Blue will

not result in a a neutral shade of gray. An accurate profile corrects this bias so that equal

amounts of R,G and B channel data will result in a neutral shade of gray. That is why we

need accurate profiles -- to "neutralize" within the mechancal limitations of each device

-- a device's characteristics. <P> "Work spaces" like Adobe RGB (1998), sRGB, and Pro

Photo (thereare others) are device independent color spaces. In these special and artificial

color spaces equal amounts of R, G, and B data do indeed produce a neutral shade of

gray.<P>As to why we use the word "space" in describing these data sets, each color value

in an image can be mapped on a three dimensional grid where the vertical axis is the

brightness or lumnosity of that color and the relationships of red to cyan, blue to yellow,

and green to magenta are mapped on the x and y axis. (LAB afficianados call these axises

L, A & B.) But simply knowing the numerical values assigned to a color isn't enough. You

have to

know the scales of measurement being used. Knowing the gamut of the workspace is like

knowing whether you have been told to cut a piece of wood in inches, feet or yards. The

larger the gamut of the workspace being used the more

deeply saturated or pure a color can be in that direction. This is an extremely simplified

and far from a complete explanation. <P>If you are really interested in color management,

I suggest you get hold of a copy of Andrew Rodney's book

<A HREF = http://tinyurl.com/zxgva> Color Management for Photographers</A><P>As

to whether Scott Eaton or Andrew Rodney is the real expert here, Andrew pretty much wins

hands down. But if I ever need advice about system administration for hundreds of

Windows OS computers being used in a retail environment -- I'll listen very carefully to

what Scott has to say.