mars c Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfimages Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 . 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 It would be far better to read the many threads that this is already explained in in the photo.net archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 . 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 . 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_howard1 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Just shoot RAW and don't worry about Color Space. The solution is too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted August 26, 2006 Author Share Posted August 26, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldog Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 -->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/ Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldog Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 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/ Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 <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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldog Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 --> 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/ Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now