sRGB vs Adobe RGB

I heared that: Adobe RGB has a wider range of colors. But if you are printing

pictures in a minilab or so, they'll only have sRGB and your colors will look dull.

 

Is that true?

 

I'm shootin with Adobe RGB, but haven't printed anything.

It's more complicated than that. First, all labs do not use sRGB. Some do not use color management, some do use sRGB, some give you their profile, others let you use whatever you want and do the conversion themselves. Ask your lab about their policy.

Until you have established a completely color managed workflow for postprocessing, you're better off using sRGB.

<p>Most minilab-type devices aim to provide something that is a reasonably good match for sRGB. They may not produce results which are exactly sRGB; in fact, most probably don't. But it's safe to say that sRGB is a closer match for almost all of these devices than Adobe RGB.</p>

 

<p>If you use an sRGB-ish device to print your Adobe RGB images without first converting them to sRGB, you will indeed get images that don't look right. In general, colours will look less saturated, and you may also see some colour shifts. Have a look at the two green squares on <a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm" target="_blank">this page</a>. You might intend to produce the brighter-looking one, but if you take an Adobe RGB image that includes that colour and print it on an sRGB device, you'll get the dull colour instead.</p>

 

<p>Two warnings about converting between colour spaces:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Make sure you <em>convert</em>, not <em>assign</em>. Converting means that your image editing software will change the numerical values of each pixel so that the colours stay the same (or at least as close as reasonably possible). Assigning doesn't change the numerical values of the pixels; it simply tags the image to say it's in a different colour space, and this leads to exactly the same sort of colour changes you get by printing an image in one colour space on a device that expects a different colour space.

<li>If at all possible, do this conversion with a 16-bit image, not an 8-bit image. It's a tonal adjustment, and just as you run the risk of posterization if you do other tonal adjustments (e.g. levels, curves, saturation adjustments) at 8 bits, the same applies here.

</ul>

You can convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB, but not in the other direction, so if you shoot sRGB, then later want to print with a company that can use Adobe RGB, you have given up a lot of color space. Therefore, if you have enough skill to be able to use Photoshop or another program to change your profile from Adobe to RGB (very, very easy....) then you're ahead of the game to continue using Adobe RGB because shooting with it allows you to use EITHER color space.Just don't shoot Adobe, convert to sRGB and save it with the same name and wipe out the original Adobe rgb file.

You need to know what color space(s) your printer will use and match that when you send them a file. If you don't have a calibrated monitor it's all rather a moot point because you have no real way to know whether what you are seeing on the screen is even close to what may be printed. The entire process of getting the correct print out of a digital file remains quite complex. My advise is to find a print house that can use Adobe RGB files simply because you can get a wider range of colors with them but a good lab using sRGB is better than a poor lab using Adobe RGB as long as you send them the correct type of file. If you invest in an xrite (or similar) monitor calibrator, you will be rewarded with a good shot at getting prints that look like what your monitor shows you.

Santa (can't believe it, I'm finally talking to Santa Claus), is your first sentence still true if you shoot raw? Would you not then have the option to use either?

<p>RAW files are raw. They're not in Adobe RGB; they're not in sRGB. A RAW file will typically include a tag saying whether you had the camera set for sRGB or Adobe RGB, but that's merely a tag; the actual pixel values in the RAW file are not affected by it. So if you have the RAW file, you can convert it to any colour space your RAW converter supports.</p>

 

<p>Just to clarify Mr. Claus' comment, you can convert from any colour space to any other, including from sRGB to Adobe RGB. But if the source colour space has a narrower gamut than the target colour space, you're not gaining anything. That would be like taking a drawing you drew with a box of 50 crayons and trying to make an exact replica of it using a box of 100 crayons: those extra 50 crayons may have some really neat colours, but since those colours don't exist in the original drawing, they won't be in your replica, either.</p>

 

<p>P.S. Santa, my <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/xmas.html" target="_blank">Christmas gift list</a> has a bunch of camera gear on it, so if you want to start your shopping early, now you know what to get me!</p>

To add to Steve's point, the RAW files are basically pixel intensity values along with metadata (data about data). This metadata may include a tag such as camera being set to sRGB, whitebalance etc. But RAW data is essentially black and white to say (only intensity). The color is assigned to it depending on which pixel it comes from.

I didn't want to bring in the entire RAW issue, but I occasionally teach Photoshop for

Photographers and anytime I teach about digital photography the first thing I tell people is

that if they are serious about any image it should be shot in RAW. You can always convert to

jpg and throw the raw away if the image is not important but you can't go the other direction.

jpg for unimportant pics, raw for anything of meaning. Color space is assigned when you

process the RAW.

Where do you teach PS -- Nome, Alaska?

 

Santa, I've been good this year (shot 98% in the Raw and would also like to teach to open minds) so I am looking forward to a 35L AND a 1D(s) mark 3 of YOUR choice (a gift cert. for the 5D M2 {40D on steroids} would be nice as well).

Shooting in the raw in Nome, Ken. The mind boggles!

Hey Steve Dunn, awesome list lol but how come the b**bs has been on your list since 2003? Your friends or Santa must not have a sense of humor. Lot cheaper than a 5D. Tom

I emailed S.Dunn but it bounces. The .ca doesn't work as a destination too well. Steve's list is old! But it's OK to dream large.