Advantage to using a color space larger than capture/print?

<p>I've been searching and reading a lot about color spaces, especially ProPhoto. My question is: Is there a real noticeable difference in the final print switching into and out of ProPhotoRGB during editing if my camera captures, and my printer prints, AdobeRGB?</p>

<p>Workflow: capture RAW on Canon 5d mk II AdobeRGB color space, import to Bridge, most corrections in ACR, open in photoshop at 300 dpi Adobe RGB for tweak, crop, and resize for print, send 16 bit file to Canon Pixma 9000 mk II, calibrated monitor, Canon papers and inks, photoshop manages color using paper profile.</p>

<p>I am quite pleased with the results I get staying in Adobe RGB, but is there something I'm missing out on?</p>

<p>Thanks much!</p>

<p>There are some paper and ink combinations that can now print a wider color space than AdobeRGB. Monitors are also getting better at being able to display a wider space than in the past. That said, I personally use a color space smaller than AdobeRGB and different from sRGB and don't find it an issue. I have experimented over the years with different color spaces, even recently, and still prefer the one I use to those larger ones that are available (even in post, I find I have much more control getting the look I want). I think it is just a matter of preference, but if you like the results you are getting, I am not sure I would change anything.</p>

<p>In camera Adobe RGB is only for its JPEGS.</p>

<p>Does you printer specifically say that it's limited ta aRGB? If so it may not look right if you send ProPhoto, but if it doesn't why not send the max. gamut?</p>

<blockquote>In camera Adobe RGB is only for its JPEGS.</blockquote>

<p>Well this is a huge jump in understanding for me!<br>

I'll run some tests using the same image in a couple of color spaces, I'm a fairly noobie on the printer side of things, but that one seems to handle whatever you throw at it pretty well!</p>

<p>Only high end epson printer and the highend Canon printer that i know of that you can see a difference sending Pro Photo RGB vs Adobe RGB.... 8 bit vs 16bit dont do much visually at that stage.</p>

<p>Just remember that Pro Photo will only look good at your monitor in Photoshop, and on your (i assume) Epson printer... on the web and if you print with a external lab the result will be worst that anything else.</p>

<p>So no you are not missing anything, and i sugest you still work in Adobe RGB.... and use the correct paper icc profile to get good result.</p>

<p>Reinforcing what Brad wrote -- if you're shooting raw, the color space you set in camera is irrelevant. That setting applies only to the in-camera JPEG conversion, just like the camera's settings for things like contrast, saturation, and sharpening. In your case, Bridge is the first time a color space is applied to your image.</p>

<p>A color space is nothing but a container and working space for editing digital data captured by a digital device. We don't know exactly what that device is capable of capturing so we use a container to give it enough space in case if there are future improvements in digital editing software in extracting more data later on. No guarantees, just insurance.</p>

<p>Remember it's only 1's and 0's by the time it reaches our computers. It's all interpreted by software so you might as well archive it in a big enough space. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am quite pleased with the results I get staying in Adobe RGB, but is there something I'm missing out on?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the gamut of the scene you capture and the gamut of the printer you eventually use (today or in the future). There are captures who’s gamut exceed Adobe RGB (1998) and there are printers who’s gamut exceed Adobe RGB (1998). Why reduce the gamut of something you’ve captured and can output? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I understand color space settings for cameras are not relevent, if one is shooting in RAW. But what about film scanners?</p>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan V. I scan directly into Photoshop using NikonScan as a TWAIN driver, then save the files in PSD format. I have a choice of either sRGB or Adobe RGB in NikonScan. I chose Adobe RGB in NikonScan and use Adobe RGB as my working space in Photoshop. Just what format does NikonScan use to pass the data to Photoshop? It cannot be JPEG since I often select a 14-bit color depth and JPEG is restricted to 8-bits. TIFF? Something else? In this case, I am working under the assumption that matching color spaces is correct. Am I correct in this assumption?</p>

 

<p>Brooks, when you scan and the file opens in PS, then it is probably transferring in a Tiff format as that is the general default, but you will never see it and it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you are transferring into photoshop uncompressed and in 16 bit for maximum quality.</p>

<p>Tim, your point makes some sense, however, I personally prefer the color space I use, which is not even as large as AdobeRGB. I am not sure it matters what the camera captures or what some output device can create as much as what I want an image to look like. Having an infinite gamut is great and many would use it if it were available, but having an image look the way you want to present it is what the medium is all about. As I said, I have used other profiles, like ProPhoto for some shots and AdobeRGB for others, when I recently tested, but I don't like them as well as I do in the space I have been using the last 12 years. One thing I find more prevalent in those color spaces is banding in the skies as well as not moving the way I like when applying curves and such. It is just a preference and, again, the purpose of it all is to get images to look the way you want, not to have the largest gamut.</p>

<p>The widest gamut we have is our eyes. If we want an image to match as much as possible what we see , isn't it best to use the widest possible gamut?</p>

<p>Brad, is that the goal or is the goal to present our vision?</p>

<p>It depends on what we want; sometimes our vision is for black and white, sometimes we (I) want the closest thing to reality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It depends on what we want; sometimes our vision is for black and white, sometimes we (I) want the closest thing to reality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True indeed. The issue is, at some point, early in the workflow (converting raw data to rendered pixels), we have to select the encoding color space. If you pick something smaller than the data you captured, or can at some point print, its like a surgical sex change operation! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It depends on what we want....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the same thing I said if I am not mistaken--"the goal to present our vision". We choose a space that serves our needs, not anyone else's needs or wants.</p>

<p>I guess the container aspect of a color space I mentioned was missed. Oh well.</p>

<p>Banding is not caused by the color space used except maybe if you edit in 8 bit. I've never gotten banding shooting Raw and editing in 16 bit ACR whether I chose sRGB, AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB as an output encoding color space.</p>

<p>I guess I don't see the value or need for switching output color spaces among hundreds of digital captures in order to improve the look of an image. It seems like an inefficient way to work IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess the container aspect of a color space I mentioned was missed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand what you're saying. I'm amazed at how much content of my photos from my 40D is beyond aRGB. The ProPhoto container is larger than what my camera captures I'm sure, but I like to preserve what's in there beyond aRGB. And I guess I have to ask after reading these posts, why not?</p>

<p>Tim, your container example is a little confusing, although I think I understand what you mean. The only way to truly preserve your files is to keep the raw file, otherwise any color space might be inferior to something in the future and raw processors might be improved to get more out of a file. The raw file is the only assurance you have everything still in tact that was captured.</p>

<p>As to banding, it depends on how you work your file. I always use 16 bit and with ProPhoto and AdobeRGB I found that they are more prone to band in blue skies than my normal space. Generally, this banding will be eliminated when you flatten the image, however, when it isn't completely eliminated, it is an issue. On the same images where I got banding with the two above while still in layers, I did not get banding with my normal color space and the images went where I wanted them to go more efficiently.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I guess I have to ask after reading these posts, why not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that is a good question and one worth following unless you find something that works more to your liking. I would certainly recommend that people use ProPhoto or AdobeRGB if they don't know what to use, but I am just saying that there are other spaces that can work better for some and fit in with their vision better. The world is not vanilla but it seems too many try to make it so.</p>

<p>I fully understand the point of working in Pro Photo and stay as long as possible in that color space.. but the reality is that most of us (at least me) are working to please a client and make him happy with the end result being a print.</p>

<p>Years ago i was fighting to work in Pro Photo and then convert to Adobe RGB when i deliver the job.. but when the printer / graphic designer where using the file and needed to convert it to CMYK, a lost of color was occuring and the printer / graphic designer didtn do anything to fix it or to enhenced the shot.. it was the sad truth of RGB vs CMYK he told me... the client didtn care about this conversion, all he remember is amazing color on screen, on epson print and now all he saw was dull color, or at least less vibrant than what he previously see.</p>

<p>Then a friend of mine, a excellent commercial and fashion photographer that also do (or use to do) is retouching told me that he find a way of making everyone happy; sRGB.</p>

<p>I was surprise because for years i had read that Adobe RGB was the way to go... but the fact was there.. when conversion result was there, i was not that happy.</p>

<p>Then i start working in Adobe RGB exclusively, then convert to sRGB before giving away the file to the client and things got better, but little shift occur during this conversion and sometime when a client ask to match precisely is cloth color, this conversion was problematic... Then i ask myself, why dont i simply developed the best i can using a gray card, and all the the tools possible in the raw developement and export all the images as sRGB? since all the color / contrast / curve / etc where made on this raw, what i export muct be perfectly good and workable no?</p>

<p>So i start 5 years ago exporting all my file as sRGB, and when in Photoshop i rarely have to work on color / contrast / curve / since all was fix before.. i can then duplicate the background, apply my sharpen, my retouching, my sharpen, my effect, adjust in need the contrast / brightness, add some saturation (save this as PSD) and export a flatten copy at the final size and resharpen for that size and purpose.. all that in sRGB from start to finish.</p>

<p>The result? perfect all the time. Because what i see on screen, what my client see on there calibrated monitor (always make sure they have one by going there myself and calibrating it my self if they dont have a IT support) when they receive there match print little color adjustment are needed to make the print look like the real cloths (+2 +3 cyan, majenta or else to make the color closer to the original from this print).. and voila. im happy, client is very happy.. and when all is print commercialy in magazine, billboard, or else all match without conversion issue.</p>

<p>Touching wood (not Tiger) until today, what i see and what is print across the globe (lucky to have client spread all over thanks for the FTP and email discovery) ... i dotn say Pro Photo is not good .. if you pritn on a Epson printer, please continue to do so of course, if you only have you to please, continue to do so.. but if you want to sleep at night knowing that your client will be happy and that the final image will be print onto a CMYK device.. dont fight it, send them sRGB and work in sRGB all along and be problem free.</p>

<p>at least it work for me, and i am happy to do so.. im not there to convert anyone to sRGB , just to explain how and why i use it and that sometime, you are better to work with a smaller color space taht work for your need then working with the largest one and keep asking why your color or result are deceiving ; )</p>

Thanks Patrick - fascinating stuff, and potentially very useful.

<p>Patrick, I've read online quite a few prepress techs suggest sRGB for output for later convertion to the color crushing gamut of CMYK as a sort of a color clipping pre-visualization and prep routine especially when viewing on wide gamut displays larger than sRGB. Editing in sRGB keeps the eye from going hog wild with the saturation levels even if you Soft Proof with a CMYK profile.</p>

<p>The banding from flattening layers in Photoshop as John mentioned was discussed numerous times quite a while back in Adobe forums as a preview bug. Not sure if it was ever fixed in the latest version of Photoshop. I just don't see it influenced by a particular color space, but then I don't edit images using stacks of layers later to be flattened, maybe one or two at the most.</p>

<p>My point about staying in ProPhotoRGB was primarily directed toward maintaining an efficient Raw workflow strategy so as not to keep having to switch back and forth with numerous conversion routines all the way into Photoshop and beyond. I can't imagine having to do that on the hundreds of Raw images I've accumulated in the past couple of years.</p>

<p>For my situation I just like the ease of setting and forgetting ACR's output to ProPhotoRGB without the concern of clipped endpoints in the histogram during editing and then opening, converting to a smaller color space doing further tweaks in Photoshop. Less work for me.</p>

<p>But if Patrick is actually finding it easier with regards to preserving image quality with regards to pre-visualizing clipping converting to CMYK by working in sRGB, who am I to argue. I don't do prepress anymore. With all this complexity as evidenced in this discussion and elsewhere on the web on a wide range of other digital workflows, do you blame me for getting out?</p>

<p>I think I became confused from what's been discussed so far on whether we're talking about a Raw workflow or saving the final edited file as a tiff or jpeg and subsequently the final output space. Archival aspects of preserving known or unknown data isn't a concern with Raw since there's really no definable source color space except what's determined by the conversion software to generate the default preview using the display profile. With regards to ACR the source is a linear version of ProPhotoRGB. Don't know what other conversion software uses.</p>

<p>Yes I have to say that I don't do photography professionally (it's just for my walls and a few for presents), and Patrick's points are well taken for client work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Brad wrote:<br /> <em>The widest gamut we have is our eyes. If we want an image to match as much as possible what we see , isn't it best to use the widest possible gamut?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not too sure about that: apparently, the widest available to us gamut = ProPhoto, contains "theoretical colors", i.e., colors that don't really exist. Anyway, it's the gamut of an output device -- be it a computer monitor or a print -- not of the editing space, that's the ultimate limiting factor. Best monitors can roughly match Adobe RGB; best printers may slightly exceed Adobe RGB in certain colors. Nothing can display ProPhoto.</p>

<p>Besides, there's more to matching what we saw at the time of capture (as we remember it, mind you) with what we see on a monitor or print than a color space. E.g., setting white balance during post processing as well as the color temperature of the ambient light under which you look at the final output.</p>

<p>I'd recommend quite an informative yet not too technical article aptly entitled <a href="http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/85/January+2005+-+ProPhoto+or+ConPhoto"><em>ProPhoto or ConPhoto</em></a> by Jeremy Daalder of Image Science.</p>

<p>True in a small way it's a little like flying blind, but the onscreen colors look very close even before I had an aRGB monitor (except the Epson print preview that shows garish versions of the out-of-aRGB colors). It all prints out beautifully though, close to the screen but some of the darker colors are a little richer (not blocked out). They're so far amazing prints that indeed retain depth where it existed in real life.</p>

<p>The majority here seem to be ProPhoto naysayers though, so don't listen to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ProPhoto, contains "theoretical colors", i.e., colors that don't really exist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. Its simply someone (Kodak) specifying three chromaticity values which produce a simple triangular shape (when viewed 2D) such that to produce a space as wide as desired in this case, two primaries fall outside the spectrum locust which defines human vision. That said, “colors” (or in this case chromaticity values) that are not visible to a human isn’t really a color. It is possible to specify numerically, color values that are not visible in this space. But its the price we pay for a theoretical working space that is this size. The size is designed for a reason, scaling the three primaries produces a much smaller working space to encode data we can capture, see and output. </p>