sRGB or Adobe RGB?

<p>I'm using Lightroom on a wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper. I also exported a batch of these photos as sRGB jpegs and uploaded them to a website. Viewed on an ordinary monitor, the colors of these sRGB jpegs look dimmer and washed-out compared to the RAW images in Lightroom.</p>

<p>So, every time I edit images in Lightroom, do I have to choose whether I want them to look good on the web or on paper? Is there some way to make them look good on the web AND on paper? How do most people handle this problem?</p>

<p>I have a fully colour managed workflow, runing prints via ACR in Bridge through a RIP to a wide format printer. All the printing is through the Adobe RGB 1998 colour space (except B&W whihc is in Grey Gamma 2.2), and I have no complaints on print quality - the prints sing.<br>

For web, files are converted to sRGB almost at the final stage, checking carefully for any significant shifts from out of gamut colours. Then I always export through PS "save for web" function. Bring up the "2 up" screen and you can check before and after views to see what effect the output will have. Make sure progressive is swtched off. In fact I have set up an action for natch converting files for web which is usually pretty reliable, and makes things quicker. You only have to keep an eye on those images that you know may have out of gamut issues. Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the quick answer. So I need to see if Lightroom 2.3 has a "save for web" function like PS (the older LR's did not). Otherwise, I guess I can bring the images from Lightroom into PS and export them from there like you said.</p>

 

<p>Just checking - have you calibrated and profiled your monitor? If not, almost all your editing will be so much rummaging in the dark. Also, make sure that you are in fact working in the colour spaces you think you are. PS can have an annoying habit of returning to default colour spaces, and it is very easy to have the RAW interface set to another colour space than the one you think you are in.</p>

<p>Adobe RGB(1998) should not be used as the profile for your display. It is a <em>device independent</em> RGB color space. Get a Datacolor Spyder 3 or X-rite EyeOne Display 2 colorimter and related software to do a good job of calibrating and profiling your specific display <em>device</em> .</p>

<p>Yes, I did calibrate it (hardware calibration). It's an NEC 3090WQXi and I am using the NEC SpectraView II sensor and software intended for this monitor. So no problems there.</p>

<p>so you are not using Adobe RGB(1998) as your display profile? Correct?</p>

<p>Lightroom uses a variation of the 16 bit per channel Pro Photo color space as its working space. Basically it is Pro Photo with an sRGB like response curve. Not until you export from Lightroom is it that you assign Adobe RGB(1998) , sRGB, or Pro Photo as the color space for your TIFF, PSD or JPEG.</p>

<p>In Lightroom 2.3 when you go to export the foto thats is where you make your choices for [s-RGB or RGB ]</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, when you say the prints sing, how do you have them printed?  In magazines, you mean?  Recent inkjet printers support AdobeRGB but I have not heard that it significantly improves results.<br>

Justin, rather than converting into an 8-bit colorspace like AdobeRGB, it would be better to have Lightroom print directly using your printer profile, if possible.  AdobeRGB contains blue-greens that sRGB (for Web) does not, but some inkjet printers have colors outside the AdobeRGB gamut (e.g. saturated yellows).</p>

<p>Everything sRGB.</p>

<p>Works for me.</p>

<p> </p>

Yup, sRGB prints great on a Fuji Frontier, and Crystal Archive paper doesn't fade like inkjet prints when displayed on your fridge.

<p>Ellis,<br>

Yes, I am using the standard LR Pro Photo color space. I thought I was working in Adobe RGB but I checked and found out it's really Pro Photo. Do you recommend working in Pro Photo?</p>

<p>LR says that the Adobe RGB 1998 color space can't reproduce all the colors that LR can handle... but the Adobe gamut is already bigger than what my monitor can display anyway! So isn't any extra color in the Pro Photo space just going to be wasted because my monitor can't display it? This is kinda confusing...</p>

<p>Bill,<br>

I haven't made any prints yet because I don't have a photo printer; I'm just trying to plan ahead! So I guess the best approach for now would be to keep working in the standard LR Pro Photo space and then print directly with my printer profile when I get a printer? But what if I want to send my photos to a lab for printing, since I don't have a printer? In what format should I export them then? Do I need to find out what kind of printer the lab is using?</p>

<p>Again, this is all quite confusing for a newb! Thanks for the help.</p>

<p>I use sRGB because it works for me. I have in my studio fine examples of prints made using sRGB for the entire workflow. I have everything set up with this because it allows me to complete my workflow in a timely manner. It's less confusing for me. The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or RGB. When clients pay licensing rights to files they will, more than likely, use a printer that works best with sRGB. <br /> This may or may not work for you. I thought I would share my experiences as it could help you. <br /> I recommend experimenting and see what works best for you. I vote in favor of whatever works for your situations.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... I'm using Lightroom on a wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's reword that so you respect same same throughout your system:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm using Lightroom on a monitor that is [in or outside] the gamut of my RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper via a [specific printer / ink / gamut and what file color space conversion?].</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, once you realize that the color spaces are yours to control and monitor and accept conversion losses within, have at it. I believe you probably want the photos to look as accurately as intended using the available gamut of each device using whatever color space best supports the delivery of any RGB image file to that device's gamut. First defining the problem or challenge accurately is critically important to finding a responsive solution you can master and apply.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... 8-bit color space like AdobeRGB ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Color spaces and bit-depth are independent and unrelated.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or RGB. ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same same. When no color space is specified, such as "RGB" as you mention, then sRGB is presumed. Or, did you mean, "<em>The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or AdobeRGB</em> "?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Earlier: "<em>... Is there some way to make them look good on the web AND on paper? ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aside from making the subject and composition compelling regardless of color qualities (in other words, edit them in black and white tones to insure they communicate your goals without depending on color, then adjust colors to match or not compete with the success you accomplish in black and white, or leave them black and white), I remember editing audio presentations and playing them through a car dashboard speaker to confirm that they communicated well at the lowest common denominator. </p>

<p>Perhaps your photo challenge is to see them at 256 colors at 150 pixels across, and confirm that they still make you want to "look" them more. There are many photos I enjoy that I would never have explored had I only seen the the thumbnail as a shrunk version of the full-size image. You have two or three targets:</p>

<ul>

<li>-- print</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>-- screen</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>-- thumbnail</li>

</ul>

<p>... and you can either accept them as separate, and tweak separately for each, or you can try to make them interdependent with one-cycle editing, but if you want to edit once, then I suggest that the lowest common denominator must be your target, then let the other media falls where it may -- making thumbnails pop may be most important to getting the audience you want.</p>

<p>Conversely, I adjust an image once for my screen qualities, then save (AdobeRGB 16-bit). I either distribute after simple auto conversions and accept the output, or I may tweak the gamma and sharpening of each conversion, aware that web and print and thumbnails need simpler and more discrete delineation of image presentation details. </p>

<p>Photography is an art after all the science is mastered.</p>

<p>Let us know how and where your explorations lead you, and tell us what works for you at each evolutionary learning experience. Share some example pictures!</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Here is an interesting article:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm</p>

Yes Justin, if you have already paid for Lightroom I believe you should stick with ProPhoto RGB. I learn something every day! I did not know it uses sRGB-biased PPRGB. Nor did I know 16-bit AdobeRGB works, although the thought occurs, why bother.

 

We discussed KenR a little while ago. Like many of his articles, this one generates controversy, but at heart I think he is right: sRGB is good enough, just like the Bayer sensor (more of a threat to photographic quality in my view) is good enough. Really, what is worse? Missing some blue-green tones in a print, or the moire pattern at the edges of thin dark lines?

<p>Lots of good info here:</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/03/the-srgb-conundrum.html">http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/03/the-srgb-conundrum.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/08/lightroom_color_spaces_1.html">http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/08/lightroom_color_spaces_1.html</a></p>

<p>This guy, especially in the second link, makes it sound like there's no real way to get your photos out of Lightroom so they'll look good anywhere else. Instead, you have to process them further in Photoshop to adjust them to another color space.</p>

<p>Wow, this is really surprising to hear. Is it just me, or does this seem like a really stupid way to design a photo editing program? And Bill Clark, how do you keep your photos in sRGB "for the entire workflow"? It sounds like you can't set Lightroom to edit photos in sRGB color space; you have to use ProPhoto in Lightroom.</p>

<p>My workflow is Bridge & CS4. <br>

I don't use Lightroom.</p>

 

<p>Here is an analogy for Bill Clark:<br>

Your expensive DSLR is a rib eye steak from a grass fed cow.<br>

Lightroom is a chef who really knows how to make the most of that fine cut of beef<br>

Ken Rockwell is a McDonald's Happy meal. (And my apologies for insulting McDonalds)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>So isn't any extra color in the Pro Photo space just going to be wasted because my monitor can't display it? This is kinda confusing...</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, you have it to make use out of it. Also depending on your graphics card and display ( you have a very fine one BTW) the whole point of color management is to take information in the device neutral colro space and use the profile to closely simulate the information in the photo to the characteristics of the display device.</p>

<p>And yes it is kind of confusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This guy, especially in the second link, makes it sound like there's no real way to get your photos out of Lightroom so they'll look good anywhere else. Instead, you have to process them further in Photoshop to adjust them to another color space.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just don't see that at all in either link. I certainly don't have that problem.</p>

<p>Are you referring to the following comment by Michael Clark fro m the second link?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Exporting those images into an sRGB color space for example will lead to a certain amount of clipping in your histogram.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>sRGB is far and away the smallest color space used in digital color. It predates virtually all digital cameras. It predates LCD displays. It was designed back around 1991 with a specific intent: to be the lowest common denominator so that in the worst viewing conditions possible you could still see some difference in color -- in other words think pie charts projected in an office with all of the fluorescent lights in the room turned on. By design, sRGB clips colors, particularly in the blues and greens.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Hi Ellis,<br>

Thanks for your analogy. <br>

You've done a good job making it confusing for many here.<br>

I operate in a different sphere than you and I find that sRGB works just fine. I wanted to offer a simple solution to the people here that seems to work for me. And it's not confusing. <br>

I'm sure the debate will continue as many find other ways to accomplish their goals.<br>

There are others around who still use sRGB. Doesn't make it right or wrong but it works. Maybe not for you but it does for me. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's part of it, Ellis, but mainly I was looking at where he concludes, <em>"I highly recommend that folks use the ProPhoto RGB color space when exporting images out of Lightroom and as their archival color mode -<strong> then in Photoshop one can convert the color space to whatever is needed for output</strong> and have a lot more control."</em></p>

<p>So it sounds like I can do one of these approaches:</p>

<p>(1) use the Bill Clark method of using bridge/CS4 only</p>

<p>(2) Print directly from Lightroom in Pro Photo color space (is this even possible?) using a profile for whatever printer I end up buying</p>

<p>(3) Export to CS4 for further tweaking into a new color space, then print.</p>

<p>Is that about right? And also, if I want to send my photos to a lab for printing, do I need to stick with sRGB because you can't use a profile for the lab printer? I really want to get this all sorted out and get back to focusing on taking photos!</p>

<p>This is what I've experienced with my own Pentax K100D PEF's shooting raw and processing in ProPhotoRGB instead of sRGB in ACR 4.6.</p>

<p>Since we know that a DSLR can capture a wider range of colors than the sRGB space, the default settings combined with correct color temp appearance of an image processed in ACR or LR will naturally map intense colors like cyans, yellows and oranges to look correct with very few adjustments in ProPhotoRGB. We're talking about wide gamut AND wide dynamic range scenes containing intensely colored flowers and expensive pearl luster paint jobs on cars lit in direct sunlight.</p>

<p>When converting a ProPhotoRGB mapped image containing these canary yellows, oranges and cyans to sRGB space there will be a noticeable shift in hue like say canary yellow taking on a slight cyan cast, an intense blue sky from a polarizing lens will shift toward magenta, etc.</p>

<p>Now you could correct for these in sRGB space but it will take some extra effort with some added posterization trying to correct for these hue shifts. Why bother. Just keep the image in ProPhotoRGB as a container for these colors before they shift in hue when converting to narrower color spaces.</p>

<p>Not only that but your histogram will allow you to see just how much containment and preserved data you actually can retain processing in ProPhotoRGB. See what happens to the histogram in ACR or LR when first processing an image ProPhotoRGB and converting to sRGB. It's quite a mess.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also exported a batch of these photos as sRGB jpegs and uploaded them to a website. Viewed on an ordinary monitor, the colors of these sRGB jpegs look dimmer and washed-out compared to the RAW images in Lightroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Justin,<br /> sRGB images cannot look washed-out unless the monitor gamut is very small.<br /> <br /> Adobe was not able to give a decent "save for web" in photoshop, so, may be, lightrom has the same bugs.</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

do you have a prophoto-like monitor? It does'nt exist.<br>

Dynamic range is different from color gamut.<br>

You have some problem as Hue shifts are typical for not good monitor profile.<br>

Lightroom histogram does not make sense ( prophoto primaries with sRGB tonal correction!) So, when you save the image, the histogram is always different.</p>

<p> </p>