SRGB/ProPhoto

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I recently finished a pic and the image appears kind of warmer looking when uploaded on my facebook profile, when I preview it through googlemail it comes out very crisp and clean looking with the colours I wanted.<br>

So, I tried saving the image I was viewing. On my desktop, the warm looking again.<br>

Someone said that this could be that I am uploading it using ProPhotoRGB and this will make the image look a little washed out when uploading online.<br>

I've uploaded the image(s) to let you have a look (Via he magic of print screen). The one on the left is the original and what I want to achieve. The one on the right is the uploaded image.<br>

Can someone tell me what the problem is?<br>

Also, what is the difference between the differening colour spaces..?</p><div></div>

<p>Mot web browsers ignore the color space you are working in and assume sRGB, so if you use a different color space the color will look off.</p>

<p>The reason you would not use sRBG is that it is a smaller color space then most of the other, which means it can't represent as saturated of colors. This is only going to be a problem in cases where you have very saturated colors in your image and an output device that has a larger range of colors then sRGB. Some printer can go out side the sRGB space a bit, so in theory there are some cases where the larger space can make sense. Also if you convert from raw to tiff or jpeg right to sRGB then you can get some clipping in colors that is impossible to fix with the tiff or jpeg file. One solution is to use a larger color space and try to de-saturate the problem areas before converting to sRGB for web use. The other option is to convert right to sRGB but turn down the saturation while doing so.</p>

<p>A lot of people assume that using a larger colors space means they are going to get those colors, but in most cases this is simply not true.</p>

<p>This is the first time I have used ProPhoto and I don't like the look. Is it wrong to use sRGB all the time?<br>

I was told it is very good for prints and web use?</p>

<p>Whoever told you it was good for web use was misinformed. For the web, you need sRGB, because a large number of people are using non-color-managed web browsing software. sRGB will be the least wrong in these environments.</p>

<p>Ok, so sRGB for web, and ProPhotoRGB will display the same sRGB display in print?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ok, so sRGB for web, and ProPhotoRGB will display the same sRGB display in print?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>ProPhoto for high quality, wide gamut printing. This might help:<br>

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf">The Role of working spaces in Adobe applicaitons</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>short answer; if you dotn fully understand why the use of Pro Photo and 16bits.. better leave it alone and use a smaller color space like Adobe RGB or sRGB.</p>

<p>Or if you still want to developed everything as Pro Photo and 16bit, even if you dotn understand any of this but you read it was THE things to do .. make sure that you convert everything to sRGB 8bit when it leave your computer; email, web, tv, facebook etc...</p>

<p>read this.. that could help.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00XBk7</p>

 

<p>Ok, so from what I have read (I have found a book I will use tonight) it is best to edit in AdobeRGB (1998).<br>

This appears to be the best for printing, however, should I wish to export for web it is best to convert this in Photoshop to sRGB as this is a more commerically friendly colour space recognised by consumer level printing equipment?</p>

<p>Hi Patrick!<br>

What I usually do is edit in 16bit to limit any file reduction, then I convert to 8 bit to apply any filters not available in 16bit. If I dont need to export in 8bit, I leave it in 16bit.<br>

What do you edit in?<br>

Bythe way, did anyone look at my attached image?? Whats going on in that? The left image is the one I want to use and thats what it looks like on my mac and in my email preview (full scale also), the right hand one is what it looks like when uploaded to web.</p>

<p>correct for most part of what you say (Pro Photo being the best color space to edit, but in not experienced hand is the baddest one)</p>

<p>read the link i provide for a quick start...</p>

<p>___</p>

<p>I edit in 16bit or 8 bit depend of the kind of subject.. most time in 8bits.</p>

<p>have a look at my web site, all is made from 8bit if i recall correctly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ok, so from what I have read (I have found a book I will use tonight) it is best to edit in AdobeRGB (1998).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not “best” if the output device contains colors that exceed Adobe RGB gamut and your image data exceeds Adobe RGB gamut (both of which are quite common and possible). </p>

<p>Ok, no problems, I will read on.<br>

I think alot of reading is requried in this department. But its good to get a working retouchers opinion. Thanks!<br>

I will look at the site now :-D</p>

<p>Oh, one more thing!<br>

Does sRGB make a severe difference to the coour like in my photo?</p>

<p>Or has something elese happened?</p>

<p>You got excellent answers, bottom line is -- if you do not know then ALWAYS use "normal" sRGB. Don't mess with other color spaces.</p>

<p>Otherwise -- ProPhoto RGB is the best colorspace for editing and from which to print (yourself). Easily.</p>

<p>When posting photos to the Web for display ALWAYS post in sRGB (or convert from ProPhoto to sRGB colorspace if you have to of course) format.</p>

<p>I know, awesome answers from awesome photographers/retouchers etc :D<br>

Thanks for your anserr Ken. But converting from Pro Photo to sRGB will ruin the image won't it?<br>

The attached image was uploaded to web using ProPhotoRGB, is that why it looks so washed out? Is that what happened with my image? It looks completely different on my mac.</p>

<p>1_I know, awesome answers from awesome photographers/retouchers etc :D</p>

<p>thanks.</p>

<p>2_But converting from Pro Photo to sRGB will ruin the image won't it?</p>

<p>yes and no. it will render the image less vibrant certainly because the color gammut is smaller, so many color that PPhoto can show cant be show in sRGB.. but the image is not ruined, it is simply more usable everywhere.. nothing stop you to add a bit of saturation back after the conversion.. my web site image are in sRGB.. do you find them boring, lifeless and dull color?</p>

<p>3_The attached image was uploaded to web using ProPhotoRGB, is that why it looks so washed out?</p>

<p>yes. internet is sRGB.. since the browser cant understand what he see (pro photo) he make the transformation itself.. hence not a good result. (simple way of explaining thing let say)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But converting from Pro Photo to sRGB will ruin the image won't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The color appearance should remain nearly the same. Try it, take a document in ProPhoto RGB, use Convert to Profile, select sRGB with the Preview check box on. Looks the same. The numbers will be different and the wider gamut colors in the ProPhoto are mapped into the gamut of sRGB. But if the question is, will doing so produce an image that looks wrong, or looks like you did something you should not, no. You have to convert the color space of images often (example, when you print them). Going from a larger to a smaller gamut in the above example is necessary or you really will see an ugly appearing image posted on the web, because the web “expects” sRGB due to the vast number of browsers that don’t understand color management. </p>

<p>Good gosh! Did a google search and found tons of info on this subject.</p>

<p>Here's one link:</p>

<p>http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/</p>

<p>that explains very well the advantages of <strong>working</strong> in ProPhotoRGB.</p>

<p>So here's my my experience from someone who is a web/print designer who does a lot of their own photography and printing...</p>

<p>Always keep our output in mind when cooking your RAW file. Remember that you can have mutiple files made from one RAW, and in my world we often do.</p>

<p>For example, if you know you image is going to web, you can choose the color space ( sRGB is the standard for web, most browsers wont support anything else and will do a sloppy conversion if you give it a different space ) and the size you need. Choosing the size in ACR or wherever is better because there is up/downsampling ( remember these are both equally as destructive! ) because it is all raw data at this point ).</p>

<p>Then if you are going to print the same file, you can cook your RAW at the size you need for printing. Again, keep in mind your output. knowing your printer's color gamut at least very basically is a good idea - Something like ProPhoto will add complication and may not give you any real advantage if it is out of your printer's gamut. I usually use Adobe RGB and have never needed anything wider, but again this aries per printer.</p>

<p>As for color space conversions, its best to avoid them. Do it all in RAW and save out multiple files for different uses. You may need to tweak a little bit to keep the saturation consistent, but this method will give you pretty consistent color. Adobe RGB will give you a noticeably wider color space, but not everyone will be able to see it on the web. Its just fact of life that we must deal with.</p>

<p>Long story short: do it all in RAW to avoid any conversion artifacts. Keep your output in mind and plan accordingly.</p>

<p>Keep in mind this is all splitting hairs. Proper exposure, proper sharpening and really knowing how your output will handle your image is far more important than all of these things. But since you asked haha...</p>

<p>Oh and remember 8 bit for web because it wont support anything else, and 16 bit for print because of the added color detail that will certainly help with those wider color spaces. Converting from 16 bit down to 8 bit for web isnt that much of a problem, and starting in 16 bit will give you a nicer latitude for extreme adjustments.</p>

<p>And the good old Save For Web dialog in Photoshop will automatically do most of the proper conversions for you. This is great for an already cooked file, but remember doing all of this from RAW will give you the best results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for color space conversions, its best to avoid them. Do it all in RAW and save out multiple files for different uses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>May I suggest the following test, its quite interesting. Find a raw file with a good deal of saturated colors. I used ACR for the test. Set the workflow options for a size, then asked for ProPhoto RGB. After that is rendered, open again the same raw, set the workflow options to sRGB. You know have two files that were rendered and encoded using the two spaces directly from raw. </p>

<p>With both open, pick one, select Apply Image, Source is whatever image isn’t open, Layer is background, Channel RGB (so you are working with all three channels). Blending is set to Subtract, Opacity is 100%. Offset is 128. This will create a calculation where all pixels that differ from 128 can be seen. Click OK. To see the actual differences, you’ll now need to call up Levels. I think you’ll find that while the two are not 100% identical, the differences are tiny! Really tiny. I think this illustrates that rendering twice is way too much work and unnecessary. Plus if you render ONCE in ProPhoto and do any work within Photoshop from then on, you’d have to do this work again in the sRGB iteration (which arguably is going to the web, far from a demanding output). That being the case, my suggestion would be just render once in ProPhoto. That’s your master image. Do all your image processing in Photoshop. Duplicate that, size and convert to sRGB and post. It will save you a ton of time just doing this all once. </p>

<p>Like I said, this is splitting hairs.</p>

<p>I believe that test is not quite accurate because there would have to be some conversion from one space to the other, there cannot be two different color spaces in one document. Sometimes color spaces ae more like a tag to pass along to other devices ( the Assign Profile command ) then something that actually converts your RGB numbers ( the Convert To Profile command ). And everything is then funneled down to the limited color space of our monitors. Anything in levels is mapped to our monitors, which are often much different then Adobe RGB and a lot of output devices.</p>

<p>I find that using something like ProPhoto is almost TOO wide of a gamut. There is so much information it becomes a little unpredictable on some output devices ( in my personal experience Adobe RGB has always been wide enough, but thats only because of my printing situation, others will vary ). And throwing out that information when converting down is kind of like downsampling in size, it could introduce some artifacts ( like the one this thread started from ).</p>

<p>Really the best thing to do is just test test test. This is all pretty theoretical. I dont think anyone's technique/viewing situation really stands up to these extreme differences. Makes for a fun discussion though :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That being the case, my suggestion would be just render once in ProPhoto. That’s your master image. Do all your image processing in Photoshop. Duplicate that, size and convert to sRGB and post. It will save you a ton of time just doing this all once. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is similar in concept to what i was suggesting but using the RAW file as your master. This way you avoid conversions and work the RAW data the whole time. Its much quicker than it may seem and a lot of the same adjustments can be done quite effectively.</p>

<p>Yes, its really splitting hairs, encode into the biggest working space you need for the widest gamut output you’ll <strong>ever use</strong>, then convert that master to sRGB or smaller/different color spaces based on their needs. There is no reason to encode in more than one color space from the raw data (and note, the raw converter itself has a native processing color space, in ACR and Lightroom, that’s ProPhoto RGB with a linear TRC so you’re working in ProPhoto if you like it or not). </p>

<p>Adobe RGB is just too small a color space for the devices I (and I suspect others) send their data to for output. Its also too small for a lot of images captured raw (and again, at least in Adobe products, you’re in ProPhoto RGB/1.0 anyway). </p>

<p>You can’t really use the raw as your master if any pixel editing is required. If you do 100% of your work in say Lightroom, it never gets any pixel editing, then yes, you could select the master and ask LR to give you ProPhoto today, sRGB (at a better output resolution) for the web tomorrow. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>that explains very well the advantages of <strong>working</strong> in ProPhotoRGB</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tim,<br>

sorry, but that explains very well that Adobe algorithms are poor.</p>