sRGB or Adobe RGB: simple question?

[jimrowley]

Sadly, simple questions have a tendency to engender complex answers, still, here goes...

 

I have just bought my first digital camera - a Canon 5D - and wish to know whether I should

shoot in sRGB or AdobeRGB. (The manual has warnings about AdobeRGB and suggests one

chooses sRGB) I print my own prints on an Epson R800. So far I have taken about 100 shots

in sRGB and am well pleased with the results - but we can always get better, can't we...

 

Thank you

 

Jim

[William Kahn]

Simple answer: Use Adobe RGB if you're going to make prints, sRGB if you're posting on the web. This means you should set the camera for Adobe RGB and save it that way in PS. That will give you the wider color gamut, and you can convert individual images to sRGB as you need them. But you can't go the other way without losing color space.

 

I understand there are some labs that want sRGB for making prints. I don't know why. If you use one to them, you should discuss their needs before sending the file....

[mvw photo]

I just posted a reply but it got lost!

 

Anyway - how about shooting RAW: when you shoot RAW, you can go either way when you read in the image into DPP or PS.

[jimrowley]

Thanks.

 

I am shooting RAW - should I simply change the default conversion to AdobeRGB?

 

JIm

[derek_simpson]

Minilabs (and in my experience home printers) are set up to prefer sRGB. I used AdobeRGB and forgot to convert several times so now shoot in sRGB . Try it both ways and see if there's a difference and how much it matters to you. Keeping RAW files is a good policy - someone will produce a whole better way of colour managing one of these minutes and we'll all wish we'd kept the source files.

[mvw photo]

My understanding is (and anyone correct me if you like, but I am pretty certain) that when you shoot raw, the colourspace is only determined once you use DPP or PS to read in the image. The filename is made to start with a "_", but that is just a memory aide.

 

So it really does not matter who you shoot: you can determine once you read in the raw image.

[mvw photo]

(Um, when I said "it does no matter who you shoot", I really meant "it does no matter HOW you shoot".)

[jespdj]

Another simple answer: If you don't know what colour spaces are and how colour management works and you don't want to get involved with that now, shoot in sRGB.

<p>Adobe RGB is a larger colour space that could give you richer colours, but if you don't setup your software correctly it will give you bad results (like washed out colours). Search for "colour management" on the Internet, or read a book like <a href="http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/">Real World Color Management</a> by Bruce Fraser et al.

[ted_marcus1]

If you're shooting raw, it's probably best to set the camera to sRGB. The camera embeds a reduced-size JPEG in the raw file. Many programs and devices use that embedded JPEG for previewing, sorting, and displaying the images. Some of them (particularly stand-alone hard disk devices) don't recognize Adobe RGB. That will make the previews look like they have inadequate saturation.

 

Raw converters ignore both the embedded JPEG and the file's color space setting, and instead use the color space you set in the raw converter. That's where you should set the output to Adobe RGB to preserve more of the colors for printing. But set the camera to sRGB for maximum compatibility with programs and devices that use the embedded JPEG.

[scott_eaton]

Another rather simple question with overly complex answers. We are also confusing shooting with AdobeRGB in camera with your working space on the computer. The two are closely related, but not dependant on each other.

 

Most mini-labs run sRGB, and as mentioned above, converting from AdobeRGB to sRGB all the time is a pain in the butt, and if you forgot to do it will results in bad prints. Lack of saturation with Canon dSLR capture is also more of a problem than too much saturation.

 

Yes, AdobeRGB allows for a larger gamut of colors than sRGB. That's cool, *if* you're dealing with subject matter with a wide gamut range. Otherwise it's like using a 5 gallon bucket to move a gallon of water. I use AdobeRGB *if* I'm shooting very brightly colored subjects like flowers, sports car paint jobs, etc. I've posted examples on photo.net of where sRGB *in camera mode* will clip and distort strong colors and AdobeRGB is a must. Take a picture of something that's really bright magenta with sRGB mode, and it turns red, etc. I'm also not going to stick to a few online labs that claim to have their mini-lab printers calibrated for AdobeRGB only to find out the losers are running a low saturation paper like Kodak Endura which can't exceed the gamut range in a GIF file.

 

So, use sRGB for general shooting, and use AdobeRGB *at the least* when shooting subject with strong colors. Good compromise.

[lovcom_photo]

Scott, I don't understand your rationale.

 

For ALL shots to be printed, regardless of colors in the shots, shoot aRGB...the benefits are not just for colors but also for color graduations.

 

You'll get better results on a good printer at home then provided by the million $$ Fuji 8-bit/channel printer at the pro lab. I've proven this to myself time and time again.

 

If the final output is the web, shoot sRGB, otherwise for all other images use aRGB.

[ericreagan]

I still don't know if I get the differences between sRGB and AdobeRGB. I've read different opinions about which to use by people I respect. I use myphotopipe.com and had previously used mpix.com for my printing needs (both of whom print in sRGB). I took some RAW shots and converted both in PS to a JPEG AdobeRGB file and sRGB file. Couldn't tell any difference in the colors by my eye once printed. The AdobeRGB was slightly darker overall though. I now only shoot in sRGB for printing or the web. But this is just a hobby for me.

<p>

Actually, the best explanation I've read about the sRGB vs. AdobeRGB debate was on smugmug <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998">HERE</a>.

<p>My $.02.

[awindsor]

<blockquote>

Scott, I don't understand your rationale.

 

For ALL shots to be printed, regardless of colors in the shots, shoot aRGB...the benefits are not just for colors but also for color graduations.

</blockquote>

 

I am confused. Since Adobe RGB has a larger gamut it has larger gaps between colours. You would get better graduation in sRGB. Practically this is not an issue for RAW but may appear for an 8 bit JPG. There is a reasonable case to be made for shooting sRGB (even JPG) for portraiture. <P>

 

I shoot RAW and convert to aRGB.<P>

 

Fuji Frontier printers are capable of producing colours outside the sRGB gamut though you need a good lab to be able to make use of that facility.

[eric merrill]

Neither. :) I shoot raw and then use ProPhoto RGB.

 

This is recommended by not only Bruce Fraser in _Real World Camera Raw_ but also Michael Reichmann here:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

[StuartMoxham]

Jim you have the camera and the printer so the best way would be for you to make some tests and find out what works best for you.

[awindsor]

ProPhoto may be useful though I am not fully convinced. I have used some larger spaces for some images (where clipping was obviously occurring) but much of the ProPhoto gamut is currently outside the capability of anything to reproduce (and that includes monitors). I will admit though that my printer is capable of producing some tones that don't fit in the Adobe RGB gamut.

 

I would say that sRGB is too small for everyday photography but big enough for studio portraiture (and probably helpful for taming posterization if you have a JPG work flow). Adobe RGB is sufficient for everyday photography and already beyond the ability of most LCD monitors to display. Other spaces are useful only if you have areas of very saturated colours.