Camera Raw, DPP and color spaces...mmhhh...?

[alberto greco]

Dear All,

 

I'm getting confused with sRGB and Adobe RGB color spaces.

 

I know that Adobe RGB has a wider gamut and is more indicated for prints, while monitors are set in sRGB and therefore this latter color space is more appropriate for screen\web use of the images.

 

I shoot always and only raw. I then convert my pics in jpegs with DPP (and now also with Camera raw 4.1 plugged in PS CS3) for both printing and web use of the images.

 

I noticed that if, I incorporate Adobe RGB for the conversion with DPP, the final jpeg looks exactly the same as if I convert it incorporating sRGB color space. Is this at all possible?

 

If I choose Adobe RGB for converting raw files with Camera Raw, the jpeg copy looks only more saturated and reddish (but no wider gamut is visible).

 

Is there something wrong or am I missing something?

 

Thanks.

 

Alberto

 

 

[george_widman]

<p>Nothing wrong Alberto, and you're not missing something. Keep the camera set for Adobe RGB 1998 color space; do all your work there (set color prefs in PS at Adobe RGB 1998 color space); do all your work in that color space. For Web use, convert to sRGB, which essentially throws away color data a monitor can't use. But quality home printers and publications can and will use the much fuller spectrum of an Adobe RGB 1998 color space file.<br>

Copying and re-naming the Adobe RGB 1998 color space file, with all it's full-spectrum file, then converting to sRGB for Web (or email) use is fine. But save the original Adobe RGB 1998 color space file for printing.<br>

Hope this analogy works: if you were to only work in sRGB, you are recording music with a tin-foil mike and playing it back on a laptop's speaker.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>You're not missing anything. There is no huge practical difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB.</p>

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

<p>Personally I've had good results with Adobe RGB shooting RAW, raw conversion and processing in PS, then printing out of PS. But the prints weren't much different than working with sRGB. I now work in sRGB - it's easier and the colors are just as bright. YMMV.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>For jpegs for web use or output to printers where you don't have a profile use sRGB. For editing and output to most inkjet printers use AdobeRGB or a different working space.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>For the record, if you are shooting RAW, it does not matter what coloe space your camera is set to. The canera setting only affects jpg files. RAW has no color space. </p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

 

<p>You're not missing anything. There is no huge practical difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB.<br>

<link><br>

Personally I've had good results with Adobe RGB shooting RAW, raw conversion and processing in PS, then printing out of PS. But the prints weren't much different than working with sRGB. I now work in sRGB - it's easier and the colors are just as bright. YMMV.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ken is intentionally false on this one. Please read his "about" page.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I am probably going to get flamed here, but... if you have to ask, stick to sRGB and forget about it. The differences between Adobe RGB and sRGB only exist if your images actually include colors that are outside of sRGB's gamut and if the final output device can record those differences. The potential problems of using Adobe RGB generally outweigh the real world advantages (which are seriously, marginal at best). The differences in color space choices pale into insignificance when compared to differences in RAW processing and Photoshop skill levels and techniques.</p>

<p>Having said that... I shoot primarily for ad agencies and all of my images are supplied as 16 bit TIFF files in Adobe RGB colorspace, as is the industry standard. I then convert my files to sRGB for internet use, this gives me a lot of opportunities for apples to apples comparisons under very controlled, calibrated and ideal conditions. While I won't say there are no differences - although that is the case more often than not - I think it's safe to say that if someone is unhappy with an image it won't be because of their choice of color space. Unless you really like complicating your life, adding yet more steps to the workflow and having more versions of an image to save, I would stick to sRGB and concentrate on things that will make much more of a difference to your images.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Arie, there is a significant and very easily seen difference between ARGB and SRGB, and Ken Rockwell is an obtuse, disingenuous tool.</p>

<p><strong>Avoid.</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am probably going to get flamed here, but... if you have to ask, stick to sRGB and forget about it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't agree more, John - if you don't <em>know</em> you need ARGB, you almost certainly don't, in which case SRGB will be just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Now now. Whenever I or someone else brings up Ken Rockwell there's knee-jerk insults. Yes Ken is opinionated and you may not agree with everything he says. I think his rgb blurb makes some good points. If you look at Ken's color scales then it explains the red shift that the OP talks about.</p>

<p>When I got my Epson R1800 I experimented with various workflows. Could I tell the difference betweek sRGB and Adobe RGB? Yes I could but just barely so. I found that other options such as CMYKRB conversion (my printer has 7 inks) with "absolute colorimetric" versus "saturation" versus "relative colorimetric" had much more effect. Never mind saturation corrections in PS or things like that.</p>

<p> </p>

[pgranone]

<p>I believe <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=383604">John Bellenis</a> is correct<br>

just use SRGB when you process RAW files<br>

- images display correctly because the OS (windows, mac, unix) all use SRGB as default<br>

- web images require SRGB (browser needs SRGB)<br>

- images print correctly for colors with SRGB when you have them printed, at Walgreens (for example)</p>

<p> </p>

[alberto greco]

THX guys, but my original questions were (i) why jpegs files converted with DPP incorporating sRGB look the same as jpeg converted with the same program but incorporating Adobe RGB and (ii) why the same jpeg is different if converted by Camera Raw incorporating Adobe RGB. Shouldn't all the Adobe RGB files be the same? Shouldn't the sRGB jpeg be different from the Adobe RGB converted by DPP? Does my (standard and not calibrated) monitor affect the view?

thank you again

[keith reeder]

<p>Arie,</p>

<p>my view of Ken Rockwell is not "knee jerk", it's based on an awareness of his nonsense that goes back several years.</p>

<p>He is by his own (forced) admission quite happy to cynically "invent" opinions purely to generate internet chatter and maintain page views on his site - his site being his primary source of income.</p>

<p>He was finally forced to admit that some of his "reviews" are based on <em>no first hand experience whatsoever of the equipment he has written about </em> - but because this fact isn't emblazoned across the top of every page, it is quite possible for less informed folk to find their way to his site, take whatever nonsense he has fabricated about this camera or that lens as gospel, and spend good money on something which bears practically no semblance to the "review".</p>

<p>The link you posted up is a perfect example of the drivel he churns out - and the fact that you bought into it (as Ed kindly pointed out this is another example of KR's "<em>hey, won't it be fun to make up some more crap - this time about colour spaces - and see who bites?</em> " strategy) makes my point for me brilliantly. </p>

<p>You've been suckered, and his pages get a few more hits as a result.</p>

<p>The simple fact is that there is a clear difference between these two colour spaces - <em>they both exist for a reason</em> - and <em>anyone</em> who says otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is a liar.</p>

<p>If you want to read something <em>worth reading</em> about colour spaces, get the hell away from Ken Rockwell as fast as you can, and look here instead:</p>

<p>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-management1.htm<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm</p>

<p>And especially:</p>

<p>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Alberto,</p>

<p>i) it sounds to me as if DPP is set to automatically convert files in the ARGB colour space, into SRGB.</p>

<p>ii) ACR sounds like it's <em>maintaining</em> the ARGB colour space.</p>

<p>Would I be right to think that the files which are in SRGB look richer, more saturated and more vivid than the ones you consider to be in ARGB?</p>

<p>If both the SRGB and "ARGB" files from DPP look like this, and the files from ACR look washed out and bland in comparison, then my suggestion above is almost certainly the answer.</p>

 

[dave404]

<p>You should do your corrections targeting them towards your final color space. Espeically if you are having it printed in a publication which would be CMYK. There are are many fiasco stories of the unwitting photographer that sent out Adobe RGB to a commercial printer. Most of these colors that are out of gamut will get flattened and the image quality will suffer. If you are printing on your home printer you can wring out some extra color, but you can suffer quality loss all the while expecting better color in that bigger gamut color space.</p>

<p>Here is the FAQ from the site I use for printing.<br /> When you go to save your JPG files please remember the following points:</p>

<ol>

<li>Save the JPG in the sRGB color space only. (<strong>Do NOT upload in Adobe RGB or any other color profile. </strong> This will only result in substandard color correction) </li>

<li>Do not save the JPG with any embedded profile.</li>

<li>Do not save the JPG with any attached thumbnails (common with Photoshop and Lightroom editing...)</li>

</ol>

<p>Shoot in RAW and save the RAW files so you can take advantage of that down the road and beware the urge to use the best and widest color space.</p>