2 camera's: one shot in sRBG, one Adobe RBG

[herma]

<p>In my persuit to get more and more professional results, I am now shooting in Adobe RBG. Unfortunately, I left my 2nd camera on sRBG. Will this make a difference in processing results? I am using LR 3.</p>

<p>Herma</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Hi Herma, as far as the setting on the camera, srgb vs. argb only makes a difference if you are shooting jpegs. With raw it's not applied and it's not relevant.</p>

<p>For the most professional results you would shoot raw. When you later export the raw file from LR, as a tiff, or jpeg, that's the point at which you would decide if you want the exported file to be srgb or argb.<br>

<br /> You can find a lot of existing posts here about the merits of srgb vs. argb in general.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>And even if you were shooting JPEG, for Lightroom the difference won't be significant except if you're trying to match colors between the cameras that are near the edge of the gamut. I'm guessing you're not trying to be so precise about color here (as you might be if you were, say, shooting for a clothing catalog) or you probably wouldn't have needed to ask.</p>

[ethervizion]

<p>As Brett noted, if you shot raw, it wouldn't have made any difference. And as Mark noted, it probably still wouldn't make a difference in JPEG. The real question is, what difference does it make to YOU? Being more professional is not about selecting settings that some "pro" says you should use. Being professional is about taking full technical and creative control over the process. Not to be too harsh, but if you don't know why you should be doing something one way or another means that you're not in control.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There are subtle differences between sRGB and Adobe RGB throughout the image, not just at the gamut limits. You see it in gradients, particularly in skin tones.</p>

<p>The simplest way to see for yourself is using the preview box in Edit/Convert color tool to toggle from one to the other. Try it with and without the "Gamut warning" option. Each color space is displayed "correctly" in Photoshop, otherwise the difference would be much greater. The latter can be easily demonstrated by viewing copies of an image in several color spaces using a non-color-managed application like Internet Explorer.</p>

<p>You can open the attached example in Photoshop for a convenient comparison. The image is in sRGB color space.</p><div></div>

[herma]

<p>Edward, aRBG seems to be a nice medium. I am going to try this toggle. Ofcourse I am shooting RAW, and as I was saying, I am in persuit of more professional results, which means, I have not achieved this yet, Karl. I have not done a side by side comparison of the two, I appreciate the input I get instead of having to run a scientific test on the various settings.</p>

<p>What confused me was in what way my editing would have differed between the two sets of pictures. I know printing is a whole different matter.</p>

 

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Since you are shooting raw, the setting on your camera has no effect and doesn't matter. All you have to decide is what to use when you export from Lightroom. The comparison above may not quite mean what I think you think it means. I would Googe sRGB vs. Adobe RGB and read up thoroughly on the subject, as well as "color managed software" "color spaces" "color profiles" and " screen vs. print" - it's a lot to digest but I think you'll come out of it better equipped to decide.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>Since you are shooting RAW, your images will be processed in internal working space of LR3, which I believe is ProPhoto RGB or something similar. Don't forget converting to sRGB before placing images on the web or sending to a lab that does not support color management.</p>

<p>Although setting of color space in camera does not have any effect on RAW images, it effects in-camera histogram. Some people believe that if you are shooting RAW, histogram displayed with AdobeRGB settings gives more accurate representation of actual data.</p>

[ethervizion]

<p>What Brett and Mirek said. Especially about being wary about the comparison between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Simply put, Adobe RGB can represent some "extreme" colours that sRGB can't. But, unless you have a wide gamut monitor, your monitor cannot display those colours anyway. In other words, if you convert a given image back and forth between sRGB and Adobe RGB, you're likely to see no difference whatsoever on your monitor (or at least a very minor difference). Now, this doesn't mean that colour space doesn't matter, but it just means that you're probably not going to encounter too many scenarios where it's a problem at this stage in the game.<br>

Simple workflow suggestion:<br>

1. Shoot in raw and don't worry about the in-camera selection of colour space. As noted, this setting will affect the histogram, but unless you're very closely relying on this during shooting, then it won't matter.<br>

2. Do your editing in a raw processor like Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. At this point, you still don't care about colour space. These raw processors operate internally on a wide gamut space with 16-bits per channel. In other words, the software is ensuring that you're operating in a space that can represent any possible colour you care about (whether your monitor can display it is another question).<br>

3. For final output:<br>

a) Web: set the output colour space to sRGB -- this will give you the best chance of others seeing approximately the correct colour (at least better than any other cololur space choice).<br>

b) Print: it depends on the output device and the process. If a service is doing the printing, see what they want. If they don't know, then pick a new service or just use sRGB. If you want a representation that is most flexible without any loss, then you could do 16-bit ProPhoto RGB (but only if it's TIFF). If it will be a JPEG output, then it must be 8-bit (i.e., limited precision) and you should use a colour space that most closely matches the output device. But again, if you're not sure if the process is fully colour managed, then you should generally fall back to sRGB.<br>

And to answer your original question: your editing process will not be any different whether you're working in sRGB or Adobe RGB.</p>

[herma]

<p>Thank Karl et al, that is very informative. I now understand that it doesn't really matter. Good!<br>

Again, in the same persuit of more professional results, I also just purchased a new monitor (Dell U2410) as per Patrick L. recommendation. I have not calibrated it yet. The difference between my 6 year old Dell and the new Dell is AMAZING. All my older photo's edited on the old monitor, look WAY bright on the new monitor. However, when I was playing with the monitor settings, I found there is an Adobe RGB Color Setting. Things appeared to look better. I also turned down the brightness from a factory setting of 50%, to about 15%. I still feel all these settings are rather random. On the new monitor I have been adding a lot more WB magenta tint to all the pictures to get rid of some green. Yet, with no calibration, who knows what is right. I have been reading all these mixed reviews about Spyder 3. <br>

Printing will be the next frontier. My plan is to download the color profiles from Mpix and make test prints. I would hate the have the bride look all green or magenta.</p>