Color Space - Start to Finish

[kathleen_t]

<p>Hello, <br>

I just purchased an IMac and was about to begin the calibration but had a few questions regarding which color space I should be using from Camera to Output. <br>

I have read that the output of the image should be sGRB. So I feel comfortable with that... But what do you use in Camera? I was using sGRB but after what I read it seems that maybe I should be using Adobe RGB so that I will have a wider color profile to work with when it comes to editing? <br>

I edit in Lightroom and in CS5. I have read that these two automatically work in a space called ProPhoto? <br>

Am I understanding this correctly and what have would you recommend? <br>

Thank you for your time! I just want to be sure that I am working this portion right. <br>

Kathleen</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>If you capture raw data, it makes no difference what you set on the camera, that's only for the generation of a JPEG. If you decide to go that route, I'd set the camera to Adobe RGB (1998). If you capture raw data, you'll want to stick with ProPhoto RGB.<br>

This primer on color spaces may help:<br>

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf<br>

There's also a video on color gamut and it's role on image processing:</p>

<p><em>Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut</em><br>

A pretty exhaustive 37 minute video examining the color gamut of RGB working spaces, images and output color spaces. All plotted in 2D and 3D to illustrate color gamut.<br>

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov<br />Low Res (YouTube):

[howard_m]

<p>The camera colorspace only affects JPG, *NOT* RAW so if you shoot raw, it doesn't matter.</p>

<p>Realize that there is your 'working colorspace' and then colorspace's for each input or output device (printers)<br>

Lightroom doesn't allow you to change it (it's proPhoto w/ linear gamma). In Photoshop, you probably want proPhoto as your working colorspace.<br>

<br />Depending on your calibration software, do NOT calibrate the iMac to sRGB or anything like. Let it be 'native'.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The built in color adjustments for the Mac system are really pretty good unless exact color matching is "mission critical" for you.</p>

<p>In the camera, I use RAW plus small jpeg - that way I have the original data and a small usable file already set up the way I like it in the jpeg (choose setup in the camera menus). I normally use Adobe RGB for working with files, and convert to sRGB for posting on line (using the "save for web" to do so).</p>

<p>I also use other color spaces such as Lab where there are specific advantages. [under Image>Mode>.., you'll find various options]</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Even if you exclusively shoot raw files, the color space you choose in the camera does matter - but only if you ever

examine the preview on the back of the camera and use the camera's histogram as a rough guide to whether you made a

good exposure. The reason is that the preview is based on the settings for an In-camera generated JPEG. If you do do

shoot raw one way to get your camera's histogram to more accurately approximate how the data in your raw file actually

is distributed is choose Adobe RGB(1998) and set contrast in "picture style" settings to low.

 

As to which color space to use, sRGB is the smallest, narrowest common color gamut. That makes it safe but unless you

are only shooting portraits it also means you are likely losing subtle differences in color in some of the richer colors you'll

see in the both the natural and man made world. The colors that exist outside of any color gamut are smashed together.

 

My advice is to shoot raw and in both raw and post raw processing start with as large a gamut as is suitable for your

subject. If you shoot landscapes and cityscapes use ProPhoto RGB and use it at 16 bits per channel. For more moderate

scenes use Adobe RGB((1998).

 

When you are ready to post on the web convert a version of the photo to sRGB.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Even if you exclusively shoot raw files, the color space you choose in the camera does matter - but only if you ever examine the preview on the back of the camera and use the camera's histogram as a rough guide to whether you made a good exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Rough it is! Using that as an exposure guide for raw will produce an under exposed raw file (lack of ETTR). You can futz around and attempt to set the camera so the JPEG histogram is '<em>closer</em>' but it's really an exercise in futility if proper, idealized and accurate exposure is your goal. LCD zoomed in and the image is soft? Useful! LCD for color and exposure of raw, not so much. </p>

<p>How did all you photographers figure out how to <strong>properly</strong> expose your film when no LCD existed? I know what I did, and it works the same with digital capture, and it avoids the use of a Histogram which has no bearing on the data you capture let alone the image you'll render. </p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>How did all you photographers figure out how to <strong>properly</strong> expose your film when no LCD existed? I know what I did, and it works the same with digital capture, and it avoids the use of a Histogram which has no bearing on the data you capture let alone the image you'll render.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We've been through this before, and here's my comment in this thread.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aqHZ?start=10</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jpeg histogram is inaccurate, but hardly completely useless. ETTR using jpeg histogram is inaccurate, but hardly completely useless. Many digital shooters would get "satisfactory" results using this technique, especially after some raw conversion exposure adjustments. It is far better than a film body without a histogram and without (easy) exposure adjustments in post processing.</p>

<p>For more accurate exposure setting to preserve highlight details in digital, I manually spot meter the highlight and dial down exposure by a couple of stops. Just like when I shoot transparency.</p>

<p>The more things change, the more they stay the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Granted it is just one photographer's approach. But it is far more informative than cautioning the inaccuracy of histogram (repeatedly) while providing no solution or alternative.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>I agree, it's inaccurate but not completely useless but more so than not. IF your issue is ensuring you are not blowing out highlights, that histogram is just about useless. <br>

I've got raw+JPEG's exposed for ideal raw exposure and the JPEG histogram would lead anyone to believe the image is toast. 2 stops over exposed (of course that isn't the case). It's not of course, especially after normalizing the raw correctly (PV2012 shines here). Even exposures what would be down for a raw can show a histogram and it's JPEG that is blown out. So if you view this incorrect histogram and extrapolate what you know to be true of your sensor and how it deals with raw, then sure, view the histogram if you wish (I find it a complete waste of time). <br>

Satisfactory results are, well just satisfactory. I think we can do better <g></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think Ansel Adams would have loved having a histogram for an image. It's simply another way of seeing the image character, especially at a point where a little LCD screen on the back of the camera is all you've got otherwise. I don't actually use it very often, but when it is needed it is very helpful indeed.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>I'd agree that a Histogram is very important. When it actually represents the data, which <strong>isn't</strong> happening on the LCD if you capture raw. It could, just keep asking the camera manufacturers for it. Maybe some day they will. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Of course Andrew doesn't give any direction on how far to expose to the right which is similar to telling someone to stand as close to the fire without getting burned relying only on the feel of the heat to find out later the victim has singed their hair. Whoops! Well, technically the victim didn't get burned.</p>

<p>There are no tools except the histogram and LCD preview to go by when shooting in different lighting situations especially outdoors where judging contrast ratio is impossible in order to determine how bright is the brightest object in the scene and whether saturation levels exposing for bright pastels (sunset lit rocks) will blow out a channel or two. (see example below)</p>

<p>I gave up on ETTR because of the lack of tools to gauge blown highlights and now just resort to setting exposure so colored highlights (pastels) fall in the 200RGB region of my camera's histogram and check for "blinkies" on its LCD shooting Raw, setting the incamera contrast and saturation low and selecting AdobeRGB as the color space which will affect saturation levels positioned on the histogram which my camera only has a luminance readout.</p><div></div>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course Andrew doesn't give any direction on how far to expose to the right...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just ask. Although I figured you might know how to test exposure and development. Maybe I'm just older and have done this stuff longer. In the old days of film, we pro's purchased the same film in bricks, did exposure tests (simple bracketing), sent the film to our lab (A&I for me in the old days), and the tricky part was using various cc filters to achieve proper balance. <br>

Moving forward in the digital world, it's actually easier! You don't have to mess with cc filters or the lab. <br>

This might help you Tim:<br>

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html<br>

Any other photo questions I can help you with? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I gave up on ETTR because of the lack of tools to gauge blown highlights</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Man, good thing you didn't try properly exposing chromes! <br>

FWIW, properly exposing anything (chromes, negs, JPEGs or digital) is photography 101. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Okay, so...</p>

<p>- the histogram on the back of the camera is for the JPEG preview, not the actual RAW data captured</p>

<p>- it's not perfect for analyzing the RAW data, but it's all we have at the time</p>

<p>- I'm guessing the "blinkies" are using the same data as the histogram</p>

<p>With all that stipulated, what camera settings in the menu system will make the histogram and blinkies the most accurate for the RAW images I'm capturing? That was an interesting concept and one I wasn't familiar with until now.</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>By the way, I enjoyed Andrew's video. It made color spaces much more clear. Is there a companion video that discusses color spaces for monitors? My monitor claims to show Adobe RGB, but Lightroom is working in ProPhoto, so I'm obviously manipulating pixels I can't see.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>As usual, Andrew, you talk in circles and never really offer any useful instructions except anecdotes about old technology and your master of it. That link doesn't help me to know when my camera's sensor is going to help me avoid the crappy results I posted above.</p>

<p>And yeah, I could bracket but then that's not technically ETTR, just hedging my bets for not having the tools to know how far to go with exposure as a way to adopt some technolo-guess concept of recording the majority of the most important data within the first stop. Highlight recovery is still a guessing game at the moment of deciding the right exposure for a high contrast scene and a no man's land in predicting how flakey the electronics of a sensor is going to respond to it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With all that stipulated, what camera settings in the menu system will make the histogram and blinkies the most accurate for the RAW images I'm capturing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Accurate to what? The preview on the camera's LCD or your Raw converter software preview? Don't trust the "blinkies" if you want to preserve any highlight detail other than spectrals. You'll have to test what camera settings work best for you in making sure you don't blow highlight detail. Both Ellis and I have given what settings work best for us.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.... I'm fishing for opinions on in-camera settings that yield the most accurate histogram of the captured RAW data.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>As usual, Andrew, you talk in circles and never really offer any useful instructions except anecdotes about old technology and your master of it. That link doesn't help me to know when my camera's sensor is going to help me avoid the crappy results I posted above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My apologies Tim, I was under the false impression you understood the basics of exposure. For the 2nd time, it makes no difference if we're discussing JPEG, raw, neg film or transparency (what I referred to as chrome above). Perhaps a local community college has a class you can take to better understand how to <strong>properly</strong> expose an image. I see Photonet has a forum that may help you:<a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/">Beginner Photography Questions</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And yeah, I could bracket but then that's not technically ETTR, just hedging my bets for not having the tools to know how far to go with exposure as a way to adopt some technolo-guess concept of recording the majority of the most important data within the first stop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good to see you understood the term Bracket but unfortunately you didn't connect the dots in the article I referenced. This was written for a magazine called <em>Digital Photo Pro</em> and the audience is professional photographers why have more than a basic understanding of exposure. The bracket I refer to is shown in the article. You must have missed page 3:<em>Testing ISO And Exposure. </em>You'll also see the types of objects used in this single controlled studio setup to understand how your sensor responds such you can <strong>optimally</strong> produce a raw exposure and further, what I did in the development phase to '<em>normalize</em>' the image in my raw processor. <br>

This is <strong>no</strong> different from how we professional photographers dealt with film. We didn't expect ISO 100 transparency film to behave like 100 neg film, let alone 400 neg film. We purchased film in bulk, all the same emulsion number and ran the same tests I ran for the raw exposure captures. That allowed us to understand a few things such as the <strong>actual ISO</strong> of the film (it wasn't always what the box said, especially with color negs) and it allowed us to tune proper exposure of that media with our processing. NOTHING has changed in digital capture, the fundamentals of exposure and development are the same! <br>

Few expect treating an ISO 100 transparency film exactly like a ISO 400 neg film without testing. Likewise, you shouldn't expect to set the camera to shoot both a JPEG+raw and the two will be equally and properly exposed. As I said before you posted, if you expose for an optimal JPEG, the raw will very likely be 'under exposed' if you will. Not optimally exposed for the raw linear data. ETTR is simply a term to define ideal, proper exposure for the raw data. Part of that process is understanding the differences in a transparency (JPEG:prebaked) and a neg (raw: you process and render). <br>

I suggest you stick with shooting JPEG and viewing the LCD Histogram as that representation is something you can take to the bank. After you better understand how to expose that way, you could move into proper, ideal exposure for raw data. At that point, the histogram on the camera is not effective. It represents data you are not capturing! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Highlight recovery is still a guessing game...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>NO guessing once you understand how your capture device exposure and processing behave, I see you're not there yet but don't give up. This is far from rocket science. I suspect some rocket scientists, of which you may be, may find this task of proper exposure initially more difficult than plotting the orbit of the moon but be patient, you'll get there. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a companion video that discusses color spaces for monitors? My monitor claims to show Adobe RGB, but Lightroom is working in ProPhoto, so I'm obviously manipulating pixels I can't see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The issues of vastly different sized color gamuts will never go away, we have to live with it. You are correct that one could have a wide gamut display and still be unable to see existing colors that do reside in the image. You would then have a choice. Would you rather see all the color in an image you are editing but reduce the gamut to other devices? Or work with data you can't see but could use upon output. The weak link in this is the display. We'll never see a ProPhoto RGB gamut display, there are '<em>colors</em>' defined in ProPhoto we can't see (and hence shouldn’t be called colors). But the problem as outlined in the video is we have really odd shaped gamuts, some big, some small. The old "fit a round peg in a square hole" issue. </p>

<p>So yes, you probably are manipulating colors you can't see. I believe in the video I discussed how to 'back off' when moving a slider or control when it stops updating a change on-screen. And soft proofing can help tremendously although you'll still be working with OOG colors on-screen in many cases. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I have read that the output of the image should be sGRB. So I feel comfortable with that...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Getting back OT for the OP! You do not want to use attempt to 'set' a display to sRGB, you don't really want to even think about messing with the Apple calibrator (Eyeball calibration is fraught with issues and inconsistencies). You need an instrument (Colorimeter) and software to properly calibrate the display to match your prints and calibrate on a regular basis as displays are not stable devices. <br>

Start here:<br>

<a href="http://www.takegreatpictures.com/photo-tips/software-tips-and-techniques/color-management-and-your-display-by-andrew-rodney">http://www.takegreatpictures.com/photo-tips/software-tips-and-techniqu es/color-management-and-your-display-by-andrew-rodney</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have read that these two automatically work in a space called ProPhoto?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The processing is done in a space very similar but not exactly ProPhoto RGB. Depending on the modules, you'll be viewing Adobe RGB and in LR4, you can now soft proof viewing the image in the RGB output color space. That's where you really want to be viewing the images and comparing them to the display. Always have the simulate ink and paper white settings <strong>on</strong>. <br>

<br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof.mov<br>

<br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>There are no tools</strong> <strong>except</strong> the histogram and LCD preview to go by when shooting in different lighting situations especially outdoors where judging contrast ratio is impossible in order to determine how bright is the brightest object in the scene and whether saturation levels exposing for bright pastels (sunset lit rocks) will blow out a channel or two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/476493-REG/Sekonic_401_760_L_758C_Cine_Light_Meter.html</p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>You would then have a choice. Would you rather see all the color in an image you are editing but reduce the gamut to other devices? Or work with data you can't see but could use upon output.</em></p>

<p>Therein lies the rub. You seem to be advocating the second option which means that even with everything calibrated, your print may contain colors you manipulated but never saw. I doubt that's much of a problem unless you're doing product photography and the red in the Coke logo has to be perfect. In my case, the fur on my images of Bigfoot may not be the perfect color, but it's close enough.</p>

<p>Yes, the technique of backing off vibrance and/or saturation when you don't see any more changes is very good, but my images seem grossly oversaturated and clownish long before I reach that point.</p>

<p>In reference to ETTR, I'm usually pretty happy with my exposures just using the normal metering in my camera. Once I get into Lightroom I will often tap the Auto Tone button and my image is then almost always <em>waaay</em> over exposed. I go back to zero exposure to fix it. I'm thinkin' that if I over expose in the camera I'll be reducing the exposure in Lightroom below zero to compensate. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.... I'm fishing for opinions on in-camera settings that yield the most accurate histogram of the captured RAW data.</em></p>

<p>I just re-read all this stuff and saw that Ellis and Tim basically agree on the answer. Many thanks. I'll be pulling out my camera and making some adjustments. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Therein lies the rub. You seem to be advocating the second option which means that even with everything calibrated, your print may contain colors you manipulated but never saw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. I find it the lesser of the two evils especially if you are not certain of the output (today or in the future when devices gamut's will exceed). IF you are very careful, there should be few surprises assuming a well calibrated display, good profiles for soft proofing and proper print viewing conditions. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt that's much of a problem unless you're doing product photography and the red in the Coke logo has to be perfect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the output again. Even going off to a CMYK press, there are colors that can fall outside display gamut. What we hope is that we don't suffer a hue shift and that all we're missing is a more saturated red on output than the display. Not a red that is both more saturated but too yellow. <br>

If you start looking at the very predicate shapes of RGB working spaces, and the very unpredictable and differing shapes of RGB and CMYK output color spaces, you'll see there are always going to be colors within and out of gamut of any two such devices in most cases. Nature of the beast but not something that should be problematic if all your ducks are in order. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I just re-read all this stuff and saw that Ellis and Tim basically agree on the answer. Many thanks. I'll be pulling out my camera and making some adjustments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For fun, if you can, photograph the Histogram you get on the camera even with a phone. Then let's see the Histogram you initially see in Lightroom and further, the histogram of the image after adjustments. That should be telling! </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>How do you get the gray box around the quoted text?</p>