sRGB vs AdobeRGB

[hjoseph7]

17 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

I fully agree with all the previous comments. If you're (in the future) considering converting other photos to B/W, then I would recommend checking out Silver Efex Pro. It's the best 'B/W tool' (plugin) that I've ever found. Not only in terms of (adjustable) B/W 'style' but also in terms of adjusting local areas of grey values. And adding a range of 'finishes'.

Silver FX Pro once used to be a free 'plugin' from Google. Part of the (free) 'Nik collection' of Google apps. Then Google disowned the 'Nik collection' and said that they no longer supported it. The 'unsupported' (free) version continued to work with Adobe products until some Adobe update a year or two ago. My old Nik collection 'free version' hasn't worked as an Adobe plugin since then. Dxo.com took over the 'Nik collection' from Google and now provide further development, maintenance, support, etc. As you might guess the current (updated) 'Nik collection' is no longer free. The current version (for all Nik Plugins) is priced at about $160.

I haven't checked whether the free 'legacy' version of the Nik collection is still available as a download (probably) and whether the collection can be used as stand-alone programs (independently of Adobe programs).

I have no idea what your future use of  color -> B/W conversions might be or what your budget is. 

DXO offers a free 'trial version' of each of its Nik apps. I suggest you try out the Silver Efex Pro app to decide whether it's worth the money.  You might want to tryout a couple other apps too. From what I read, all apps come as a bundle for about $160. You might be able to negotiate fort just 1 or 2 apps.

 

Well, this whole thing started when one of my clients asked me if I could take some B&W pictures at her wedding. That's when I picked up that book on B&W conversions in PS and Light room.  Then the whole thing ballooned into Color Management, because as the book states, you can get a lot more out of your B&W images if you understand Color Management. I usually stayed away from B&W conversions in Photoshop, since I still have my darkroom and prefered processing B&W images there. On my old Epson R2400 which was discarded years ago, the images use to look 'brownish' which I didnt really care for. However, shooting film and digital at a busy wedding  is not really my cup-of-tea either.  I did see a bunch of ads for Silver Efex, but I never knew they had free version, or that they were owned by Google. The ads stated that they were the next best thing to SilverGelatin prints. I'm guessing that this depends on the Printer also... 

[Robin Smith]

Quote

that's when I picked up that book on B&W conversions in PS and Light room

A little reading can be a dangerous thing...

Is your client wanting black and white prints or digital images? If the latter then you don't need to worry about the printing side at all. Nowadays actually needing prints seems a rare request, at least it is for me. If they are required and you can't print a good black and white print yourself, just send the black and white conversion to a commercial printer and they should be able to produce a good black and white print. Pass on the cost to the client. Personally having tried Silver Efex and a few other plugins I find the current LR ones are quite sufficient. Beware advertising blurb. All of these instant black and white conversions are there to give you some idea of conversion possibilities from which you tweak to taste, so it doesn't really matter how you get there. It's not like you have to take the plugin with no further changes. The important thing (like always) is to know what you want and what you like, or what you think your client will like.

[hjoseph7]

"A little reading can be a dangerous thing..."

For this job I'm working through an agency that does all the editing and printing, so for the B&W prints that this client wants, I'm probably going to have to work outside of the boundaries of the agency. Unless I notify the agency that this client wants some B&W prints which might make things easier for me maybe, or maybe not ?  I didn't ask the client if she wanted prints, because usually that's done through the agency.  As far as B&W conversion techniques, Photoshop(or any other Photo Editing Software) gives you more than one option to convert to B&W, from Greyscale,  to hit the "Destaurate button",  to using the B&W setting in-camera, to Channels etc. Then you got your 'Gurus' who claim their technique is the best.  You are right it get confusing !

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:18 PM, hjoseph7 said:

I opened up a RAW file from my folder, edited it in DPP while also selecting the ADOBE RGB Color Space in the Settings section of DPP. Then I saved the file as a JPEG.  I then opened the file in Photoshop.

As I said before. There's little point in shooting RAW if you're going to convert the file to JPEG at your earliest opportunity and then continue editing it! 

Keep your files in a high bit-depth and uncompressed format (like Tiff) until all editing is finished. 

Computer memory and disk space is cheap these days. There's absolutely no need to compress files or reduce bit-depth between edits. 

The ability to apply virtual filters to a digital colour image during B&W conversion is also invaluable. It's much more flexible than shooting B&W film - even with a box of lens filters at your disposal. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[hjoseph7]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:02 AM, hjoseph7 said:

Wow thanks, I saw the $10 deal once when I was thinking about upgrading, but then I never found it again ? Adobe makes it real confusing when choosing plans, so you have to be careful because even if the software fails to download, you get charged anyway.   I think I will call Adobe again and see what they have to say. I do have Windows 10, but its on my laptop and the screen is only 14 inches. I would rather use it on my Dektop with a fully color-corrected 22" screen. 

I downloaded the $10 per month version of LR and PS to my windows 10 laptop computer. I think I should have downloaded the LR classic instead of the other version though ? Adobe gives you so many options it gets confusing.  I was going to take a refresher course on all this stuff($375), but after reading Scott Kelby's book on Photoshop, I don't think I really need to. At least for what I plan to do with it. Adobe has a $20 per month version with 1 Terrabyte of storage, but I don't think I need that either,  not right now.  Thanks.   

[paddler4]

Lightroom classic runs on your computer. What is now called simply Lightroom runs in the cloud. Both come with the $10 subscription. Lightroom Classic is more powerful, and I use only that version.

There are a lot of very good free video tutorials for Lightroom Classic and Photoshop.

Edited March 14, 2023 by paddler4

[hjoseph7]

On 3/14/2023 at 12:35 PM, paddler4 said:

Lightroom classic runs on your computer. What is now called simply Lightroom runs in the cloud. Both come with the $10 subscription. Lightroom Classic is more powerful, and I use only that version.

There are a lot of very good free video tutorials for Lightroom Classic and Photoshop.

I was able to download LightRoom classic without incurring another charge, also Bridge. The Interface is vastly different from the 2010 version which I have been using. All those Help tutoriols that pop-up from everywhere don't help either. 

[paddler4]

Yes, a lot of changes and improvements have been made in the last 13 years.

I'm not sure what pop-ups you are referring to. Nothing pops up on my screen. However, one of the great things about using software that many other people use is that there is a huge amount of helpful explanation and advice online. I suggest you find some online presenters whose style you find helpful. For example, one YouTuber who has good Lightroom Classic videos is Anthony Morganti. There are many for photoshop as well.

[hjoseph7]

On 3/16/2023 at 4:33 PM, paddler4 said:

Yes, a lot of changes and improvements have been made in the last 13 years.

I'm not sure what pop-ups you are referring to. Nothing pops up on my screen. However, one of the great things about using software that many other people use is that there is a huge amount of helpful explanation and advice online. I suggest you find some online presenters whose style you find helpful. For example, one YouTuber who has good Lightroom Classic videos is Anthony Morganti. There are many for photoshop as well.

Those were not pop-ups, actually that was the Introductory Page where all the tutorials and self-help stuff is located. To get passed the Intro page you click on the Photoshop Icon on the upper left.  OK everything is starting to make sense now...

[mikemorrellNL]

In 2017, Google withdrew its support for its free version of the Nik collection (including Silver Efex Pro).  It continued (continues?) to be available but for the past couple of years, it hasn't been compatible as a plug-in with the newer versions of Lightroom/Photoshop.

The Nik collection was taken over by DXO who continue to support and develop it. But DXO does charge $160 for the whole collection.

There are of course many B/W plugins and presets available for Lightroom but Silver Efex Pro is still regarded is one of the best ones.

 

On 3/3/2023 at 11:39 AM, hjoseph7 said:

...

I did see a bunch of ads for Silver Efex, but I never knew they had free version, or that they were owned by Google. The ads stated that they were the next best thing to SilverGelatin prints. I'm guessing that this depends on the Printer also... 

 

[todd_k.]

Pretty much every workflow ends up in 8bit sRGB, either via display or print.  After decades of experimenting, and working, and in the processes wearing out 2 digital wet labs, 2 wide format printers, and 1 digital dry lab (in addition to what I am using now) and I can say with 100% certainty that:

1.) you cannot tell the difference between an sRGB and aRGB workflow

2.) While cheap, space is still not free, and big files slow things down, especially when you have a ton of them.  

A clean, printable, 8 bit sRGB JPG is my goal.  Every single time.  As soon as I have that, and am happy with it, the RAW files go into the trash. 

[paddler4]

23 hours ago, todd_k. said:

Pretty much every workflow ends up in 8bit sRGB, either via display or print.  After decades of experimenting, and working, and in the processes wearing out 2 digital wet labs, 2 wide format printers, and 1 digital dry lab (in addition to what I am using now) and I can say with 100% certainty that:

1.) you cannot tell the difference between an sRGB and aRGB workflow

2.) While cheap, space is still not free, and big files slow things down, especially when you have a ton of them.  

A clean, printable, 8 bit sRGB JPG is my goal.  Every single time.  As soon as I have that, and am happy with it, the RAW files go into the trash. 

Virtually exactly the opposite of the advice I would give, and not factually correct in one place.

It simply isn't so that "pretty much every workflow ends up in 8-bit sRGB." Good printers have gamuts that extend well beyond sRGB, and converting to sRGB degrades the quality of some images. Unless I post online, none of my images end up as 8 bit sRGB. I print directly from 16-bit images that are either in the Melissa color space (Lightroom) or ProPhoto (photoshop). Using the ICC profile and other settings (e.g., rendering if any colors are outside of the gamut of the printer/paper combination), the software translates to the gamut of the printer.

Maybe you can't tell the difference, but I can sometimes see the difference between sRGB and wider gamuts. Most of my images are within or nearly within the sRGB gamut, but some aren't.

8 bit images are more prone to artifacts when extensively edited. Google it. The safest is to discard data only when you need to.

Raw files aren't very large. PSDs and TIFs are, but I almost never have speed issues editing in Photoshop.

I keep virtually no JPEGs. I upload them using a script that creates them and then discards them on my computer after they are uploaded. If I have the raw with any parametric edits and a TIF or PSD with layers from photoshop (if I've used photoshop), I can re-create the JPEG in seconds if I need it but retain complete flexibility to re-do the image in new ways. Storing JPEGs would just waste space and greatly increase the number of files I need to keep backed up.

I'm not saying that you should do what I do, of course.

[AlanKlein]

1 hour ago, paddler4 said:

Virtually exactly the opposite of the advice I would give, and not factually correct in one place.

It simply isn't so that "pretty much every workflow ends up in 8-bit sRGB." Good printers have gamuts that extend well beyond sRGB, and converting to sRGB degrades the quality of some images. Unless I post online, none of my images end up as 8 bit sRGB. I print directly from 16-bit images that are either in the Melissa color space (Lightroom) or ProPhoto (photoshop). Using the ICC profile and other settings (e.g., rendering if any colors are outside of the gamut of the printer/paper combination), the software translates to the gamut of the printer.

Maybe you can't tell the difference, but I can sometimes see the difference between sRGB and wider gamuts. Most of my images are within or nearly within the sRGB gamut, but some aren't.

8 bit images are more prone to artifacts when extensively edited. Google it. The safest is to discard data only when you need to.

Raw files aren't very large. PSDs and TIFs are, but I almost never have speed issues editing in Photoshop.

I keep virtually no JPEGs. I upload them using a script that creates them and then discards them on my computer after they are uploaded. If I have the raw with any parametric edits and a TIF or PSD with layers from photoshop (if I've used photoshop), I can re-create the JPEG in seconds if I need it but retain complete flexibility to re-do the image in new ways. Storing JPEGs would just waste space and greatly increase the number of files I need to keep backed up.

I'm not saying that you should do what I do, of course.

What if you stop using PS or LR? 

[AJG]

40 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

What if you stop using PS or LR? 

PSD files could be a problem, but there are lots of programs that can handle raw files and TIFF files.

[paddler4]

 

5 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

What if you stop using PS or LR? 

I would follow the same workflow. Keep the image in the broadest gamut you can, and definitely 16 bit. When you are done, change it to whatever you need for output, or print directly from it.

If the question is changing: whenever you change any kind of software, compatibility is a potential issue, so you would have to check the new software to see what it can read. Pretty much everything can read TIFF files, I think, but I don't know which other software can read TIFF files with layers preserved. Raw files aren't changed by the software, so changing software shouldn't matter. If you want to save your edits from LR, you can have LR store the exits as an XML sidecar file, which some other software may be able to read.

If the new software can't read TIFs with layers, I would save a flattened 16 bit TIFF in the broadest gamut the new software can read.

I do this in focus stacking. My stacking software can only read JPEGs and TIFs, so I use 15 bit prophoto TIFs from Lightroom and again from the stacking software back into LR or photoshop