i recently noticed while editing and saving my JPEGS in adobe bridge, the color profile changes from sRGB to Adobe RGB. Resolution changes from 72ppi to 240ppi but dimensions change accordingly. why is this so and does the profile color change matter? i've read that it might affect printing. my monitor is uncalibrated btw..cos can't afford to spend anymore on spyder already =/
about sRGB vs Adobe RGB.
- Thread starter tester99
- Start date
- Status
so it's better to keep everything in sRGB is it?
the thing is when i get the prints, it's pretty close to what i see on screen already, although some of them may be out.
another question about bridge. when i use ACR in bridge, how do i get ACR to replace the existing file instead of creating a new image? e.g. edit and save img_100.jpg, it will save another file as img_100_1.jpg . can't find the setting anywhere.
the thing is when i get the prints, it's pretty close to what i see on screen already, although some of them may be out.
another question about bridge. when i use ACR in bridge, how do i get ACR to replace the existing file instead of creating a new image? e.g. edit and save img_100.jpg, it will save another file as img_100_1.jpg . can't find the setting anywhere.
There is no need for you to use anything else than sRGB as long you cannot come up with a clear justification 
- when you reach that point you'll know why you need AdobeRGB and what to do with it.
Prints can be quite ok ... keep in mind that the labs also do their standard adjustment, assuming that your images come straight from the cam of an average casual snapper. So they will do adjustments (Auto WB, exposure, sharpening etc.) That will make your previous adjustments a bit useless. Solution: tell them not to adjust anything. If they look puzzled change the lab. Search the forum for 'prints' and you'll find information and recommendations about labs.
ACR? That's Adobe Camera RAW. You mean you have RAW files, edit them and then use "save" function? I don't know Adobe Bridge but Lightroom has a settings where you can select what to do: a) give new name; b) ask what to do; c) overwrite. You don't save any changes to a RAW file.
In case you work with JPG from the came I guess it's common sense that the program will not change your original file. Keep originals, always.
- when you reach that point you'll know why you need AdobeRGB and what to do with it.Prints can be quite ok ... keep in mind that the labs also do their standard adjustment, assuming that your images come straight from the cam of an average casual snapper. So they will do adjustments (Auto WB, exposure, sharpening etc.) That will make your previous adjustments a bit useless. Solution: tell them not to adjust anything. If they look puzzled change the lab. Search the forum for 'prints' and you'll find information and recommendations about labs.
ACR? That's Adobe Camera RAW. You mean you have RAW files, edit them and then use "save" function? I don't know Adobe Bridge but Lightroom has a settings where you can select what to do: a) give new name; b) ask what to do; c) overwrite. You don't save any changes to a RAW file.
In case you work with JPG from the came I guess it's common sense that the program will not change your original file. Keep originals, always.
There is no need for you to use anything else than sRGB as long you cannot come up with a clear justification
Prints can be quite ok ... keep in mind that the labs also do their standard adjustment, assuming that your images come straight from the cam of an average casual snapper. So they will do adjustments (Auto WB, exposure, sharpening etc.) That will make your previous adjustments a bit useless. Solution: tell them not to adjust anything. If they look puzzled change the lab. Search the forum for 'prints' and you'll find information and recommendations about labs.
ACR? That's Adobe Camera RAW. You mean you have RAW files, edit them and then use "save" function? I don't know Adobe Bridge but Lightroom has a settings where you can select what to do: a) give new name; b) ask what to do; c) overwrite. You don't save any changes to a RAW file.
In case you work with JPG from the came I guess it's common sense that the program will not change your original file. Keep originals, always.
yup, i've always told them not to make any adjustments because i already did my own. patronized both grace lab and miao lan before. these 2 should be the most famous here, not sure of the others though, :sweat: .
yes i know ACR is adobe camera raw but sometimes i use them to edit jpegs as well. reason is because it's much more convenient compared to doing it in photoshop. if u're a seasoned PS user den u should get what i'm saying.
i did use lightroom before but abandoned it because it was pretty similar to bridge, just that the adjustments can be docked in the window itself.
i prefer replacement because my workspace is expanding pretty fast. too many pictures, too many folders, management is harder. prefer to keep things simple. i dump the raws after editing and converting to jpg (unless sending for print ) because it'd be more compact and easier to backup. if i kept my raws, i'd have quite a number of dvds already. u'll recommend portable hdd but it's less reliable after doing my own research on the best media for archival storage.
I will not recommend portable hdd's for archiving, that's even more insecure than any internal hdd.
First is to define the workflow, the location of certain data (imported, work in progress, finished) and the needs for archiving: which files? (RAW, jpg from cam, intermediate results, final results, print files, web files). How valuable are these files for you? The more valuable the more you should spend on data protection and archiving technology.
Lots of questions .. and I think it's rather dangerous to immediate delete something just because you're running out of space. Once you have made the above definitions it becomes clearer what to do and how to spend money; it defines your storage concept. RAID1 for internal disks is more or less compulsory. External disks should have RAID1 as well, better NAS storage with RAID5. There are some models from Buffalo and other vendors, easy plug and play. For archiving I'd recommend DVD for the time being. Don't burn with maximum speed (better accuracy), keep them in dry cabinet or in air-conditioned room. Do read tests once per year and copy to a new media latest after 5 years. There are even more reliable ways but I guess that will cost more than your current camera equipment.
Best way of cost savings is a good definition of what is really necessary. Deleting obviously missed shoots helps more than rushy deleting of edited files that you will miss next months or so.
Simple question: if your PC hdd dies tomorrow morning how much is left? Could you deliver the pictures that you have promised to friends or were ordered by customers? No universal answer, only you can decide
First is to define the workflow, the location of certain data (imported, work in progress, finished) and the needs for archiving: which files? (RAW, jpg from cam, intermediate results, final results, print files, web files). How valuable are these files for you? The more valuable the more you should spend on data protection and archiving technology.
Lots of questions .. and I think it's rather dangerous to immediate delete something just because you're running out of space. Once you have made the above definitions it becomes clearer what to do and how to spend money; it defines your storage concept. RAID1 for internal disks is more or less compulsory. External disks should have RAID1 as well, better NAS storage with RAID5. There are some models from Buffalo and other vendors, easy plug and play. For archiving I'd recommend DVD for the time being. Don't burn with maximum speed (better accuracy), keep them in dry cabinet or in air-conditioned room. Do read tests once per year and copy to a new media latest after 5 years. There are even more reliable ways but I guess that will cost more than your current camera equipment.
Best way of cost savings is a good definition of what is really necessary. Deleting obviously missed shoots helps more than rushy deleting of edited files that you will miss next months or so.
Simple question: if your PC hdd dies tomorrow morning how much is left? Could you deliver the pictures that you have promised to friends or were ordered by customers? No universal answer, only you can decide
for me, i would put DVDs above internal HDDs, even with RAID1/5 mirroring. this is because internal hdds are very unreliable unlike the past, where even my 'maxtorture' can last me a decade. nowadays ppl just send in for RMA every few months or so. at least for DVDs, those geeks have picked out certain media codes that are best compatible with that type of burner, and that it will last at least quite a few years. the slow burning speed is actually not applicable to DVDs anymore, last time it did matter a lot though - burning @ 48x (150kb/s =1x)would more or less create roller coasters versus the good-ol 4x speed. for the current generation of dvd burners, it doesn't matter that much. the quality score would be +/- 2.
hmm.. my imported/work in progress/finished stuff are all in the same directory actually. i organize by renaming all the folders in chronological order. The photos are also taken for personal use, not work purposes, so it wouldn't hit a 10/10 on importance. those that are really important to me, i would already have printed it out - so most probably it will stay forever, unless i move house and forget to take it along with me. lol.
looking from your post, you should have done quite a fair share of backup?
hmm.. my imported/work in progress/finished stuff are all in the same directory actually. i organize by renaming all the folders in chronological order. The photos are also taken for personal use, not work purposes, so it wouldn't hit a 10/10 on importance. those that are really important to me, i would already have printed it out - so most probably it will stay forever, unless i move house and forget to take it along with me. lol.
looking from your post, you should have done quite a fair share of backup?
hey thanks ortega.
was fiddling around with ACR again. found that i was actually saving my pics ( which was originally in sRGB ) in Adobe RGB instead. no wonder there was a color shift.
for those who have used faststone resizer, is it also because of the same reason? i can't find the color management option in that software though. it also faces the same problem - color shift after resizing. [ sometimes i just don't wanna go through PS to automate resizing - more steps ]
so what do you guys really use Adobe RGB for? i've read on the net but didn't really get what they were saying.
was fiddling around with ACR again. found that i was actually saving my pics ( which was originally in sRGB ) in Adobe RGB instead. no wonder there was a color shift.
for those who have used faststone resizer, is it also because of the same reason? i can't find the color management option in that software though. it also faces the same problem - color shift after resizing. [ sometimes i just don't wanna go through PS to automate resizing - more steps ]
so what do you guys really use Adobe RGB for? i've read on the net but didn't really get what they were saying.
i found this on the web and thought i could share it with you guys here.
http://www.mrjerz.org/blog/which-color-profile-should-i-use-for-online-photos
colormatch RGB is best for consistency in viewing online photos.
what about printouts and stuff? can't find them anywhere.. =/
http://www.mrjerz.org/blog/which-color-profile-should-i-use-for-online-photos
colormatch RGB is best for consistency in viewing online photos.
what about printouts and stuff? can't find them anywhere.. =/
Read this: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#
Unless you have full control over the whole workflow (e.g. as in printing) you have to compromise to what most people use: sRGB for viewing.
Unless you have full control over the whole workflow (e.g. as in printing) you have to compromise to what most people use: sRGB for viewing.
thanks for the link.
i'll be sticking to sRGB all the way then.
i have another question on ACR again!
- why is it that when i save the picture after editing ( assuming all variables are constant ), the picture size always turns out different? sometimes it's just 200kb, sometimes 1.1mb, sometimes 2.5mb for the SAME picture saved 3 times at exactly same settings. 200kb sounds too fishy for a full 10mp file ( from 1000d ) @ max quality settings. another thing is why will the picture turn out corrupted ( one fraction of the picture is discolored ) if i save too fast in ACR? i've never encountered such problems before.
i'll be sticking to sRGB all the way then.
i have another question on ACR again!
- why is it that when i save the picture after editing ( assuming all variables are constant ), the picture size always turns out different? sometimes it's just 200kb, sometimes 1.1mb, sometimes 2.5mb for the SAME picture saved 3 times at exactly same settings. 200kb sounds too fishy for a full 10mp file ( from 1000d ) @ max quality settings. another thing is why will the picture turn out corrupted ( one fraction of the picture is discolored ) if i save too fast in ACR? i've never encountered such problems before.
- Status
Similar threads
