Colour profiles


thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#1
Hi all,

I am looking for some advice from some of you. Recently I've started playing with a different colour profile, i.e. AdobeRGB, previously have always used the sRGB profile.
I noticed that when using different profiles when PP-ing and then saving the file, the image turn out to be dull-coloured, meaning when I edit the image on my screen the colours look ok, until I save it and then try to view it later. Somehow think there is a mismatch of colour profiles somewhere.

Just wondering which profile do you all use? Do you use AdobeRGB in Camera Raw, then convert to sRGB when saving the image, or use the same profile from beginning to end?

Which profile is recommended for internet viewing? I know that using the wrong profile may cause images' colours to be displayed incorrectly when viewed on the web.

Thanks in advance for any help.
 

Peano

New Member
Jul 30, 2008
200
0
0
Washington, D.C.
www.radiantpics.com
#2
When saving for the web, convert to sRGB. If you want to keep your psd file in AdobeRGB, then use "Save for Web" and check the box to convert to sRGB. That will convert the saved image but will leave the psd file unchanged.
 

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#3
When saving for the web, convert to sRGB. If you want to keep your psd file in AdobeRGB, then use "Save for Web" and check the box to convert to sRGB. That will convert the saved image but will leave the psd file unchanged.
Yea, seems to be the case.. using a color space other than sRGB results in funny colors for images posted on the web
Thanks for the tip..
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,517
31
48
Pasir Ris
#4
Yea, seems to be the case.. using a color space other than sRGB results in funny colors for images posted on the web
Two possible reasons:
1) No ICC profile embedded. This will tell the browser / viewer that the image is in AdobeRGB and that the colours need to be interpreted differently.
2) Browser / Viewer not ICC profile aware. Check this site: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#
In the end: it's highly recommended using sRGB for posting on the net. Especially when portals like flickr / FB do additional conversions.
 

Last edited:

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#5
Two possible reasons:
1) No ICC profile embedded. This will tell the browser / viewer that the image is in AdobeRGB and that the colours need to be interpreted differently.
2) Browser / Viewer not ICC profile aware. Check this site: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#
In the end: it's highly recommended using sRGB for posting on the net. Especially when portals like flickr / FB do additional conversions.
Thanks for the very informative link..
From now on, for me it's sRGB from start to finish :bsmilie:
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#6
From now on, for me it's sRGB from start to finish :bsmilie:
your colour management workflow is depend on the intended purposes.

However, it is better to have the original image caputre with higher colour gamut (ie AdobeRGB) then convert the colour profile accordingly. Cos as technology changes the day will come when all the browsers will able to render images according to their profiles.
 

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#7
your colour management workflow is depend on the intended purposes.

However, it is better to have the original image caputre with higher colour gamut (ie AdobeRGB) then convert the colour profile accordingly. Cos as technology changes the day will come when all the browsers will able to render images according to their profiles.
My reasoning is just that during processing with sRGB i can see the actual colours that will be produced and so able to tweak accordingly, whereas if using adobeRGB, but there will be some unknown colour tones that may be lost after converting to sRGB

But when that day comes, then we'll all use adobeRGB all the way as the colours are more varied :D
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#8
My reasoning is just that during processing with sRGB i can see the actual colours that will be produced and so able to tweak accordingly, whereas if using adobeRGB, but there will be some unknown colour tones that may be lost after converting to sRGB

But when that day comes, then we'll all use adobeRGB all the way as the colours are more varied :D
If you caputred the image in AdobeRGB, you can convert it to sRGB before you do post processing. This way you will have the AdobeRGB image for other uses.

Most of the time the conversions between AdobeRGB to sRGB are OK. Unless you are converting to CMYK, this is really a pain even in this modern age of prepress for both graphic artist and offset printer.
 

hotwork77

New Member
Jun 21, 2009
1,353
0
0
1°19'37.70"N 103°47'39.19"E
#9
your colour management workflow is depend on the intended purposes.

However, it is better to have the original image caputre with higher colour gamut (ie AdobeRGB) then convert the colour profile accordingly. Cos as technology changes the day will come when all the browsers will able to render images according to their profiles.
My reasoning is just that during processing with sRGB i can see the actual colours that will be produced and so able to tweak accordingly, whereas if using adobeRGB, but there will be some unknown colour tones that may be lost after converting to sRGB

But when that day comes, then we'll all use adobeRGB all the way as the colours are more varied :D
We have been using sRGB for far too long to remember. Hollywood is using it, our monitors are calibrated based on it. So why change? :cool:
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#10
We have been using sRGB for far too long to remember. Hollywood is using it, our monitors are calibrated based on it. So why change? :cool:
Not so sure why we need to change. But I do remember asking the same question when they changed from monochrome to SRGB based monitor.
 

sadwitch

New Member
Dec 25, 2007
469
0
0
#12
I recommend sRGB for web. No need to deal with conversion. I started with using adobeRGB cause of the larger gamut but realise very soon it ran into alot of problems displaying on web and print properly. Also its better for colour aware browsers like safari and firefox. So sRGB is the most hassle free for web publishing.
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#13
I recommend sRGB for web. No need to deal with conversion. I started with using adobeRGB cause of the larger gamut but realise very soon it ran into alot of problems displaying on web and print properly. Also its better for colour aware browsers like safari and firefox. So sRGB is the most hassle free for web publishing.
Hmmm then maybe I am wrong all these year with my colour management workflow. I think I will revert to monochrome to avoid all these colour issues.
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#14
I recommend sRGB for web. No need to deal with conversion. I started with using adobeRGB cause of the larger gamut but realise very soon it ran into alot of problems displaying on web and print properly. Also its better for colour aware browsers like safari and firefox. So sRGB is the most hassle free for web publishing.
btw do you also recommend shooting at 72 dpi since that is the resolution for web.
 

hotwork77

New Member
Jun 21, 2009
1,353
0
0
1°19'37.70"N 103°47'39.19"E
#15
I recommend sRGB for web. No need to deal with conversion. I started with using adobeRGB cause of the larger gamut but realise very soon it ran into alot of problems displaying on web and print properly. Also its better for colour aware browsers like safari and firefox. So sRGB is the most hassle free for web publishing.
Hmmm then maybe I am wrong all these year with my colour management workflow. I think I will revert to monochrome to avoid all these colour issues.
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller. sRGB is specified in IEC 61966-2.1, which you may also see when examining color profiles. If you use Adobe RGB you will have to remember to convert back to sRGB for sending your prints out or sharing them on the Internet. Otherwise they look duller than sRGB. :cool:
 

hotwork77

New Member
Jun 21, 2009
1,353
0
0
1°19'37.70"N 103°47'39.19"E
#16
btw do you also recommend shooting at 72 dpi since that is the resolution for web.
If you only shoot to view them on your monitor, then 72dpi would suffice. However, like me, I tend to blow them up to life size, so shooting at 240dpi or better is always recommended. :cool:
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#17
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller. sRGB is specified in IEC 61966-2.1, which you may also see when examining color profiles. If you use Adobe RGB you will have to remember to convert back to sRGB for sending your prints out or sharing them on the Internet. Otherwise they look duller than sRGB. :cool:
It's all about proper colour management workflow.
 

sadwitch

New Member
Dec 25, 2007
469
0
0
#18
Sorry for the late reply. It doesn't matter whether you choose 72dpi or 300dpi in the camera, the results is just the difference in the "physical" dimension of the image.

Eg. A 12 Megapixel camera (4000 x 3000px) shot at 72dpi will result in a physical output size of around 1410mm x 1050mm (mostly use for banners, Giant posters)

The same 12MP camera shot at 300dpi will result in 330mm x 250mm in physical output size. (magazines, catalogs, brouchures, photoprints)

As for how it translate on screen size, a 12MP, 4000 x 3000 px image will roughly need 4 LCD screens to fit the full size image if each screen resolution is 1920x1200px. The physical size will depend on the pixel pitch of the LCD screen (imagine the difference of a 42inch TV at 1920x1080 vs a 24inch monitor at the same 1920x1080 is actually in the size of each pixel)

So the more dpi you can squeeze into a certain dimension will usually result in better display quality but note any more pixels beyond 300dpi will tend to get lost in conventional printing.

With that in mind it's important to look at the quality of the pixels from the camera instead of just the advertised resolution when reviewing images.




btw do you also recommend shooting at 72 dpi since that is the resolution for web.
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#19
Ok. We can only set the quality of the image in the camera and that '72dpi' is just an arbitrary number. It could well be 0 dpi.
 

kayaboi

New Member
Mar 21, 2010
138
0
0
#20
I read somewhere that if you capture in RAW, then it doesn't matter whether it's Adobe RGB or sRGB as you can assign the colour space later on in post.
 

Top Bottom