D70s color mode


Status
Not open for further replies.

sgfriend

New Member
Dec 20, 2005
520
0
0
Pasir Ris
Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?

Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,925
0
36
sgfriend said:
Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?

Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
No. It depends on your preference.
 

idor

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2004
666
0
0
45
Northern California
sgfriend said:
Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?

Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
erm... I always use aRGB mode 2... so my answer is no..... but then I do know some pple who change modes according to their preferance... but you dun have to....
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
idor said:
erm... I always use aRGB mode 2... so my answer is no..... but then I do know some pple who change modes according to their preferance... but you dun have to....
Learn from the NG PRO :thumbsup:
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,453
0
36
If you don't have a good idea of colour management, leave it at sRGB I.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Zerstorer said:
If you don't have a good idea of colour management, leave it at sRGB I.
Why not share your thoughts on sRGB I, aRGB I and sRGB III ? :)
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,453
0
36
espn said:
Why not share your thoughts on sRGB I, aRGB I and sRGB III ? :)
For you certainly.

sRGB I and sRGB III are nikon's colour modes in standard sRGB colour space.
(sRGB I) is biased towards smoother rendition of skintones and has a reddish hint.
(sRGB III) is intended for landscapes and will give stronger yellows and greens.

(aRGB II) Puts the jpeg output in AdobeRGB mode and this colour mode intended to give an accurate colour reproduction. This requires you to have a proper colour managed workflow and knowledge of profile conversions between image and output spaces before you decide to work on it.

When in doubt, stick to sRGB I for at least you will get people looking right.

Hope you find it helpful.:)
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Zerstorer said:
For you certainly.

sRGB I and sRGB III are nikon's colour modes in standard sRGB colour space.
(sRGB I) is biased towards smoother rendition of skintones and has a reddish hint.
(sRGB III) is intended for landscapes and will give stronger yellows and greens.

(aRGB II) Puts the jpeg output in AdobeRGB mode and this colour mode intended to give an accurate colour reproduction. This requires you to have a proper colour managed workflow and knowledge of profile conversions between image and output spaces before you decide to work on it.

When in doubt, stick to sRGB I for at least you will get people looking right.

Hope you find it helpful.:)
I do find it helpful, but in what cases would aRGB be good? I'm still pretty stumped, I do know from aRGB -> sRGB you don't loes anything but it would not let you gain anything if you went vice-versa.

I've had an hour long lecture from Watcher on this but still it boggles my mind. Seems to me that aRGB is more for web representation than printing whereby sRGB is still much preferred.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,453
0
36
espn said:
I do find it helpful, but in what cases would aRGB be good? I'm still pretty stumped, I do know from aRGB -> sRGB you don't loes anything but it would not let you gain anything if you went vice-versa.
All these colour modes only influence the jpeg output of the camera. The aRGB modes are tuned by nikon to give as accurate a colour rendition as possible for an out of camera jpeg.

aRGB is a larger colourspace than sRGB and thus remapping/compressing the values down to sRGB is possible and still have a perceptually similar result with some loss of information.

Doing it the other way, simply expands the colourspace without any data to fill in what is missing and thus, no benefit.

I've had an hour long lecture from Watcher on this but still it boggles my mind. Seems to me that aRGB is more for web representation than printing whereby sRGB is still much preferred.
It's quite the opposite.

sRGB is the arbitrary web standard. Images will only look reasonably right on the web when in sRGB colourspace. This is because sRGB was originally intended for a web workflow where there is absolutely no colourmanagement. This still holds today as no PC browser has colourmanagement and only certain Mac versions of IE and Safari have colour management to properly identify colour profiles.

Putting aRGB images on the web will simply make them appear dull, desaturate, washed out when view on browsers or any software that has no colourmanagement.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,453
0
36
Adobe RGB or any larger colourspace is useful only when you are editing images and printing them on an output device that has a gamut larger than sRGB. Adobe RGB is capable of representing more hues and colours and would thus allow the printer to fully maximize its capabilities.

However, there is a tradeoff between colourspace and tonal graduations. Else everyone would be working in ProPhoto or WideRGB.
 

rebbot

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2005
1,828
0
0
Thanks Zerstorer for sharing! Will consult you on color management next time~ :)
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,925
0
36
aRGB good for peoplpe who shoot for commercials. They will need to convert the colours to CMYK at the end of the day and Adobe has a proper colour matching for that. Remember what you see on the screen is always RGB, sRGB and aRGB is just how the colour space is represented in the file and for printing there is another set of colour space and so to ensure accurate colour reproduction, all these have to be matched.

So by right, if you use aRGB profile to open aRGB files, it should look the same on the monitor as if you use sRGB to open sRGB files, only for certain colours you lose some tonal range and you gain some for other colours.

From what I know, the correct flow for colour matchign can be quite complicated. For me, I just calibrate my monitor with Colorvision Spyder and that ensures that my monitor is visually mapped more closely to the sRGB colour space.

When I send to the lab for printing, I believe they do not use aRGB to open sRGB files, so in that sense I know that if their system is calibrated to print correctly over the sRGB space, then my prints would come out right, and most of the time they do and match quite closely to what I see on my screen if I tell them specifically not to colour correct.

For direct prints, most of the time I don't specify that but sometimes if they ask, I will tell them to correct if they see a need to.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Zerstorer said:
All these colour modes only influence the jpeg output of the camera. The aRGB modes are tuned by nikon to give as accurate a colour rendition as possible for an out of camera jpeg.

aRGB is a larger colourspace than sRGB and thus remapping/compressing the values down to sRGB is possible and still have a perceptually similar result with some loss of information.

Doing it the other way, simply expands the colourspace without any data to fill in what is missing and thus, no benefit.
Ok, I got this part right. So for printing, am I still being outdated that aRGB's gamut is still wider and impossible to achieve as compared to sRGB's gamut?

If I'm to convert aRGB to sRGB, wouldn't that result in a loss of information that would require me to reprocess the images? I've been converting aRGB to sRGB but I don't significantly find a difference after conversion from Nikon View (select-> right click -> JPEG) and PS (convert to profile). Am I doing something wrong or is it my eyes ? I do see differences when I select a different mode of colours in Nikon Capture.

Of course, it's impossible to go forward from small gamut to wider gamut so I can understand it's not ideal for sRGB -> aRGB conversion.


Zerstorer said:
It's quite the opposite.

sRGB is the arbitrary web standard. Images will only look reasonably right on the web when in sRGB colourspace. This is because sRGB was originally intended for a web workflow where there is absolutely no colourmanagement. This still holds today as no PC browser has colourmanagement and only certain Mac versions of IE and Safari have colour management to properly identify colour profiles.

Putting aRGB images on the web will simply make them appear dull, desaturate, washed out when view on browsers or any software that has no colourmanagement.
I see, I get your point now, I've been mixing them up all along. Been thinking that aRGB is the de-facto standard for web browsing.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Zerstorer said:
Adobe RGB or any larger colourspace is useful only when you are editing images and printing them on an output device that has a gamut larger than sRGB. Adobe RGB is capable of representing more hues and colours and would thus allow the printer to fully maximize its capabilities.

However, there is a tradeoff between colourspace and tonal graduations. Else everyone would be working in ProPhoto or WideRGB.
I presume you're talking about commercial printers that would be capable of the CMYK and other colourspaces that are way over what aRGB/sRGB can do?

I'm still lost at the printing portion.
 

d7t3

New Member
Oct 3, 2002
690
0
0
In the Shepherd's hands
You don't always need to change. Try both Ia or IIIa and compare the results! Use what you like.

You cannot use a camera profile as your monitor profile, if that's your idea. Your monitor should be profiled to give a good monitor display (calibration). Then you will be able to see the Ia and IIIa images properly.

If you view using a colour-space-aware software, it should basically be set to sRGB.

sgfriend said:
Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?

Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,453
0
36
espn said:
Ok, I got this part right. So for printing, am I still being outdated that aRGB's gamut is still wider and impossible to achieve as compared to sRGB's gamut?
Depends on what you are printing from. Frontiers are still more or less sRGB bound. Most of the better inkjets have exceeded sRGB in many areas and approximate adobeRGB.

If I'm to convert aRGB to sRGB, wouldn't that result in a loss of information that would require me to reprocess the images? I've been converting aRGB to sRGB but I don't significantly find a difference after conversion from Nikon View (select-> right click -> JPEG) and PS (convert to profile). Am I doing something wrong or is it my eyes ? I do see differences when I select a different mode of colours in Nikon Capture.
That's the beauty of it. The algorithm will attempt to remap and blend the colours such that you will get a SIMILAR looking print even when you go from AdobeRGB to sRGB.

If you were to see a big difference then the profile conversion would have been flawed.
Note the choice of rendering intent:
Perceptual->remap all values for closest visual match, avoid clipping
Relative Colormetric->Match exact values within gamut, remap those that exceed to closest color
Absolute Colormetric->Match only exact values, clip values out of gamut (not recommended for photos)

Generally, people only use perceptual or RC for photos.

However, you will see a difference when the gamut of the source image is significantly larger and the actual images does contain colours that meet the limits. In those cases, the differences would be visible even when you remap.

If you are not seeing any difference now, it might be that your images do not even contain the colours that stretch the limits of sRGB.
 

d7t3

New Member
Oct 3, 2002
690
0
0
In the Shepherd's hands
not true. you still have choose a mode/profile to output your images to.

Michael said:
If you shoot in RAW then you dont have to worry about it at all.....
 

Status
Not open for further replies.