Should i import/export photos as AdobeRGB or sRGB - confused


Status
Not open for further replies.

myloplex

New Member
May 27, 2003
702
0
0
Visit site
Quite new to PS and color management.

1) imported file 'encoded' in AdobeRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color seems less saturated
2) imported file 'encoded' in sRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color matches imported file

Which is the correct one to use...especially to post on web for ppl to view .... :think:
 

hmmm, from what I know here, Adobe RGB offers a greater color space, and displays more colors, and I shoot in that cause I shoot for publications.

sRGB is fine, although colors displayed/detected are lesser than that of Adobe, I think you have calibrated to shoot in sRGB in your cam.Set it to Adobe RGB in your cam and there should be no prob.
 

Quite new to PS and color management.

1) imported file 'encoded' in AdobeRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color seems less saturated
2) imported file 'encoded' in sRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color matches imported file

Which is the correct one to use...especially to post on web for ppl to view .... :think:

i think for web...better stick with sRGB;)
 

Maybe i can be more specific and see how you pros can help.

An example: I'm a wedding photograher.
My client's wants:
- Photos to put on web for their friends/family to view.
- Photos in print (typical A4 size and NOT those huge wedding albums)

Steps I should take:
1) Set my cam to AdobeRGB
2) Adjust images in PS to desired exposure/hue etc ...
3) For Web -> Errmm ..convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB ? How ? Can PS do this?
4) For Print -> Export images as JPEG (AdobeRGB as set on my cam) and sent for printing? I think PSD format may be too huge for normal photo shops as will be printing hundreds of pics.

Please pardon me as very new to all these color management terms and would like good advise :)
 

Quite new to PS and color management.

1) imported file 'encoded' in AdobeRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color seems less saturated
2) imported file 'encoded' in sRGB - used save as for web function - resulting color matches imported file

Which is the correct one to use...especially to post on web for ppl to view .... :think:

i also wana know.. from my desktop publishing classes i learnt that AdobeRGB got more colours than sRGB, but my D80 default is in sRGB.

are there any issues if switch the camera to AdobeRGB?
 

i also wana know.. from my desktop publishing classes i learnt that AdobeRGB got more colours than sRGB, but my D80 default is in sRGB.

are there any issues if switch the camera to AdobeRGB?

No particular issues, just that you need to get your monitor color profile calibrated for Adobe RGB for editing, and under preferences in PS, change your editing color space/ICC color profile to Adobe RGB 1998, which most printers recognise.

Let me be more specific.

For prints in publications. (industrially, for publications, your color MODE, not space is important)

for me, I shoot in AdobeRGB, edit in Adobe RGB, convert the color Mode (color space dun touch) from RGB to CMYK.

leave the printing color calibration to my printer, dun care liao... haha. +D

For PHOTO prints,

AdobeRGB reads more range of colors, but depending on the printer, whether the computer they use to process the prints are using sRGB or AdobeRGB, incompatibility issues might arise, since, from what i know, the photo stores USUALLY dun give a damn about this.

If you're using ur OWN printer (whatever, Pixma, what, blah blah) you can calibrate it to read Adobe instead of sRGB, which is the default.
 

if u are printing at commercial printers, most only do it SRGB. so converting to AdobeRGB wun make much diff.
 

How do you calibrate a pixma printer to Adobe RGB from sRGB?:dunno:
 

Seriously, there's very little need to shoot or work in Adobe RGB since nothing outputs that much range of colours in the first place -- how often do people have such output devices (printers etc)? Shooting and working with Adobe RGB is way over-rated. If you're going the Adobe route, why not ProPhoto RGB? It's even larger! The only case where I'd consider using Adobe RGB is when the subject matter has lots of subtle differences in shade of a similar colour. Else I think sRGB works fine. At the end of the day when you convert to CMYK I think you lose way more -- not to mention the commercial printing which brings it down yet another notch.

If you shoot weddings. Shoot whatever you want (if it's RAW it doesn't matter). But deliver sRGB. It's simple. The people look at photos on their machines. Not all of them have photoshop or other great photo viewing apps. The commercial printers that they'll bring to print will also tend to accept sRGB.
 

I think if you are not familiar with colour management, it's safer to work in sRGB as most printers and IE only reads sRGB.

To give an analogy, which I've learnt from a colour management seminar organized by Gamut Labs some time ago, colour spaces are just like languages. When a device like IE see's a picture, it'll try to interpret the picture which tells it how to show the picture on screen. The translater used by IE is a sRGB translater (as it is not colourspace aware), so if you give it a picture in aRGB, it's not able to correctly interpret the colours and will show a less saturated picture, even though the aRGB colourspace is supposed to be bigger. If you use a broswer such as the Apple Safari, which is colourspace aware, it will correctly interpret the aRGB picture and display the colours correctly.

It's true that most consumer printers nowadays cannot output more than the aRGB colourspace or even the sRGB colourspace, there are still advantages in using aRGB as it preserves more colour data (i.e. less clipping of extreme colours) during post processing. It's always better to work in a bigger colourspace and then converting it to the appropriate colourspace for output later.

Colour management is really a big topic to talk about and I've learnt quite a bit from Gamut Labs. Do take time to read up on it. There are a few good books in the library that you can borrow (forgot the title of the book though, only remember it is red and has a frog on the cover :p)

Just my 2 cents.
 

as others have pointed out sRGB is more suitable for output to printers or web...

most desktop printers have difficulty even printing sRGB, much less aRGB...so far, only the really REAlly high end desktop printers, like the Canon IPF5000 and Epson Pro series can match or exceed sRGB...and even then, from personal experience, the Epson Pro 4800 still has some ways in certain colours (like deep purplish blue) before matching sRGB...and that is like one of Epson's top of the line pro printers...

as for web usage, most current browsers are tuned to sRGB anyway so aRGB images might not show properly...as mentioned by threadstarter, the image may look less saturated...that's cause the browser is trying to interpret aRGB data as sRGB...

personally, I don't find it useful to work in aRGB when editing images...if I want more colour "legroom", I would rather use 16bit sRGB files than rely on aRGB...there are alot more advantages to using 16bit, like being able to push the image further, having smoother colour gradations...of course, the files are much bigger so I use it only if I need to make drastic changes...if you are shooting in jpg, yes, shooting in aRGB will give you more legroom...but if you really want to be safe, shooting in RAW is still the better bet...

for commercial photo developers, sRGB is fine...that's what their machines read anyway... process printers (like those who print magazines and stuff) might need CMYK output but unless you know what you are doing, don't output in CMYK...give them the sRGB file and allow them to do the conversion...but to make sure you get good colour, its best to give them a printed colour proof...

one more thing...most monitors have difficulty displaying full aRGB anyways...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.