Adobe RGB V sRGB

blondie606

blondie606

Messages
8,398
Name
Lynne
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm hoping someone on this forum can help me understand this .....it's driving me nuts !

Ever since I started photography my cameras have been set to Adobe RGB ...I shoot Nikon . I've never changed it because I wasn't aware of it....I know I know...RTFM !!

I PP in photoshop CC & when saving I have the ICC Profile Adobe RGB 1998 box ticked........never changed it .....I don't like changing things...it defaults to that so that's where it stays !

I have printed 6 canvas & at least 40 prints ranging from A4 to posters( canvas from Trade Canvas , Prints from DSCL ) & every time , without fail , the products have arrived looking EXACTLY the same as they do on my screen....(which is 15 years old & not calibrated ) In other words they have arrived perfect. I have never downloaded any profile from DSCL/Trade Canvas , I just upload my photo's as they are...which I presume is still in Adobe RGB .

Now , somewhere ,and I can't recall where , I've seen talk of sRGB & that you should shoot & process in sRGB.........

Can some one please explain why this is ? Preferably in words of one syllabul or less as I'm apparently being dim ( more so than usual),

I cannot fathom how sRGB is better than Adobe RGB .....actually , more to the point, why I should change what I've been doing .I'm quite happy to change if I can understand why ..
Will my prints look better than they currently do by changing to sRGB ?

Thanks in advance for any help / info/advice

Lynne...with a headache...x
 
Last edited:
blondie606 said:
Preferably in words of one syllabul or less…
Click to expand...
•

If you are shooting RAW, colour spaces are irrelevant since RAWs
have no colour space (data only, no picture). Using a RAW converter,
colour space is important only at publishing.

The choice is relevant when you want your camera to record in jpg
as those are images… no longer RAW data.

sRGB (1969) has a limited number of colours (gamut) as RGB (1998)
has a wider one. Todays internet permits comfortably the usage of the
later RGB.

In my experience, there are no reasons justifying the use of sRGB.
 
Well it confuses me. I have a dragonfly shot from last year that somehow made it's way into Prophoto RGB looks amazing in PS, looks absolutely crud in print. And I couldn't get it looking anywhere near as lovely in sRGB :( It was shot in RAW too. I am a bit more editing savvy now so may have to take another look.
 
blondie606 said:
I'm hoping someone on this forum can help me understand this .....it's driving me nuts !

Ever since I started photography my cameras have been set to Adobe RGB ...I shoot Nikon . I've never changed it because I wasn't aware of it....I know I know...RTFM !!

I PP in photoshop CC & when saving I have the ICC Profile Adobe RGB 1998 box ticked........never changed it .....I don't like changing things...it defaults to that so that's where it stays !

I have printed 6 canvas & at least 40 prints ranging from A4 to posters( canvas from Trade Canvas , Prints from DSCL ) & every time , without fail , the products have arrived looking EXACTLY the same as they do on my screen....(which is 15 years old & not calibrated ) In other words they have arrived perfect. I have never downloaded any profile from DSCL/Trade Canvas , I just upload my photo's as they are...which I presume is still in Adobe RGB .

Now , somewhere ,and I can't recall where , I've seen talk of sRGB & that you should shoot & process in sRGB.........

Can some one please explain why this is ? Preferably in words of one syllabul or less as I'm apparently being dim ( more so than usual),

I cannot fathom how sRGB is better than Adobe RGB .....actually , more to the point, why I should change what I've been doing .I'm quite happy to change if I can understand why ..
Will my prints look better than they currently do by changing to sRGB ?

Thanks in advance for any help / info/advice

Lynne...with a headache...x
Click to expand...

Adobe RGB is a much better colour space / wider colour gamut than sRGB. The latter is fine for web hosted images as it it fine for viewing on a screen but as you are getting prints done AND as you have been happy with what you get back, then forget all about sRGB Lynne clearly your printer can take what you send them and produce great results.
 
The goblin said:
Well it confuses me.
Click to expand...
•

I does because you're introducing yet another colour space ProBRG.
Clearly the better one but not yet widely supported else than by apps.
 
Most things that amateur photographers and the general public uses Displays in SRGB.
Unless you know the final output can make use of of Adobe RGB wider gamut, it is perhaps best to stay clear.
Though I suppose you could always convert Adobe RGB for outputs in SRGB, for showing on screens.

We have been waiting a very long time for systems that everyone uses to work with other than SRGB. ...... But it might happen one day.
for graphic design and print reproduction (ink) Adobe RGB is the way to go. Though ink print prefers CMYK. But that is another story.

High street labs are set up to print from SRGB. Some professional labs can work with Adobe RGB.
Few people ever see other than a SRGB out put or display.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
There's absolutely no point in you understand anything about colour space or profiles until you decide to change this:
Click to expand...

The goblin said:
You do need a bigger/ better monitor Lynne.
Click to expand...

I knew I'd get prodded about this @The goblin - I like the size of my screen :) I have got a spare screen which is larger but I'm reluctant to hook it up .....I'd have a proper melt down if the colors were different !....my lappy is awful ( & calibrated) really wishy washy....

@DemiLion -why do I need to change it when the colors I see on it are what appear in print ? I'm not being funny with that reply I just can't see why I need to change something that work's perfectly well ?


Thanks @Kodiak Qc for taking the time to reply...interesting points .
Cheers @posiview....I thought I was the only one !
@shoshone ......my prints/canvas's have been spot on using DSCL & Trade Canvas.......the only canvas's I've had issues with are 3 I got from 1 Click Print.....the colors were awful...as well as the actual canvas quality ! But then again they were only a fiver each ...
@Terrywoodenpic .....more interesting words....I've heard/seen CMYK but understand even less about that than RGB/sRGB :-(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
The color space output needs to be readable/reproducible by the final display (printer/monitor/program). The reason to use sRGB is not that it is "better," but rather that it is more widely accepted and more readily reproduced.

If you post images to the web in AdobeRGB they may look ok on your machine/browser, but not on others. The fact you have gotten good print results is due to the fact that the "AdobeRGB box" is to *embed* the color space information in the file, and the printer software/shop is able to read that and convert/apply it appropriately. Unchecking that box will cause you (additional) problems, it will not cause the image to be in a different color space.

Chances are that you are never seeing (much) more than sRGB either on your monitor or in the resulting prints.
 
blondie606 said:
@DemiLion -why do I need to change it when the colors I see on it are what appear in print ? I'm not being funny with that reply I just can't see why I need to change something that work's perfectly well ?
Click to expand...
You really don't need to change anything if your only concern is how things look to you on your monitor and the resulting prints...
 
sk66 said:
The color space output needs to be readable/reproducible by the final display (printer/monitor/program). The reason to use sRGB is not that it is "better," but rather that it is more widely accepted and more readily reproduced.

If you post images to the web in AdobeRGB they may look ok on your machine/browser, but not on others. The fact you have gotten good print results is due to the fact that the "AdobeRGB box" is to *embed* the color space information in the file, and the printer software/shop is able to read that and convert/apply it appropriately. Unchecking that box will cause you (additional) problems, it will not cause the image to be in a different color space.

Chances are that you are never seeing (much) more than sRGB either on your monitor or in the resulting prints.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.....I actually understand that @sk66 , it kinda makes sense now ,thanks for explaining it simply for me.....:)
 
sk66 said:
You really don't need to change anything if your only concern is how things look to you on your monitor and the resulting prints...
Click to expand...


Oh god.....what other concerns should I have ? I was worried, I admit , when I 1st ordered prints & canvas's...that they wouldn't look anything like what I was seeing on my screen . & that's partly the reason I don;t want to change it....I get what I see.

I've learnt that some people see photo's differently on their screens....giving & receiving crit in the 52's section for 4 year - the most common comment would be about color casts or brightness
Is that what you're refering to ? Does sRGB mean that , pretty much , a given image will look the same on virtually everyone's screen....even those not calibrated ( which , to be fair) will be the vast majority out there I would imagine.......possibly only photographers/designers/printers would calibrate ?
 
The vast majority of monitors/printers/print shops/etc work in sRGB (well they all do). Some may also be able to work with other color spaces *if* the image is properly tagged (color space embedded). If the image is not properly tagged, almost all systems (printers/machines/browsers etc) assume an image is sRGB.

So, no. Using sRGB will not make images look the same across all (uncalibrated or calibrated) systems. But sRGB has the least potential for deviations.

On this page (link below) the first row of options/rollovers is how untagged images will display on the web/print (basically). The second row is how your particular machine displays the color spaces when properly tagged.
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2
 
sk66 said:
The vast majority of monitors/printers/print shops/etc work in sRGB (well they all do). Some may also be able to work with other color spaces *if* the image is properly tagged (color space embedded). If the image is not properly tagged, almost all systems (printers/machines/browsers etc) assume an image is sRGB.

So, no. Using sRGB will not make images look the same across all (uncalibrated or calibrated) systems. But sRGB has the least potential for deviations.

On this page (link below) the first row of options/rollovers is how untagged images will display on the web/print (basically). The second row is how your particular machine displays the color spaces when properly tagged.
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2
Click to expand...


@sk66 ....Steven, that is a brilliant find , I've skim read it as it's late ( or should that be early !) so will digest properly tomorrow but at 1st glance it's finally making sense. On the 1st row of buttons I'm seeing wild variations of colors , the 2nd row I'm seeing virtually identical colors across all buttons , the final row i'm seeing 2 different colors...sRGB being more vibrant

You rally have been a great help Steve n ,thank you so so much (y)(y)(y)
 
blondie606 said:
@DemiLion -why do I need to change it when the colors I see on it are what appear in print ? I'm not being funny with that reply I just can't see why I need to change something that work's perfectly well ?
Click to expand...

My point is, why bother to soak up a huge volume of technically complex information (colour space and profiles being one of the most difficult things to master) when you aren't going to use it.

If you don't want to change your set up, you don't need the info in your head if you are happy with how your system works.
 
It boils down to this... If you want the best chance of other people seeing your photos as you intended on their monitors, change to sRGB with embedded profile.
If you don't change, there's a chance people could see your photos with colour changes illustrated in the above link.

Printing, it shouldn't matter.

If you don't care about how other people see your photos, it doesn't matter at all :)
 
Most monitors live in sRGB as do most printers. Your prints match the screen, which is the main idea. Ain't broke don't fix it :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
DemiLion said:
My point is, why bother to soak up a huge volume of technically complex information (colour space and profiles being one of the most difficult things to master) when you aren't going to use it.

If you don't want to change your set up, you don't need the info in your head if you are happy with how your system works.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh...but I'm one of those awkward beggars who like to know these things.......I needed to know so I could figure out if & what I need to change . I'm happy with my set-up but now need to learn how to save as sRGB for the web :) Would you be able to help with that at all please @DemiLion ?

Werecow said:
It boils down to this... If you want the best chance of other people seeing your photos as you intended on their monitors, change to sRGB with embedded profile.
If you don't change, there's a chance people could see your photos with colour changes illustrated in the above link.

Printing, it shouldn't matter.

If you don't care about how other people see your photos, it doesn't matter at all :)
Click to expand...

Cheers @Werecow ....as an asied I've heard of wereleopards & werepanthers but never Werecows ?? So , my next question/mission is to find out how to save as sRGB with an embedded profile of Adobe RGB for web use ......I feel another headache coming on......:)

Chappers said:
Most monitors live in sRGB as do most printers. Your prints match the screen, which is the main idea. Ain't broke don't fix it :)
Click to expand...

Cheers @Chappers ....I do post on the web , FB , my website , Flickr so would like to learn how to save as sRGB with an embedded profile :)
 
Because aRGB is a bigger colour space there is a danger when converting to sRGB fopr the web that some of the out of gamut colours cannot be easily reproduced so the sRGB image lacks the punch that you might get from the aRGB image. Landscapers in particular would benefit from the aRGB colour space due to the increased pallet in the greens.

When you save for the web, many browsers will display the image in sRGB - so your aRGB image will look different. So mostly we either decide to shoot in sRGB and live with that or convert to sRGB on export and print/save for the web from that.

If you are printing your work some labs require sRGB images but if you are printing aRGB and getting great results there's no need to change. It just adds an extra layer to your workflow.

there's no real right or wrong - it just depends on your own use. there's a decent visual representation here of the difference in the colour spaces

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167
 
I use ProPhoto RGB for editing (LR/PS) and the camera records in AdobeRGB. But the "benefits" of the larger color space are few/small and fairly hard to come by.

First, you need to be properly calibrated. Then you need to have a monitor that displays the color space (at least as wide as will be displayed/printed). Then you need to softproof with the correct profile. And then you need to run some proof images to verify that all of that was working right...

*Then* you might see some small benefit to using a color space wider than sRGB.

But the fact is (currently) the vast majority of monitors do not display more than sRGB... even my MBP Retina is only 99% of sRGB. And because of that, the rest is "guesswork." And the vast majority of printers/papers don't replicate much more than sRGB (if even that, they're either CMYK or Laser RGB). So I output everything in sRGB. The only purpose of using the wider color space in my workflow is for the future when displays/printing may become much more commonly capable of more than they are now.
 
Last edited:
That's a great point about your monitor color space too. My Dell's show 99% of aRGB space.

I shoot in RAW so color space in camera doesn't matter but I keep it simple and export in sRGB. There's nothing I need that extra color for really.
 
sk66 said:
the
only purpose of using the wider color space in my workflow is for the future when displays/printing may become much more commonly capable of more than they are now.
Click to expand...
shooting and keeping RAW files allows me to go back any time if I need to. A big IF though. And I'd just RE-edit.
 
In reality to see any noticeable benefit from anything other than Srgb you need to have a high-end monitor, home printer or use a Lab that processes using wider colour spaces .. you also need to be confident in converting between them and the issues it can cause. I've tried them all and have gone back to a full Srgb workflow, keeps things simple, reduces any issues caused by conversion and everyone can see/print my images with no problems.

Argb can sometimes result in slightly odd looking greens in particular but more and more monitors and printers are getting closer to displaying it these days that for the most part you'll get away with it so stick with what you know until you see any problems, otherwise you'll just end up going around in circles like I did when I first starting experimenting with colour space

Simon
 
Last edited:
blondie606 said:
Ahhhh...but I'm one of those awkward beggars who like to know these things.......I needed to know so I could figure out if & what I need to change . I'm happy with my set-up but now need to learn how to save as sRGB for the web :) Would you be able to help with that at all please @DemiLion ?
Click to expand...

Buy a decent monitor (Dell Ultrasharp for example).
Calibrate it.

Use sRGB from the start to the end of your workflow.

Having said that, colour space is immaterial when you are shooting in RAW but file names starting with an underscore are annoying.
There ared virtually no circumstances where you will require anything other than sRGB and if you do, then you'll already understand enough about colour spaces to know why.

The only thing in your workflow that shouldn't be set to sRGB is your calibrated monitor which will have a custom setting.
 
The one caveat I would add is to be sure you are working in a 16bit environment/file (raw(12-14bit), tiff, dng, psd). It's not the color space so much, but jpegs are 8bit and it's easy to get switched to 8bit w/ sRGB (for some reason it seems PS wants to default to that).
 
sk66 said:
I work with both raw and jpeg, but raw much more often. And you would have to re-edit to see any (additional) benefit in the future.
Click to expand...
I agree
Most of my edits are in Lightroom only. 16bit isn't really for everyone. You don't need for example 16bit wedding images (unless the odd one has a particular gradiant) causing a problem.

A lot isd down to how and what you shoot.
 
I suppose that depends on a number of factors - Particularly a good calibrated screen. Absolutely 16bit images will solve banding issues - I usually see it in my jpg images if there's a problem and it's so rare it just doesn;'t make sense for the type of images I produce. But I do agree
 
I guess I see it as the same as working with raw and wide color spaces... it's a "just in case" thing. If you can get it right, a straight jpeg workflow is quicker/easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top