and help to keep the site free for all
Beginner RGB or Adobe?
- Thread starter Bletch
- Start date
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
The fact a monitor uses IPS technology is not indicative of the depth of colourspace you should use. If you're shooting RAW no colourspace is attached anyway. As a very general rule if you;re asking what colourspace to use sRGB is the answer
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
•
Adobe is among the leaders in the printing business. It proposed over the years
some solutions to standardize the colour interpretation in the industry and that was
desperately needed.
FYI, two RGB profiles are largely used and the trick here is to be constant from
the beginning to the end of your chosen workflow. These profiles are sRGB from
1968 and RGB 1998. In the early days of the web, sRGB was better suited as the
web itself and the computer were say low performing. Nowadays, however, web
technologies and computers are at a level where all can benefit from the wider
RGB 1998.
Another greater and better RGB profile, the ProRGB profile, was created quite a
while ago but the market acceptance is rather slow. "We don't need it" some say.
I have been working on special projects in that colour space with great pleasure.
Adobe is among the leaders in the printing business. It proposed over the years
some solutions to standardize the colour interpretation in the industry and that was
desperately needed.
FYI, two RGB profiles are largely used and the trick here is to be constant from
the beginning to the end of your chosen workflow. These profiles are sRGB from
1968 and RGB 1998. In the early days of the web, sRGB was better suited as the
web itself and the computer were say low performing. Nowadays, however, web
technologies and computers are at a level where all can benefit from the wider
RGB 1998.
Another greater and better RGB profile, the ProRGB profile, was created quite a
while ago but the market acceptance is rather slow. "We don't need it" some say.
I have been working on special projects in that colour space with great pleasure.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The colour space existed before under an other appellation and (was not a digital
process) used to calibrate colour photo printers if I remember well. True is, that in
1998, HP and Microsoft adapted the colour profile and created a digital colour space
for the new emerging personal computer and home printing devices market.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
^^^ This.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Whether you can display the full range of Adobe RGB or not has nothing to do with whether the screen is IPS or not. IPS is just the panel technology used. What determines the ability to display the full range of colours contained in Adobe RGB is the screen's gamut.
This is absolutely NOT true at all. The vast majority of screens still can not display the full range of Adobe RGB1998. Furthermore, hardly any web browsers will effectively colour manage, and even if they did, even fewer people actually correctly embed their images with the correct colour profile. In fact many applications and web sites will actually strip it away, Facebook included. Firefox is the only web browser that effectively honours your system's monitor profile, the rest just force sRGB.
Using and embedding Adobe RGB1998 is not harmful if you know what you're doing, but embedding it for images that are intended for the web can result in de-saturated images when viewed in non-colour managed situations. It really is best avoided for images intended for the internet.
However, sRGB images viewed on a wide gamut monitor when not effectively colour managed will result in over-saturation.
Unless you actually know what you're doing, the best advice to give any newcomer, or beginner.... and in fact, most experienced people, is use sRGB. Surprisingly few people understand colour workflow properly.
No such screen exists that can display the full gamut of Pro Photo... effectively, you're working blind, just as you effectively are if you use AdobeRGB1998 on a standard gamut screen. There's hardly any printing devices in existence that can even get close to the ProPhoto gamut range as well. It's actually pretty pointless. I'd be interested in how you feel it has benefited you.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,533
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My personal take on this choice, is to use Adobe rgb for wider gamut, but to then use the appropriate colour space on export, e.g. rgb for web, etc.
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One other issue I thought was Lightroom ran raw images in pro photo anyway until I exported them so for the op if he shots raw and uses LR won't he be in what he is given until export
Looking forward for reply as like op I shoot raw work them as is until exporting for web use
Looking forward for reply as like op I shoot raw work them as is until exporting for web use
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
May I ask do you shoot raw or JPEG
- Messages
- 3,533
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry, should have stated, that I should raw.
Shoot in your widest gamut, process in your widest gamut, print in your widest gamut.
However this is only if all steps of your process is colour management, one error and it all goes tits up.
sRGB for web and low end printers.
Ask for a printing profile if you have a good printer.
However this is only if all steps of your process is colour management, one error and it all goes tits up.
sRGB for web and low end printers.
Ask for a printing profile if you have a good printer.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope not a big issue for me pleased with my printing I am far more enticed by printing than sending all to Flickr
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It's irrelevant.... no monitors can display the gamut of Pro Photo... they simply do not exist. It's the same in Adobe Camera Raw. Raw files have no colour profile attached or embedded, they contain the full gamut of tones your camera is capable of recording. It will be wider than Adobe RGB, yes, but not as wide as Pro Photo. Despite this, you are limited by the gamut of your screen. So long as you're colour managed, things will look "correct", it's just that the more saturated tones may not display. As Pro Photo is such a wide colour space, you are running risks of some tones becoming significantly inaccurate once you start altering things in post, and you'll never be aware of it.
It simply makes sense to work within a colour space you can actually see, which is ultimately determined by your monitor.
Regardless... anything for web should be converted to sRGB.
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you can LR6 be set for Adobe rgb or are we stuck with pro photo, before I bought Lightroom I ran photoshop and set colour for Adobe rgb no idea why LR is set for prophoto
Thank you
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But do you know if LR can be set for AdobeRGB instead
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
•
MUST BE POSSIBLE! …since ProRGB is NOT an Adobe initiative nor product.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
You cannot set which colour space Lightroom uses. In general terms it uses AdobeRGB to display images except when in the Develop module where it uses ProPhoto RGB. You set or choose which profile/colour space to use on export. More details can be found here (page 59) https://helpx.adobe.com/pdf/lightroom_reference.pdf
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you guys the pdf was really excellent never knew that they had such a reference guide.
Find it so strange in develop module they use different colour space even using soft proof it seems an odd commercial decision think I prefer photoshop in that preference can be set great shame bridge is not as good for catalogs
Cheers
Allan
Ps I use Mac so monitor is not wide gamut enough even for lower spec Adobe rgb
Find it so strange in develop module they use different colour space even using soft proof it seems an odd commercial decision think I prefer photoshop in that preference can be set great shame bridge is not as good for catalogs
Cheers
Allan
Ps I use Mac so monitor is not wide gamut enough even for lower spec Adobe rgb
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Shoot sRGB and concentrate on taking better pictures instead. 
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Good idea except I shoot raw so colour profile is applied laterShoot sRGB and concentrate on taking better pictures instead.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
I shoot RAW too. Just choose sRGB at all stages and be done with it. Nobody who matters will ever question it or notice the difference.
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You know what I think I would really like that, I started using adobergb after reading Scott Kelby and using CS3 when I eventually started using LR3 I thought it used pro for all modules and only on export could I switch and use sRGB
On import I use convert for DNG is this what you do and if so how are you converting into raw sRGB and I assume you will be using 8 bit
Cheers
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
I just export to sRGB. I've never felt the need to look into it any more deeply.
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok thank you
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
When you're dealing with the raw files, there is no profile attached to the raw file.. there's not adhering to any colour space... they have the full gamut that the camera delivers. Only when you export into a bitmapped file format do you choose what colourspace to embed them with.
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am going to be totally honest I have tried getting my head round this since about 2007
I do understand that my raw file is not tagged with a profile if I set Adobe rgb the small JPEG stored will try to give more gamut
In Bridge and acr I could preset my workspace for AdobeRGB and stick in that until export for web
In LR when I import and convert for DNG all modules except develop work In AdobeRGB but develop works in prophotorgb
On my iMac if I soft proof in either AdobeRGB or prophoto and check what can not be displayed a considerable amount is blued out I think iMac covers 80% AdobeRGB and far less pro but all sRgb
I formally had a del that I understand covered 98% AdobeRGB and was colour profiled, the iMac is not profiled
As my monitor will not display the gamut would I be better working in Bridge and photoshop in sRGB or LR even though in develop I am missing a lot of the colours. My printer is Epson has profiles for AdobeRGB and accepts 16bit input as far as I understand
Did I mention I dislike intensely colour space
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
That's not how it works. In ACR, again, it is displaying the raw file in whatever colour profile your operating system has set as it's default working space.. in honours your system profile. In my case, my system profile is my custom monitor profile. As I have a screen that's 98% of AdobeRGB1998 in gamut, I can say with some confident, ACR will display my raw files in that colourspace. If you had the default sRGB colourspace as Windows' default working space, then your raws will be displayed in that colourspace. Get it? However, the raw files themselves have no inherent colour profile attached as they are not a bitmapped image format until you export them. What you set in ACR is the colourspace they will be once they're exported.
All that means is that the raw images will be DISPLAYED in Adobe RGB... however... that can only be true if your operating system's default colourspace is equal to Adobe RGB. If your operating system is using sRGB as it's default space, then it would be impossible for Lightroom to be displaying the images in AdobeRGB as it is so much wider than the operating system's default space. It will however, be ensuring colours APPEAR accurate (even if limited). That's the purpose of colour management - that one profile is translated to another but the appearance of colours remains accurate. So even though the screen may not be able to show all the colours, the overall impression is one of "being the same" visually.
Having ProPhoto set as the default develop export profile just means that everything you export will be converted to the Pro Photo (ProRGB) colourspace.
Exactly... this is what colour management is for... it translates one colourspace to another, but chages the numerical values to maintain the overall impression of "sameness". It is pretty pointless however, to export in ProPhoto.. merely because no display devices can display it.
Then you're probably much better off working in sRGB.
There's no harm in working with wider gamuts, but it MUST be part of a colour managed system, or you run the risk of varying colourspaces not being accurately converted. If in doubt, stick to sRGB.
Did I mention I dislike intensely colour space
Yes
My recommendation is always.. unless you really know what you're doing, stick to sRGB. 99% of viewers will be using that, even if they are using a wide gamut screen, simply because it will not e profiled, and more than likely their machines will be using sRGB as the default working space, merely because they do not know how to change it.
Certainly... everything you publish online shoudl be sRGB for this reason. In your own worflow, AdobeRGB should be OK, and encouraged for your own local printing... but for sending to printers externally, you'll either need sRGB or the printer's own profile (which they will supply or ask you to download.)
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
David did I mention SirThat's not how it works. In ACR, again, it is displaying the raw file in whatever colour profile your operating system has set as it's default working space.. in honours your system profile. In my case, my system profile is my custom monitor profile. As I have a screen that's 98% of AdobeRGB1998 in gamut, I can say with some confident, ACR will display my raw files in that colourspace. If you had the default sRGB colourspace as Windows' default working space, then your raws will be displayed in that colourspace. Get it? However, the raw files themselves have no inherent colour profile attached as they are not a bitmapped image format until you export them. What you set in ACR is the colourspace they will be once they're exported.
All that means is that the raw images will be DISPLAYED in Adobe RGB... however... that can only be true if your operating system's default colourspace is equal to Adobe RGB. If your operating system is using sRGB as it's default space, then it would be impossible for Lightroom to be displaying the images in AdobeRGB as it is so much wider than the operating system's default space. It will however, be ensuring colours APPEAR accurate (even if limited). That's the purpose of colour management - that one profile is translated to another but the appearance of colours remains accurate. So even though the screen may not be able to show all the colours, the overall impression is one of "being the same" visually.
Having ProPhoto set as the default develop export profile just means that everything you export will be converted to the Pro Photo (ProRGB) colourspace.
Exactly... this is what colour management is for... it translates one colourspace to another, but chages the numerical values to maintain the overall impression of "sameness". It is pretty pointless however, to export in ProPhoto.. merely because no display devices can display it.
Then you're probably much better off working in sRGB.
There's no harm in working with wider gamuts, but it MUST be part of a colour managed system, or you run the risk of varying colourspaces not being accurately converted. If in doubt, stick to sRGB.
Yes
My recommendation is always.. unless you really know what you're doing, stick to sRGB. 99% of viewers will be using that, even if they are using a wide gamut screen, simply because it will not e profiled, and more than likely their machines will be using sRGB as the default working space, merely because they do not know how to change it.
Certainly... everything you publish online shoudl be sRGB for this reason. In your own worflow, AdobeRGB should be OK, and encouraged for your own local printing... but for sending to printers externally, you'll either need sRGB or the printer's own profile (which they will supply or ask you to download.)
Thank you so much that is the best ever description of colour space I have ever read as you mention as I can print AdobeRGB and never print away from home making use of the wider gamut should be a winner for me. I do get my printer profiled by marrutt about every 6 months and my iMac does contain a profile for AdobeRGB do you feel the built in profile taking in account the ability to only display 80% of the gamut would suffice or should I get something like a colormunki or spyder and calibrate using that please
- Messages
- 2,149
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi
Apologies I think I have barged in on your thread, I hope my questions have perhaps helped you as much as they have helped me
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
In theory, yes. you are correct. Which is why I said for your own local printing (and therefore your own master copy of any image), you should use AdobeRGB. However, you should never embed or convert to AdobeRGB for images that are to be disseminated out of your control, as having them encoded in AdobeRGB and then displayed on a system that's not colour managed, or by software that does not honour the colour profile (some browsers, phones, most tablets etc) the image will appear desaturated as the colourspace is compressed into the smaller space of sRGB. In a colour managed system, the numerical values are altered to maintain the impression of accuracy, but in a non-managed system it's merely "squeezed" in to fit, resulting in visibly less saturation.
My advice to sRGB is aimed at those who have no clear and good working knowledge of colour management, as it's a safer bet than having the systems set up to use AdobeRGB by default.
Having said that, an image with a sRGB gamut AND no profile will appear OVER saturated on a wide gamut monitor, but that's less likely to happen then the other way around.
Always make sure your images are saved with a suitable colour profile. Even if it's the wrong one... it will stall appear correct on most well managed systems as the colours will be correctly translated. MANY systems out there are not colour managed though - Phones, tablets, crappy home systems with owners who don't know what they're doing etc.
Embedding Adobe RGB will be safe, so long as whoever viewing it has a device that honours the colour profile. If you can't guarantee that, then best to actually convert (not tag or assign) the image to sRGB before sending it.
Your Master copy... your archive copy... whatever you want to call it, should be in AdobeRGB, yes.
I think a flowchart of sorts may be useful here..
If you know what you're doing....
1. Raw file in LR or ACR..... no profile necessary as it's raw
2. Export raw file in AdobeRGB
3. Keep in Adobe RGB while editing in Photoshop.
4. Save out of Photoshop in AdobeRGB for local master copy
5. Convert to sRGB for all other copies that are going out of your control (JPEGs, Internet, external printing services (unless the printer provides a profile).
That's assuming you understand each of these steps then there's absolutely no harm in AdobeRGB at all... quite the opposite... even ProPhoto (despite working blind).. it's when you have a non colour managed system that things get wobbly.
I still insist that if you have no idea what you're doing, it is better to work in sRGB until you do, and in all likely hood, your system's colour management will be set up in sRGB by default any way. This is because the vasy majority of other devices out there are sRGB.
Also, if you never print, and do not own a wide gamut panel, it may be safer to work in sRGB throughout the whole workflow too unless you fully understand all of this.
Be aware, that once you convert an AdobeRGB image to sRGB, you can't then convert it back, so save a COPY in sRGB. You CAN convert it back... but it will still contain the gamut of sRGB even though it's converted to back to AdobeRGB. If you pour 1 litre of milk into a half litre jug, half will be wasted. You can still pour it back into the litre jug, but you still have half a litre.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Information that nobody will ever notice anywhere you display those images. It's almost irrelevant in the real world and has nothing at all to do with the important aspects of photography - your ability to see the shot and capture it. It's the kind of thing that camera clubs and pixel peepers masturbate about.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
In the vast majority of cases this is true, yes. Which is why I advise anyone with no interest, or knowledge of colour management to adopt sRGB as their working space.. it's just safer. However, I do encourage people to become knowledgeable about the subject so they can take control.
Also.. you shouldn't be "displaying" images electronically in AdobeRGB unless you know the device displaying them is colour managed and can honour the AdobeRGB profile. If it cannot, then the image will display de-saturated.
Always use sRGB when displaying images on the internet.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
That's well and good, David. It's when that is seen as more important that learning the skills required to see and feel photography that I turn away. It's the minutiae of the master that could make a couple of percent of difference rather than knowledge of real relevance to the average student.
The danger I see is that it encourages seeking answers where they do not lie.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure I understand you here. I'm advising people to use sRGB when disseminating images electronically, and I'm also advising people to use sRGB as their default colourspace when they do not understand the principles of colour management. We seem to be in agreement. I am also advising people to seek out the knowledge to understand colour management. In what respect is this bad advice? This is nothing to do with photography. This is merely understanding how colour works in the digital world.
You seem to have an attitude that says if it's not photography, you shouldn't be interested. Strange. I'm not suggesting it's more important than photography - merely giving information in a thread about colour management.
Do you suggest if asked, we should say "Forget all that.... you're a photographer"?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Why so antagonistic, David? I'm not calling your advice 'bad', I'm expressing an opinion.
All I'm suggesting - and the initial post was not a response to you anyway - is that sRGB is perfectly fine for pretty much anyone to use all the time. I'd rather see people concentrate their energies on things that will improve their work the most rather than an almost irrelevant aspect of the process. That is, until those tiny little differences might make the extra couple of percentage difference.
The reason for this is that I feel that the kind of people often attracted to photography are anal enough as it is and there are paths better travelled than the one that leads to colour space.
Saying all that, if people want to learn that stuff then that's fine, but it isn't really going to make a difference to the output of most photographers.