Beginner RGB or Adobe?

I was hoping the smiley face would indicate a total lack of antagonism. I guess people read what they want into a post though.

The23rdman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was responding to this. I'm not sure anyone is saying it's more important than the skills required to see and feel photography. It is however... important if your images are to be displayed correctly. If they're displayed incorrectly, then the audience will not be seeing, or feeling your images as you intended will they. :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I was hoping the smiley face would indicate a total lack of antagonism. I guess people read what they want into a post though.



I was responding to this. I'm not sure anyone is saying it's more important than the skills required to see and feel photography. It is however... important if your images are to be displayed correctly. If they're displayed incorrectly, then the audience will not be seeing, or feeling your images as you intended will they. :)
Click to expand...
Okay, sorry, missed the smiley. :)

Yes, we're basically in agreement, which is why choosing sRGB covers that base.
 
Absolutely fine if your only output is for screen..... Some people want more though
 
Pookeyhead said:
I am also advising people to seek out the knowledge to understand colour management.
Click to expand...

In what way will that be of benefit? Genuine question as I'm wondering if it's worth learning about given I only use Lightroom for processing and printing and I can get my prints to match well enough what I see on my screen (using the printer's profile for output). All images for the web go out in sRGB, Maybe I'm not too critical. :confused:
 
Ed Sutton said:
In what way will that be of benefit? Genuine question as I'm wondering if it's worth learning about given I only use Lightroom for processing and printing and I can get my prints to match well enough what I see on my screen (using the printer's profile for output). All images for the web go out in sRGB, Maybe I'm not too critical. :confused:
Click to expand...

At the moment, you may not need it. But when customers have bought newer screens and are used to seeing Bt.2020 video and printers with wider gamuts are commonplace, sRGB will look a little lacklustre.
 
st599 said:
At the moment, you may not need it. But when customers have bought newer screens and are used to seeing Bt.2020 video and printers with wider gamuts are commonplace, sRGB will look a little lacklustre.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. I guess that more and more clients are just viewing images on screen rather than prints these days.
 
st599 said:
At the moment, you may not need it. But when customers have bought newer screens and are used to seeing Bt.2020 video and printers with wider gamuts are commonplace, sRGB will look a little lacklustre.
Click to expand...

I guess so long as I continue to work directly from the raw files in Lightroom the options to adapt to whatever's required/available should always be there.
 
Ed Sutton said:
In what way will that be of benefit? Genuine question as I'm wondering if it's worth learning about given I only use Lightroom for processing and printing and I can get my prints to match well enough what I see on my screen (using the printer's profile for output). All images for the web go out in sRGB, Maybe I'm not too critical. :confused:
Click to expand...


It's not about getting prints to match only, as that's more of a monitor profiling issue. Understanding colour management allows you to make decisions regarding getting the most from your images in certain circumstances. For instance, if you always use sRGB because it's easier, and requires less specialist knowledge, then you may be missing out out on some extra colour saturation and accuracy when you print because your printer may be able to handle a fairly wide gamut. It also makes you aware of other people's needs.. printers, clients etc. Also... because learning new stuff is cool.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's not about getting prints to match only, as that's more of a monitor profiling issue. Understanding colour management allows you to make decisions regarding getting the most from your images in certain circumstances. For instance, if you always use sRGB because it's easier, and requires less specialist knowledge, then you may be missing out out on some extra colour saturation and accuracy when you print because your printer may be able to handle a fairly wide gamut. It also makes you aware of other people's needs.. printers, clients etc. Also... because learning new stuff is cool.
Click to expand...
So mostly it's for supplying a consistent output to other people and for use with a high quality printer? If so it's not something I need to fret over I don't think. But thanks for the reply. :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's not about getting prints to match only, as that's more of a monitor profiling issue. Understanding colour management allows you to make decisions regarding getting the most from your images in certain circumstances. For instance, if you always use sRGB because it's easier, and requires less specialist knowledge, then you may be missing out out on some extra colour saturation and accuracy when you print because your printer may be able to handle a fairly wide gamut. It also makes you aware of other people's needs.. printers, clients etc. Also... because learning new stuff is cool.
Click to expand...
Hey, less of this talk about learning being cool! That stuff could catch on! ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
So mostly it's for supplying a consistent output to other people and for use with a high quality printer? If so it's not something I need to fret over I don't think. But thanks for the reply. :)
Click to expand...

Mainly yes.. it's about being consistent, and knowing how to take control of how your images are seen, printed and viewed by others.

No one needs to fret over it really unless they're concerned about how other people view their work. As most people's viewing systems are a mess, I wouldn't worry... stick to good old sRGB and you'll be safe.

The23rdman said:
Hey, less of this talk about learning being cool! That stuff could catch on! ;)
Click to expand...

Nah... doubt it :)
 
Sorry but I don't get the "stick to the good old sRGB" I would say stick to the good old Adobe rgb and reduce to the not so good sRGB when required. I'm not trying to labour a point but as soon as you reduce to sRGB you are just throwing information away. More and more printers are adapting to adobe rgb
as it shows a fuller colour gamut and if you only have sRGB then you are unable to print all available colours. Why not edit in Adobe rgb and convert a copy to sRGB for web use. Then you have all angles covered.
 
Last edited:
gerry s said:
Sorry but I don't get the "stick to the good old sRGB" I would say stick to the good old Adobe rgb and reduce to the not so good sRGB when required. I'm not trying to labour a point but as soon as you reduce to sRGB you are just throwing information away. More and more printers are adapting to adobe rgb
as it shows a fuller colour gamut and if you only have sRGB then you are unable to print all available colours. Why not edit in Adobe rgb and convert a copy to sRGB for web use. Then you have all angles covered.
Click to expand...

I do exactly that, and have been advising that.


Pookeyhead said:
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).
Click to expand...


If you're just not interested in learning about the differences though, or in learning how to do that, then at least ensure that everything is set up for sRGB and just forget about it. It would appear that many people don't really care about the extra gamut, and can't be bothered with having to work with multiple copies for differing purposes. In THAT scenario, it's obviously better to just work in sRGB to begin with as you're less likely to be accidentally publishing stuff online with an inappropriate colour profile.
 
It will be interesting to see if Adobe and the like will follow the video industry to an ACES like workflow.

ACES uses a colour space that provides 33 stops dynamic range over the entire visible spectrum. You have an input transform to map from camera to ACES, you colour correct on a calibrated monitor and then the software outputs the files for a variety of formats (e.g. standard sRGB display in domestic viewing environment, high brightness AdobeRGB display, printer X...). It's only at the very final stage that you map from the all encompassing colour space to a limited one.
 
Hi everyone
So I've not long come back off my holiday with lots of photos to sort out.

I did end up shooting in sRGB (JPEG) and have viewed a few on my new monitor. Can't say I've noticed anthing special regarding viewing them on an IPS monitor, I'm sure they would look pretty much the same on my old Dell, so I guess I was misinformed about all that. I do hate all the backlight bleed associated with these monitors, but that's something you have to put up with I guess.

I will post a few photos in the relevent sections soon, you're welcome to to comment or critique if you have time.

Thanks!
 
Bletch said:
I did end up shooting in sRGB (JPEG) and have viewed a few on my new monitor. Can't say I've noticed anthing special regarding viewing them on an IPS monitor, I'm sure they would look pretty much the same on my old Dell, so I guess I was misinformed about all that.
Click to expand...

Why? If you SHOT in sRGB then of course they'll look the same on both your old and new screens. That's the point of sRGB.. a greater chance of uniformity across platforms. As I suggested in post #35.

  • 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).


Bletch said:
I do hate all the backlight bleed associated with these monitors, but that's something you have to put up with I guess.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be THAT bad. You working in a dark room? In normal lighting you shouldn't notice it. What monitor do you have?
 
Sorry for the late reply David, I just meant I had originally read that photos saved in sRGB format looked better on an ISP screen as opposed to say a TN panel.
In future, I will try as you suggest - keep a master copy in Abobe RGB and use sRGB copies for uploading photos to Google Earth, Flickr etc.
My new monitor is a 32" Benq BL3201, a replacement for a Dell 2711. You are right about the backlight bleed, I tend to work in a dark room (bad I know), It's not too bad during daylight.
:)
 
I work in the print industry and use printers ranging from full adobe rgb (12 inks) to srgb and finally cmyk.
However, you would need to ask what the final printers ability has if you send your photos off for printing.

Why?
Because even though cmyk has the lowest colour gamut a lot of printers still use this simply because the printers they use only have cmyk inks.
Meaning you're likely to edit to the best of your ability and to the equipment you have only to have your nice colours thrown away at the print stage.
Although I will say often if the editing hasn't enhanced vibrancy or saturation too much then you may not notice the difference!

This even though I work in the industry is a reason I have my own personal printer at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top