Shot in Adobe RGB, not sRGB

P

Pezza4u

Messages
333
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I was playing with the settings between these 2 last week and thought I had put it back to sRGB after reading this was the better one to use. However, after taking around 200 shots last night I'm not really happy with any of them and when checking this setting it was still set to Adobe RGB so I hadn't changed it.

I was taking some photos of my cousins baby and 2 year old and wanted to do some good shots for her. I set the ISO to auto, left it in aperture mode as I'm not too sure with using shutter priority when photographing indoors under low light. So I was expecting some noise due to the conditions and luckily I took them in RAW as well so I can process them in PS.

I'm just wondering what settings others shoot on, I've read sRGB is for when photos will be used on the web and the Adobe one for printing?
 
Web browsers 99.9% of the time are set to use sRGB colour which is why people say it's best to use that when creating images for web (otherwise you can get them spot-on in software and they change completely when they're uploaded) but it doesn't really matter what format you shoot your pictures in because you can convert to a different colour mode in Photoshop afterwards if you need a specific one (ie CMYK for printing, sRGB for web etc).

In Photoshop you can even have it set up so that you can press CTRL+Y to temporarily change the mode for colour/contrast proofing; you can work in, for example, Adobe RGB and proof the image in sRBG quickly. It's really useful for printing especially.
 
Last edited:
Definitely sRGB Rich. There is a piece on these settings in David Busch's book, which I think you got.
 
I shoot in abobe because apparently it is the best colour space (largest gamut), but then convert to sRBG when editing, so the colours display properly on the web.

This way I've got a RAW file in adobe RBG which I can use to make prints if I want.
 
Basically RGB captures more colours in it than SRGB when shooting the photo. This does not necessarily mean that you will see this, as many monitors cannot cope with the range of colours available, hence the use of SRGB. Again printing will depend on what printer you use as to how wide a range of colours (colour gamut) they can print in. Most high street Labs use SRGB, only high end printers generally use the RGB colour space.

So to sum it up, RGB has a larger colour gamut than SRGB, but for many situations it may not be needed.

I personally shoot RGB, as it captures the widest range of colour available and convert as necessary in Post.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
This way I've got a RAW file in adobe RBG which I can use to make prints if I want.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the colourspace made a difference in RAW. Isn't RAW just what it is, the RAW data out of the sensor, nothing more, nothing less?
 
Adobe has the largest gaumet and hence a greater colour range can be dispalyed within an image. The greatest improvement I made to the quality of images I was producing was to start using Adobe (well and mirror lockup). ;)
 
I've shot everything in Adobe RGB since about 2002.
If you plan to edit in Photoshop it's the better option.

Only if you plan to not edit should you shoot in sRGB...
 
Option 1 - shoot RAW - Its the best option, only shoot JPEG if you have a good reason to (e.g event workflow), or don't care about the ultimate quality of your images
Option 2 - Shoot Adobe RGB, if you have to absoloutly have shoot JPEG's, and you then process in PS/lightroom
Option 3 - Shoot sRGB, if you absolutely have to shoot JPEG, and you dont edit the images, or you hand over the images to be edited in a unknown workflow

Whats the point of L lenses, posh cameras etc.. if you then let your camera be in control of sharpening, noise, contrast etc..
 
Thanks for all of your replies. I set the camera to RAW and Jpeg as soon as I started using it in case I needed to edit any of my photos.

I've been out today and took loads of photos with it set to sRGB. I then opened both RAW and Jpeg in PS to see how the camera had processed it. TBH there wasn't alot of difference between the 2 and I was happy with most of them.

I then opened 2 of the photos I took the other night to compare and the difference between the RAW and Adobe RGB processed Jpeg was astonishing! The RAW's look much better, even when opened without any processing, so I think I will stick to sRGB if I want to use any of the Jpegs straight out of the camera.

After I had copied all of the Jpeg photos I took the other night to the laptop all of my family were saying they look great etc, while I'm thinking nah they don't! I may have captured the subject/moment but I definitely was not happy with the colours. At least I can process the RAW files though :)

AFC said:
Definitely sRGB Rich. There is a piece on these settings in David Busch's book, which I think you got.
Click to expand...

I've not ordered it yet but will be very soon, think I need to TBH :thumbs:
 
Its funny what you say about the colours Rich. Here's what David Busch says....

"As an advanced user, you don't need to automatically "upgrade" your D5000 to Adobe RGB, because images tend to look less saturated on your monitor and, it is likely, significantly different from what you will get if you output the photo to your personal inkjet."

Anyway I definitely recommend his book.
 
your RAW can be convereted to either adobe or sRGB, it has no colour space attached to it untill its converted. Its only the jpeg that gets the space.



squishy said:
I shoot in abobe because apparently it is the best colour space (largest gamut), but then convert to sRBG when editing, so the colours display properly on the web.

This way I've got a RAW file in adobe RBG which I can use to make prints if I want.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top