sRGB vs AdobeRGB vs ???

[David Price]

Making the assumption that a given image was taken to sell as a print.........and the assumption that the image will be uploaded to an on-line lab that prints ONLY in sRGB.........why would I want/need to edit in any color space other than sRGB? For that matter, IF I were totally confident in my technique ( oh haha ) why would I even want to shoot in anything other than the largest jpeg and sRGB? Just seems to me that this would really simplify the whole process.

And yes, I understand the very good arguments for shooting in RAW and making the initial adjustments in CR2 or whatever and yes, I shoot in RAW but find myself going more and more to large jpeg and sRGB. The finished product is virtually the same.

Any thoughts on this??

[Xposure Photo]

..you just answered your own question lol! less convertion, more integrity and less confusion!

[PeteQ]

I think one of the most important reasons you would want to capture in RAW (12 bit referred to as 16 bit in PS) is so you have much more data available when doing color corrections. Greater amount of color data = better color graduations = better image. Then when you go to save for output you set your mode to 8 bit. By then you have already locked in your color so you don't need to worry about the color changes during an adjustment and you are just reducing the now excess data as you save to a different file for output only, and you still have the original 16 bit to go back to later if you should want to make changes. More work, slightly, better quality, undoubtedly.

Plus that whole, white balance ease thing..... Just my two cents.

[AjP]

I always shoot in AdobeRGB not matter what color space I use for prints or web... never convert anything and never had any problems

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by David Price

Making the assumption that a given image was taken to sell as a print.........and the assumption that the image will be uploaded to an on-line lab that prints ONLY in sRGB.........why would I want/need to edit in any color space other than sRGB? For that matter, IF I were totally confident in my technique ( oh haha ) why would I even want to shoot in anything other than the largest jpeg and sRGB? Just seems to me that this would really simplify the whole process.

And yes, I understand the very good arguments for shooting in RAW and making the initial adjustments in CR2 or whatever and yes, I shoot in RAW but find myself going more and more to large jpeg and sRGB. The finished product is virtually the same.

Any thoughts on this??

You should want to edit and work in ProPhoto RGB and 16bits.

Here's why

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_ma..._06/essay.html

http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../mh1203-1.html

If your printer can only work with sRGB get a new print shop.

[David Price]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

I think one of the most important reasons you would want to capture in RAW (12 bit referred to as 16 bit in PS) is so you have much more data available when doing color corrections. Greater amount of color data = better color graduations = better image. Then when you go to save for output you set your mode to 8 bit. By then you have already locked in your color so you don't need to worry about the color changes during an adjustment and you are just reducing the now excess data as you save to a different file for output only, and you still have the original 16 bit to go back to later if you should want to make changes. More work, slightly, better quality, undoubtedly.

Plus that whole, white balance ease thing..... Just my two cents.

Thanks Pete.
So you're basically saying - shoot raw, edit raw at 16 bit and save raw/tiff/psd ???? Then after that process convert a copy to sRGB, "save as.." jpeg 10 or 12 for the print people (maybe a 6 or 8 jpeg for web) ??? I can see how that would be the better way without adding very much to the workflow.

[bbailey]

Originally Posted by David Price

Thanks Pete.
So you're basically saying - shoot raw, edit raw at 16 bit and save raw/tiff/psd ???? Then after that process convert a copy to sRGB, "save as.." jpeg 10 or 12 for the print people (maybe a 6 or 8 jpeg for web) ??? I can see how that would be the better way without adding very much to the workflow.

That's pretty much what I do.

[David Price]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

You should want to edit and work in ProPhoto RGB and 16bits.

Here's why

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_ma..._06/essay.html

http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../mh1203-1.html

If your printer can only work with sRGB get a new print shop.

Thanks John, interresting read (and a little over my head) but.....but........I can see all of these colors on my sRGB monitor so I'm guessing they'll all print from my sRGB print shop?

http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_ma...t/cm_06/2d.jpg

I think I understand what you're driving at. For example I take a pic of a lime green highlighter but it prints with a slight color shift and a lot less saturation even when all the rest of the colors in the pic are dead on. That would be a gaument issue ????

So far as a new print shop, I live in Podunk so I'm pretty much forced to use the on-line WHCC/Mpix/EZPrints solution. Given that, I'm just questioning myself... why go to so much effort when the final output is gonna be sRGB on paper. And...maybe I'm out in left field with this too, but I'm thinking "fine art" and "portraits" are two different things as well (with out getting into the "archive/paper/pigment/dye" aspects of all that).

I just can't quite get past wondering, if I'm editing on an sRGB monitor and printing in sRGB, why work in a color space I can't see on my monitor or final print? I do get the part about saving the original files in 16/12 bit tiff/psd/whatever so when the technoligy improves we'll still have a good negative. ........and then we get off on "how long will the cd/dvd/harddrive last etc......

Man,,,,,,,,,are we having fun yet?

[PeteQ]

Yes, I do all my work in 16 bit (true some PS filters only do 8 bit but for those instances they are at the end of the workflow and get a seperate copy of the file). Then save a 16 bit master edit version. Then a save an 8 bit version for any output that won't take 16 bit. So when I am done I have a master RAW version, a 16 bit edited version, and an 8 bit output version. In practice there's usually more, but this is the minimum...

[huxley]

i save a master raw version first thing i do and when im all done editing i save and 8 bit version that gets put up on the web. the raw versions original doesnt have a colorspace until i label it. and my 8 bit version is srgb.

[Scott-Tx]

why would a lab print in a truncated color space like sRGB? isn't sRGB a dumbed-down version of RGB created for the limited abilities of displays versus RGG which is a wide space optimized for printing?

[rwwright]

If you take perfect photos, properly exposed and properly white balanced and etc. then you may be ok just using jpg 8 bit and srgb. But if you ever need to correct an image you should work with all of the information you can get (16 bit, adobe rgb, raw). then convert to the final format for your printer.

I am not that good. I find that digital images ofter benefit from a little saturation, a little white balance correction, some cropping, sometimes a little burning , sometimes a little shadow detail, other corrections, and of course as a last step after final conversion some sharpening. Personally, I use pixel genius sharpner two times, once immeately after opening the file and once as the final step structured for the specific output device. I almost always do a small levels correction for the midtones and a little curves for some additional contrast. After that it depends on the photo. If I take a number of photos in the same lighting and exposure all of these changes can be automatacilly added to each photo with an action.
good luck.

[David Price]

Originally Posted by David Price

Making the assumption that a given image was taken to sell as a print.........and the assumption that the image will be uploaded to an on-line lab that prints ONLY in sRGB.........why would I want/need to edit in any color space other than sRGB? For that matter, IF I were totally confident in my technique ( oh haha ) why would I even want to shoot in anything other than the largest jpeg and sRGB? Just seems to me that this would really simplify the whole process.

And yes, I understand the very good arguments for shooting in RAW and making the initial adjustments in CR2 or whatever and yes, I shoot in RAW but find myself going more and more to large jpeg and sRGB. The finished product is virtually the same.

Any thoughts on this??

This is my story and I'm sticking to it.....at least for the rest of this day. The answers I came up with to the questions I asked above ~ mostly from the very helpful responses in this thread and then a little more reading.

(1)Shoot RAW-edit white balance, exposure.
(2)Convert to TIFF/PSD with sRGB as the color space (Yep, sRGB) for remainder of edit work flow.
(3)Convert to JPG 10 for on-line lab (still in sRGB) and JPG 6 or 8 for web.

Things I learned that y'all probably already knew.
(a)JPG is not a color space.
(b)Inkjet printers CAN print a wider gaumet than the on-line wet process printers. (But one of my "assumptions" was that I would be using the MPIX/WHCC/EZPrints solution)
(c)aRGB and sRGB HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF COLORS AVAILABLE!! (256X256X256) The transitions between these colors is smoother in sRGB.
(d)Some on-line printers (for example:WHCC) will now accept aRGB BUT they are still gonna convert your file to sRGB to print it.
(e)There are a very few on-line labs that will truely print in the wider color spaces but they are expensive

Links to other articles I studied:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=13297129
http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...obeRGB1998.htm

So, I'll shoot RAW for the important stuf, convert to lossless files(TIFF/PSD/XX) in sRGB for the edit (after the RAW edits) and send to the printer in sRGB because I'm already in sRGB and they're gonna convert to sRGB anyway.

Thanks to all of you fellows for your responses, thoughts and time. I hope this thread will help at least one more soul thru the confusion.

[CincoJoe]

Good stuff.

[Wendyp]

I visited this issue at length last year. My workflow is set entirely to sRGB because I do not print my own work. From what I have heard and have found to be true, the labs all use sRGB (even ones like Millers and BWC), so the file would have to be converted from aRGB anyway.

The folks at last month's Epson Print Academy really badmouthed sRGB and being a web-only color space. But then, they were showing us how to get outstanding prints on their top of the line inkjet printers.

When I do eventually buy a great printer and print my own work on it, I will probably process those files in aRGB.