Board index Photography Technical Questions Adobe RGB (1998) vs. sRGB

Technical Questions

Adobe RGB (1998) vs. sRGB

Discuss technical aspects of photography
martinphotography
 
Posts: 40

Adobe RGB (1998) vs. sRGB

Post Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:26 am


I've noticed quite a difference between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRBG in some of my photo uploads. I like sRGB better - it seems to contain higher numbers in Reds and Blues and is what I'm seeing on my monitor. I'm posting two labeled examples of some tonal roses that I shot. Is anyone else noticing a difference and what knowlege/resources can be shared about these color spaces. Adobe Lightroom now has an option for the ProPhoto RBG. Enlighten me please.


Adobe RGB (1998)
Image

sRGB
Image

See the whole gallery for comparisons at http://www.pbase.com/martinphotography/intimate_roses

madlights
 
Posts: 912


Post Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:11 pm


Yes the internet uses srgb exclusively. The argb is wider gamut...it seems the reds flatten out badly when converted to srgb by the net. If you set up your monitor, printer, camera all to Adobe rgb profiles, you'll probably notice more vibrant colors...but when loading them to the net, without first converting them in say photoshop or Lightroom, you'll notice they get very "flat" looking. A very good example in your photos shown. Prophoto is even wider gamut...but all these seem to sort of stretch out, or thin out the given space within the range allowed by your camera, so they turn out very differently when uploaded to the net. I saw a very good article on this, and right now I can't remember where. If I find it, I'll post a link.


ghsmith178613
 
Posts: 85


Post Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:20 pm




hey... don't forget this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space
(you will find others if you google "color space.")
not perfect, but it starts to explain color perception and this "color space" thing. keeping in mind that the www via most of the monitors in use today, srgb is generically accepted (like a bastard step-child). each of the color spaces has its' own strength. maybe we will have a better solution for color reproduction.

tuckeruk
 
Posts: 224


Post Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:18 pm


Don't forget to factor in your intended uses and output. My photos only ever get displayed on a monitor (sRGB), uploaded to the WWW (sRGB), or printed out at a progessional photo printer's using the FujiFilm Crystal Archive system (they only accept sRGB).

It goes without saying that I work exclusively in sRGB.

It's all fairly academic anyway, how colour accurate is your eye/brain? What percentage of monitors are calibrated?

The content of your pictures (and I don't score highly here) beats outright colour fidelity hands down any day.

madlights
 
Posts: 912


Post Thu May 03, 2007 5:44 am


tuckeruk wrote:Don't forget to factor in your intended uses and output. My photos only ever get displayed on a monitor (sRGB), uploaded to the WWW (sRGB), or printed out at a progessional photo printer's using the FujiFilm Crystal Archive system (they only accept sRGB).

It goes without saying that I work exclusively in sRGB.

It's all fairly academic anyway, how colour accurate is your eye/brain? What percentage of monitors are calibrated?

The content of your pictures (and I don't score highly here) beats outright colour fidelity hands down any day.
Totally agreed. I set my monitor etc. up a few times, with Adobe RGB and couldn't see much difference at all. I did see a difference with Prophoto...but my printer's profiles don't support it anyway and it flattens out worse than Adobe if not converted back. The trouble is with the differing profiles as tuckeruk says, if you are set up for one, you won't see the other (s) correctly without going through a lot of hassles each time...so I just stay in srgb also.

ghsmith178613
 
Posts: 85


Post Thu May 03, 2007 3:31 pm


tuckeruk wrote:It's all fairly academic anyway, how colour accurate is your eye/brain? What percentage of monitors are calibrated?


i finally understand your thought process, training, and discipline.

madlights wrote:...but my printer's profiles don't support it anyway and it flattens out worse than Adobe if not converted back.

hmmm... still using that old dot matrix, eh?
madlights wrote:The trouble is with the differing profiles as tuckeruk says, if you are set up for one, you won't see the other (s) correctly without going through a lot of hassles each time...so I just stay in srgb also.

this is where you take control of your images. your printer, your paper. your QUALITY print. even costco will give you their output profile, but they charge for the print.

now, can you answer...

why do your cameras have the 16 bit RAW preset?

why do the cameras have Adobe RGB as a color space preset?
Forty years of photography.
Fifteen years of training young professional photographers.

tuckeruk
 
Posts: 224


Post Thu May 03, 2007 4:27 pm


ghsmith178613 wrote:now, can you answer...

why do your cameras have the 16 bit RAW preset?

why do the cameras have Adobe RGB as a color space preset?


Because Adobe RGB has a wider gamut, useful for some people in some situations.

madlights
 
Posts: 912


Post Thu May 03, 2007 4:48 pm


ghsmith178613 wrote:
tuckeruk wrote:It's all fairly academic anyway, how colour accurate is your eye/brain? What percentage of monitors are calibrated?


i finally understand your thought process, training, and discipline.

madlights wrote:...but my printer's profiles don't support it anyway and it flattens out worse than Adobe if not converted back.

hmmm... still using that old dot matrix, eh?
madlights wrote:The trouble is with the differing profiles as tuckeruk says, if you are set up for one, you won't see the other (s) correctly without going through a lot of hassles each time...so I just stay in srgb also.

this is where you take control of your images. your printer, your paper. your QUALITY print. even costco will give you their output profile, but they charge for the print.

now, can you answer...

why do your cameras have the 16 bit RAW preset?

why do the cameras have Adobe RGB as a color space preset?
You make some very hard to contest points here. I've honestly never tried having a wide gamut color space printed. I know it does make a difference on my monitor...like I said Prophoto especially...does it in fact make as much difference in the print output? I have the color pantones etc. for my printer for ARGB...going to give it a try. Maybe I can even find one for Prophoto. Thanks for challenging my complacency (laziness)-seriously... thanks I'm going to experiment :)

ghsmith178613
 
Posts: 85


Post Fri May 04, 2007 2:10 am


madlights wrote:You make some very hard to contest points here. I've honestly never tried having a wide gamut color space printed. I know it does make a difference on my monitor...like I said Prophoto especially...does it in fact make as much difference in the print output? I have the color pantones etc. for my printer for ARGB...going to give it a try. Maybe I can even find one for Prophoto. Thanks for challenging my complacency (laziness)-seriously... thanks I'm going to experiment :)


i am glad that my little speech motivated you.

you should see me live. :lol:. i do four performances weekly - two in the summer months. :lol:

yes. in print, it makes an incredible difference. there are shadow details and highlight seperation that most people don't know are possible. if you really want jaw-dropping prints, you will dl your print profiles and match the paper to that. i never believed that mono prints could look so good. color... omg.. color... the last time i saw color this rich was in the ektaprint2 papers.

now, the sad part - for use on the www, the "standard" is jpg. lousy 8 bit images. for the www, you have to throw away 1/2 to 3/4 of your image. some systems support tiff. the images are sometimes huge, and take a long time to dl.

i've printed most of the epson line of printers (the 2200 through the 9800), testing 8 and 16 bit target images. in the tests, i printed the common formats, RAW, PSD, TIFF, and JPG. I printed on most of the papers and inks, including some very expensive fiber paper. i printed in mixed color, and black ink only printers (the ink bay with only black inks. no color carts). i've looked at them from across a gallery and with a 20x loupe (count the rosettes).
Forty years of photography.
Fifteen years of training young professional photographers.

jypsee
 
Posts: 1245

hmm...

Post Sat May 05, 2007 3:37 pm


so, where are these photos? why be a member of a photography site and post no photos?

ghsmith178613 wrote:Forty years of photography.
Fifteen years of training young professional photographers.[

gilp
 
Posts: 180

Re: hmm...

Post Sat May 05, 2007 5:59 pm


jypsee wrote:so, where are these photos? why be a member of a photography site and post no photos?

ghsmith178613 wrote:Forty years of photography.
Fifteen years of training young professional photographers.[



a whole lot of nothing.

madlights
 
Posts: 912


Post Sun May 06, 2007 12:23 am


ghsmith178613 wrote:
madlights wrote:You make some very hard to contest points here. I've honestly never tried having a wide gamut color space printed. I know it does make a difference on my monitor...like I said Prophoto especially...does it in fact make as much difference in the print output? I have the color pantones etc. for my printer for ARGB...going to give it a try. Maybe I can even find one for Prophoto. Thanks for challenging my complacency (laziness)-seriously... thanks I'm going to experiment :)


i am glad that my little speech motivated you.

you should see me live. :lol:. i do four performances weekly - two in the summer months. :lol:

yes. in print, it makes an incredible difference. there are shadow details and highlight separation that most people don't know are possible. if you really want jaw-dropping prints, you will dl your print profiles and match the paper to that. i never believed that mono prints could look so good. color... omg.. color... the last time i saw color this rich was in the ektaprint2 papers.

now, the sad part - for use on the www, the "standard" is jpg. lousy 8 bit images. for the www, you have to throw away 1/2 to 3/4 of your image. some systems support tiff. the images are sometimes huge, and take a long time to dl.

i've printed most of the epson line of printers (the 2200 through the 9800), testing 8 and 16 bit target images. in the tests, i printed the common formats, RAW, PSD, TIFF, and JPG. I printed on most of the papers and inks, including some very expensive fiber paper. i printed in mixed color, and black ink only printers (the ink bay with only black inks. no color carts). i've looked at them from across a gallery and with a 20x loupe (count the rosettes).
Thanks for waking me up. I've only, so far, done a few experiments so far with Prophoto and honestly I can say the change in my shadow details especially and in the definitions of greens and yellows is astounding...without having to resort to the "shadow and highlight" function in Photoshop and it's danger of halos, to pull details out in darker areas. This is so far only in landscapes...and haven't even printed with it yet! Am learning a person has to be careful with colors...seems darker blue skies go toward the green a bit, Don't know what it will do to reds in portraits yet. But the surprising thing is that Adobe's conversion seems leaving much of it in when converted back to srgb for the web. Thanks sincerely.l :) And yep if you'd post a few photos for examples or instructionals it could help many people learn.

ghsmith178613
 
Posts: 85


Post Sun May 06, 2007 5:17 pm


madlights wrote:
ghsmith178613 wrote:
madlights wrote:Thanks for waking me up. I've only, so far, done a few experiments so far with Prophoto and honestly I can say the change in my shadow details especially and in the definitions of greens and yellows is astounding...without having to resort to the "shadow and highlight" function in Photoshop and it's danger of halos, to pull details out in darker areas. This is so far only in landscapes...and haven't even printed with it yet! Am learning a person has to be careful with colors...seems darker blue skies go toward the green a bit, Don't know what it will do to reds in portraits yet. But the surprising thing is that Adobe's conversion seems leaving much of it in when converted back to srgb for the web. Thanks sincerely.l :) And yep if you'd post a few photos for examples or instructionals it could help many people learn.


thanks. i have a while to go on this exclusive non-competitve contract. i'm searching my college days archives. i've found at least one image that might be exempt and serviceable. it's an 8x10 ektachrome 64t, from the floor of the rotunda in the capitol building in Austin, TX.
this is one of the same shots that tourists try every day. but, the tricks i used in preparing for the shot render shadow and highlight details unsurpassed. the Texas Rangers and TX DPS officers were extremely helpful in the effort.
i laid the burke and james on the floor with the rear standard flat on the tiles. the 165mm set to f/45. the shutter time is missing, but it was more than 2 minutes in the exhisting interior light and allowing for reciprocity and filter factors. i'll have to find a larger scanner just to share this with the doubters. my humble 4870 wont handle this monster piece of film. (yes, i tried to stitch it together. can you say "crayola"?)
i have tutorials in private directories on my website for students that have paid the price of admission. i invested $$$$ to learn some of these simple PS tricks. i might smuggle another private directory onto the system.
those interested will have to contact me for a url. i have other irons in the fire right now, and it may take a week or two to set this up. if you decide to jump the gun, please put "PBASE member" in the subject line. it's not spam, i'm just controlling where the information goes. of course, one could wade through the martin evening book, "PS for Photographers." and attend a bunch of classes and seminars.
Forty years of photography.
Fifteen years of training young professional photographers.

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Sun May 20, 2007 10:46 am


My monitor is calibrated with a spyder but even with out one the difference to me has always been pretty obvious


RGB
Image

sRGB
Image

Next

Board index Photography Technical Questions Adobe RGB (1998) vs. sRGB

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron