adobe RGB & sRGB ???????

[elie1]

whats the diffrence betwen color spaces ?

adobe RGB & sRGB ???????

 

[Flash Harry]

SRGB = Small gamut, 256 colours for web use
RGB = Large gamut, better for print unless your printer uses the srgb colour space, in which case find one who can and use their profiles, usually professional labs, at least on this side of the pond. H

 

[bazooka]

Google is your friend.

 

[AgentDrex]

Gotta love coming to a place to ask questions and get a "go to google" answer...why even come here to ask questions then? When I have a specific question, I generally go to where I would get a good answer...if I have a car question, I pose it at a car geek forum, computer security questions I go to a computer forum such as antionline.com
But apparently that is fallible thinking, I COULD just go to google...silly Drex

 

[elie1]

Flash Harry thanks dude but do u mean RGB = adobe RGB ? cz that's all i seem to get on my canon 7D

all other guys u just worthless dudes if i wanted to go to gogle i would've gone but i dont wana go searchin in stuff i realy dont need just to get an answer for this now do i ? its not like i can sit all day long in front of the PC

again thx Flash Harry Dude

 

[JG_Coleman]

Gotta love coming to a place to ask questions and get a "go to google" answer...why even come here to ask questions then? When I have a specific question, I generally go to where I would get a good answer...if I have a car question, I pose it at a car geek forum, computer security questions I go to a computer forum such as antionline.com
But apparently that is fallible thinking, I COULD just go to google...silly Drex

LOL... yeah, I think the exact same thing sometimes when I browse threads and see someone that advises the OP to search Google for the answer. What a cop-out!

I'll concede that some questions are just waaaaay to general or involved for a forum to effectively cover... in that case, the answer would legitimately be," You have a lot of learning to do... do some of your own research first."

But most questions aren't really like that... and you're right... why bother having a forum at all if we could all just Google our answers? To have cheeky little chit-chats about sweet nothings? People come to forums for one-on-one advice from members... not to be sent off to Google.

And elie1... although I am no expert on the technicalities of color spaces, here's what I can tell you.

Basically, sRGB is far-and-wide the world standard color space... readable and displayable by most everything. When you are ready to begin distributing your photographs for any purpose, your best bet is to convert them to sRGB color space. It'll provide the most consistent colors across all different softwares, displays, and printers.

Adobe RGB is a kind of color compression technique that adds a greater range of possible colors to a photograph. So, hypothetically, you can retain a greater range of color within a photograph saved in Adobe RGB color space. However, Adobe RGB is also rather tricky, because if the software you are viewing it with is not specifically equipped to deal with the extra colors... the photograph will, in contrast, end up looking somewhat washed out. Plenty of high-end graphics editing software can handle the Adobe RGB color space... but the ordinary person that you may e-mail your photos to probably doesn't know that. The ordinary web browser, too, will ignore the Adobe RGB color space. And, perhaps most frustrating, if your Adobe RGB photo is printed out with software that doesn't recognize the expanded range of color... the colors will actually look worse than if you just used sRGB.

I've seriously simplified things here... but you get the idea (I hope). Whenever I export my photographs, I always do so using an sRGB color space. However, I have my camera set to take photos using the Adobe RGB color space... and when editing them in Lightroom, which recognizes and makes use of the expanded color range, I can retain more usable data. Nonetheless, no photo leaves my computer without being reduced to sRGB... it's just the best way to ensure that, no matter where they end up, they'll produce consistent color results.

 

[clanthar]

Wow! -- a lot of misunderstanding out there.

Digital photos are stored as RGB graphics. A color in a photo must have a number assignment; everything in a computer is ultimately a number. Look at this illustration:

Those two colors have the exact same numerical values. The two color spaces map the numbers differently. Why did we do this since it seems on face value rather stupid? There are historical reasons and reasons that have to do with different applications and expectations (and money).

sRGB was developed by a consortium of companies in the 1990s led by Microsu*k and HP; the people you trust for photography -- right. Prior to the birth of sRGB ("s" stands for sh*ty). Apple, Adobe and the pre-press industry also worked on the problem of developing a standard color space (numerical mapping of colors) for electronic image processing. The result of that effort is Adobe RGB 1998.

The two color spaces are similar but as you can see from the illustration they are not coincident. The sRGB space is a little smaller and when Microsu*k and HP developed it they tried to make it a backwards good fit to the huge installed hardware base of CRTs and printers etc. they'd already sold and/or supported. Since it's adoption color consistency in the consumer market has dramatically improved with sRGB as a universal target. 99.9999% of all computer users either use sRGB unknowingly or use nothing. Since typical hardware was the sRGB development target it's a good chance that using nothing looks pretty close to sRGB. .0001 percent (serious photographers who have their work published) use Adobe 1998.

Adobe 1998 is slightly larger including a little more green than sRGB. Adobe 1998 was developed to best match digital photos to press output.

The problem with all of this is when images are re-assigned between the color spaces and not converted. Problems occur when software doesn't correctly map the numbers. Go to this link:
http://photojoes.org/art275/lesson11/chapter03.html

Scroll down the page until you see three purple squares. If you see all three squares as identical your web browser is correctly mapping the color space numbers. Each square is the same color in a different color space. My version of Firefox shows them correctly as does Safari on a MAC. The only way to see them displayed wrong is to use IE.

It makes little difference which color space you use to take photos (Adobe RGB 1998 will capture a tad more green). What's important is that you properly manage the color spaces of your photos. JG is right in that if you distribute a photo to someone who does not understand color space management that sRGB is the safest bet. Unfortunately once a photo is out of your control there's no way to insure that it won't get mangled by display via software that is not color space aware.

Joe

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

LOL... yeah, I think the exact same thing sometimes when I browse threads and see someone that advises the OP to search Google for the answer. What a cop-out!

Doing some research is fundamental to learning, and getting a full understanding of the question at hand. You can get more information from experts, rather than, say...

And elie1... although I am no expert on the technicalities of color spaces, here's what I can tell you.

...possible misinformation from a variety of users, to which the researcher must sift through and decide who to believe.


I am also willing to bet, that anyone who answers this question here, has googled it themselves at some point in time.

 

[JG_Coleman]

LOL... yeah, I think the exact same thing sometimes when I browse threads and see someone that advises the OP to search Google for the answer. What a cop-out!

Doing some research is fundamental to learning, and getting a full understanding of the question at hand. You can get more information from experts, rather than, say...

And elie1... although I am no expert on the technicalities of color spaces, here's what I can tell you.

...possible misinformation from a variety of users, to which the researcher must sift through and decide who to believe.


I am also willing to bet, that anyone who answers this question here, has googled it themselves at some point in time.

You're certainly right, BitterJeweler. At the end of the day, achieving a good, solid understanding of any topic requires thorough research of material written by experts. But most of the time, users that ask these questions aren't asking that they be imbued with the powers of a genius by the answers they get here. They just want some basic info, that's all... a starting point, you could say. Indeed, I'm no expert on color spaces... but I can throw my two cents out there and give the OP a quick and basic snapshot of associated info. Then they can go ahead look deeper into it if they choose to do so.

Most of what I've learned, in just about any field of knowledge that interests me, came from extensive hours of reading books and internet webpages. But I also know that many, many people aren't nearly so interested in much of anything enough that they would bury their nose in reading material for hours on end.

I suppose that my point is this: We all know that any given piece of information can be Googled, and that treasure troves of data await us. Answering "Google it" is just kind of pointless, really. The mere fact that they asked the question here in the first place means that they weren't interested in Googling it, you know? That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of some basic info from other people on the forum.

Just about any question posted to this forum that doesn't ask for a subjective answer could potentially be written off with a "Just go Google it." Maybe for the sake of the most accurate information possible, it'd be better that way. But I think that, perhaps counter-intuitively, it's more helpful to people if their questions are answered, or attempts made, rather than just pointing them to a search engine.

 

[Polyphony]

Asking a question on the forum as opposed to googling it is synonymous with asking a teacher or professor to explain something in a different way. Any teacher will tell you that one of the most important skills to have as a teacher is to be able to explain one topic 5, 10, 20 different ways. Sometimes it is much easier to understand a simple answer provided by a forum member, than read very technical and detailed articles on the internet.

Here is a perfect example. Someone just posted a thread asking (essentially) "what is focal length?"
Instead of going online and reading heavily mathematics and physics based articles, you can simply say "The focal length is the distance from a lens to the point at which light passing through it converges."

Now if all I wanted to know was a simple definition of "focal length", which is easier to understand? The above? Or this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length ?

(Picked wikipedia because that was the first link that google produced)