Adobe RGB vs sRGB [I know you're probably sick of this...]

macpro88 · May 18, 2012

...but bare with me please. Researching I find mixed reviews (Ken Rockwell anyone?? lol), I'm sure I'll get them here as well, but hopefully I can get a better understanding if I describe my photography style/habits/etc...

First off, I will NOT being a ton of printing, maybe a few pieces here and there for personal use, but that's about it (is this the main reason to just skip Adobe RGB and shoot sRGB RAW?).

I shoot RAW, Canon 7D, process in Photoshop CS5.

Is it worth shooting Adobe RGB and then convert to sRBG if I am mostly going to be sharing pics on the web? In no way am I a pro and doing this as a full time job, it is more of a hobby for me, and all I want to do is just create art through photography to share with the online communities.

Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?

Thanks y'all!

Overread · May 18, 2012

Far as I know colourspace isn't fixed for when you shoot RAW. In the RAW editor you can change the colourspace to any one you want. Also if you're not going to learn editing to a greater depth and if you're mostly only showing photos online and doing small time printing then sRGB is more than enough.

No point having everything set to another colourspace if you're always converting it to sRGB and many printing labs request photos in sRGB anyway. Most of the advantage of other colourspaces are in editing, but you've really got to know what you're doing to actually make use of this.

MReid · May 18, 2012

Do everything srgb.

ChristianGrattan · May 18, 2012

macpro88 said:
Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?

Thanks y'all!

A smidge yes, but it is a tricky thing to figure out. The bottom line is that the more you get into it the less it feels like science and the more it seems like voodoo.

I want to be helpful here so, I am trying to say, don't worry about it too much.

I would say shoot in adobe cause it is the bigger space. You can't get that info back. It is super easy to change it to SRGB. Make an action to open the file in SRBG and then make a droplet and keep it on your desktop. It is no extra work to open your shots in SRBG. Keep the unedited files in adobe just in case.

The thing is that eventually, if you are printing a bunch, you will work your color loop out with the printer.

For the screen, keep in mind that very few people actually have their monitor properly calibrated. I went over to a buddy of mine's house, and calibrated his monitor for him. He charges 5K per wedding. If he does not have an accurately calibrated monitor then the chances that others do is slim.

There are tons of tricks to get the correct white balance before you start shooting. This could be helpful in your situation too.

Let me know if this made it clearer at all.

macpro88 · May 18, 2012

Sweet, thanks for the input guys! I now have a better understanding of this.

Will play around with shooting Adobe RGB in RAW and see what happens, though just to play it safe I'll shoot sRBG RAW. We shall see.

Again thanks, I now have a better understanding!

Graystar said:
As for Ken Rockwell, his AdobeRGB article is misleading. I also find that his rambling style of writing puts me to sleep, and I recommend not reading anything he writes.

I agree on this lol I don't most of his stuff seriously. A good beginning insight I guess, but I know what's what and how to do better research than to just take one guy's "blog" and call it fact haha

Thanks again.

KmH · May 18, 2012

Once again. Raw image data files have no color space. There is no Adobe RGB, or sRGB, in a Raw file.

Choosing one or the other of those settings in your camera menus, has zero effect on the Raw image data file.

However, your Raw converter application may develope the Raw image data file such that the file is developed 'as shot', but the color space can be changed to any other color space.

Per the recommendations of many image editing experts, I do all of my Raw conversions and image editing in the ProPhoto RGB color space, and then as a near the last step, convert to the color space needed for output.

FWIW - JPEG is an acronym for Joint Photography Experts Group. TIFF is an acronym for Tagged Image File Format.

Raw is not an acronym, which is why it's just Raw, and not RAW.

macpro88 · May 18, 2012

Sweet, thanks KmH, you all are awesome.

Now, I can't wait to get off work...

I wanna play around with this.

Also, two new lens are coming today

Buckster · May 18, 2012

KmH said:
Raw is not an acronym, which is why it's just Raw, and not RAW.

Apparently, you didn't get the memo...

RAW is short for RAWR!!! It's a technical photographic term which means "AWESOME"!!! :thumbup:

You should see if there's a pill available to help you chill on your spelling/grammar OCD.

DiskoJoe · May 18, 2012

ChristianGrattan said:
macpro88 said:

Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?

Thanks y'all!

Click to expand...

A smidge yes, but it is a tricky thing to figure out. The bottom line is that the more you get into it the less it feels like science and the more it seems like voodoo.

I want to be helpful here so, I am trying to say, don't worry about it too much.

I would say shoot in adobe cause it is the bigger space. You can't get that info back. It is super easy to change it to SRGB. Make an action to open the file in SRBG and then make a droplet and keep it on your desktop. It is no extra work to open your shots in SRBG. Keep the unedited files in adobe just in case.

The thing is that eventually, if you are printing a bunch, you will work your color loop out with the printer.

For the screen, keep in mind that very few people actually have their monitor properly calibrated. I went over to a buddy of mine's house, and calibrated his monitor for him. He charges 5K per wedding. If he does not have an accurately calibrated monitor then the chances that others do is slim.

There are tons of tricks to get the correct white balance before you start shooting. This could be helpful in your situation too.

Let me know if this made it clearer at all.

You want to come over and calibrate my monitor? please!

Imajize · May 18, 2012

I mostly shoot for web, so I always shoot and export in sRGB. If I shoot in RGB, then the colors get slightly changed when I export for web in sRGB. It's a nightmare. Shooting and editing in the same colorspace will keep everything good and consistent, especially since you'

Garbz · May 19, 2012

I wrote a major post (rant?) about this a while ago in the discussion forum. Probably worth the read as it will explain what you gain for your extra complexity: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...prophoto-colour-management-general-worth.html

In summary:
- AdobeRGB only makes sense if you have any way of outputting something in the format like nice prints or a wide gamut monitor.
- The improvement is so marginal that I don't even bother despite having a wide gamut monitor.
- AdobeRGB using an 8bit colour space (JPEGs) does more harm than good, so you need to up the bitdepth and then you have extra file space to deal with.
- Colour management is a HUGE pain the arse which can go wrong at a multitude of places for only a very minor gain.

Also if you shoot in RAW and edit in something like Lightroom then the whole editing process takes place in a wide colour space (MelissaRGB) anyway. The decision of what colour space to work with only happens at export.
It sounds like you should really stick to sRGB

KmH · May 19, 2012

Tutorials on Color Management & Printing

Derrel · May 19, 2012

Garbz said:
I wrote a major post (rant?) about this a while ago in the discussion forum. Probably worth the read as it will explain what you gain for your extra complexity: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...prophoto-colour-management-general-worth.html

In summary:
- AdobeRGB only makes sense if you have any way of outputting something in the format like nice prints or a wide gamut monitor.
- The improvement is so marginal that I don't even bother despite having a wide gamut monitor.
- AdobeRGB using an 8bit colour space (JPEGs) does more harm than good, so you need to up the bitdepth and then you have extra file space to deal with.
- Colour management is a HUGE pain the arse which can go wrong at a multitude of places for only a very minor gain.

Also if you shoot in RAW and edit in something like Lightroom then the whole editing process takes place in a wide colour space (MelissaRGB) anyway. The decision of what colour space to work with only happens at export.
It sounds like you should really stick to sRGB

^^^^^^What he said. Personally, I LIKE added complexity and arcane differentiation and truly minimal nuance in all things I do, so I write my grocery lists in Latin and translate them at the last seconds on an as-needed basis. I also compute my estimated tax amounts in Euro, and then convert them to dollars at the last possible moment. And when I buy gasoline, I always insist on figuring out my prior tank's load of fuel efficiency in kilometres per litre, and then using a simple, easy conversion formula and my old Picket slide rule to convert that info (the Adobe kilometres-per-litre) into the newer, miles per gallon (sRGB) figure that 99 percent of other devices and people are expecting. I don't know WHY more people do not understand the true value of the added nuance of grocery lists in Latin, or the sheer beauty of the Euro, or the amazing feel and look of fuel efficency calculations done in litres and kilometres using a 1970's Picket slide rule!!! Geeze!!!