Color Space... "It all depends"...

[e.rose]

Okay, I get that it "depends" on what it is that you're doing with the images that determines the color space that you use... but since yesterday I noticed a big difference between the coloring of the band images I edited on my computer and the ones that were uploaded to Flickr, I finally decided to investigate.

Of course, now I have questions.

So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed.

Okay, fine.

And the color space that is best for web work is sRGB... right?

So when I'm exporting from LR to PS, should I *leave* the image as ProPhoto... edit it in CS5 as ProPhoto, and just *export* it as an sRGB? Or do I export it from LR as an sRGB and work in the same space in CS5 so that I know exactly what the colors will look like when I upload them to the web as I'm working?

And what happens if what I'm working on is meant for *both* print AND sRGB? Is it better to edit in ... what is it?... AdobeRGB?... to get the most colors for print and then just export a jpeg version in sRGB for web?

 

[Big Mike]

When you go from LR to PS...are you using the 'Edit in...' command? In other words, are you bringing the image right back into LR after PS?

If so, then it would make sense to use the best color space (I don't even consider the color space at that point). But after the image is back into LR, and when I'm exporting, that's when I specify that I want to use sRGB.

I think that most printers are going to want sRGB anyway, so I don't think there is a need for another copy in AdobeRGB.

 

[clanthar]

Your color space should be sRGB.

You're selling photos to people who will want to see them in electronic form and have them printed using consumer industry printing technologies -- sRGB all the way.

LR is hardwired to Pro-Photo as you've noted. You can't alter LR's working color space. When you create a JPEG in LR the photo gets converted to the color space of your choice. This should be sRGB. In that conversion process it's possible for some loss to occur. In other words colors, especially more saturated and intense colors, can be changed in the conversion.

Adobe has an available downloadable plugin for LR (doesn't ship with it!! bad Adobe!) that allows you to preview the conversion -- normally any change is minor.

Photoshop does allow you to alter the working color space. Under the Edit menu -- Color Settings -- you can, and should, make sure Photoshop's working color space is sRGB. Then you're good to go. An sRGB photo in Photoshop will look exactly the same open in Photoshop and or displayed using a color manged web browser. (In lieu of a color manged web browser make sure photos are sRGB -- best option.)

Joe

 

[KmH]

I do as much of my editing in the ProPhoto RGB color space as I possibly can.

When it is time to output an image, then I 'Convert to Profile' and select the appropriate color space for the output, which usually means sRGB, or Adobe RGB.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Since most monitors, all printers, and most clients can't even view all the colors in ProPhoto RGB or even Adobe RGB, for me it, makes absolutely no sense to use a wider color gamut to optimize an image.

I stick with sRGB. It is what most professional printing companies want. It is what most monitors can display. Put simply, editing in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB are more theoretical than practical. Just my .02

 

[Derrel]

Since most monitors, all printers, and most clients can't even view all the colors in ProPhoto RGB or even Adobe RGB, for me it, makes absolutely no sense to use a wider color gamut to optimize an image.

I stick with sRGB. It is what most professional printing companies want. It is what most monitors can display. Put simply, editing in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB are more theoretical than practical. Just my .02

Have to agree...ESPECIALLY if you are working "for the web" and for images that will be printed by customers...the "benefits" of expanded gamut color spaces like ProPhoto RGB are largely theoretical IMHO.

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

A few years back, Ken Rockwell did an AdobeRGB versus sRGB test...the results were surprising...sRGB is not the evil boogeyman it's made out to be...imagine a world where the capture is made in sRGB, imported to a monitor displaying sRGB, edited and evaluated as an sRGB image being viewed on a sRGB device, then outputted as an sRGB file to a (OMGosh!) printer that expects the images to be sRGB and which uses sRGB for its color control... HORROR OF HORRORS!!!!!!!!! Each stage in the imaging process --capture,import,editing,export,printing,and viewing--all done in the SAME COLOR SPACE!!!!! Danger Will Robinson, danger!

 

[Helen B]

If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is probably worth using Adobe RGB because it is likely to use more of the printer's gamut than sRGB does. Some printers can print colours outside Adobe RGB* (eg greens, dark greens), never mind sRGB. Although the gamut of photo paper (eg Fuji Crystal Archive) is less than that of photo-quality inkjets some operators prefer to receive files in Adobe RGB - there's no hard-and-fast rule. Even our web offset printers (Quad Imaging) prefer files in Adobe RGB.

*KmH's diagram doesn't show this for two reasons - one major and one not so major: Colour spaces are best viewed in 3D, because 2D usually does not show the full story; matt paper does not have as large a gamut as glossy or semi-glossy paper (oh, and the 2200 doesn't have as large a gamut as many current printers/inksets).

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

Derrel, that setting only affects JPEGs, not the Raw files. LR works from the Raw file, if it is available, and converts from the camera's 'native colour space' to the LR working space.

Best,
Helen

 

[clanthar]

Since most monitors, all printers, and most clients can't even view all the colors in ProPhoto RGB or even Adobe RGB, for me it, makes absolutely no sense to use a wider color gamut to optimize an image.

I stick with sRGB. It is what most professional printing companies want. It is what most monitors can display. Put simply, editing in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB are more theoretical than practical. Just my .02

Have to agree...ESPECIALLY if you are working "for the web" and for images that will be printed by customers...the "benefits" of expanded gamut color spaces like ProPhoto RGB are largely theoretical IMHO.

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

A few years back, Ken Rockwell did an AdobeRGB versus sRGB test...the results were surprising...sRGB is not the evil boogeyman it's made out to be...imagine a world where the capture is made in sRGB, imported to a monitor displaying sRGB, edited and evaluated as an sRGB image being viewed on a sRGB device, then outputted as an sRGB file to a (OMGosh!) printer that expects the images to be sRGB and which uses sRGB for its color control... HORROR OF HORRORS!!!!!!!!! Each stage in the imaging process --capture,import,editing,export,printing,and viewing--all done in the SAME COLOR SPACE!!!!! Danger Will Robinson, danger!

LR3 is hard wired to Pro-Photo color space as it's working space. You can't do anything about that. Since LR3 is designed to edit RAW files which have no assigned color space the transfer to an open file for processing in LR3 should be RAW to Pro-Photo. Then when you're finished in LR you have the option to keep Pro-Photo or convert to sRGB or Adobe RGB for your finished RGB file.

Got to stop here and admit I'm not a regular LR user. I have it and it's installed where I teach, but the fact is I don't use it personally. So I'm probably not best authority.

Back to sRGB, Derrel I couldn't agree with you more. There is nothing wrong with having a color space that's a d*mn good match to you hardware chain. One of the biggest problems to have arisen with digital photo technology is maintaining accurate color through the complete chain from the original to capture (the camera) to process and proof (the computer) to output (the printer). sRGB is the best thing to have happened to help manage that process.

Joe

 

[Kerbouchard]

If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is probably worth using Adobe RGB because it is likely to use more of the printer's gamut than sRGB does. Some printers can print colours outside Adobe RGB* (eg greens, dark greens), never mind sRGB. Although the gamut of photo paper (eg Fuji Crystal Archive) is less than that of photo-quality inkjets some operators prefer to receive files in Adobe RGB - there's no hard-and-fast rule. Even our web offset printers (Quad Imaging) prefer files in Adobe RGB.

*KmH's diagram doesn't show this for two reasons - one major and one not so major: Colour spaces are best viewed in 3D, because 2D usually does not show the full story; matt paper does not have as large a gamut as glossy or semi-glossy paper (oh, and the 2200 doesn't have as large a gamut as many current printers/inksets).

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

Derrel, that setting only affects JPEGs, not the Raw files. LR works from the Raw file, if it is available, and converts from the camera's 'native colour space' to the LR working space.

Best,
Helen

By 'many', you actually mean 'a few'. Most printers are not capable of reproducing the color gamut of either adobe rgb or ProPhoto rgb. Some, yes. Most, no.

There are very few professional print labs who want anything other than sRGB in Jpeg. Yes, some accept Tiff's or other color spaces. Most do not.

If you are printing on your own professional printer and have a fully color spaced managed workflow, you might be able to squeeze a bit extra out of your prints. For 99% of photographers, that is not the case. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

 

[Helen B]

If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is probably worth using Adobe RGB because it is likely to use more of the printer's gamut than sRGB does. Some printers can print colours outside Adobe RGB* (eg greens, dark greens), never mind sRGB. Although the gamut of photo paper (eg Fuji Crystal Archive) is less than that of photo-quality inkjets some operators prefer to receive files in Adobe RGB - there's no hard-and-fast rule. Even our web offset printers (Quad Imaging) prefer files in Adobe RGB.

*KmH's diagram doesn't show this for two reasons - one major and one not so major: Colour spaces are best viewed in 3D, because 2D usually does not show the full story; matt paper does not have as large a gamut as glossy or semi-glossy paper (oh, and the 2200 doesn't have as large a gamut as many current printers/inksets).

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

Derrel, that setting only affects JPEGs, not the Raw files. LR works from the Raw file, if it is available, and converts from the camera's 'native colour space' to the LR working space.

Best,
Helen

By 'many', you actually mean 'a few'.

Where do I use the word 'many' except in reference to the 2200 having a smaller gamut than many current printers - which is perfectly true? (It's also a side issue, being solely an explanation of KmH's diagram as a poor representation of the capabilities of current inkjets)

Most printers are not capable of reproducing the color gamut of either adobe rgb or ProPhoto rgb. Some, yes. Most, no.

Try re-reading what I actually wrote. I said that inkjet printers can print colurs outside both Adobe RGB and sRGB. That does not imply that they can reproduce the full Adobe RGB or sRGB gamut. It means exactly what I wrote, and it is a simple fact, not an opinion. This applies to many of the inkjets used for printing photos - Epsons, Canons and HPs.

There are very few professional print labs who want anything other than sRGB in Jpeg. Yes, some accept Tiff's or other color spaces. Most do not.

I didn't say they all accepted Adobe RGB. I tend to prefer the ones who do, but that is my preference.

If you are printing on your own professional printer and have a fully color spaced managed workflow, you might be able to squeeze a bit extra out of your prints. For 99% of photographers, that is not the case. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

I'm not making an argument, I'm just stating simple facts and hoping that people can use them to make their own mind up. I'm not bothered whether what I say applies to the majority or the minority - I just hope that it helps those who wish to understand their options and to get the very best print quality.

I can give you examples of images that have colours that print in the space between Adobe RGB and sRGB, because I use colour management tools to examine image gamuts. Many landscape photos benefit from Adobe RGB over sRGB when sent to a consumer Epson, for instance.

Best,
Helen

 

[Derrel]

What about the Kodak and Fuji self-serve printers available pretty widely across the USA? Those are the two printing-out machines that are dominant in my area; most of the larger retailers have these machines (Target, Walgreens, the chain photo stores,Rite-Aid,Safeway grocery stores,etc,etc.) I do not even think of inkjet printing for people who are paying for finished files--since the majority of them have absolutely horrific inkjet printers and would not likely have any decent paper to feed a good printer if they did happen to have one. Kodak's self-serve machines are capable of absolutely stunning color on photo paper.

 

[unpopular]

Edit in a wider gamut than the output device, this permits better selection of in-gamut data. With more colors to choose from, the color management system can make a better decision about which in-gamut color is the nearest neighbor.

If you're really worried about it, leave soft proofing turned on from start to finish. But you always work in the widest possible gamut.

 

[clanthar]

What about the Kodak and Fuji self-serve printers available pretty widely across the USA? Those are the two printing-out machines that are dominant in my area; most of the larger retailers have these machines (Target, Walgreens, the chain photo stores,Rite-Aid,Safeway grocery stores,etc,etc.) I do not even think of inkjet printing for people who are paying for finished files--since the majority of them have absolutely horrific inkjet printers and would not likely have any decent paper to feed a good printer if they did happen to have one. Kodak's self-serve machines are capable of absolutely stunning color on photo paper.

Of course Helen is technically correct and Derrel you're absolutely on target.

I make my own inkjet prints. I have Canon (9000 and 9500 mkII) and Epson (4880) high end printers. The gamut and performance of these printers is amazingly paper dependent. You've got to use the better quality papers. I use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta and Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique to get the most out of these printers. A single sheet of 11x17 paper is $3.00 and that doesn't include the ink cost or the effort. To use these papers effectively I have to make and adjust my own printer ICC profiles. Take the quality paper away from these printers and the end result degrades dramatically.

Costco sells an 11x14 inch enlargement for $2.99. My local Costco is using a Fuji Frontier system and the tech there has been consistent for a decade. He makes printer profiles for the system and copies them to your flash drive if you walk in. I am horribly embarrassed to admit that I have more than once spent more money and more effort to make my own only to later have a quick print run through the Fuji Frontier and find it completely acceptable if not the equal of my more expensive effort. I have the consolation of knowing my inkjet prints are more fade resistant for my extra effort.

Every one of us who does this for a living should get sRGB tattooed on our arm.

Joe

 

[thereyougo!]

If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is probably worth using Adobe RGB because it is likely to use more of the printer's gamut than sRGB does. Some printers can print colours outside Adobe RGB* (eg greens, dark greens), never mind sRGB. Although the gamut of photo paper (eg Fuji Crystal Archive) is less than that of photo-quality inkjets some operators prefer to receive files in Adobe RGB - there's no hard-and-fast rule. Even our web offset printers (Quad Imaging) prefer files in Adobe RGB.*KmH's diagram doesn't show this for two reasons - one major and one not so major: Colour spaces are best viewed in 3D, because 2D usually does not show the full story; matt paper does not have as large a gamut as glossy or semi-glossy paper (oh, and the 2200 doesn't have as large a gamut as many current printers/inksets).

Back to your comment, "So LR3 edits in ProPhoto something or other... and I guess that can't be changed." Ummm, I do not think that is entirely accurate; how do you have your Canon camera set to capture??? How have you set up the camera's controls? Doesn't your Canon allow you to set the capture mode as either sRGB or Adobe RGB? Mine do.

Derrel, that setting only affects JPEGs, not the Raw files. LR works from the Raw file, if it is available, and converts from the camera's 'native colour space' to the LR working space.Best,Helen

By 'many', you actually mean 'a few'. Most printers are not capable of reproducing the color gamut of either adobe rgb or ProPhoto rgb. Some, yes. Most, no.There are very few professional print labs who want anything other than sRGB in Jpeg. Yes, some accept Tiff's or other color spaces. Most do not.If you are printing on your own professional printer and have a fully color spaced managed workflow, you might be able to squeeze a bit extra out of your prints. For 99% of photographers, that is not the case. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

Disingenuous? Why do you always have to be so argumentative? Helen was suggesting a different argument not taking credit away from someone which is what being disingenuous actually means.

 

[Kerbouchard]

If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is probably worth using Adobe RGB because it is likely to use more of the printer's gamut than sRGB does. Some printers can print colours outside Adobe RGB* (eg greens, dark greens), never mind sRGB. Although the gamut of photo paper (eg Fuji Crystal Archive) is less than that of photo-quality inkjets some operators prefer to receive files in Adobe RGB - there's no hard-and-fast rule. Even our web offset printers (Quad Imaging) prefer files in Adobe RGB.*KmH's diagram doesn't show this for two reasons - one major and one not so major: Colour spaces are best viewed in 3D, because 2D usually does not show the full story; matt paper does not have as large a gamut as glossy or semi-glossy paper (oh, and the 2200 doesn't have as large a gamut as many current printers/inksets).Derrel, that setting only affects JPEGs, not the Raw files. LR works from the Raw file, if it is available, and converts from the camera's 'native colour space' to the LR working space.Best,Helen

By 'many', you actually mean 'a few'. Most printers are not capable of reproducing the color gamut of either adobe rgb or ProPhoto rgb. Some, yes. Most, no.There are very few professional print labs who want anything other than sRGB in Jpeg. Yes, some accept Tiff's or other color spaces. Most do not.If you are printing on your own professional printer and have a fully color spaced managed workflow, you might be able to squeeze a bit extra out of your prints. For 99% of photographers, that is not the case. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

Disingenuous? Why do you always have to be so argumentative? Helen was suggesting a different argument not taking credit away from someone which is what being disingenuous actually means.

One, that is not what disingenuous means...
Two, the reason I said it was disingenuous was because Helen knows that the majority of people who attempt to use a larger color space to edit in than their monitors or printers can display end up with banding, posterization, or inconsistent results. Yes, it is 100% user error, but color management from capture to output(especially when there will be two or more different types of output) has a ton of room for user error.

Yes, some can squeeze a bit more out of a larger color gamut, as long as they have a calibrated monitor, the proper printer profiles, and understand which colors will be able to be reproduced and which ones won't. Heck, I'll even bust out a Lab color space occasionally for editing purposes. I'm not saying it's not a viable option. I'm not even saying it is not valuable in certain situations to a photographer who really understands what they are doing. What I am trying to say is that most people won't benefit from it and most will screw it up in the process.