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

[MReid]

Photography is hard enough without messing with color spaces. Put everything in SRGB and leave it there.
If through the course of events you find that you have an actual "need" to use a different color space then cross that bridge when you come to it.

 

[KmH]

The 'dumb it down as much as possible' approach?

I use color management practices recommended by recognised experts in the field. People like Evening, Fraser, Schewe, Kelby, Gray, etc.

 

[e.rose]

Holy WOW...

I didn't expect this to become such a debate... although I should have known better. :er:

Okay, while I DID read everyone's comments and I will try to touch on the ones with questions directed towards me... I'm pretty much going to start with this:

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.

I just started making use of the "Edit in" feature, but the thing is, that I edit it in CS5, and I don't always *finish* it, so the next time I open the file, I open it straight from CS5. When I finish with the .psd files in CS5 I open them in LR to batch convert them to jpeg, but I honestly don't remember if the "edit in" automatically imports the .psd version or if I've had to import that myself later... I've only used the "edit in" once before and it was a while ago, haha.

That being said... I guess what I'm asking is... why would I want to edit in ProPhoto if I'm going to switch it over to sRGB for web viewing? It's not about dumbing it down or anything for me... I'm just asking because in my mind, I guess I don't understand why I would want to edit with the colors that reflect my end result immediately, or else I don't *really* know what it's going to look like by the time I export it. Does that make sense, or am I just being really confusing?

For example... These last images I edited, I did mostly in LR. I don't really do much editing to live music images outside of what LR can do, so I get them looking the way I want them to in LR, and then I export them to CS5 to do some sharpening, watermark them, and then I'm done. However by the time I converted them to jpeg and had them uploaded to Flickr, they looked different... so I was editing them (in ProPhoto color space, unknown to me at the time...), thinking I had the colors exactly where I wanted them, only to find that they shifted upon upload.

So I guess I'm just thinking that I'd rather know from the *get go* what my colors are going to look like web-wise while I'm editing them, rather than thinking I have them where I want them and being disappointed later when it shifts.

Also, everyone keeps talking about home printers and what not... I'm not concerned with those. If I'm going to do any printing I'm going to send them off to WHCC or something. So as far as printing is concerned, do places like *that* print in sRGB too? Or is that just the home printer, deal?

Also, LR definitely only works in ProPhoto, so it doesn't matter what my camera is set to because it gets changed into ProPhoto when I bring it into LR... so that being said I know I'm always going to see a shift in my band images since I do all my editing in LR, but for the other stuff I do, the majority of what I do is in CS5, so while there'll be a small shift at first, I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be smart for me to work in sRGB from the get go in CS5 so I know what I'm going to end up with?

I may be seriously over-thinking this though...

 

[Helen B]

Also, everyone keeps talking about home printers and what not... I'm not concerned with those. If I'm going to do any printing I'm going to send them off to WHCC or something. So as far as printing is concerned, do places like *that* print in sRGB too? Or is that just the home printer, deal?

It's worth checking the colour space requirements of the company you will be working with. WHCC will accept both Adobe RGB and sRGB, as long as the files are properly tagged. I can do a gamut map if you wish to compare the WHCC soft proof profile with both sRGB and Adobe RGB to show what, if anything, you would be missing by sending sRGB files instead of Adobe RGB. Printing in Adobe RGB isn't as fearsome as some responders here would have you believe. In general, printing in sRGB will lose some of the more vibrant yellow, green and blue-green colours that photo papers (Fuji Crystal Archive for example) are capable of that do exist in Adobe RGB. This may or may not matter to you - it's your choice. The printing software can make your colours more vibrant to make the most of the gamut of the printing system - ie it can add colours that were not in the file you sent. Kiosk software does this routinely.

Good luck,
Helen

 

[Helen B]

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.

I can't take you seriously when you make ridiculous, presumptuous statements like that.

Best,
Helen

 

[KmH]

When I finish with the .psd files in CS5 I open them in LR to batch convert them to jpeg,.....

Why don't you just use Bridge to batch convert to JPEG? You can use Bridge to apply Photoshop actions in a batch mode. Open bridge. Click on Tools > Photoshop > Batch - or use any of the other options in the drop down box like the 'Image Processor'.

Bridge can do tons more than many people realise.

why would I want to edit in ProPhoto if I'm going to switch it over to sRGB for web viewing?

What color managment settings do you use in Photoshop?
The large gamut of ProPhoto RGB preserves the full gamut of Raw image data files when converting the Raw data to RGB.
The gamut of ProPhoto RGB extends more into the shadow areas compared with most other RGB color spaces, and results in better tonal separation in the shadow tones.

 

[clanthar]

Also, everyone keeps talking about home printers and what not... I'm not concerned with those. If I'm going to do any printing I'm going to send them off to WHCC or something. So as far as printing is concerned, do places like *that* print in sRGB too? Or is that just the home printer, deal?

It's worth checking the colour space requirements of the company you will be working with. WHCC will accept both Adobe RGB and sRGB, as long as the files are properly tagged. I can do a gamut map if you wish to compare the WHCC soft proof profile with both sRGB and Adobe RGB to show what, if anything, you would be missing by sending sRGB files instead of Adobe RGB. Printing in Adobe RGB isn't as fearsome as some responders here would have you believe. In general, printing in sRGB will lose some of the more vibrant yellow, green and blue-green colours that photo papers (Fuji Crystal Archive for example) are capable of that do exist in Adobe RGB. This may or may not matter to you - it's your choice. The printing software can make your colours more vibrant to make the most of the gamut of the printing system - ie it can add colours that were not in the file you sent. Kiosk software does this routinely.

Good luck,
Helen

The catch here is: make sure you don't put an Adobe RGB tagged photo on the web for a customer. To benefit from the extended gamut of Adobe RGB in printing the workflow will have to be modified with an output fork to Adobe RGB for printing and another output fork to sRGB for web and electronic display. It's OK to take either Adobe RGB or sRGB to print. It's NOT OK to take Adobe RGB to the web for the consumer public.

Joe

 

[Helen B]

The catch here is: make sure you don't put an Adobe RGB tagged photo on the web for a customer. To benefit from the extended gamut of Adobe RGB in printing the workflow will have to be modified with an output fork to Adobe RGB for printing and another output fork to sRGB for web and electronic display. It's OK to take either Adobe RGB or sRGB to print. It's NOT OK to take Adobe RGB to the web for the consumer public.

Joe

It's good practice to have two output forks, one for the web and one for printing, even if you are using the same colour space.

Best,
Helen

 

[KmH]

The Beginners Forum was inappropriate for this thread in the first place.

 

[Derrel]

The 'dumb it down as much as possible' approach?

Now THAT is a fantastic example of a disingenuous argument!

Calling a perfectly viable, capture-to import-to editing-to web-to printed file workflow, all in one color space "dumb". My Gawd, people think I am opinionated Keith, but seriously dude, you really take the cake on this one...


And then, in another thread, criticizing the sub-forum this question was posted in...sort of your ad hominem attack number two, but this one launched on the southern flank, if you will.

My observations after wading through these two pages of tit for tat??? Well, I say goody-goody for you and Helen and anybody else with $50,000 worth of hardware, calibration equipment, stacks of premium inks, reams of prime paper, thousands of dollars' worth of current software, and years' worth of output that has been under your OWN control, or that of a known pre-press crew and presses...but for people who have to distribute files on the web and or to people "at large" (LIKE THE OP, for example), sorry snobs and purists, but the sRGB all the way method actually works pretty G*ddamned well "in the real world". This entire argument reminds me of a pretentious medical doctor whom I know...buys his own raw coffeee beans, roasts them in micro batches,and will not drink a cup of coffee from ANY barrista in the city...his coffee is theoretically "the best"...tool...

It also reminds me of the people who insist on shooting at baseline ISO to alleviate "noise" because it is theoretically a kitty hair better and less noisy than ISO 400. Hilarious! Ohhh....I'm laughing so hard.....I need some more de-ionized air! Can't breathe!!

Let's all buy $3,000 worth of Scotty Kelby training for Christmas, shall we? And let's not forget that $10,000 Eizo monitor on our stocking stuffer list!!! I mean, this is The Photography Beginners' Forum and Photo Gallery section.

 

[unpopular]

Only on this forum will a discussion on such a dry topic as color management diverge into insults.

That said ... and as I pointed out earlier while you folks were debating the definition of disingenuous, the point of a wide gamut is not because you can see on a monitor or print to a device all the colors, but rather because with a wider gamut to choose from (the 'working' gamut) the color management system will be able to select a more accurate nearest neighbor.

To address this problem, imaging software such as Adobe Photoshop permits live software proofing, which allows you to see your image in whatever output profile you choose, be it sRGB, CMYK or any custom profile. Within Photoshop, this is View->Proof Colors (ctrl-y) and View->Proof Setup to select a profile.

So if your device is expecting sRGB and you don't have a proper, custom made profile, it is my opinion that you should work in AdobeRGB and choose sRGB from the Proof Setup submenu and work with Proof Colors turned on. Finally when you are finished and ready to output to the device, convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB. You should not notice any difference between the soft proofed AdobeRGB version and the sRGB version.

Many of you people really need to brush up on your copies of Photoshop for Photographers.

 

[e.rose]

When I finish with the .psd files in CS5 I open them in LR to batch convert them to jpeg,.....

Why don't you just use Bridge to batch convert to JPEG? You can use Bridge to apply Photoshop actions in a batch mode. Open bridge. Click on Tools > Photoshop > Batch - or use any of the other options in the drop down box like the 'Image Processor'.

Bridge can do tons more than many people realise.

Because I'm comfortable with LR and it helps to keep me organized... if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

I always start all of my editing in LR no matter what it is, so it's already in the system organizationally speaking so I just use it for everything else. I'm honestly not sure what the difference between batch converting the images to jpeg vs. doing it in LR is (and that's not me being a smartass, that's an honest statement), so I just stick with what I know. ::shrugs::

why would I want to edit in ProPhoto if I'm going to switch it over to sRGB for web viewing?

What color managment settings do you use in Photoshop?
The large gamut of ProPhoto RGB preserves the full gamut of Raw image data files when converting the Raw data to RGB.
The gamut of ProPhoto RGB extends more into the shadow areas compared with most other RGB color spaces, and results in better tonal separation in the shadow tones.

I use sRGB in PS. You lost me after that... If ProPhoto preserves the full gamut of RAW image data when converting to RGB, then why would I have seen a difference between the sRGB version online and the RAW version in LR?

 

[dots]

The 'dumb it down as much as possible' approach?

Now THAT is a fantastic example of a disingenuous argument!

Calling a perfectly viable, capture-to import-to editing-to web-to printed file workflow, all in one color space "dumb". My Gawd, people think I am opinionated Keith, but seriously dude, you really take the cake on this one...


And then, in another thread, criticizing the sub-forum this question was posted in...sort of your ad hominem attack number two, but this one launched on the southern flank, if you will.

My observations after wading through these two pages of tit for tat??? Well, I say goody-goody for you and Helen and anybody else with $50,000 worth of hardware, calibration equipment, stacks of premium inks, reams of prime paper, thousands of dollars' worth of current software, and years' worth of output that has been under your OWN control, or that of a known pre-press crew and presses...but for people who have to distribute files on the web and or to people "at large" (LIKE THE OP, for example), sorry snobs and purists, but the sRGB all the way method actually works pretty G*ddamned well "in the real world". This entire argument reminds me of a pretentious medical doctor whom I know...buys his own raw coffeee beans, roasts them in micro batches,and will not drink a cup of coffee from ANY barrista in the city...his coffee is theoretically "the best"...tool...

It also reminds me of the people who insist on shooting at baseline ISO to alleviate "noise" because it is theoretically a kitty hair better and less noisy than ISO 400. Hilarious! Ohhh....I'm laughing so hard.....I need some more de-ionized air! Can't breathe!!

Let's all buy $3,000 worth of Scotty Kelby training for Christmas, shall we? And let's not forget that $10,000 Eizo monitor on our stocking stuffer list!!! I mean, this is The Photography Beginners' Forum and Photo Gallery section.

Reminds me of the types who'd assert they hand-code websites, in notepad, circa 2005; when everybody else was using Macromedia. The same people to be found in beer tents at folk festivals, with their own tankard, on a chain.

 

[dots]

sRGB for me btw

 

[e.rose]

So if your device is expecting sRGB and you don't have a proper, custom made profile, it is my opinion that you should work in AdobeRGB and choose sRGB from the Proof Setup submenu and work with Proof Colors turned on. Finally when you are finished and ready to output to the device, convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB. You should not notice any difference between the soft proofed AdobeRGB version and the sRGB version.

That last time my head hurt this much from a question I posted on the forum it was a question about... crop sensors vs. full frame I believe.

ANYWAY...

Can you clarify the above for me so that I'm not confusing myself further?

What your saying is that I can edit with a color space that has a wider gamut... but while looking at the image as if it were an sRGB by using the Proof Setup? So that way I know what the final image will look like after conversion without any surprises?

And if that *is* the case... why Adobe RGB? Why not ProPhoto?

Thanks.