sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

W.Y.Photo

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
874
Reaction score
203
Location
Harlem, NY
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
There was an argument recently on a thread here about getting more clients, for fear of the thread being locked due to an off topic discussion I have created this thread

The argument goes as such: Some of us believe that processing images in sRGB exclusivly will help photographers provide more precise color and all around better looking images to a wider audience, while others, myself included, believe that working in larger color spaces like Prophoto and Adobe RGB then converting images is best as it provides a wider range of color that can produce much more of a color range when used in formats other than the web.

For those of you unfamiliar with color spaces, a DSLR is much more capable of recording color than most of our output devices are capable of reproducing, for this reason smaller color spaces have been adopted in order to fit these colors within the range of these output devices (like monitors and printers) The standard color space for images on the web is sRGB but there are larger color spaces like Adobe RGB and Profoto RGB that some photographers prefer as it gives them a wider range of color to work with.

Most digital output devices can only handle sRGB color spaces, however there are higher range printers that can handle Adobe RGB as a color space and the data points for color in Adobe Photoshop are capable of giving the photographer an idea of where color falls in an image that resides in an Adobe RGB or Profoto color space.

I'd appreciate if some of you could re-post your arguments so we don't lose anyone unfamiliar with the original discussion.
Lets keep this civil guys. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?
 
My understanding of this is that:

1) Adobe RGB and other similar colour spaces allow for a much more refined working approach to dealing with colour in the photo. You can push and pull things more so and avoid some banding issues when editing whilst using this colourspace approach.

2) Adobe RGB isn't web-standard and as such nor is it the standard of most default in-camera settings nor most printing services. The public basically doesn't understand it so the whole system works to the sRGB approach.

3) Editing in Adobe RGB and then converting to sRGB still gives you the bonuses of working with the wider colourspace to start with, because you're then only downsamping the colourspace once you're finished; instead of doing so at the start and then working with reduced potential range of data values whilst editing.

4) For many situations the difference for most photographers is negligible to nothing. This is one of those situations where you can be a top rate photographer and still work only in sRGB. Thus there is an element of choice; however I would also say that a large number of photographers also don't formally learn photoshop. Much like using the camera its a cobbled together learning curve with mixed parts short snippet tutorials and user experiences. So sometimes some areas get overlooked or left out and this is one that oft gets left out beyond learning that adobe and s RGB exist.
 
Why would you convert your working files? Do your work in Lightroom, referencing the RAW data, and only down sample to a smaller color space when outputting or exporting. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Yes, and though sRGB is used in all web formats, there are still printers which are very much capable of handling Adobe RGB and if a photographer is really interested in creating the highest quality print in regards to color variation and vibrancy it is better to show a wider color range (like adobe RGB 1998)

Honestly, the problem with the argument we were having is that both sides were right and noone was willing to accept it.
I think this explains color space in a very objective manner: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

Why would you convert your working files? Do your work in Lightroom, referencing the RAW data, and only down sample to a smaller color space when outputting or exporting. Maybe I'm missing something.

Okay, so I'm a photographer who works with the idea idea of hanging my work in a gallery at the end of processing and printing. Because of this I am a perfectionist and very OCD about the final results of a print of one of my images. Every color, tonal value, and splotch of detail has to be right in a print or I throw it out and start over again. I am used to using very high end printers that excel at color and tonal reproduction. In so doing I like to work in a color space that allows for the variation in color that the printer I am using is capable of creating rather than limiting the image I have created and in so doing limiting my ability to achieve subtle variations in color throughout a work. (keep in mind that I am talking prints that will be meticulously studied by professional eyes) I can't get anything wrong, so the bigger color range I have to work with the better.

I also like to display my images on the web, normally I do this by converting the image from AdobeRGB to sRGB after processing. (if i post up an Adobe RGB image to the web the browser itself will convert it in a much more terrible way and leave the viewer of the image with a garbled mess of color.)

So, I work with images in the editing stage in Adobe and convert to sRBG for web later.
 
Last edited:
I have been watching videos by Aaron Nace of Phlearn and Julienne Kost an Adobe Evangelist. If I am not mistaken, they both recommend using Prophoto in PS and saving to the appropriate color space as needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If you want to shoot and sell images that "regular people" will look at on color-space unaware browsers (Windows machines), then make everything really simple. Set the camera to sRGB, edit in sRGB, output in sRGB, and people will then view your images the way you intended them to look, with the LEAST chance for f&&c&-ups on your part, and with the best chance that the inkjet images they make, or the machine prints they have made, will look "right".

If you maintain control of your images in a one-man-band approach, and you supervise all of your own images, and they never,ever leave your system, and never,every leave your control, then do whatever you want.

There is theory, and there is the real, broader, messy world. There are people who view everything they shoot on one,single carefully-calibrated system that "they own". Those people seem to not be able to understand that the way the real world works is based on the sRGB color space. And on a general public who will see images that will look fine in sRGB.
 
Feel free to make jokes, but the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 shoots better, more-appealing high-definition video than the Canon 5D Mark III in this side-by-side, real-world comparison...done by a professional cinematographer, not just some schmoe...

Video Test: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Versus the Canon 5D Mark III



sometimes the hundreds of engineers that design photo-related products actually understand more about how to get fast,easy, and consistent results than self-taught end-users with lots of preconceived notions about what is good,better,and best...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darrel, I understand what you are saying, and am completely on board with you that a person who is shooting exclusively for web would be much better off using sRGB start to finish. But I want you to know that not everyone is in that shooting for web boat. Telling a meticulous photographic printer to use only sRGB is like telling a meticulous shooter to use only jpeg because its much easier to have your camera edit for you. It just doesn't work like that for everyone. Hence this "real world" you speak of is really just another carefully calibrated system called the internet. Not all photography is done for the internet..

Now, I know that this discussion didn't stem from giving advice to a person who was asking about printing, but rather a person who was asking about displaying images on the web. So i think the place where we all really disagree is whether or not to be shooting in sRGB or not.

I just want to point out that photographers out there who plan on creating masterful prints are not going to be using sRGB straight from camera, and that the problem with limiting yourself like that from the get go is an important factor. You can't convert from sRGB to Profoto color space in 50 years when your computer monitor is capable of portraying a much wider gamut of colors, but I can easily take my 50 year old picture of Times Square and show that era what it looks like in a full range of color that they are used to; and hell, if there is no such monitor in 50 years time I can easily just push down to whatever gamut they do use. ;)
 
This is the workflow I have used. I have used it in a professional prepress environment, at professional photographic printers where output profiles were provided by the printer, and at wal-mart using third party produced profiles.

Convert the file to AdobeRGB at Raw processing
import into Photoshop
import the output device profile using View -> Proof Setup -> Custom, there are some settings here you can research
Enable software proofing by choosing View -> Proof Colors (command-y)
Make your final edits within the working profile (i.e. AdobeRGB) and proofed in the output device profile

If the output is web, you can either edit within AdobeRGB and proof in sRGB, or edit in sRGB from the start. It may not make a huge deal, unless the printer is capable of printing Ina gamut wider than sRGB.

but printers do not PRINT in sRGB. They print in their native subtractive colorspace. This is not sRGB, but it is likely within the sRGB colorspace, and this is why you can use sRGB this way. But this does not mean that using sRGB will automatically be perfect. When its time to print simply convert the working color space to the output:

Choose Edit-> Convert to profile
Choose the output profile (be sure to soft proof for every device; that’s kind of the point here)
If the output profile matches the profile used in proofing, the image will not change because the working profile (adobeRGB) exceeds the gamut of the device.

If the output profile is not sRGB but you need it to be, make sure to first convert to the device profile and then to sRGB. This isn't so much a problem, though because web stuff is best handled in the Save for Web dialogue. Just convert to the output device profile and then ensure that convert to sRGB its selected in convert to web.

As Darrel is asking, why do all this stuff in the first place? Well, he is right, it might be just splitting hairs. Certainly if the printer can print a wider gamut than sRGB it will make sense to edit in something like AdobeRGB. It may be useful also in more limited gamut in order to pick the next best color for an edit. This seems to be the case for straight CMYK, though I have no real evidence, though I might have an experiment I can try later…
 
Last edited:
BTW I am a little rusty on this stuff, so feel free to correct any mistakes. But I m pretty sure I got everything...
 
If you want to shoot and sell images that "regular people" will look at on color-space unaware browsers (Windows machines), then make everything really simple. Set the camera to sRGB, edit in sRGB, output in sRGB, and people will then view your images the way you intended them to look, with the LEAST chance for f&&c&-ups on your part, and with the best chance that the inkjet images they make, or the machine prints they have made, will look "right".

If you maintain control of your images in a one-man-band approach, and you supervise all of your own images, and they never,ever leave your system, and never,every leave your control, then do whatever you want.

There is theory, and there is the real, broader, messy world. There are people who view everything they shoot on one,single carefully-calibrated system that "they own". Those people seem to not be able to understand that the way the real world works is based on the sRGB color space. And on a general public who will see images that will look fine in sRGB.
It's actually really simple. Make sure you embed the sRGB colorspace in Ps before export. One issue I've found was that you will get different renderings if the colorspace wasn't embedded, even though it was converted to sRGB. This may have been fixed with the latest version of Lr (I haven't checked since Lr 3 came out), but simply having the colorspace embedded vs just converting the numbers (which is what Lr does) can make a difference.

I personally prefer to work in a larger color gamut to recover detail in very saturated colors that would clip in sRGB. As far as the "real world" it's pretty easy to embed a color space; not exactly rocket science. ;) But I do agree that if someone doesn't have a handle on color management then working in sRGB from start to finish is the easiest way to go about it.
 
Let me see if I have this clear... If I want to assume at least some of the images I record on my camera will be suitable for printing and framing, then it's a good idea to shoot using the Adobe RGB color space. I can develop in Lightroom, even edit further in Photoshop (if and when I get that app) and then either print directly from there, or send or save a printable file to disk and take it to a printer. If I want to also edit for use on the Interweb, then I can edit in (whatever image editing program I use - currently Paintshop Pro X6) and select to change the color space to sRGB during export.

Do I have that right?

Jim
 
Jim yes - only that only some printing services use Adobe RGB. Most consumer commercial ones work with sRGB because that's basically the default standard - same as how they tend to only accept JPEG photos as well. Higher end or more niche/photographer central printers will offer more variety in their setup as to what colourspaces and file formats they accept for print.

The whole colourspace issue is really one of convenience and perspective.

Convenience in not having to convert to sRGB from aRGB at the output step
Perspective in if you see the differences in your final output from working in the different colourspaces (this is compounded by your editing skill/methods; ones own standards and also the amount of editing you do - if you're not doing much if any chances are you might not see much difference).


Further to remove a confusing/additional learning curve many new photographers are advised to work in sRGB. It makes the process simpler to pick up.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top