sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

[The_Traveler]

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.

Because LR is limited in what editing it can do and so many people export from LR to Photoshop which exports losslessly as a PSD or TIFF.

 

[Santa_Claus]

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.

Because LR is limited in what editing it can do and so many people export from LR to Photoshop which exports losslessly as a PSD or TIFF.

But, going from raw to PS is not "lossless" since the gamut is smaller. If I have to go to PS, I will do all the corrections I can in LR first (while I have access to ALL the color data), and can work non-destructively. I will then work in PS in the largest color space I can and save in a lossless format. Only when it comes to outputting will I shoehorn my image into a device's color space. I spent 18 years doing prepress work so I know the agony of taking a beautifully color-corrected image and upon converting to CMYK the reds go muddy and purples go blue. Converting the same image for use on a website may plug up the shadows tones a bit. Put it in a PDF and it might be virtually identical. But, if the first thing you did upon importing the photo was to convert to CMYK, and then you did all your work on that image, the best it'll ever look when you export to the web or PDF is that muddy red and dull purples PLUS plugged shadows!

 

[The_Traveler]

If you know all that then you also know that not everything can be done in LR.

 

[Santa_Claus]

To me, working in sRGB is similar to working in CMYK.

 

[unpopular]

^^^ greatest exaggeration ever.

 

[KmH]

For those that don't know it, LR Develop module uses a wide-gamut color space very close to the ProPhoto RGB color space - Melissa RGB.
The LR color space was named after one of the LR development team members - Melissa Gaul.

We can't change the working color space of LR.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

God I love Melissa:hug::

 

[unpopular]

All of this naturally assumes that your monitor is at least remotely calibrated. But honestly, I have never worked in a fully calibrated environment either. Monitor calibration is just the cheapest and easiest part of this process.

When talking about printer output your finished prints will never look exactly like the monitor. I mean, yeah, you could buy an $8000 light booth and then you remove at least one variable (viewing condition), this is also not exactly a realistic way the print will be displayed (though it'll help you decide where a problem is, and this is why they are used).

But even that isn't the whole story. Paper does not glow. The pigments don't add together and make white, they absorb light and get ever darker until you reach the maximum carrying capacity of the media - aka, "process" black (or at least that is what we call it in the prepress world).

So, no, until we have subtractive monitors (which is possible, though maybe not very practical - at least not for prepress and photography), you'll NEVER ever get a print that looks and feels exactly like the monitor.

The ONLY way to get a as spot on as possible is a complete, custom setup, which is pretty expensive.

X-Rite i1Photo Pro 2 Color Management Kit EO2PHO B&H Photo Video

Ideally printed on your own equipment, or, and if they permit it (way back when I had trouble with this, some baloney about how their color space is proprietary ... I think they were worried about people making comparisons), have your print shop print a swatch provided to them in your working color space (i.e. AdobeRGB).

 

[W.Y.Photo]

In school I worked with epson 3880's connected to fully calibrated systems. May as well have called that lab "heaven"

They were very accurate when softproofing, but even then if you wanted a completely perfect print it would take 3 or more attempts (unless you got really lucky)

Keep in mind when I say perfect I mean 100% the exact color you want in every portion of the image. They were very good machines. 1 shot at a print from a soft-proofed image could easily make a print that a non-photographer client would adore and show all their friends

It made me very good at spotting color errors in photographs, but it also made me despise working in a way that was not completely calibrated to the needs of the printer I am working with. I'd probably use like 15 sheets of paper trying to get one print just right using my epson 2200 and my laptop

 

[astroNikon]

Gawd, this thread makes one want to shoot strictly in Black & White

at least I believe in Santa Claus again

sorry for the interruption ... continue on ...

 

[AlanKlein79 18]

Don't you edit with the monitor calibrated to its Native setting and then output in the gamut according to your needs? (ie. sRGB for internet, etc.)

 

[Santa_Claus]

^^^ greatest exaggeration ever.

I didn't say that it's "the same as", I said that it is similar, i.e. analogous. Using an sRGB color space is throwing away a huge amount of color data right off the top. I would at least normalize your shots before switching to a smaller color space. Working in a prepress environment, we knew that everything was for print, so we did most of our work in CMYK, but we would always adjust exposure (especially pulling out shadow detail) before converting. If we converted first, we would never be able to recover that detail. This is true converting to sRGB, just to a less dramatic extent. So fine, call it exaggeration, but hey, if folks don't GET IT when the point is subtle sometimes you have use a more obvious, but still analogous, example.

BTW, I have been on these forums for all of three days and already find it one of the more caustic boards I've ever joined... and I participate in a lot of quite varied forums. I hope folks are just having a bad week and this is not the norm. FWIW.

 

[Santa_Claus]

For those that don't know it, LR Develop module uses a wide-gamut color space very close to the ProPhoto RGB color space - Melissa RGB.
The LR color space was named after one of the LR development team members - Melissa Gaul.

We can't change the working color space of LR.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. You do choose the "process version" in LR which dictates how the raw data is represented in LR. And I use XRite to create my own profiles, which also affect color rendering. What we work on in LR are proxies, created for our screens to approximate what the output will look like. It's not until we output (print or export, for instance) that the raw image data is rendered into the final color space and resolution. Unless I'm missing something (entirely possible).

 

[unpopular]

^^^ greatest exaggeration ever.

I didn't say that it's "the same as", I said that it is similar, i.e. analogous.

I dig it, I just don't know. But still, it's on a scale like saying by shooting Astia instead of Velvia is like you're shooting B/W. Ok, maybe not that much. But it’s a pretty huge exaggeration.

Though, I get your frustration. It just seems like people get it in their head that this is all just too hard and give up.

But really THIS IS HARD ON PAPER ONLY. In real life, it’s not that complicated.

Don't you edit with the monitor calibrated to its Native setting and then output in the gamut according to your needs? (ie. sRGB for internet, etc.)

Yep, this is exactly right. The idea is that you calibrate every monitor to one another so that everyone is looking at the same thing. The monitor is the benchmark. You then convert *to* where you want to go.

Where AdobeRGB gets tricky (as I understand it) is because it's larger than most (all?) monitors. So you cannot see all the colors in your document.

If you just leave it in AdobeRGB all these colors you can’t see are being sent to the printer. The printer says “well, I can’t print that color, but this one is pretty close”. But because you couldn’t see the color to start with, you look at your print and say WTF, that isn’t right!! In reality, it may very well be pretty close, it’s just YOU couldn’t see it.

sRGB is a nice middle ground for the Derrels amongst us. It's smaller than your typical monitor's color space, so you can see all the colors, but is still significantly wider than the typical output color space so all the colors still fit inside.

So when you diligently send your files out as sRGB, they (or their RIP software) converts it to their custom output profile.

That works OK, but I think it’s far better (well, more precise anyway) to work in a wider color space and soft proof the files to specific devices (provided that this is possible). For one thing, the a custom output profile is going to be physically based in the real world, so it will have a better idea about things like dot gain (how ink/grains spread out on paper at different levels of saturation) and how colors actually mix together. sRGB cannot really predict that kind of thing and certain colors (especially darker ones) might not be represented well in the sterile, ideal world of sRGB alone.

 

[CameraClicker]

What you shoot, who you shoot for, and where your images end up can all affect how you work. There is no "right" answer.
For instance, check what the folks shooting the last Olympics were doing. They shot sRGB JPEGs to get the speed because they had to submit photos within an hour or two of a event, and they had to move to the next event as well. But, many of them (OK probably all of them) had cameras with dual slots, so they shot raw into the second card. Beautiful JPEGs for immediate use, much better files for printing on quality printers later!
Those printers that take a dozen pigment ink cartridges, give or take, can print the Prophoto colour space. If you have one of those, why would you limit yourself to sRGB?
If you are shooting for a catalogue, colours have to be as exact as possible through the whole work flow. Profiled camera, profiled monitor, profiled printing. Somebody is going to hold the picture up beside the product and the colour had better be the same.
At the other end of the spectrum, my sister-in-law downloads family photos I post to Flickr, sRGB colour space, 1024 by 768 px, and prints them at Walmart, or wherever. Drives me crazy! She can have a free, quality print for the asking. But, she's happy, so ...
Some people are discerning, some not so much. This is driving many good professional photographers to distraction because new photographers can hang a shingle and get the not discerning customers as clients by charging next to nothing for photos.
I like to shoot raw files because there is no colour space, there is maximum data and adjustment latitude. I follow what Epson said should be done, moving the file from raw to Prophoto for editing in Photoshop and sending it to an Epson printer. When I use a lab, I ask what they want and convert accordingly. When I want to post on the Internet, I run an action I recorded that makes an sRGB JPEG and puts it where I can find it for upload. It may be more trouble than some people want to go to but it works for me.