Mike Hollingshead
How do you do your image workflow? I've known Adobe has the larger gamut and have mostly gone with that. But the more I do things and read, the more confused I get.
Monitors don't show in Adobe RGB but use sRGB....so obviously when one is done with the image it needs converted to sRGB for web.
Now I'm reading more and more that most printers do better with sRGB!
Ken Rockwell says just use sRGB... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm Still not sure what I think about most of his "advice"...but there that is.
I'm only fussing over this again as I was working on some images and noticed something. My shadows seemed to be going black before they should. 0 is the value for black while 255 is white. One a monitor testing site I could see the shade difference for shadows at 2 or 3 for sure which is good and very close to black. That was in a browser. So what I decided to do was paint the 15/15/15 shade on 0/0/0(black). In photoshop I could make out the difference between that and 0/black just about as well as I could 3/3/3/ and black in the browser. 15/15/15 in there was nothing near what it was in the browser. I wound up assigning the sRGB profile instead and bam, shadows opened up in there closer to how they should be. Still not sure if there should be this big of a difference in shadow lightness between the two color spaces. All I know is it's hard to tone things in Adobe RGB in there and keep the shadows away from looking black, even when they aren't touching the left side of the histogram.
Seeming more and more like a waste of time to mess with Adobe RGB.
I've learned it doesn't seem to matter what you assign your camera to shoot in if you are doing it in RAW...it's just tagging the file and not doing anything bad. But of course other posts online say otherwise, but not really buying those.
Thoughts? Workflows? I guess the obvious "best" workflow is pretty easy to see being the bigger gamut. It's just getting highly annoying seeing the shadows go black sooner than they should.
Edit: Just came across this fairly nice/broad easily to follow article. http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
This quote makes me think sRGB better for storms with the gradient thing.
That link also suggests it does indeed matter what you set your camera to, even in RAW. I think maybe it was just written a little poorly and they are saying it captures in RAW and there's no reason to go to Adobe RGB in camera IF you are saving as jpg or tiff with the camera. Or maybe they are saying it affects the RAW file more than just tagging it for conversion later.
Monitors don't show in Adobe RGB but use sRGB....so obviously when one is done with the image it needs converted to sRGB for web.
Now I'm reading more and more that most printers do better with sRGB!
Ken Rockwell says just use sRGB... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm Still not sure what I think about most of his "advice"...but there that is.
I'm only fussing over this again as I was working on some images and noticed something. My shadows seemed to be going black before they should. 0 is the value for black while 255 is white. One a monitor testing site I could see the shade difference for shadows at 2 or 3 for sure which is good and very close to black. That was in a browser. So what I decided to do was paint the 15/15/15 shade on 0/0/0(black). In photoshop I could make out the difference between that and 0/black just about as well as I could 3/3/3/ and black in the browser. 15/15/15 in there was nothing near what it was in the browser. I wound up assigning the sRGB profile instead and bam, shadows opened up in there closer to how they should be. Still not sure if there should be this big of a difference in shadow lightness between the two color spaces. All I know is it's hard to tone things in Adobe RGB in there and keep the shadows away from looking black, even when they aren't touching the left side of the histogram.
Seeming more and more like a waste of time to mess with Adobe RGB.
I've learned it doesn't seem to matter what you assign your camera to shoot in if you are doing it in RAW...it's just tagging the file and not doing anything bad. But of course other posts online say otherwise, but not really buying those.
Thoughts? Workflows? I guess the obvious "best" workflow is pretty easy to see being the bigger gamut. It's just getting highly annoying seeing the shadows go black sooner than they should.
Edit: Just came across this fairly nice/broad easily to follow article. http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
This quote makes me think sRGB better for storms with the gradient thing.
However, Adobe 98 is broader, meaning it spreads its crayons across a broader range of colors by making the jump between each color more coarse.
You get finer increments of skin tone by using sRGB, for example. But the pure cyan in HP's original logo can only be accurately represented by Adobe 98, whereas in sRGB you would have to pick a substitute color.
That link also suggests it does indeed matter what you set your camera to, even in RAW. I think maybe it was just written a little poorly and they are saying it captures in RAW and there's no reason to go to Adobe RGB in camera IF you are saving as jpg or tiff with the camera. Or maybe they are saying it affects the RAW file more than just tagging it for conversion later.
Last edited by a moderator: