David Schuttler
EF5
Hey Mike, be glad you're not adding in being partly color blind also. Many times I'm not sure what my pictures might look like to others.
Darren Addy
EF5
This is a confusing issue, I'll give you that. I think there is learning what is better (Best Practices, if you will) and then there is cost/time/benefit analysis (is it worth the extra hassle?)
People can be divided into two basic camps: those that get educated and those that won't/don't. If you don't get educated you can't really move to the next step of deciding if it is worth it.
People who move to the next level will then be divided into at least two camps: Those who feel the extra time/care is worth it and those that don't. Part of that may be dependent upon the equipment that they have.
For example, I think everybody would agree that it is better to keep as much information in the digital file as possible and converting to a lossier format copy only when needed for a specific purpose. That means shooting in RAW in the camera and using ProPhoto RGB in your RAW converter and Photoshop workflows. The reason is pretty simple (i think): ProPhoto RGB is 16-bit, while Adobe RGB and sRGB are only 8-bit. From the link Mike shared above:
While it would be NICE if you could see these differences on your screen, just because you can't see them on your screen does not mean they are useless. It means that you will have a more precise "mathematical definition" of your digital image WHEN THE TIME COMES to round down to sRGB (for example). It is then that you might see a difference, but that is when it counts.
Now back to the original question of Adobe RGB vs sRGB:
Using the same logic as that above, it would be preferable to have as much color information as possible... so theoretically Adobe RGB would be the best choice for in-camera. Again, it would be great to be able to SEE that
difference in your correction process. But I don't think you will/can unless you get a "wide gamut" monitor (and calibrate it properly) AND your operating system (and software application) supports that "wide gamut".
From what I've read, it sounds like this is where Vista is better than XP (with XP you are out of luck on wide gamut) and where Windows 7 will be even better.
As far as workflow is concerned (Camera RAW/Photoshop), it seems that a lot of photographers "live in" ProPhoto RGB in 16 bit mode and convert to AdobeRGB 8 bit when sending to a pro printer and, of course, convert to sRGB for web use.
Interestingly, new browsers like Firefox 3.5 will take into account an embedded color profile (which I think means that if the user is on an operating system that supports it, and their monitor supports it, they will see a better image than Joe User on XP with IE. This may not be important to most people, but I wonder if there are sophisticated Photo Editors/stock photography buyers out there that will be looking for images to purchase using such a set up. If so, this means that a photographer that takes the time to incorporate this into their workflow will have noticably better looking images (to user with that set-up combination) and therefore an edge. It may even become a way for buyers to further separate the Men from the Boys (pardon my sexist language).
The downside of this is that a web image with an embedded color profile is going to be a larger file size (and thus a slower download) than one without it.
PS... this is a great explanation of Color Spaces and Calibration, for those who are (still?) confused:
http://digiichi.pentax.jp/english/tech/vol_39.html
People can be divided into two basic camps: those that get educated and those that won't/don't. If you don't get educated you can't really move to the next step of deciding if it is worth it.
People who move to the next level will then be divided into at least two camps: Those who feel the extra time/care is worth it and those that don't. Part of that may be dependent upon the equipment that they have.
For example, I think everybody would agree that it is better to keep as much information in the digital file as possible and converting to a lossier format copy only when needed for a specific purpose. That means shooting in RAW in the camera and using ProPhoto RGB in your RAW converter and Photoshop workflows. The reason is pretty simple (i think): ProPhoto RGB is 16-bit, while Adobe RGB and sRGB are only 8-bit. From the link Mike shared above:
Now why would you want to use a huge color space when your camera limits you to a smaller one? I think it comes down to remembering that computers (software and hardware) treat everything like a number. Imagine that you have a calculator that can only DISPLAY whole numbers. If you input a problem like 9 divided by 2, we know the answer is 4.5, but your calculator has to choose between 4 and 5 for the answer. It doesn't do this randomly, but follows a set of algorithms (in this case probably rounding up to 5). The point is that either answer is not precisely the one you wanted/needed. The same is true with colors. If your software is trying to determine how to render a particular pixel, it will be doing it with an algorithm that takes into account the color information of the pixels around it. If you are working in ProPhoto RGB space in your editing program, you have (in effect) more decimal places to work with and thus a more precise result in the math that determines that pixel's color. The more accurate that is, the more accurate the output will be when it "rounds down/up" to a smaller color space.
While it would be NICE if you could see these differences on your screen, just because you can't see them on your screen does not mean they are useless. It means that you will have a more precise "mathematical definition" of your digital image WHEN THE TIME COMES to round down to sRGB (for example). It is then that you might see a difference, but that is when it counts.
Now back to the original question of Adobe RGB vs sRGB:
Using the same logic as that above, it would be preferable to have as much color information as possible... so theoretically Adobe RGB would be the best choice for in-camera. Again, it would be great to be able to SEE that
difference in your correction process. But I don't think you will/can unless you get a "wide gamut" monitor (and calibrate it properly) AND your operating system (and software application) supports that "wide gamut".
From what I've read, it sounds like this is where Vista is better than XP (with XP you are out of luck on wide gamut) and where Windows 7 will be even better.
As far as workflow is concerned (Camera RAW/Photoshop), it seems that a lot of photographers "live in" ProPhoto RGB in 16 bit mode and convert to AdobeRGB 8 bit when sending to a pro printer and, of course, convert to sRGB for web use.
Interestingly, new browsers like Firefox 3.5 will take into account an embedded color profile (which I think means that if the user is on an operating system that supports it, and their monitor supports it, they will see a better image than Joe User on XP with IE. This may not be important to most people, but I wonder if there are sophisticated Photo Editors/stock photography buyers out there that will be looking for images to purchase using such a set up. If so, this means that a photographer that takes the time to incorporate this into their workflow will have noticably better looking images (to user with that set-up combination) and therefore an edge. It may even become a way for buyers to further separate the Men from the Boys (pardon my sexist language).
The downside of this is that a web image with an embedded color profile is going to be a larger file size (and thus a slower download) than one without it.
PS... this is a great explanation of Color Spaces and Calibration, for those who are (still?) confused:
http://digiichi.pentax.jp/english/tech/vol_39.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Hollingshead
Not sure about this whole pro photo rgb is 16 bit and adobe rgb is 8 bit thing. I don't think the spaces are bit-depth defined. In fact this was a drawback to prophoto RGB, sure it's bigger/wider....but you have the same amount of info to describe it as the others/aRGB/sRGB. So you have further out colors, but then bigger gaps are required between them. So if you want/need highly smooth gradients the wider gamuts might not be the best choice. The box of crayons thing was the best way to think about it. They all have a box of 64 colors(figuratively speaking) to describe the space. This is why some places I read suggested one might want to work in 32 bit when using ProPhotoRGB.
I now have a 102% adobeRGB monitor. The greens and red are rather amazing. But after a while of using it, I don't know that even adobeRGB is all that much "greater". The best thing I like now is the resolution of the thing, at 1920x1280 or something. I now just make sure I'm working in Adobe from the get go, at 16 bit of course.
I now have a 102% adobeRGB monitor. The greens and red are rather amazing. But after a while of using it, I don't know that even adobeRGB is all that much "greater". The best thing I like now is the resolution of the thing, at 1920x1280 or something. I now just make sure I'm working in Adobe from the get go, at 16 bit of course.
Darren Addy
EF5
The difference between 8 and 16 bit per channel
http://www.artemis-design.com/difference-between-8-and-16-bit-per-channel.html
http://www.artemis-design.com/difference-between-8-and-16-bit-per-channel.html
Mike Hollingshead
Yes, but where were you reading that part about ProPhotoRGB is 16 bit while AdobeRGB is 8. I wasn't saying anything about bit depth, just that I didn't think the color spaces were bit depth "set" like you had mentioned them being.
Darren Addy
EF5
I've been reading so much stuff on this, I don't remember where I got the ProPhoto is 16 bit while the others are 8 bit. But after reading a few more articles, I see that any color space can be used in 8 bit or 16 bit mode, so I stand corrected on that point.
However, while you could do sRGB in 8 bit:
The link above also explains the benefits of the larger color space by showing you how both Adobe RGB and sRGB actually CLIP the capabilities of the Epson printer. With either of them you don't get colors that the printer could deliver. That's only important if your original scene contained those colors, of course, but it illustrates the real world benefit of the larger color space.
Other articles from the same source are also illuminating:
The Great sRGB Versus Adobe RGB Debate
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html
and
More Than a Bit of a Difference: 8-bit Versus 16-bit
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/8bit-versus-16bit-difference.html
As a side point, this Adobe forum thread is very educational regarding the difference between assign and convert. And the guys in that forum all say that the way to enlightenment on color management begins here.
However, while you could do sRGB in 8 bit:
- source: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/prophoto-rgb.html
The link above also explains the benefits of the larger color space by showing you how both Adobe RGB and sRGB actually CLIP the capabilities of the Epson printer. With either of them you don't get colors that the printer could deliver. That's only important if your original scene contained those colors, of course, but it illustrates the real world benefit of the larger color space.
Other articles from the same source are also illuminating:
The Great sRGB Versus Adobe RGB Debate
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html
and
More Than a Bit of a Difference: 8-bit Versus 16-bit
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/8bit-versus-16bit-difference.html
As a side point, this Adobe forum thread is very educational regarding the difference between assign and convert. And the guys in that forum all say that the way to enlightenment on color management begins here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
