 Janet H. Flint |
Camera Settings: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB My camera has 2 settings: sRGB or Adobe RGB. Which should I pick, and why? The camera came set to sRGB. Should I leave it there?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Phillip Corcoran |
You should set it to Adobe RGB, if you want to be able to get the most colour data from your shots. Even if you aren't too bothered now, you might be later on. Once your images are shot in sRGB (which has a lower colour range), you won't be able to change those images to Adobe RGB on your computer because colour information will already have been lost. In software, you can change an image's colour profile from Adobe RGB to sRGB, but not vice-versa.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Thanks for responding Phillip. I have it set for that now. Will this setting also be ok for uploading to an online printing company?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Shoot in RAW mode if you have it in your camera. You can decide which color space to use later in Photoshop. By the way, I bought a 6GB microdrive for under $100 at buy.com! So there is no reason not to shoot in RAW mode.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kathy F. Nash |
I have been shooting SLR Digital for about 6 months now, and I am learning so much every day! OK, so I was using the sRGB mode, mostly in RAW, then used various programs, but mostly Photoshop (I also have Apple Aperture) to do my initial exposure and white balance adjustments. Then I'd tweak my image in CS2, be happy with it, only to have the printed image considerably darker and with much higher saturation.(I even used Adobe's Kodak oFoto) I know that Adobe converts RAW images to PSD (Aperture won't do that). Won't I have to calibrate my monitor and printer as well to RGB? I do have the camera raw plug-in in CS2, as well. I use a Nikon D70. I know that programs like Monaco are very expensive and not always necessary, but I want my prints to look like what I see on my display! I use both a Mac and Windows.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
To be able to see what the printed image will look like, you need to have a ICC profile for your printer. In Photoshop, select View->Proof Setup->Custom and choose your printer ICC. You can then check/uncheck View->Proof Colors so that you can compare monitor image against printed image. In order to see color correctly, you should calibrate your monitor using hardware calibration such as ColorVision's Spyder. If you don't have an ICC for your printer, you can use ColorVision's Profile Plus with a scanner to generate a custom ICC for your printer/paper. You can get an older version of Spyder on eBay for less then $100.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David M |
use sRGB and you will be happier.. unless you really know what you are doing.... in which case still use sRGB some will not agree... so be it. http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kathy F. Nash |
Hi, again! Thanks for your replies - I did go to the smugmug site from your link, and it answered a lot of questions. I have an Epson Stylus Photo R1800 printer with 8 colors - I can see that RGB would be OK with that, but I now understand the issue with web design and commercial printing requiring the sRBG format. Who do you use?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Come to think of it I did read some where that Adobe RGB is for commercial use.So maybe I shouldn't use that setting.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kathy F. Nash |
If you haven''t already, go to the link on David's response. It was very helpful and informative, and used comparitive photos to stress the point.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Will do Kathy. Thanks
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David Earls |
David M.'s response is at best misleading because it implies that sRGB is the "best" colorspace available. This is simply untrue. There is no "best" colorspace. The visible spectrum of colors is greater than any single color gamut can reproduce. The four primary colorspaces can all reproduce many of the same colors, but each of them can produce colors the others cannot. In RGB colorspace, for example, you cannot produce a color the equivalent of pure cyan (one of the primary colors in CMYK). And none of them can produce a color called called reflex blue - you have to use a pigment-based ink to reproduce it accurately on paper. Each colorspace has an intended use. RGB and sRGB are used for computer monitors - sRGB is actually a subset of RGB created for the web. CMYK is used for commercial printing, though it frequently requires additional pigment inks. Lab is used primarily for color calibration. Yes, you can produce bright images on-screen with sRGB, and most inkjet printers will produce very acceptable prints from sRGB color. But if you take either RGB or sRGB color images to your commercial printer, you're going to be very disappointed with what you get back. If you snap a photo in the new Kodak ProPhoto RGB - the broadest RGB gamut currently around - and then try to print the image, you're going to be disappointed. That's not to disagree with the visuals on the smugmug site. The sRGB images look brighter than the others. That's simply because sRGB color was created specifically to make things look bright on the internet.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
TJ Joesph |
LI SU.....can you hook up that micro drive directly to your camera and download the photos?? TJ
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
The short answer is Yes. The long answer is that the microdrive works exactly like a regular CF II card. Therefore, you don't "hook up" the microdrive, you insert it into the camera just like you do with a CF card. The only drawback of using a microdrive is that you can't drop it like since it is a tiny but real hard drive! So you need to handle it with a little extra care. I never drop my CF card either. :-)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David Earls |
Li Su, Don't you also need a camera that supports FAT32 to go beyond 4GB on a card? Not all of them do.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I hope I'm not asking something that's been answered already because I've always considered color space right up there with rocket science LOL. What color space do I choose if I send all my prints to someplace like Sam's Club or Walmart? Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Neither Sames Club nor Wal-mart will use the embedded profile. The printer driver will perform color matching for you. In this case, you should save your image without profile. Please read my message from last night on soft proof. Some places such as Costco, their location specific printer ICC is available for download so that you can setup your Photoshop to do a custom proof. This way you can adjust your image color on screen in printed color. Once you are ok with the color on your screen, save the image without profile. When sending the image to Costco, just make a note that no color matching during printing since your color has been adjusted based on the printer ICC.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
This is a response to David Earls'message. Thanks for mentioning the issue of FAT32 support for some cameras. I didn't forget that though. :-) I just said that a microdrive could used just like a CF card. In fact, 8GB CF card is available now. Therefore, the issue is not unique for microdrive per se. Anyway, it is an issue for users with low-end cameras.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you Li Su! Is the discussion on soft proof on this thread? I didn't see anything specifically referring to "soft proof." How do you save an image without a profile? Do you go to Image>Mode>Assign Profile and choose "Don't color manage this document" first then save? Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Sharon D had a very good point on the subject of this thread. Color Space is not for everyone. I don't think Janet's original question was intented for getting David E's answer. Thus, David M's response made a lot of sense. Most people will find sRGB safer in terms of color reproduction at CVS, Wal-mart, etc. Therefore, I think David M's answer was very practical. Most people would be happier with sRGB than Addobe 1998. So the rule of thumb is if you know for sure Addobe 1998 is required by whoever receiving the image, use Addobe 1998. Otherwise, use sRGB.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Sharon, It was the 5th message in this thread where I gave detail about how to setup custom proof. To save an image with profile in Photoshop: Files->Save As uncheck the current profile used by photoshop.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
Ok, Bottom line. RGB or sRGB? I use both digital and film, so therefor my scanner, computer, printer, and camera should ALL? be set on RGB or sRGB instead of a mix of both? I don't bother with CMYK as graphic design firms will convert my RGB files over to CMYK. As I only use Elements which only RGB, no CMYK. So what's the point? Will I see a difference on my prints? I now viewed my Elements and it saves only in Adobe RGB 1998. And if I uncheck it, who knows wherrrre my images are going to go. So now it seems reasonable to change everthing to Adobe RGB for consistantcy.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
Color Vision's Spiders don't match the color profile to your computer, scanner and printer. It has it's own monitor color profile different then the factory preset profile. Well that was a waist of $$$! It's easier to reset the factory preset profile then go into Adobe Gamma at the control panel and adjust the monitor colors to match your print. So now I will save into Adobe RGB instead of sRGB. Well I hope get some straight answers instead of some theories that don't drift me out to space. Does anyone have a real handle on this profile stuff? It's bad enough to make Ten Thousand Mistakes. I've made them all: wife, kids, job, education. I can't even remember the first six thousand. You can't go the wrong way if you travel far enough.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Addobe RGB 1998 vs. sRGB: Unless you know specifically why you use Addobe RGB 1998, sRGB should be your default. For ColorVision monitor calibration, it is hardware based with its Spyder colormeter. It will measure colors much more consistently than using Addobe Gamma with your eyes as a measuring device. I'm sure Ken's eyes are very good thus it might be wasting money for him to have hardware based calibration. But for most others, hardware based monitor calibration should delivery consisting result. Of course, any factory preset color profile would be replaced by a new color profile generated by the calibration software. That is the reason why we perform calibration to begin with because the factory preset is not accurate enough. For printer and scanner calibration, ColorVision has another software called Profile Plus or Profile Plus Pro. Based on what your comment, your understanding of color profiles seems to be minimal. Unless you are just happy with Addobe 1998 (not because you use it for a specific purpose), you might be better off with sRGB. After all, sRGB is meant for viewing images on monitor. To match printed colors, you need a printer profile for the printer/paper you will print your image on. You can see the simulated printed colors on your monitor. Please note that we are talking about color profile for displaying images and printer profile for printing. Addobe RGB or sRGB alone will not give you the correct print consistently. For example, if you take an image with either Addobe RGB 1998 or sRGB to two different printers or two different types of paper, you will not get the same color reproduction. But if you do soft proof with the proper printer/paper profile, you will get the same color reproduction as you see on screen. That is the bottom line.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
My original question sounds as though it is being turned into a debate and getting off track. Anyway I have chosen sRGB for now for the sake of argument. And have no problem sending my photo's to Wal-Mart,Future,Loblaws,where ever, for printing. They all come out just fine and I don't see anything on these sites about profiles. Quite frankly I don't understand what Li Su is getting at. Soumds like a lot of trouble to me. I just send them and they come back fine. If printing online was that difficult I would even bother.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
TJ Joesph |
Li Su, Thanks for the info. I thought it was one of those external HD's. Is this micro drive compatible with canon 20D?? 6 GB for under 100 beans, who would use a CF card?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
I use it on my Canon 5D mainly because I shoot RAW+JPEG which takes up about 18MB per image. I tested on my Canon 20D and it works fine.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Any one interested in checking out a micro drive which I can't use because I have a SD card in my better camera and a CF in my little dig. cam., could go to www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml Not a bad site has tutorials was well
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
TJ Joesph |
Li su / janet excellent! thanks again for your advice. TJ
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
Hey Janet, Those are really fine photos you do. When you get a chance add some more to your gallery. I am with you also regarding Li Su's answer. Way over my head. Yo, Li Su, are my questions over your head, too? Oh, Janet, don't take my ten thousand mistakes seriously. A Woman is the real strength of her Man. Li Su, one more time. I will ask real slow for you: 1.My......results......are......for......printing......photos......not for commercial printers(period) So, Li Su, I do not know specifically which profile to use and there are probably other photographers who would like to know also. Can you help us on this matter? Your Tech expertise will be much appreciated by many of us out here. and can you look at my photos to see if I am doing everything correct? Regards, Ken
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Ken, 1. I'm not sure what you meant by commercial printers. Do you mean Wal-mart vs. printing at home? Well, the process or workflow is the same except some commercial printers don't use embedded profile in your image or provide ICC for their printers. 2. You are not even asking the right question. But I had already give you an answer. If you don't know why you may want to use Addobe RGB 1998, you would be better off with sRGB. Anyway, having "better" vibrant color on your prints doesn't really have much to do with your display profile other than some influence on color matching in the printer. You may want to understand how the end-to-end process works in digital printing and ask this question again. A digital image has a color value on each pixel. How to map that value to a PC monitor and to a printer is different because of the methods of color reproduction. sRGB and Addobe RGB 1998 are ways to map color values for displaying on monitor. The printer ICC does tha same for printing. So these are somewhat independent. That is why you have options in your printer setup to print normally or vivid colors, etc. It is the printer color matching gives you the style of prints you like. With that said above, what you see on the screen may not be what you will get on your printed photos. Instead of saying if sRGB or Addobe RGB 1998 would give you "better" colors, you should try to see the printed color on screen before printing your image. That was all I have been saying. If you want vivid colors in your prints, just turn on soft proof and adjust your image to show exactly what you want. You just have to disable your printer's color management (color matching) which takes out the gussing work by the printer. Now the question for you, Ken, is that would you rather print to some undetermined vivid colors or print what you see on screen consistently. For some people, good enough is all they want, then the printer color match will do. If you want to print exactly what you see on your screen, you need to do soft proof. Printing with your own printer or commercial printers are the same. You just need the printer ICC. You can't get one for printers at Wal-mart but you do for Costco. By the way, both places ignore your embedded color profile. Again, unless you know the exact reason for using Addobe RGB 1998, you should use sRGB. Do use soft proof for consistent results. Do calibrate your monitor so that you see "correct" colors on screen. Using Addobe Gamma and any hardware based calibration should produce the same result. For Gamma, you use your eyes as color measuring device while hardware based calibration uses a colormeter to measure colors. I'm sure you can agree to the a colormeter will measure color much more consistently than human eyes, right. Lastly, you asked to look at your photos. There is no "correct" answer since it is very subjective in viewing a photo. However, if you think you are seeing everything you want in your photos in terms of colors as well as brightness and contrast, the best way to get them printed as you see them on screen is to perform soft proof. Otherwise, it is up to the printer's color management for color matching.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
WOW, Li Su. My apologies. How did you become so hi-tech? I can tell it is your passion. Did you study physics? I learned how to cut a frog open in my science class once. Wow, that was hot(not burning hot) but cool(not with ice). Though I do ice skate. Do you Ice skate? Yes, it is difficult to try to ask the right and very technical and precise questions without being technical so that we ordinary people can understand the context. Did you understand what I just said here? I'm not shuurre I did. Sometimes I just go on an on with some neat tech stuff. Did you ever try to do jumps on ice. The water below the ice really isss cold. When I worked for two Japanese firms I had to learn to reduce a few pages of many words to a simple sentence with few words for clearer understanding between two cultural language veiwpoints. Did you get a masters in math?.... 1.Commercial printers have printing presses to print Brochures, Catalogs, Calenders, Magazines, Business cards and science books. 2.Pro-photo processors print custom photos and standard photos. 3.Consumer photo processors are Wal-mart, Savon, Costco, 1-Hour photo with Robin Williams, etc. RGB or sRGB. I telephone Adobe and here are the direct answers. ADOBE RGB1998 is for photo printing. It's a full color gamut. Don't ask me who gamut is. sRGB is for websites. It's a reduced color gamut for easy downloading etc. Now here is the tricking part. If you do your own printing, I do. 1.Bring up an image in photoshop. 2.Go to file click print. A preview print box comes up for me. 3. Here I click on 'Show More Options'. 4. At 'Print Space' you select from a drop-down list 'Printer Color Management'. That's it. And what a difference. My photos are clearer, brighter, more accurate colors, a better white balance reducing color cast, etc. It's like looking at a transparency. My Camera and is now RGB. So if I need both, I will download twice into my computer. One to select RGB and the second download to select sRGB. Two Color files. Saving both as Tiff of course. KEN
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Ken, I don't know why you're getting on Li Su... I thought his answers were fairly straightforward. Some "pro-photo processors" use inkjets, depending on the size of the print you want (like my local Ritz/Wolf Camera store). Some commercial photo labs on the 'net use inkjets also. Others use photographic paper, expose it to light, and develop it conventionally. A good commercial photo printing lab will tell you what gamut their photo printer uses (I know places like WHCC do), or if they don't, or can't, then sRGB is probably sufficient (and indicative of the quality you'll get). Unless you shoot, edit, and print in 16-bit (per color, 48-bit total) TIFF format (and most image editing software, including Elements and most versions of full-blown PS, can't edit 16-bit files), you'll get all the color gamut you can use with sRGB, and sRGB also is easy to match between inexpensive photo printers (like the Epson R200/R300) and correctly-calibrated monitors (to sRGB, 2.2 gamma). As David noted earlier in his post and on his SmugMug site, for most images, and for most people, sRGB is good enough. However, I shoot raw exclusively, get 14 bits per color channel, and want to keep that information, and print it. For those of you interested in learning more about color calibration and a color-managed workflow, I'll refer you to www.normankoren.com. Norman has some excellent articles on the subject.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Ken, You kill me. Beats standing out in the cold, freezin my butt off in the snow to take pic's. Now let me ask you something, maybe we can get something started again. You say you save as tiff. Are you using raw to do that? I am not at this point and everything is jpg. (Please be gentle, I blonde) Is tiff better then jpg? Can I upload tiff's to Robin Williams? Gamut! I have to get to bed it's late.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Ken, I don't think you get it. So be it. It is not worth my time on it any more. Just call Addobe again and ask what View->Proof Setup->Custom and View->Proof Colors are for in Photoshop and why. You don't even to finish 5th grade to use it once you get the asnwer from Abbode. I'll rest my case. Remember, I'm trying to help you. Please remember there are people who are fine with point-n-shoot camera but that doesn't mean DSLR is waste of money. That was exactly your logic. Please get over it. Only an open mind would get you smarter. Are you a high school drop out? Why are you having problem with others with college degrees. Yes, indeed, I have a masters degree. I'm proud of it. For you, a little respect of others was what I learned in college. You should have been there. Again, if you don't know something, try to learn it before asking questions. Please do what you are happy with.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
John C, thank you for your comment. I'm sure more people like you understand what I've been saying here. I'm sorry for these who didn't understand yet didn't want to learn.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Li Su... You need to understand one thing, there are people such as myself that have to learn this stuff the hard way. By ourselves, messing and playing around with our equipment and asking questions and hoping to get a simple answer.We didn't go to some fancy school to be taught we teach ourselves. I don't understand all your tech talk and I hardly even understand the tech behind my camera or PSE4 or PS.Even the help files are a little confusing. I have to learn it myself. So when you speak of profiles and such I don't know what you are talking about. I just wanted a simple answer to a simple question. I am new to all this stuff. It's not simple every day talk. And I don't want to take a chance losing my images by doing something I don't understand.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Li Su |
Janet, I understand what you were asking. I answered it in a very simple way in my first try. If you don't know why you use Addobe RGB 1998, then don't use it. You can stay with sRGB safely. It can't be more clear, or can it? I then told you to load your printer's profile in View->Proof Setup->Custom and make sure View->Proof Colors is checked. Once you've done that, you should see exactly what the printed colors would be on screen. If you can't even follow this simple instruction, what can I say? This information was presented to you in my 2nd response. Are you supposed to learned as you said? Then try it. It takes only few mouse clicks then your guess work would be over. Anyway, beyond that my comment was for Ken whose attitude was "interesting". I will leave that for others to judge. I hope this would conclude this thread from me.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David Earls |
Have to weigh in and defend Li Su. His answers have been clear and accurate. Yes, this stuff is incredibly confusing, and if there IS a subject less interesting to learn about, I haven't found it. Ken, if you bought a ColorVision Spyder expecting it to be magic box that would align the colors on your screen with the colors coming out of your printer, you were mistaken. HOWEVER - you took a HUGE first step toward getting consistent and predicatble from the camera to the printer. I applaud you for it, and I hope you will re-calibrate your monitor every 30 days or so. The price per usage gets lower every time you use it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Janet, this stuff really isn't all that hard, and most of us weren't taught by others but learned ourselves. A profile can be thought of as a translation between the colors that a device WANTS to put out and we WANT to see. Untranslated, the same absolute RGB values don't look the same on two monitors, nor do they look the same on a monitor and a printer. So... the process of profiling involves measuring numerous distinct, and known, RGB values on a device and comparing those using a calibrated sensor, and then a translation table is produced (the profile) that says, "When we ask for value 123,123,123 give us 126, 120, 119" or something similar. If one is working with a properly calibrated (profiled) monitor and printer, then one can be certain that the image on the monitor will closely match the print. Now, profiles in isolation are useless without a CONTEXT to place them in. Gamuts are that context. They are a way of describing the possible ranges of colors. sRGB is a gamut, as is Adobe RGB, and there are others. As was mentioned earlier, both sRGB and Adobe '98 RGB (referred to as Adobe RGB) are 8-bit gamuts, meaning that each of the individual Red, Green, and Blue values that comprise a pixel cannot exceed a value that can be stored in one byte, which is the range from 0-255 (2^8... if you understand binary numbers this is obvious, if not take it on faith). So, the number of colors that each can display is 255 * 255 * 255, or 255^3, or 16,581,375 different colors. A little thinking makes it obvious that, unless you are producing an image with more than 16 million colors, then you can have each pixel be a slightly different color AND still have enough colors using the sRGB gamut. What having more than 8-bit colors (16-bit colors, which gives you billions of colors in your palette) is useful for is exploiting subtle gradations of colors for enhanced shadow detail. Again, I refer you to www.normankoren.com, and the excellent color management articles on that site. Don't try to learn it all in one sitting... read it in stages, think about it a little, and then re-read it. And, don't snipe at people who are trying to help. If you can't use their help, then don't blame them for trying.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
John I never meant to snipe at Li Su.If you ask me some of Li Su's statements sounded kind of snipie to me, 2 or 3 times,statments like........Like I told you....Like I said. It sounded snipie to me and likely to Ken making him respond the way he did, It rubbed me a bit the wrong way too, but I tried to ignore it. Read back through the threads maybe you'll see what I mean. I should have directed that comment to you as to why Ken was acting the way he was. I am sure you have had more experience at this then I. And no I do not know what binary #'s are. I don't even know what the word means.I am starting to wish I had never asked the question in the first place and just left my camera on default and never learn something new and using my DSLR like a point a shot. If AdobeRGB only works in an Adobe program then I don't want to be unable to use my shots in an program other then Adobe. I don't always use Adobe, it's a good program but very draining on my computer making it very slow and locks it up sometimes. Which could be another question.If I set my camera to AdobeRGB will they work in Jasc PSP or other programs? I don't want to be restricted to just one program. Some do thins others don't so I use different ones. If I have affended your or Li Su Then I apoligize. Thanks
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Li Su....I thought you were directing your advise to Kathy seeing how she was just above your comment. No need to insult me. Any way now that I read it again and have time I'll check out your advice assuming that you meant in Adobe Photo Shop. Thanks for your help I can't help that I don't understand this stuff like you and John C. Maybe someday I will when I have the time to get that involved. Also could I take some shots of purhaps the same thing and set each image to a different setting such as Raw, sRGB then AdobeRGB on the same memory card and upload them to my computer with no problems, to do a comparative on each one? Maybe that will teach me which one I like. Thanks again
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Li Su... What program are you doing this in because I can't find it. I am using PSE4 not PS. It's to hard on my computer.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Li Su... What program are you doing this in because I can't find it. I am using PSE4 not PS. It's to hard on my computer.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Aaron Reyes |
just set it to sRGB and forget it... compairing them side by side will change with every picture you take as well as every printer you use. it's also subjective as already stated. go to the suggested sites, google color profiles, search, read and re-read. you'll eventually figure out what's going on and be all set. if you don't want to spend the time reading and learning yourself, then just leave it on sRGB. maybe try a good book about all this as well... (don't know why everyone's getting so upset on this thread. just chill people. this isn't dpreview forums, it's betterphoto. a happy place!)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Thanks Aaron. That's all the simple answer I was looking for. I think a few people started to get affend by Li Su attitude. Unless that is the way he talks all the time, it's hard to tell. As I had stated earlier and I think Ken just was impatient enough to react to it.I do have some books, can you suggest any? I haven't had time just yet to check out the site that John C. mention but I do plan to. Any way you are right I was really enjoying this site till that started. You have reinstated my joy in the site and I thank you.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Aaron sorry to bother you again, but I tried to do what Li Su said in thread # 6. And I could not find it. Is that because he is talking about PS the big one, I only use PSE4 right now.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Janet, I apologize if I came across too angry... I have a bad eye infection and am not feeling my best. Here's another link to a site that explains the rudiments of color management. I can't recommend enough that you go and read sites like this and www.normankoren.com. Another good site (although very technical) is www.luminous-landscape.com. As Aaron, and I, and a few others have mentioned previously on this thread, stick with sRGB until/unless you want something different. The purpose of the larger gamuts is to give you a wider range of colors, but as many people have said, there will be few situations that most of us will encounter where we notice the wider range of colors. If you feel like experimenting for the sake of learning, shoot a picture with a wide range of colors with both sRGB and Adobe RGB, then print each one using the appropriate printer settings. This may help you to determine whether you really need a wider gamut or not... and after all, what does it cost since you're using a digital camera. Enjoy your photography. Isn't that what all of this is really about?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Oops... I left osut the link! http://www.donsprofiles.com/Color%20Management.htm. Grab that whole line, copy it, and paste it in a new browser window. And, feel free to read the rest of his website for some interesting information on printer profiles, too. Note: I have absolutely NO connection with the owner of that website (or of any website that I've referred others to in this thread). I have found that the sites I've referenced make for good reading and help one to understand the basics of color management.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
John thanks for the links. I will go there, also I already recommend luminuos-landscape but for the microdrive chat earlier in this thread purhaps you didn't notice. It's getting late so I'll do it later. I am feeling a little sad right now as I have just the reports of that poor police horse in Toronto, it was mowed down by some crazy in a van and brokes it's legs. They had to shot it. My sister saw the shooting on TV she was stund. I'm glad I didn't see it, I would have been crying my eyes out. (I love animals) This is so terrible. The guy did it on purpose. Sick. The horse's name was Brigidier. Thanks again
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
Heh, Heh, Heh. I am prehistoric. Electronics Engineering Degree '70. Before Chips and cell phones. Designed Telephone systems, intercom systems and home entertainment systems. Old stuff back then. I was bored plus industry stagnency. Moved into Sales by mistake '75(Construction industry). Love it! Back to school for marketing and advertisng and management. How high did I go? High enough to fire the son. Time for a career change, Sons don't stay away. PHOTOGRAPHY...? Architectural & Building Trades. I knew how and sold photo projects...but did not know photography and lighting and never touched a computer. How do I learn? I have MANY boxes of test photos of my home. Now I have two computers, printers and scanners plus photo lighting gear Yes, I am impatient with long winded wordy high tech answers. Adobe made it real simple. sRGB for website, email and Adobe RGB1998 for printing.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David M |
wow, you guys still at it? re: "WOW, Li Su. My apologies...." hey Ken.... even though you response to Li was a bit un-called for and somewhat mean, your sarcasm was funny as hell... another possible career?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Aaron Reyes |
hey janet, I guess if you can't find what li was talking about then you don't have a high enough version of PS. that's an especially nice feature if you are sending to press, because they print in CMYK not rgb (well, so do most desktop printers with addition of photo magenta, etc...) I think if you play around with settings and whatnot you'll find what works for you. you could always get PS CS2, but probably not worth it right away. maybe check out on the web what extra features it has over the one you have.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Aaron you are likely right, Li vocabulary is give me the idea he has PS CS2 or something like it. I have an older version but I don't have it load. I am using PSE4. Even at that it is hard on the old system. I can be rather impatient myself and I go to quik and freeze the program, drives me crazy. Ken...nice to have you back on board. Dave... Ken is a funny man, we all made up but haven't seen hide nor hair of Li.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
John...went to norns, site looks good although I had to get to work so I haven't clicked on anything yet. have yet to go to Don's site
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melanie Murray |
Whew...now that was a long read guys. New to the forum area on BP and I must say, I'm learning alot. Thanks to everyone for giving such great references and advice. It's appreciated.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Mel...We had a little tiff going on but we're ok now. By the way great photo's
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melanie Murray |
So I noticed...lol...as long as the initial question gets answered...it's all good. Thanks for viewing my gallery, I really like the one of Ava in yours, very sweet.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
It was Li's style of answers that took me to a higher level which caused me to really dig into my programs, testing settings, trial and error printings, etc. Now I can graduate from 5th grade. David E.'s answer is very accurate. I should have stopped there. Here are samples of my recent photos in both RGB and sRGB. The RGB's, all colors are very accurate.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Ken just as I thought sRGB is more colourful but if RGB has more colour range why is it paler.oooops! hope I didn't start a new question,but I would like to know why. Nice you hear from you too.Great shot's too.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
When we buy a car it's about style, comfort, prestege, safety, within your budget, all the cool stuff you want, not...what...you...need, etc. Do you need to know what kind of material the brake pads are made from? Hmmm...did I need to say this? Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude. Yes, sRGB is more 'circus colorful' but not accurate(to me). sRGB colors tend to drift into different hues. Yellow becoms canary yellow, bright and saturated but you got to bring it back to it's true color via PS. My Clients...Designers, Architects and Builders want to show their potential clients the true colors of their projects. "That pillow is wine red not canary red." "Where does all this yellow cast come from?" This were sRGB gave me problems, lots of post work color corrections in PS. Interiors are basically monitone pale colors. RGB is paler? When you saturate RGB colors in PS they will rock your socks off! And still maintain true colors. Also from my printer I can select Optimize, Intensify, and Vivid colors. Or better yet all 3 together. Velvia film now looks pale in comparison. Here is how I get better prints from Sav-on one hour photo(or costco) when I'm not printing my own. This is mainly for exterior/landscape photos. I tell then to When you are to use RGB mode you might set the vivid color settings in your camera. I do this in my point-and-shoot and P&S's are sRGB mode only.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
As with most discussions of color management that I have seen, there are bits and pieces of the truth in every response. I think I agree most with Li...and there are good reasons why. One common misunderstanding of AdobeRGB is that people believe it has more colors. Actually all 8-bit RGB has the same number of colors (16 million+). that the color range of the AdobeRGB space is broader is not the same as having more colors--you just have different ones. A broader color space does not necessarily make for better color.One inherent limitation is that of display on your monitor. sRGB was built to be display friendly...that is, most monitors should have no problem accurately displaying sRGB color (given calibration). The same is not true for AdobeRGB, whose color range extends beyond what most monitors can display (perhaps all). The result is that you may not actually be able to see all the colors in an image...and if so, the question arrises as to whether it is possible to correctly judge them and adjust. Issues with workflow and color problems will more often arise when a user sets their camera to AdobeRGB. This is purely a workflow and process problem, and one that can be taken care of with proper settings, but unless there is a reason for using AdobeRGB, it is likely that users will get better results from sRGB. This can be demonstrated easily by shooting an AdobeRGB image and opening it assuming an sRGB profile. The image will likely fade dramatically. The answer is not that everyone should use either AdobeRGB or sRGB, but that users need to learn about working with color management and profiling...and then they should learn to test their process. As one who learned to work with digital images before there were profiles in popular use, I have gotten results without embedding profiles for many years, and I don't recommend it for users who are disintested in learning more. you can get great results by simply calibrating and workingand shooting sRGB without embedding profiles at all... This battle is all the rage, and has been for quite some time. The solution is testing, finding out what you prefer, and working with it in your comfort zone -- not listening to what someone has to say. The article pointed out by David M. on smugmug points to some potential confusions, and the misunderstanding of even some of the most respected authors (though there seems only one there who makes an utter balls of it). In short, color management is even too confusing for well-known writers to research properly. Having come from a pre-press background in the time when book layout on PC was cause for your placement in a freakshow, I have virtually seen the development of digital imaging first hand. My response to what I use has not changed for some time: 1. calibrate your monitor and build an ICC profile. As far as the color space I work in...sRGB, but I don't know that everyone should. Logistically and visually it makes sense to me. At some point, that may change--especially when monitors change so I can see more of the AdobeRGB colors. If you need to know more about how to use your workflow, I recommend my new course here on betterphoto.com -- so new it isn't up yet. It will be called Elements Workflow (but Photoshop users can take it too). We look at how to calibrate, what settings to use and why, and then make sensible evaluations of tests to determine a workflow. This should help anyone get better color results.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Aaron Reyes |
excellently put!! and that's the end of that...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Henry |
I like it! I'll be watching for your course. Boy, does this get deep.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janet H. Flint |
Thanks Ken and Richard it's totaly clear now. And I am getting the impression what you use would be to your liking or perhaps your application. Seeing how I take images for my own enjoyment and to me they look fine, I may as well stick to sRGB. I asked the question because it is a setting on my camera and wondered why, what's it for, and what should I use it for? Should I even bother using it? It's there so maybe I should. When I am in the mood to experiment then I will.Experimenting is the best way. Thanks to all.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||