Help with color working space
- This topic has 35 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated Sep 28, 2008 at 7:18 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Ben –
You’re right. If you edit and color correct in Adobe RGB and then convert to sRGB as a last step, you may as well have slid your saturation sliders up by about 20 points. sRGB is more colorful than Adobe RGB in terms of how it displays (you guys can debate why this is true; I just know how it looks). If you swap spaces after processing in Adobe RGB, then you just stepped back to square one in terms of color correction, and you have to start all over.
That’s why I shoot in RAW if it’s for print and process strictly in sRGB. I’ll process my TIFFs in RGB going forward once they are accepted.
Here’s another critical thing to keep in mind for those of you not used to working with fly fishing editors: most of these guys don’t take the time to think out how a picture *might* look if processed correctly. They just do a thumbs up/thumbs down on what they see in front of them. That’s why I NEVER send RAW images in even if I am asked. I just process and send in TIFFs. What the editor sees is your work product. Why would you give him incomplete work? Show him the photo at its best, which almost always means color-corrected in sRGB for internet viewing (most of these guys don’t do anything in Photoshop themselves, and some don’t even have the program). Then if he requests a full-res copy, you can process up to TIFF in Adobe RGB (if you think it’s worth it – frankly, I rarely do, and I’ve published more JPEGs than I can count at this point).
Zach
If you are getting a big saturation shift going from Adobe RGB to SRGB I would check the color settings in PS. I don’t get much of a shift going from Adobe RGB to SRGB almost none. If your using a Apple monitor it won’t display all of Adobe RGB anyway you need a EIZO or another high end monitor. If you are using a Apple monitor your probably only seeing 85%.
Working in the world of the pleasing color standard you have a lot of latitude. I saw a cover on a recent fishing magazine where the big brown trout looked ok but the guys face that was holding the thing was a horrible shade of red and the sky was featureless blue. My guess is most people looked at it and said hey nice fish! I thought wow that looks like hell!
The thing about SRGB is its small and limited, good enough for the web but thats it. JPEG compression just makes things worse with artifacts.
Maybe some wizard at Adobe is working on something better!Wow, great thread, i feel like i am a little late to the party.
I have to say, i am with zach on this one, i shoot in sRGB, process in it, and print in it (i also shoot 90% of my images in jpeg, but thats another story).
Erik, the whole reason for this topic was that someone asked for advice. If we all followed the “moral of the story” then why would anyone bother asking questions or seek knowledge? You didn’t say this but I want to make this perfectly clear. Andrew is not just some “internet photo expert”, he is the leading expert in the field of color management and his client lists also include Adobe. On top of all that, he is also one heck of a nice guy and certainly did not have to spend a lot of time speaking with me about the issues of sRGB. I was talking with him on the phone and I also talked with him about the conversation that we were having here and how I was becoming confused about the sRGB ~vs~ RGB deal. He didn’t have to but he wrote all of this out for me and gave me permission to quote him, didn’t have to do that, most hardcopy “book” author’s probably wouldn’t. Color management is his business as a consultant, author and lecturer. Many of the top Pro’s and publisher’s, around the globe, hold him in an unquestioned status as one of the top experts, if not the best. Some very valuable accurate information that he let me share, free.
Zach, for your workflow and the way that you explained it all out, especially the space issue, I see and understand how your process is the best fit for you. Shifting from RGB to sRGB doesn’t really increase the saturation though, it really just makes better use of the smaller gamut that should only look better on an sRGB monitor or non aware browser. I am concerned that your photographs look better in sRGB than they do in RGB, on your computers monitor. The RGB should look better as your logic board and monitor does go beyond the gamut of sRGB. As David suggested, check to see what your workspace setting is and/or what your monitor ICC profile is set on. I had a similar problem when I first got this macbook pro. Could not get color match to save my life and calibrated more times than I can remember. sRGB looked better and when I printed on my pro printers, with the proper ICC profiles, the colors were still way off. Granted I could of shifted to sRGB and probably get a better color match but my printers are able to go beyond even the jpg RGB gamut’s. I took the computer to an authorized Apple shop and they replaced the monitor, didn’t make a difference but I didn’t think that it would. Took it back and they replaced it again, no change.
In trouble shooting the computer, I had them link my macbook to one of their monitor’s, colors matched my monitor perfectly, meaning they were off. We then hooked it up to some wider gamut monitors, same thing. I took a file off of my computer and loaded it into one of theirs, HUGE difference. Seems that my brand new macbook pro had a defective logic board built in it. Once it was replaced, I can see very little color difference between the sRGB and RGB but the RGB has more depth and richness in it, more depth to the RGB when compared to sRGB. My prints are now spot on, in color, when I print from the TIFF’s or PSD’s. The best part is now that I have proper color management and calibration, I can print the larger gamuts that really put the on screen image to shame. Due to the fact that I did not convert to a smaller ICC profile, the printer is able to print the pallet and gamuts that I can not see on my monitor.
David, I worked on one of those broad gamut monitors at one of the publishers in Europe, WOW!! What an amazing difference and improvement in the total tone and color, perfect match to the commercial printers too, love that thing and made post edit a simplified joy!!!
Just about any printer will print an sRGB picture and even my pro printers will print in sRGB, as they are set to print in any ICC profile that I have loaded in my folder. However, these printers can print larger pallets and gamuts than a flattened RGB jpeg image. Problem is that some photo labs may not read TIFF’s or PSD’s; of these some will ask for a PDF file. This allows for a print with a much larger pallet and far larger gamut, richness that we simply cannot see on our monitors and will loose when printing an sRGB file. But, if the person is happy with the sRGB prints and prefers to do this, it is their choice; I just would not recommend it.
Zach’s workflow makes sense to me but I, respectfully, would always recommend a RGB workflow, at the very least. Even for Internet use as, sRGB will be fading out with the newer monitors that have wider gamuts than the older sRGB ones. Even the macbook’s have wider gamuts than sRGB. This is the reason to not shoot in or save originals in sRGB, that small pallet and narrow gamut is stuck in the images forever. As we replace monitors with the newer and more affordable wider gamut monitors, your images are stuck in an increasingly dated and lesser quality ICC profile.
Currently there is work on the acceptance of a universal digital negative DNG. Hopefully it will catch on, not sure about that yet as different manufacturers are having a problem with it. If and/or when it does go through, RGB may even become outdated as technology keeps moving forward and the supply meets or exceeds demand for less expensive broad gamut monitors. The greatest thing that Zach does is that his personal workflow includes saving the original RAW files, he can always go back and reprocess for best view with newer technologies, he will always be safe. The same cannot be said for an image shot in sRGB, with future monitor improvements; it would be like putting a lawn chair in place of the drivers seat in a Ferrari. 🙂
WOW…. What a thread.
This is what I get out of this and you can tell me if I am wrong. The ease of digital photography is going through a hard transition. Matching the final destinations is the pain of this whole transition.
The solution is Shoot with the highest possible gamut then do post processing with destination in mind. Keeping it the highest possible gamut until final processing. ALWAYS KEEPING THE NATIVE.
From my experience, Most commercial printers are pretty color savvy but they have a lower gamut to work with and they get beat up due to it. Web Presses (Magazines) have an even lower gamut due to speed and line screen. (Yes – there are exceptions). We (designers and printers) fight this gamut problem daily and most do not realize the jumps in gamut. All Inkjet Proofing systems have a higher gamut than press making another issue. Paper on press also sucks away color reducing the gamut even more. A junk rag paper is the worst (again most magazines) and this is not even mentioning uncoated sheets.
Basically this whole game plays out like leveling sand. All the fine detail (little pebbles) moves to the bottom and what you see is the big pebbles that are left on top.
I like the days of film when all this was a more level playing field. Shoot a slide, drum scan, matchprint and the press sheet matches the proof. Today you have to throw all the differnt proofing methods, web, pdf’s, and so on and the color never matches from place to place.
This is a great informative thread.
-kp
This has been an interesting topic. What works for you in many cases is what works, but its not like this workflow topic hasn’t been worked through by many respected industry experts and photographers. If your looking for optimum results you should be shooting RAW in Adobe RGB. If you do that at least and you save the RAW files out you can start over with maximum latitude. If you have a camera that shoots 14 bit RAW files why shoot JPEG SRGB and limit you data from the start.
Any opinions on this as it applies to the RAW v. JPEG debate?
ZachWOW! this is going to be an extremely long topic. I would love to post of few things on this subject, as the industry has recently changed to a whole new level.
To address it properly, many things have to be discussed as we now have proprietary algorithms, soft ware, believe it or not but proprietary lenses are now even more of an issue as well as body. To make matters even more in-depth; we now have to cover the difference of 12-14 bits and then the 16 bit issue. The DNG profile, that I had mentioned earlier and the industry problems with excepting it. Well, it is actually buried in this new 14bit processor on a 16bit tube. The industry does not want to except the DNG status as it may interfere in the new generation of proprietary software.
The comparison has to now include a newer profile: Pro Photo RGB. In essence, it is that 14bt processor but the different manufactures do not want to use that name as it was developed by this really small unknown company named Kodak.
Pro Photo RGB goes way beyond the gamut of RGB. Couple this with the proprietary post processing algorithms, the end result is in essence an; automated post edit JPEG, very close to the total gamut of RAW.
I have been up working all night so, I am trying to keep this brief but will add more later. But for now, recognize the 12 bit as 4,096 tones and 14 bit as 16,384 tones. Then consider that manufactures like to keep their algorithms close to home but added them into the body’s. Now you have a mini onboard camera computer that incorporated the proprietary lens and body, then post edits for lens and sensor distortion related to those lenses and body’s, plus automated photo enhancements. Does all of this through a 16bit tube… Does make one wonder why they would want to shoot in RAW.. How-ever, the user sacrifices to an algorithm… Great for some and a pain in the— for those that want image control.
There is more but I need to get at least a couple of hours of sleep 🙂
RAW vs JPEG is not really a debate. RAW is really the better overall format but they are large and slow in comparison. Jpegs due to compression degrade everytime you open and save them – RAW does not. That being said, there are situations for both. Pick your poison. It will change again in a couple of years.
Eric, were fine pal. 😉 It is difficult to interpret demeanor, in posts, and I knew that you were not attacking anyone. I just wanted to make sure that I did not place a friend into a position as the subject of an unwanted topic of discussion. I agree with you 100% that, not just sometimes, in many cases less is better. It is easy to over complicate things and that is the best thing about these threads, gives the readers options and helps us to rethink some of our approach.
I feel that there is a lot of great information, in this thread, and I think the one best thing would be; at the very least, save the original unprocessed RAW or JPEG. No matter what the future in technology, we can always go back to the original and reprocess the originals. I love to learn and a lot of learning can be achieved from alternatives and challenges, it forces one to do more research and I learned a lot from this topic.
Kevin, one other thing about RAW, as it is a very interesting creature, it also has imbedded JPEG, the coded JPEG is always there inside of the RAW. I feel that Pro Photo and 14-16 bits is in the future and that this is that future change, only it is happening now. I feel that this is what Ken Rockwell was referring to as part of that second generation of digital.
I am going to try and simplify, from Erics lead, what I have been trying to say: (I want to put a caveat on this) Zack in 100% correct in the fact that JPEG is fine for publication as well and that it will print, in a lot of cases, as good. David Ziser, one of the best wedding photographers in the world, only shoots in JPEG and he has been published in more international magazine publications than I can count. (This is the caveat). However, I feel that most might have a miss interruption on who and why to shoot in RAW or JPEG. RAW is not really for professional photographers as much as it is a “safe harbor” for photographers. Everything that one can read about RAW, can best be defined as best for its “safe harbor” compatibility.
RAW is considered the best because of the tonal rescue abilities and for beginners, it is an even better file size to shoot in, because of this ability. JPEG is equally as good for shooting in, when compared to finals, if the photographer has a full grasp on setting the camera, a properly metered composition and good balance of light-dark frequency. Most of the professional photographers will shoot in RAW, from lessons learned, JPEG requires accuracy and RAW adds more tools. When ones butt is on the line, in the aspect of assignments, it is easy to remember what over confidence can do to us. I guess the best way to sum up, what I am trying to say, is this: It is not this simple but compared to film and the final overall image quality. RAW would represent film from SLR and JPEG would represent Polaroid, sRGB would represent low end P&S polaroid. Which one can we work on in the darkroom and without the ability of current scanning technology?
The best advise, in my opinion, from this topic is what Zack mentioned, again: Save the untouched originals. Ansel Adams, in his later years, was in the stage of reprocessing many of his original negatives, with newer and better chemicals and processes. Kind of what we are able to do, and will continue to be able to do, with present and future digital technologies. This can best be done if we save the larger untouched image files though.
To better describe, what I was talking about, the topic of second generation digital and to the best of my understanding. Now that more software is being added for post processing, in the camera, many things have to be reconsidered in order to best take advantage of that feature. To mention a couple, Canon and Nikon, have their own proprietary post edit software. These work best because they know their true proprietary algorithms the best, most others are close guesses. The reason why the CPU proprietary lenses are now more important is this, the manufacturer knows the limits and strengths of their lenses and sensors, this allows for a better post edit in camera. Meaning, the equipment is recognized and the correcting algorithms are sort of data mined for those deficiencies. I don’t want to completely over simplify this but my understanding is that it is closer to a much better automated P&S camera, only digital SLR and built upon complex algorithms that include proper corrections for proprietary interchangeable lenses.
Great feature but I hope that this will also be the second generation of separation from pro and consumer gear. For myself, I would much rather have better sensors and functionality in the pro line and have the price built into that as opposed to paying for the automated post edit that I would never use. On the consumer end, the purchaser would not, now, have to also purchase post edit software as it would be built in and does deliver better, over-all, image quality. Great advancement and I can’t wait to see what is next!
I think its useful to think of shooting RAW as if you were shooting a negative on film. If you were close to optimum exposure you could make a image and interpret it in many different ways, lighter darker shift the color one way or the other burn and dodge etc.
I would compare shooting JPEG to shooting a transparency or slide. If you were off on your exposure you had little or no options so you would bracket and make selects of from the brackets and thats what you would deliver to the client. This is a good convenient workflow because you make selects and your done.
I think workflow is as import a issue here as RAW VS JPEG. If you shoot RAW Adobe RGB and use Aperture or Lightroom Capture NX etc you can export or email a JPEG when you rate and make your selects. Just give every image that you want to send a 5 star rating. You could make a some presets that make your JPEGS pop and apply them to the selects as a group, sort by that rating and email or export at the scale you want.
I don’t shoot any pictures that don’t get some kind of post production. It may be a color tweak or a slight crop and just about eveything gets the edges darkened. Other than the original “seeing or visualization” of the image its what makes it your image and not just a record.
Accomplishing that in a reasonable amount of time is what I’m looking for and the whole RAW VS JPEG final file format issue becomes somewhat irrelevant because you can output whatever you need at any time.Ben what is your workflow process like? It would be interesting to know how people are processing their images and what software is being used.
I use Eyelike Capture Pro, Photoshop 3.0, Aperture 2.1 and Noise Ninja.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.