Setting color profile in camera??

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Paul Furman writes:
jhthurman wrote:

If Photoshop is too expensive for now, check out PaintShop Pro
(lower cost) or GIMP (free).

I'm not sure GIMP is color managed though it is supposed to be quite
good.

GIMP does not do colour management. PSP X does (sort of). But

The GIMP development branch (version 2.3 vs version 2.2) does
have the basics of color management.

I don't know if binaries are available for Windows or not though.

CinePaint (cinepaint.org) is a free program that is supposed to handle
Adobe RGB and colour management, and has some following, but I haven't
used it myself. The cinepaint website says it is "very alpha"
(i.e. not ready for prime time yet).

The last two times that I checked CinePaint, the "very alpha" seemed
to be quite appropriate! The last time I tried it would not compile
(on a Slackware Linux box), the time before that it did, and was very
interesting but not functional enough for my needs.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Hi Heather,

There are advantages and disadvantages of each.

sRGB mode may mean that the camera doesn't record some (relatively small)
ranges of colours as accurately as something like aRGB - so at first glance
it might appear that aRGB is the way to go. However the flip side of the
coin is that (as others have pointed out) aRGB needs to be handled with
different software - and in fact is usually the first step in learning about
colour-managed workflows.

The range of colours that are captured by your camera (in either mode) is
different to the range of colours that a monitor can display - which is
inturn different from the range of colours that a printer can print.

If you stick with sRGB (for now) you've got a greater chance of keeping
within the range of colours that's common to all devices. And to the
untrained eye the differences are usually pretty subtle anyway.

My suggestion would be to stick with sRGB for now and just focus on the
stuff that'll make a far bigger difference to your results (lighting,
exposure, composition, Depth-of-Field) etc. Later on when you feel like
being a glutton for punishment, pick up a copy of "Color Confidence" or (in
moments of sheer masochistic madness) "Real World Color Management".

Cheers,

On Mar 5, 3:16 pm, "jhthurman" wrote:
This seems to be an age-old issue, almost religious to some folks. As
another poster noted, if you just shoot RAW, you can re-assign color spaces,
depending on the use you put the image to. There are all sorts of free RAW
processors out on the web, just look around. If Photoshop is too expensive
for now, check out PaintShop Pro (lower cost) or GIMP (free).

Free RAW processor: http://www.silkypix.com

Here's a good, simple article that talks about Adobe RBG vs. sRGB:http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

Good luck and happy shooting...



Thanks,

I'll check it out.

On Mar 6, 5:59 am, "CJS" wrote:
Hi Heather,

There are advantages and disadvantages of each.

sRGB mode may mean that the camera doesn't record some (relatively small)
ranges of colours as accurately as something like aRGB - so at first glance
it might appear that aRGB is the way to go. However the flip side of the
coin is that (as others have pointed out) aRGB needs to be handled with
different software - and in fact is usually the first step in learning about
colour-managed workflows.

The range of colours that are captured by your camera (in either mode) is
different to the range of colours that a monitor can display - which is
inturn different from the range of colours that a printer can print.

If you stick with sRGB (for now) you've got a greater chance of keeping
within the range of colours that's common to all devices. And to the
untrained eye the differences are usually pretty subtle anyway.

My suggestion would be to stick with sRGB for now and just focus on the
stuff that'll make a far bigger difference to your results (lighting,
exposure, composition, Depth-of-Field) etc. Later on when you feel like
being a glutton for punishment, pick up a copy of "Color Confidence" or (in
moments of sheer masochistic madness) "Real World Color Management".

Cheers,

Thanks,

I'll have a look for one of those in the bookstore. I think you hit
the problem on the head, I'm treating what I see on my moniter as "The
Image" That's what the camera got and that's what will be printed.
Even though that may not be the case, it's hard to let go of the idea
that all the images are not equal.


Our instructor though, did say that the lab he deals with will only
print if the images are sent to them in adobe RGB, they won't touch
sRGB. That seems to be contrary to the norm.

"stormlady" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 6, 5:59 am, "CJS" wrote:
Hi Heather,

There are advantages and disadvantages of each.

sRGB mode may mean that the camera doesn't record some (relatively small)
ranges of colours as accurately as something like aRGB - so at first
glance
it might appear that aRGB is the way to go. However the flip side of the
coin is that (as others have pointed out) aRGB needs to be handled with
different software - and in fact is usually the first step in learning
about
colour-managed workflows.

The range of colours that are captured by your camera (in either mode) is
different to the range of colours that a monitor can display - which is
inturn different from the range of colours that a printer can print.

If you stick with sRGB (for now) you've got a greater chance of keeping
within the range of colours that's common to all devices. And to the
untrained eye the differences are usually pretty subtle anyway.

My suggestion would be to stick with sRGB for now and just focus on the
stuff that'll make a far bigger difference to your results (lighting,
exposure, composition, Depth-of-Field) etc. Later on when you feel like
being a glutton for punishment, pick up a copy of "Color Confidence" or
(in
moments of sheer masochistic madness) "Real World Color Management".

Cheers,

Thanks,

I'll have a look for one of those in the bookstore. I think you hit
the problem on the head, I'm treating what I see on my moniter as "The
Image" That's what the camera got and that's what will be printed.
Even though that may not be the case, it's hard to let go of the idea
that all the images are not equal.


Our instructor though, did say that the lab he deals with will only
print if the images are sent to them in adobe RGB, they won't touch
sRGB. That seems to be contrary to the norm.


Hi Heather!
Regardless of what you're doing, your monitor needs to be calibrated to a
certain extent, otherwise, what you see will be either washed out or too
dark or with more or less contrast. Certain monitors come with instructions,
even a software to do just that. The other thing you can do in a bind is to
print a few photos or get them printed professionally and compare those that
look good once printed with what you see on your screen. Modify your screen
accordingly.
I will probably be lapidated for saying this, but that's what I did at first
when I didn't know of other means. Afterwards, I could judge on MY screen
what the photo would look like and modify accordingly.
My .02
Marcel

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:28:07 -0700, Scott W wrote
(in article .com):

On Mar 5, 4:13 am, "stormlady" wrote:
Hi all,

So I'm taking a photography course with one of our local photographers
and as part of the course, we covered in camera color profiles. His
recommendation was to set the camera to Adobe RGB as opposed to sRGB.
He said it is more of an industry standard, or something like that, a
more true color rendition because it has more actual colors available
to it.

Then on Saturday, DBf attends a photography workshop at the local
camera store, and they recommend the exact opposite, to keep the
camera in sRGB instead of adobe RGB.

So now I'm confused about what it should be, s or adobe RGB. Is one
really better than the other?

FWIW, I took pretty much the same shot with both settings, and the
adobe seemed to be more saturated, the other looked a little washed
out.

The uses for sRGB and Adobe RGB are a big different, for displaying on
a computer sRGB is by far the best.
In some cases for printing Adobe RGB can be better, but only if the
people doing the printing can handle that color space, not all can.

sRGB is only better if you have a cheap VGA computer display, which is what
it was designed for. And even then, Adobe RGB is not worse.

As for printers, it depends on the printer. Most home printers work best with
some sort of RGB, but again sRGB is not demonstrably better than Adobe RGB.
If a printer cannot use the whole gamut of Adobe RGB it will simply print
sRGB anyway.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, Paul Furman wrote
(in article ):

stormlady wrote:
Hi all,

So I'm taking a photography course with one of our local photographers
and as part of the course, we covered in camera color profiles. His
recommendation was to set the camera to Adobe RGB as opposed to sRGB.
He said it is more of an industry standard, or something like that, a
more true color rendition because it has more actual colors available
to it.

Then on Saturday, DBf attends a photography workshop at the local
camera store, and they recommend the exact opposite, to keep the
camera in sRGB instead of adobe RGB.

So now I'm confused about what it should be, s or adobe RGB. Is one
really better than the other?

FWIW, I took pretty much the same shot with both settings, and the
adobe seemed to be more saturated, the other looked a little washed
out.

With adobe, you need to use a color managed program to view the files
like photoshop and you need to convert to sRGB for posting to the web so
it can be kind of a hassle but yes adobe has a larger gamut so that very
intense saturated colors are less prone to posterization especially when
manipulating further. Some people argue that sRGB 'looks' more saturated
and vibrant, I'm not sure about that, perhaps adobe is more subtle but
the point is you can crank up the saturation without harm.

Why on earth would you convert to sRGB to post to the web unless the people
who are viewing your pictures have only VGA monitors? No one has those any
more.

Use Adobe RGB.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 07:13:22 -0700, stormlady wrote
(in article om):

Hi all,

So I'm taking a photography course with one of our local photographers
and as part of the course, we covered in camera color profiles. His
recommendation was to set the camera to Adobe RGB as opposed to sRGB.
He said it is more of an industry standard, or something like that, a
more true color rendition because it has more actual colors available
to it.

Then on Saturday, DBf attends a photography workshop at the local
camera store, and they recommend the exact opposite, to keep the
camera in sRGB instead of adobe RGB.

So now I'm confused about what it should be, s or adobe RGB. Is one
really better than the other?

FWIW, I took pretty much the same shot with both settings, and the
adobe seemed to be more saturated, the other looked a little washed
out.

Use Adobe RGB and forget about it.

sRGB was designed for VGA monitors. No one uses those any more.

Neither do you have to use Photoshop to take advantage of Adobe RGB. Almost
all editing programs handle Adobe RGB quite well. sRGB is an old, outdated
standard. It is obsolete. It no longer serves a useful purpose.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article m, C J
Campbell wrote:

Why on earth would you convert to sRGB to post to the web unless the people
who are viewing your pictures have only VGA monitors? No one has those any
more.

because most browsers aren't color managed and will assume srgb. if
the image is adobergb, it won't look right.

C J Campbell wrote:

Paul Furman wrote

With adobe, you need to use a color managed program to view the files
like photoshop and you need to convert to sRGB for posting to the web so
it can be kind of a hassle but yes adobe has a larger gamut so that very
intense saturated colors are less prone to posterization especially when
manipulating further. Some people argue that sRGB 'looks' more saturated
and vibrant, I'm not sure about that, perhaps adobe is more subtle but
the point is you can crank up the saturation without harm.


Why on earth would you convert to sRGB to post to the web unless the people
who are viewing your pictures have only VGA monitors? No one has those any
more.

Use Adobe RGB.

Hmm OK, I see that is an option now. I wasn't aware of that. I'm
assuming those are pretty high end CRTs that can display AdobeRGB.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wide+gamut+crt
It certainly isn't a safe assumption for general web viewing though.