Setting color profile in camera??

C J Campbell wrote:
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.


Which monitors can display all of the Adobe RGB gamut? Certainly none
of the 100s at my work nor any of the ones in my friends' and family's
homes.

Greg

--
The ticket******* Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

C J Campbell wrote:

Use Adobe RGB and forget about it.

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

No it wasn't, it was designed as a standard space that is compatible
with the HDTV colour space.

sRGB is a very good match for most of the monitors available today,
and if you're sending an image to someone else it's an excellent
choice. There are a few monitors available that can display the Adobe
RGB gamut, but they are rare and expensive.

Andrew.

On Mar 6, 7:47 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
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.


How many browsers do you know of that do color management?

Most browsers just assume that you are working in sRGB.

So if I work in Adobe RGB using Photoshop Elements I will see the
colors the way they are suppose to look, within the limits of my
monitor, because Photoshop Elements does look at the color space. But
if I save the image and post it to a web page it will look very
different from what I saw when I was editing it, because my browser is
assume that it is sRGB. If on the other hand I converter it from
Adobe RGB to sRGB before saving then I will see the same thing in by
browser that I do in my editing program.

Here are two files that look exactly the same when loaded into an
editing program that has color management.
SRGB image here
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/75288568/large

And Adobe 1998 image here
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/75288622/large

But note that the Adobe 1998 image looks less saturated when view with
a web browser, this can be seen in both the green table and the red
dress. In my editor both image look like the sRGB one does when view
on the web.

Scott

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 if you use anything else, all Windows users and some Mac users will
not see the correct colors. The monitor doesn't enter into it.

--
Jeremy |

C J Campbell writes:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, 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

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.

It doesn't matter what monitor people have. People view images on the
web by means of a web browser, and conforming web browsers are
instructed by the W3C to interprete colours in the sRGB colour space.

All RGB colors are specified in the sRGB color space (see
[SRGB]). User agents may vary in the fidelity with which they
represent these colors, but using sRGB provides an unambiguous and
objectively measurable definition of what the color should be,
which can be related to international standards (see
[COLORIMETRY]). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html )

And most web browsers do (Safari on Mac OsX being an exception).

Use Adobe RGB.

This will the make your colours appear more duller than they really
are to everyone using a conforming web browser.

Ken Rockwells diatribe against the use of Adobe RGB
( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm ) is mostly hyberbole.
But he has one good point. Take a look at the two colour gradients
at the beginning of his article in your standard web browser.
Unless you use Safari, The sRGB will give you the best colour.
The Adobe RGB will have duller colours, in particular the reds,
greens and violets - and this will be the case even if you have a
expensive wide gamut monitor).

(Download Rockwell's gradients and look at them inside Photoshop,
and the Adobe RGB gradient will sparkle, but as long as you view
it in a conforming web browser, it will be dull.)

--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, 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

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.

It doesn't matter what monitor people have. People view images on the
web by means of a web browser, and conforming web browsers are
instructed by the W3C to interprete colours in the sRGB colour space.

All RGB colors are specified in the sRGB color space (see
[SRGB]). User agents may vary in the fidelity with which they
represent these colors, but using sRGB provides an unambiguous and
objectively measurable definition of what the color should be,
which can be related to international standards (see
[COLORIMETRY]). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html )

And most web browsers do (Safari on Mac OsX being an exception).

Use Adobe RGB.

This will the make your colours appear more duller than they really
are to everyone using a conforming web browser.

Maybe Gisele, but you don't necessarily view your photos on webbrowsers
;-))))
I suppose this may be true if you post on Internet... but then, many do so
in this forum and I bet they use RGB
Marcel

On Mar 9, 2:09 am, "Celcius" wrote:
"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message

...





C J Campbell writes:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, 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

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.

It doesn't matter what monitor people have. People view images on the
web by means of a web browser, and conforming web browsers are
instructed by the W3C to interprete colours in the sRGB colour space.

All RGB colors are specified in the sRGB color space (see
[SRGB]). User agents may vary in the fidelity with which they
represent these colors, but using sRGB provides an unambiguous and
objectively measurable definition of what the color should be,
which can be related to international standards (see
[COLORIMETRY]). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html)

And most web browsers do (Safari on Mac OsX being an exception).

Use Adobe RGB.

This will the make your colours appear more duller than they really
are to everyone using a conforming web browser.

Maybe Gisele, but you don't necessarily view your photos on webbrowsers
;-))))
I suppose this may be true if you post on Internet... but then, many do so
in this forum and I bet they use RGB

But I use ACDSee, and it also assume that all images are sRGB.
There is little reason to keep photos on the computer that are not
sRGB
since this is pretty much the limit of what more monitors can
display. Of
course I keep the raw files so if a need comes up with I have a real
use
for Adobe 1998 I an quickly generate that file as needed.

Scott

On Mar 9, 2:47 am, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
"stormlady" writes:
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.

It is also an odd thing to say.

Adobe RGB as a /working/ colour space, not something one will normally
submit to a lab. Assuming that the lab he deals with is a professional
lab, what one will do is to adjust colours in Adobe RGB on a
calibrated monitor, and then prepare the images for printing by using
/ICC profiles/ supplied by the lab for the actual printer, paper and
ink or dye combination.

If you've quoted him corectly, he seems to think that chosing a
particular working colour space is suffiscient for accurate
colour printing. That is contrary to my understanding of
these things.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no -http://hannemyr.com/photo/]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what he said, that the lab will only print in aRGB, however,
since this is a beginner class, and we don't deal a whole lot with
color profiles, maybe he just dumbed it down a bit for us and he
actually does what you just said. I can only assume it is a
professional lab, and I assume he really likes them, because it is out
of province, and there are lots of places closer that could do the
printing for sure.


There was some talk of calibrating moniters and such last night.

Scott W wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:09 am, "Celcius" wrote:
"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, 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

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.

It doesn't matter what monitor people have. People view images on the
web by means of a web browser, and conforming web browsers are
instructed by the W3C to interprete colours in the sRGB colour space.

All RGB colors are specified in the sRGB color space (see
[SRGB]). User agents may vary in the fidelity with which they
represent these colors, but using sRGB provides an unambiguous and
objectively measurable definition of what the color should be,
which can be related to international standards (see
[COLORIMETRY]). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html)

And most web browsers do (Safari on Mac OsX being an exception).

Use Adobe RGB.

This will the make your colours appear more duller than they really
are to everyone using a conforming web browser.

Maybe Gisele, but you don't necessarily view your photos on webbrowsers
;-))))
I suppose this may be true if you post on Internet... but then, many do so
in this forum and I bet they use RGB

But I use ACDSee, and it also assume that all images are sRGB.
There is little reason to keep photos on the computer that are not
sRGB
since this is pretty much the limit of what more monitors can
display. Of
course I keep the raw files so if a need comes up with I have a real
use
for Adobe 1998 I an quickly generate that file as needed.

There are 2 reasons to use adobeRGB.

The most important is to preserve colors when editing adjustments.
Photoshop is an editing program not a viewer so it makes sense to set
the default working space to adobe otherwise you get a lot of warnings
about color space when opening sRGB files. It makes sense to capture in
adobe too because there is a bit more color info to start with,
converting before editing might improve things a bit too but not as
much. I'm not claiming these differences are huge though.

The second reason is modern inkjet printers use a larger gamut that can
take advantage of adobeRGB if you print at home, there is a slight benefit.

The disadvantage is that you'll need to convert to sRGB for slide show
viewing & web use, which is more of a pain, and if you are sending files
to people, it's more likely they will not have a color managed system &
will misinterpret your files.

On Mar 9, 7:35 am, Paul Furman wrote:
Scott W wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:09 am, "Celcius" wrote:
"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:38:17 -0700, 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

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.

It doesn't matter what monitor people have. People view images on the
web by means of a web browser, and conforming web browsers are
instructed by the W3C to interprete colours in the sRGB colour space.

All RGB colors are specified in the sRGB color space (see
[SRGB]). User agents may vary in the fidelity with which they
represent these colors, but using sRGB provides an unambiguous and
objectively measurable definition of what the color should be,
which can be related to international standards (see
[COLORIMETRY]). http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html)

And most web browsers do (Safari on Mac OsX being an exception).

Use Adobe RGB.

This will the make your colours appear more duller than they really
are to everyone using a conforming web browser.

Maybe Gisele, but you don't necessarily view your photos on webbrowsers
;-))))
I suppose this may be true if you post on Internet... but then, many do so
in this forum and I bet they use RGB

But I use ACDSee, and it also assume that all images are sRGB.
There is little reason to keep photos on the computer that are not
sRGB
since this is pretty much the limit of what more monitors can
display. Of
course I keep the raw files so if a need comes up with I have a real
use
for Adobe 1998 I an quickly generate that file as needed.

There are 2 reasons to use adobeRGB.

The most important is to preserve colors when editing adjustments.
Photoshop is an editing program not a viewer so it makes sense to set
the default working space to adobe otherwise you get a lot of warnings
about color space when opening sRGB files. It makes sense to capture in
adobe too because there is a bit more color info to start with,
converting before editing might improve things a bit too but not as
much. I'm not claiming these differences are huge though.
If the only choice was to capture in Adobe RGB or sRGB then I might
choice Adobe RGB, but happily there is a better choice yet at least in
IMO and that is of course to shoot in RAW. I was fortunate to have
installed RawShooter essentials while it was still available, this
makes batch converting into either sRGB or Adobe RGB a snap. And
while I am converting to sRGB it will show me if there are any areas
that are out of gamut. There are some colors that will go out but
the majority of my photos fit well within sRGB. And if I am going to
be working on a photo that will be viewed on the web I will stay in
sRGB but turn down the saturation when converting to raw. This
shrinks the colors down to fit within sRGB and then I can selectively
boost the saturation to taste.

As for printing, I am currently using Costco and I am not sure they
would even know how to handle a image file in Adobe RGB, if I had a
working inkjet I would certainly try printing from Adobe RGB just to
see what the difference was.

Scott