If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
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. Thanks Heather |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
On Mar 5, 7:13 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. Thanks Heather Heather, I'm no expert on the subject, but here's what I've come to understand. sRGB is a slightly reduced-gamut color profile that is useful when you expect your pictures to be viewed in a variety of ways, such as on web sites, where browsers support this profile but may not support other profiles. With the right tweaking, it can look fairly good but as you have discovered, it is not as saturated as Adobe RGB. Adobe RGB is a wider-gamut profile allowing certain colors to be more saturated. I have been using this profile in Photoshop for my own printing for several years and I've been happy with it. I keep my files in Adobe RGB from the camera (Nikon D200) through Photoshop and then let the printer rip the image. This seems to preserve the best colors. I have not noticed any problems with saving JPG files with this embedded profile and then viewing them on the web. I'm not sure if this is because web browsers now support this profile, or if they just convert it to sRGB or what. Offset printing with four color (CMYK) has less gamut than RGB and so if you do intend to have photos printed offset (such as for calendars, magazines, etc.) then you may want to convert them to CMYK as a last step. You will lose saturation in this step, especially in the blues. However, I'm sure you can see with magazines and calendars, when offset printing preparation is done correctly, the colors are plenty saturated. I hope this helps. -Karl http://www.karlwinkler.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
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. The best solution in my mind is to just shoot raw, then you can convert to either color space as needed. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
On Mar 5, 1:38 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now I think I'm more confused. I shot a concert this weekend, with the D80, in adobe RGB, and I just opened the files with the windows viewer and looked at them with that. Then I picked a few and posted them to a binaries newsgroup that I subscribe to. Everything seemed to work fine, and other people saw the pictures. I don't have a copy of Photoshop (unfortunately) and am not really able to get one due to the prohibitive cost involved. Which is also the reason that I don't shoot in RAW, even though I would prefer to do that. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
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... "stormlady" wrote in message ps.com... Hi all, So I'm taking a photography course with one of our local photographersa 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. Thanks Heather |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
On Mar 5, 6:53 am, "stormlady" wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:38 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now I think I'm more confused. I shot a concert this weekend, with the D80, in adobe RGB, and I just opened the files with the windows viewer and looked at them with that. Then I picked a few and posted them to a binaries newsgroup that I subscribe to. Everything seemed to work fine, and other people saw the pictures. I don't have a copy of Photoshop (unfortunately) and am not really able to get one due to the prohibitive cost involved. Which is also the reason that I don't shoot in RAW, even though I would prefer to do that. If you don't have Photoshop then I would only work in sRGB. Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
Scott W wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:53 am, "stormlady" wrote: On Mar 5, 1:38 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - Now I think I'm more confused. I shot a concert this weekend, with the D80, in adobe RGB, and I just opened the files with the windows viewer and looked at them with that. Then I picked a few and posted them to a binaries newsgroup that I subscribe to. Everything seemed to work fine, and other people saw the pictures. It doesn't look that bad but adobeRGB will look a little bit washed out usually without color management. This shot I forgot to convert to sRGB: http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/sweeney-ridge/2007-03-04&PG=3&PIC=13 This one I remembered & the red shirts are a bit more vibrant: http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/sweeney-ridge/2007-03-04&PG=3&PIC=14 I run most of those through a bach action to resize & convert but those I wanted at a different size. I don't have a copy of Photoshop (unfortunately) and am not really able to get one due to the prohibitive cost involved. Which is also the reason that I don't shoot in RAW, even though I would prefer to do that. If you don't have Photoshop then I would only work in sRGB. You can probably afford PS elements though. And if you shoot RAW, you can choose the color space after the fact. It's a good idea to shoot RAW plus jpeg if you can afford the time & storage space, just in case you get a really great image that you want to enlarge or need to make major adjustments to correct, recover highlights, brighten the shadows, etc. Just save the RAW files for your favorite images and you can come back later when you decide to make some nice prints and have learned how to post process better. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Setting color profile in camera??
Scott W wrote:
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. Modern ink jet printers have a pretty large gamut, which can take advantage of adobeRGB but yes it's true that you really won't see the difference on a monitor, except maybe after making adjustments. It's not a huge big deal, just a little improvement possible. The best solution in my mind is to just shoot raw, then you can convert to either color space as needed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Color profile question | Nathan Gutman | Digital Photography | 10 | January 28th 07 05:58 PM |
How to use color profile from photolab?? | Pablo 3style | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | February 10th 06 09:16 AM |
How to use color profile from photolab???? | Pablo3style | Digital Photography | 0 | February 4th 06 03:05 PM |
Color Profile, ICC, sRGB????? | Josh | Digital Photography | 10 | January 17th 05 06:22 PM |
Color Profile, ICC, sRGB????? | Josh | Digital Photography | 0 | January 17th 05 02:00 AM |