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
|
|||
|
|||
sRGB or AdobeRGB Colour Space?
Hello group.
If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul" wrote: Hello group. If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. Like you state it depsnds on the lab, mine when I send files for Lambda prints has informed me they get better results from tagged Adobe 1998 files. Now when I send files for their other printers they are untagged. One thing I try to always do is provide either an optical reference or an inkjet reference depending on what I am doing the print for (Retouching, etc). AdobeRGB does have a wider gamut as others have stated, so you could tag the files initially as AdobeRGB and then resave them when needed with whatever profile you need. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul" wrote: Hello group. If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. Like you state it depsnds on the lab, mine when I send files for Lambda prints has informed me they get better results from tagged Adobe 1998 files. Now when I send files for their other printers they are untagged. One thing I try to always do is provide either an optical reference or an inkjet reference depending on what I am doing the print for (Retouching, etc). AdobeRGB does have a wider gamut as others have stated, so you could tag the files initially as AdobeRGB and then resave them when needed with whatever profile you need. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Here in the colonies this works for me:
For color management purposes consistency probably matters more than the differences in color gamut between sRGB or AdobeRGB, presuming an inkjet print is your ultimate purpose. If you are using color management and stick to one space you will hopefully get accustomed to the color gamut translations between image, monitor and printer color spaces and be able to get more predictable printing results. Monitor calibration is a vital part of the process, however, so that the software has known reference points for translating between monitor, image and printer color spaces. If your digital camera only saves in sRBG, as most do, then it will make no difference if you translate to Adobe RGB in Photoshop and work in that color space forever after as AdobeRGB is a bigger color space. If you take an image created in AdobeRGB in a camera or scanner and translate into sRGB you can lose color information because sRGB is a smaller color space. So if your camera or scanner creates images in AdobeRGB it is best to keep the image in that color space even if you may never be able to perceive that loss of color information in what you see on the monitor or in your print. Neither sRGB or AdobeRGB can be entirely reproduced by inkjet printers anyway and software is going to perform a brute translation of your image to the printer's color space when you make a print. Consistent color management really does not let you control the hit that the printer driver makes on your image but it significantly softens the blow. Now, the real question is: if 24 bit AdobeRGB is already a wider color space than inkjet printers can reproduce why are many photographers obsessed with 48 bit color? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Here in the colonies this works for me:
For color management purposes consistency probably matters more than the differences in color gamut between sRGB or AdobeRGB, presuming an inkjet print is your ultimate purpose. If you are using color management and stick to one space you will hopefully get accustomed to the color gamut translations between image, monitor and printer color spaces and be able to get more predictable printing results. Monitor calibration is a vital part of the process, however, so that the software has known reference points for translating between monitor, image and printer color spaces. If your digital camera only saves in sRBG, as most do, then it will make no difference if you translate to Adobe RGB in Photoshop and work in that color space forever after as AdobeRGB is a bigger color space. If you take an image created in AdobeRGB in a camera or scanner and translate into sRGB you can lose color information because sRGB is a smaller color space. So if your camera or scanner creates images in AdobeRGB it is best to keep the image in that color space even if you may never be able to perceive that loss of color information in what you see on the monitor or in your print. Neither sRGB or AdobeRGB can be entirely reproduced by inkjet printers anyway and software is going to perform a brute translation of your image to the printer's color space when you make a print. Consistent color management really does not let you control the hit that the printer driver makes on your image but it significantly softens the blow. Now, the real question is: if 24 bit AdobeRGB is already a wider color space than inkjet printers can reproduce why are many photographers obsessed with 48 bit color? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" writes:
Hello group. If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. You generally can't put a space as wide as Adobe RGB on paper. There can still be a point in using it for editing -- it gives *you* rather than the color management software control over what is done with out-of-gamut (in sRGB) colors in the original scene. So a sensible workflow could be to capture in Adobe RGB, edit in Adobe RGB, but edit down to something that fits in sRGB, and pass the image to the lab in sRGB (which, as you say, most-all of them want). -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" writes:
Hello group. If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. You generally can't put a space as wide as Adobe RGB on paper. There can still be a point in using it for editing -- it gives *you* rather than the color management software control over what is done with out-of-gamut (in sRGB) colors in the original scene. So a sensible workflow could be to capture in Adobe RGB, edit in Adobe RGB, but edit down to something that fits in sRGB, and pass the image to the lab in sRGB (which, as you say, most-all of them want). -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" writes:
Hello group. If I wanted to just print photo's, I.E. Not commercial use, is it better to use sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space? Looking around the internet, it seems like AdobeRGB has a wider spectrum, but apparently most labs are not capable of printing with a colour space of greater than sRGB. You generally can't put a space as wide as Adobe RGB on paper. There can still be a point in using it for editing -- it gives *you* rather than the color management software control over what is done with out-of-gamut (in sRGB) colors in the original scene. So a sensible workflow could be to capture in Adobe RGB, edit in Adobe RGB, but edit down to something that fits in sRGB, and pass the image to the lab in sRGB (which, as you say, most-all of them want). -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Probably because image editing in 48 bit keeps things a little sharper for
longer than editing in 24 bit Aerticus "bmoag" wrote in message . com... - snipped - Now, the real question is: if 24 bit AdobeRGB is already a wider color space than inkjet printers can reproduce why are many photographers obsessed with 48 bit color? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Probably because image editing in 48 bit keeps things a little sharper for
longer than editing in 24 bit Aerticus "bmoag" wrote in message . com... - snipped - Now, the real question is: if 24 bit AdobeRGB is already a wider color space than inkjet printers can reproduce why are many photographers obsessed with 48 bit color? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
places to take photos near Toronto | Apkesh | Digital Photography | 8 | September 30th 04 09:03 AM |
Review of two new digital backs for medium format | Bill Hilton | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 64 | July 21st 04 09:51 PM |