Adobe RGB or sRGB?

[redsnapper]

Hi All,

A wise man once told me to set my in-camera colour space to Adobe RGB, as it captures a slightly broader range of colour. However I'm starting to question this. Once I've worked on shots in photoshop, I tend to either put them on Flickr, order prints online, create photobooks etc. Since most sites can't cope with Adobe RGB I'm constantly having to convert shots back to sRGB before putting them online, ordering prints etc.

Should I just be shooting with sRGB?

Any advice, thoughts, opinions gratefully received.

[chris-p]

I've received similar advice in the past and must admit that I used Adobe RGB for a while and then found that I was having colour compatability problems so I switched back to sRGB.

It's true that Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB but it's minimal. The problem with Adobe RGB is that it still has to display it's extra colours via monitors or print systems so it has to compress them down, thereby making them appear more dull. According to Ken Rockwell (not necessarily the best source of information I admit) the increase in gain required to expand the gamut can also lead to more chroma noise.

Personally, I'd stick with sRGB unless you have a fully Adobe RGB compliant workflow.

[Forseti]

Ok, well for a start if you shoot in RAW format then it makes no difference whether you set sRGB or RGB in camera for while the colour space is attached to the RAW file it is not read by applications such as Photoshop or Lightroom during the rendering process. In fact, Lightrooms working space is set to ProPhoto (or Melissa as it was once known) and is not user changeable. That said, the image displayed on the cameras LCD (which is a small embedded jpeg) will reflect the colour profile set in camera and if set to RGB will generally display a flatter image colour wise to sRGB - this is even mentioned in most camera user handbooks. This is one of the reasons that when shooting RAW the histogram should only be taken as a guide - it represents the data within the embedded jpeg and not the RAW file which in most instances will contain more data.

Whilst experts such as Jeff Schewe (RAW and Photoshop guru) advocate using the widest possible colour space when editing my feeling is that they tend to live in a world where everyone uses the most expensive monitors imaginable (Enzio for example) that are able to display this wide a colour gamut. Unfortunately, the realities I suspect are much different and that a good percentage of amateur photographers cannot afford, and neither have use for, these specialist monitors. One sound bit of advice he and other 'experts' offer though is that one should have a consistent work space and flow.

You are not alone in saying that your images are generally used for publishing, either online to sites such as Flickr, sent to an online printing house or simply uploaded to sites such as this and I suspect that this goes for most members of the forum also.

With this in mind, my own personal choice is to set the camera to sRGB but I only ever shoot RAW so it could just as well be set to RGB for that matter. I'm not overly familiar with Canon's own application - DPP - but do believe I've read somewhere that this application will read the profile set in camera, even when shooting in RAW format. That be as it may, I only use Photoshop/Lightroom which doesn't. As mentioned earlier, Lightrooms working colour space is ProPhoto (not user changeable) so my RAW files will be rendered into that colour space with no action on my part. As a consequence, and to maintain consistency, I have set up Lightroom so that should I need to take the image into Photoshop for further editing this is also in the ProPhoto space, 16 bit and in the TIFF format. After further editing (if necessary) images are saved out in jpeg format for printing or uploading etc and this format only recognises 8 bit and sRGB anyway (like my monitor) so whether or not any of this working in ProPhoto etc makes any difference or not is not easy to tell. It's certainly not noticeable on my monitor let's put it that way.

So in summary, if I was only using Photoshop in which the working colour space can be changed, I would most probably set up everything to sRGB if for no other reason than having and working in a consistent colour space.

Far more important in my view is using a properly calibrated and profiled monitor for without this it doesn't really matter what colour space one is working in as you're never going to be absolutely sure if what is being displayed accurately reflects what's in the image.

One area in which very wide colour spaces are not only desireable but a must, is the advertising industry. Companies such as Coca-Cola for example use a very specific tone of red on their products and this tone has to be consistent across their range in whatever country the product is being sold. It is therefore vital that colours are 110% accurate whereas for me 99.99% will do.

[redsnapper]

Thanks Chris & Forseti - all really useful info. Final question...

Having calibrated my monitor using Spyder2Express, should my RGB working space in Photoshop be set to 'Monitor RGB - Spyder2Express' or 'sRGB-IEC61966-2.1' ?

Thanks again!

[Forseti]

I use the EyeOne2 and not the Spyder so cannot give you concrete advice although I would imagine the principles would be the same. Before going further, in Photoshop you should never set the working space to Monitor - instead set either sRGB, RGB or ProPhoto and in your case I would imagine sRGB would possibly be the best option. Photoshop will then peform magic behind the scenes (in combination with your graphic card), look for the monitors profile (hopefully now calibrated) and display this using the sRGB working space.

As for the calibration itself: once the EyeOne2 completes it's calibration it produces a profile and up pops a window informing the user of the name it has given the profile (usually a combination of the date) and where it has saved it (in Windows it's in with the other factory/Windows installed profiles). Windows will then use this profile each and every time it starts up and for the most part this can now be forgotten about. It is certainly not the one that should be located and used in Photoshop.

In Windows, if you right click on the desktop, click Properties, Settings, Advanced, Colour Management - you should see the profile listed there which the graphic card (and hence the computer) are using. If no profile is listed, click on Add which will open a box titled 'Add Profile Association' and in which will be displayed dozens of icc profiles. Locate the profile created by your Spyder and add it. If you repeat the first part of this paragraph you should now see it listed in the the Colour Management box. Click the 'use this as default' button.

That a lot of confusion arises is, imho, due to the closely named terminology. Profiling your monitor means that (hopefully) all the colour channels (Red, Green and Blue) are in balance i.e. that your monitor is not displaying too much Green. It also ensures that the correct gamma is set (usually 2.2) and also the correct luminance (usually 120). A lot of people complain that their images print out too dark when compared to the monitor and in a lot of cases this is due to the fact that the monitor is far too bright. We just get used to it and accept it as normal. Remember, one views prints using reflected light whereas our monitors are backlit.

The camera attaches a colour profile to one's images i.e. sRGB or RGB indicating how the different colours should be represented. In order to represent them correctly it stands to reason that in Photoshop one has to set the correct working space that is wide enough to be able to not only read the range of colours/tones i.e. gammut but also display them correctly. In order to read them correctly Photoshop reads the profile that is set in the graphic card. In an uncalibrated monitor with too much Red for instance then Photoshop will display too much Red etc etc etc.

[redsnapper]

A thousand thanks again. Brilliant. Wiill adjust my settings accordingly!