|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Do I Need AdobeRGB if I Shoot Raw?
The twelve bits in raw give me all the data I can possibly have. I process in 16 bit. Then save a jpg for the web. Switching to sRGB is an extra step that I would like to eliminate. Thoughts? Apr 16 06 11:50 am Link NAPP has all the info that you need! For 99 bucks you get a year subscription to photoshop user and a forum that has the most up to date info for all your digital needs. I am a member that simply recommends this valuble tool! Go to the site and check it out. B Apr 16 06 11:55 am Link I don't know what kind of camera you use, but in the Nikon plugin for Photoshop (and others, I would imagine) you can select your output color space at the time you extract your picture from RAW mode. sRGB is only one of the available options. Apr 16 06 12:02 pm Link If your posting to the web sRGB is a necessary step. Adobe RGB is a wider color gamut but it wont look right on the web. Try it both ways and see if you can see a color difference after you post. My colors and especially skin tones look way off unless I convert so sRGB. Ken Apr 16 06 12:09 pm Link You'll also want to pick a color space and try to stay in it as much as possible - instead of running the risk of picking some out of gamut colors as you convert back to sRGB for (potential) printing. Pro labs tend to focus on sRGB ... other color spaces may be available - but for a higher cost. Having said that - and because I tend to contradict myself - there are some great books to read on the subject. I recommend picking up Dan Margulis' book on Photo LAB Color. In addition to the color space itself, there are specific tips/tricks to unsharpening (amongst others) that can be done to specific channels in LAB and CMYK spaces. Make sure that when you convert back to sRGB for printing, that you do bring everything back into gamut and that you review your work on a color calibrated monitor. I'd also recommend that you do as much editing on monitors that have been calibrated consistently. There's nothing worse than editing on inconsistent monitors. Trust me, I know... Scott Apr 16 06 12:16 pm Link Though if yer shooting RAW , you can change the colorspace to almost anything from the original raw file during the conversion without damaging the information, and I slap thee hand of the second poster, pay 99$ for a simple question.... But yes, sRGB conversion before saving if the copy is for web, AdobeRGB typically for proofs, but there also tons of other color spaces, depends on what yer gona use it for and the destination of the image ( Say a print lab, etc ). Apr 16 06 02:05 pm Link A modern digital SLR can capture colours outside of sRGB. Modern inject printers can print colours outside of sRGB. There is at least one monitor capable of displaying the aRGB colour space (though it's expensive). So it makes sense to use a wider colour space (such as aRGB or ProPhoto) for most of your workflow, and throw out some of the colours only when necessary (e.g., displaying on the web). Having said that, if you know your images will always fall within sRGB, then using the smaller colour space will give you higher resolution (since your using the same number of bits to cover the smaller space). This should not matter (i.e., have visible effects) if you're using 16bpp. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori … GB1998.htm Apr 16 06 03:41 pm Link QuaeVide wrote: Just a quick clarification... Apr 16 06 04:11 pm Link You misunderstood (or I mistated). For a given number of bits, the "colour distance" between adjacent representations (bit values) will be larger in a wider colour space. For extreme examples, this would show up as colour banding. I expect this may be visible in the Pro Photo space using 8 bpp. Using more bits for a given colour space will reduce the distances, and I doubt very much that any of the currently available spaces would exhibit banding with 16bpp. Apr 16 06 06:21 pm Link sRGB sucks, it is a profile designed to match an old 14" PC monitor. Sort of a lowest common denominator thing. Even if anybody still uses these crappy old screens, why indulge them? Whether or not the pictures appear correctly on screen has more to do with monitor calibration and bandwidth. In general, pictures never look anywhere near as nice on the web and we all understand this and compensate for it. The only reason sRGB hasn't gone away is that Photoshop uses it as the default color space and most people are too lazy or ignorant to change to something better, like AdobeRGB. Put a copy of all the photo files you want to use for the web in one folder and then batch-process them with an Action to change the resolution, the color space if needed etc. The computer can do the work while you are eating dinner or something. Have Fun, Take Pictures!! Apr 16 06 06:33 pm Link Just so we're clear... Most modern DSLR do not shoot 16bit, but rather 12 or 14bit in a 16bit space ( most are 12 unless otherwise advertized ), meaning at 12 bit yer shooting 4096 shades per channel, as opposed to 8bit at 256 shades per channel. So its just 12bit but in a 16 bit space, still more gradience than 8bit tho. Apr 16 06 06:35 pm Link To answer the question. If you are shooting RAW it doesn't matter what color space you shoot in you will choose it during the conversion to the JPG or TIFF. My default color space in-camera is AdobeRGB because if I shoot a JPG it will process that JPG with widest color space that the camera can capture. So if I need to go to sRGB then I have that option; I can't do that vice versa. Personally for my workflow when I convert from RAW my working space is usually ProPhoto for initial conversion with my editing space is AdobeRGB. Why/ beacuse the technological advances are happening so quickly that it's conceivable that a monitor will be able to display the ProPhoto colorspace (we won't be able to see all of it) or perhaps if we can dream the LAB color scheme whihc would mimick how the human eye perceives color. I want my archived files to have the most information available for future use. Apr 16 06 06:58 pm Link OK , if you have the choice on your camera to eirther go AdobeRGB or SRGB always choose ADOBE, it has a wider range of colours that will give you better prints. Also a handy rule for any photoshop use is. Always save it as an adobergb psd. When you use the save for web option in photoshop it automatically will convert to SRGB. Now, goto your colour preferences and choose north american prepress, this will save you a lot of hassle. Apr 17 06 03:18 am Link James Foster wrote: I believe that is incorrect. A few quick experiments suggest to me that Save for Web (CS2, Windows) does no colour space conversion (but will remove the colour profile if the "ICC profile" option is unchecked, resuling in an untagged aRGB image). Apr 17 06 03:38 am Link your right - How did I set it up before to do this. hmmmm hold on Apr 17 06 03:46 am Link Maybe its a plugin that my school's digital output center is using to have it convert everything. hmm. Oh well , strike that. just make an action to duplicate , close original and then convert to srgb profile and then save for web. Apr 17 06 03:56 am Link James Foster wrote: You have to do it yourself. Go to set profiles and a menu will pop up showing the list of profiles. Even it the profile is set to 98Adobe always reset your profiles because adobe will use what is currently set. Apr 17 06 04:36 am Link I always shoot RAW (skin) and transfer it to nRGB (n=naked) .. and get very 'exciting' results  Apr 17 06 11:12 pm Link |
