Jefferson Dorsey wrote:

Thanks for your reply. I see the diagram. I guess my next question is what are the x & y axis' measuring in this case? Without knowing much about it, looking at the diagram, I would guess the Adobe setting offers warmer color moving toward the yellow, orange, and red end of the color spectrum?

Jefferson Dorsey wrote:

What does that mean? Nice chart but whats it mean? Explain...

CAT Productions wrote:
I'm curious as to what (if any) are the real differences in using the Adobe RGB color space setting (on a D300) vs. the sRGB default color space setting. Any feedback is appreciated!

In almost all cases, you want to use sRGB.  If you are taking your files to a lab for prints, their equipment is set up for sRGB.  Computer monitors use sRGB, except for a few very high end monitors.  So, if you're publishing to the Internet, you want to shoot in sRGB.

If you are taking your work to a commercial printer, you will want to use Adobe RGB.  Adobe RGB is a wider color space.  Also, if you are using a high-end printer such as an Epson 9800, it can interpret an Adobe RGB file and print to that color space.  It will look better than an sRGB file.  If you shoot in Adobe RGB and then post those photos to a website, they will look a little dull - muddy.

There is a really good article posted about sRGB vs. Adobe RGB at www.shootsmarter.com

In summary, I rarely shoot in Adobe RGB.

Dave

Daniel Garay wrote:
so it'd be best to shoot in Adobe RBG and later convert to SRGB to put it on the web?

Ive been shooting in srgb this whole time. =/

You can actually lose information by doing that.  Determine what you're planning to do with the photo and shoot to that color space natively.  If you're making prints at a lab, or posting on line, shoot sRGB.  If you're going to a commercial printer, shoot Adobe RGB, or if you are printing to a high-end printer that can handle that color space.  I print a lot on an Epson 9800, but I still shoot sRGB and the prints look magnificent.

Daniel Garay wrote:
so it'd be best to shoot in Adobe RBG and later convert to SRGB to put it on the web?

Ive been shooting in srgb this whole time. =/

Here is a great articles that will answer all of your questions regarding sRGB vs. Adobe RGB.  You may need to register by giving them your eMail address, but they post a wealth of great information.

http://www.shootsmarter.com/content/view/151/

Imacaulae Media wrote:
You can actually lose information by doing that.  Determine what you're planning to do with the photo and shoot to that color space natively.  If you're making prints at a lab, or posting on line, shoot sRGB.  If you're going to a commercial printer, shoot Adobe RGB, or if you are printing to a high-end printer that can handle that color space.  I print a lot on an Epson 9800, but I still shoot sRGB and the prints look magnificent.

Experience tells me starting out in sRGB would be a huge mistake.  No increasing the gamut later in life.  ProPhoto RGB while not used much if any at the time for printing or anything else is a good way to start things out then you have as much information as is possible for the future and when it is used and can always convert to sRGB for web use or Adobe RGB for printing.

I am curious why you would shoot and print sRGB on a printer like the 9800 that can handle so much more.  Isn't it kind of like leaving out half the ingredients in a good spaghetti recipe?  I'm not criticizing.  Just curious as to why you would do that.

Imacaulae Media wrote:

CAT Productions wrote:
In summary, I rarely shoot in Adobe RGB.

Dave

I think Dave's answer was great, but I come to the exact opposite conclusions.  I always shoot Adobe RGB.  It has a better color space representation, and most printers now can print in adobe RGB.  Thus, I would chose to have more colors more accurately represented, and not vice-versa.

The only trade off is you need to learn to set your printing preferences if you are printing yourself, and Adobe Photoshop default settings. 

And yes, as Dave said, if you are taking them to a basic lab, you may need to convert to sRGB to be safe... however, if you are printing at such a lab, the conversion at the lab will probably be good enough for you...

Best Wishes,
Jason

Imacaulae Media wrote:
You can actually lose information by doing that.  Determine what you're planning to do with the photo and shoot to that color space natively.  If you're making prints at a lab, or posting on line, shoot sRGB.  If you're going to a commercial printer, shoot Adobe RGB, or if you are printing to a high-end printer that can handle that color space.  I print a lot on an Epson 9800, but I still shoot sRGB and the prints look magnificent.

You can always down sample a color space, but not upsize with any meaning. All conversions to CMYK are a down sample or compression of the color info.

SteveG wrote:
always use the wider colour gamut Adobe RGB. sRGB gives less space and you can always convert your RGB to sRGB....but you cant go the other way and get a wider gamut.

I wouldn't say always use the bigger color gamut.  I have read a few articles such as the shootsmarter article listed in this thread.  All printers, Yes All printers cannot print bigger than the sRGB color space. Even the Epson printers listed in the thread. Even film cannot print all the colors from the negative to paper. If you are a wedding or high volume printer. Use sRGB, it will save you time and money. If you do fine art prints use TIFF 16bit Adobe RGB. Remenber that all jpeg files are 8bit and gets sampled down from a raw or tiff file. If you shoot jpg out of the camera use sRGB.

Daniel Garay wrote:
so it'd be best to shoot in Adobe RBG and later convert to SRGB to put it on the web?

Ive been shooting in srgb this whole time. =/

absolutley correct! just remember to convert to srgb for website (internet) usage.

Jefferson Dorsey wrote:

I'll explain this chart better for people.

1. The chart shows all the colors visible to the human eye. Note there are alot of colors that the human eye cannot see. example: infrared and ultraviolet light.

2. each color space can produce different number of colors.

3. If a printers color space could be added it would be smaller than sRGB's color space. Printers use CMYK not RGB.  CMYK has less colors it could reproduce than RGB.

4. Only Tiff 16bit or Raw files can accurately hold Adobe RGB or Pro Photo color profiles. Jpegs are 8bit.

5. all three color profiles get converted to a printers color profile when you click print.  It is a waste of time and hardrive space to use Adobe RGB or Pro unless you do fine art photography and print to specific printers that use greater inks than CMYK.  Weddings or online work should always stay in sRGB.  All monitors use sRGB, with very few exceptions to a Adobe RGB monitors. 99% of people should always use sRGB unless asked by your printer to use something else.

jamesdickens wrote:

absolutley correct! just remember to convert to srgb for website (internet) usage.

No, you dont need to shoot in Adobe RGB unless you are printing fine art with a high end printer or saving all your pics in Tiff format.  If you shoot Raw then yes the Raw file holds all the colors from Adobe or Pro but is too much work to keep changing profiles. You loose quality when you change profiles. so shoot what the intended profile should be.  Do not shoot Adobe or Pro and then convert to sRGB. Shoot sRGB if that is what you need.

Digital Moonlight wrote:
If you're shooting raw it shouldn't matter - the colorspace isn't applied until you convert it to another format (TIFF or JPG). 

At least that's the way my 40D works.  YMMV with other cameras.

Correct. If you shoot jpeg. Shoot sRBG always. If you shoot Raw you have a choice but, You loose quality in converting. Ever see a Raw file look great on your screen then you convert it to Jpeg and it doesn't have that same pop to it? Shoot sRGB in Raw format also unless you can print on something better than CMYK printers.

Amedeus wrote:
Shoot in the widest color space your camera can handle when shooting jpg's

Process in Adobe RGB for least amount of color data compression during the edit processing.

Convert to sRGB for web publishing and don't be afraid of the so called data loss because of the compression, it is inherent as one is going to a smaller color space.

As for printing, ymmv, check with your printer.  Some (most) take only sRGB.  Some take RGB and can handle RGB printing.

I erred a long time by shooting in sRGB and not in RGB on my D2x and D200.  I've seen the difference, it is not subtle if your printer knows what they are doing.

YMMV,

Rudi A.

This is the wrong advice to give. Do not shoot in Adobe RGB or Pro if you don't have too. It is a waste of time to convert files to different profiles if all you ever need is sRGB. It is not always good to shoot at a higher quality then downsample as far as color goes. Read my previous posts.

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
I wouldn't say always use the bigger color gamut.  I have read a few articles such as the shootsmarter article listed in this thread.  All printers, Yes All printers cannot print bigger than the sRGB color space. Even the Epson printers listed in the thread.

That turns out to be an incorrect statement.

A Fuji Frontier using a proper (custom, not the default sRGB-based) profile exceeds sRGB, as do most Epson profiles. Even the 2200, a 'limited gamut' pigment-ink printer far exceeds sRGB in many areas. Newer printers, or dye-based printers tend to have an even larger color gamut.

CMYK/offset printers DO have a smaller gamut, but even there, sRGB isn't the best fit, as the color gamut's limits (gamut 'shapes') are notably different, and contain colors outside the sRGB gamut.



(A 3D plot of the gamuts of each colorspace shows this even more dramatically, but I don't have a way to post such a plot. Chromix' ColorThink and ColorThink Pro can do so, and if your browser supports VRML, you can see a 3D plot on drycreekphoto.com)

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
This is the wrong advice to give. Do not shoot in Adobe RGB or Pro if you don't have too. It is a waste of time to convert files to different profiles if all you ever need is sRGB. It is not always good to shoot at a higher quality then downsample as far as color goes. Read my previous posts.

You need to study about color management and profile-to-profile conversions. What you can get is a function of the intent you use. All conversions are basically downsizing. Some intents are a straight placement with clipping, which creates color losses. Are you familiar with what the different color engines do during a conversion?
If you are doing an Adobe to sRGB conversion with default PS settings there should be vertually no color change. If you do your monitor is probably not calibrated correctly and it's profile not activate in the photo program. Actually, if you aren't using one of the last two versions of PS you are probably hosed for color anyway, so never mind.

Kevin Connery wrote:

That turns out to be an incorrect statement.

A Fuji Frontier using a proper (custom, not the default sRGB-based) profile exceeds sRGB, as do most Epson profiles. Even the 2200, a 'limited gamut' pigment-ink printer far exceeds sRGB in many areas. Newer printers, or dye-based printers tend to have an even larger color gamut.

CMYK/offset printers DO have a smaller gamut, but even there, sRGB isn't the best fit, as the color gamut's limits (gamut 'shapes') are notably different, and contain colors outside the sRGB gamut.



(A 3D plot of the gamuts of each colorspace shows this even more dramatically, but I don't have a way to post such a plot. Chromix' ColorThink and ColorThink Pro can do so, and if your browser supports VRML, you can see a 3D plot on drycreekphoto.com)

Funny The chart on the shootsmarter website show the epson 2200 printer falls under sRGB.

Ralph Livingston wrote:

You need to study about color management and profile-to-profile conversions. What you can get is a function of the intent you use. All conversions are basically downsizing. Some intents are a straight placement with clipping, which creates color losses. Are you familiar with what the different color engines do during a conversion?
If you are doing an Adobe to sRGB conversion with default PS settings there should be vertually no color change. If you do your monitor is probably not calibrated correctly and it's profile not activate in the photo program. Actually, if you aren't using one of the last two versions of PS you are probably hosed for color anyway, so never mind.

joenov1977 dallas wrote:

No, you dont need to shoot in Adobe RGB unless you are printing fine art with a high end printer or saving all your pics in Tiff format.  If you shoot Raw then yes the Raw file holds all the colors from Adobe or Pro but is too much work to keep changing profiles. You loose quality when you change profiles. so shoot what the intended profile should be.  Do not shoot Adobe or Pro and then convert to sRGB. Shoot sRGB if that is what you need.

your advice is wrong joe. always shoot in a manner that gives you the most options.

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
Correct. If you shoot jpeg. Shoot sRBG always. If you shoot Raw you have a choice but, You loose quality in converting. Ever see a Raw file look great on your screen then you convert it to Jpeg and it doesn't have that same pop to it? Shoot sRGB in Raw format also unless you can print on something better than CMYK printers.

are you claiming that you lose quality if you start with a raw image as opposed to a jpeg????

you don't really mean that... do you?

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
So in your opinion what color space do you recommend?

I do everything in Adobe98 RGB. If you shoot for print that is the industry standard.
When I need to put something on the web, I downsize it and do a Relative Colormetric profile conversion to sRGB.

Ralph Livingston wrote:
I do everything in Adobe98 RGB. If you shoot for print that is the industry standard.
When I need to put something on the web, I downsize it and do a Relative Colormetric profile conversion to sRGB.

I was told by all the place I print to use sRGB(3 of them). To the OP find out what they need from your printers and dont waste time in profiles you dont use. And I have a epson 2200. no visible difference except the time it takes to change profiles.

Ralph Livingston wrote:

I do everything in Adobe98 RGB. If you shoot for print that is the industry standard.
When I need to put something on the web, I downsize it and do a Relative Colormetric profile conversion to sRGB.

yes!