Experiment with RGB and sRGB...
Nov 9, 2018 11:50:09 #
RRS wrote:
Good question. sRGB is better for the web, I still use RGB on my Flickr account but I should probably be posting in sRGB. I use RGB on all printed files. BTW, that is a very good grouping of colors for your test!
I'm still undecided what to do...all these replies are helpful...thank you!!
Nov 9, 2018 11:52:48 #
vicksart wrote:
I see a brighter image in #2. More contrast? Different white balance? I can't tell the difference with the RGB and sRGB. Both shots are very appealing, but I would pick #2 if I had to choose. It just looks a little sharper IMHO.
It is so hard to tell in this shot Vicki...it's exactly the same shot, with a different color profile applied...thank you so much!!
Nov 9, 2018 12:11:52 #
rlaugh wrote:
which one looks better on your screen?? I see more detail in the white birdhouse in #1, #2 seems to be brighter.
Frankly, that will depend upon the quality of your monitor and monitor calibration. IF you have a very high quality 10-bit monitor and graphics card, capable of displaying the full Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut, AND it is calibrated with a kit from X-Rite or Datacolor including a hardware colorimeter or spectrophotometer and software that makes ICC profiles, THEN you will see that the Adobe RGB (1998) image has a wider color gamut than the sRGB image. Deeper, saturated colors will appear more vibrant in the Adobe RGB image. Certain colors that sRGB cannot contain will be more accurate in the Adobe RGB image.
Unfortunately, if you or your lab make conventional silver halide-based color prints, they will be unable to reproduce the full range of Adobe RGB, and certain colors will look quite different from the way they looked on your monitor. For that reason, you should always evaluate and make final adjustments to your images by "soft proofing" in reference to the lab's proofing profile. That uses a printer profile as a "filter" to display your image as close to what the printer will reproduce as possible.
Most monitors are incapable of displaying the full Adobe RGB color gamut. Most monitors are not calibrated anywhere near reference accuracy, either. Images for distribution on the Internet most often should be in sRGB color space for that reason. It was established a couple decades ago as the international standard. (Yes, it is a lowest common denominator sort of standard. That's not necessarily a bad thing!)
Images for printing by photo labs should be in sRGB UNLESS the lab or service bureau requests (or approves of) a different ICC color space. Very high end service bureaus may work from 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto RGB, or Adobe RGB. (ProPhoto has the wider gamut.)
SOME offset print houses, stock agencies, magazine editors, and other commercial printing companies will request images be submitted as 16-bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB, because they provide a bit more color gamut and a lot more tonal range to play with when they make color separations from your files. Others are happy with sRGB files. Only thieves and enemies want your raw files!
The advantages of raw capture far outweigh the advantages of JPEG capture using Adobe RGB. When you develop raw files into images, you get to play with the full range of what the sensor recorded. Use a great, calibrated monitor, and you can dial in precisely the look you want. If you print directly to a high end inkjet printer, you can get all the colors and tones that printer can display from that image. If you save images in a particular color space for use in other processes, you can see the compromises you are making when doing that.
Nov 9, 2018 12:26:33 #
burkphoto wrote:
Frankly, that will depend upon the quality of your... (show quote)
Lots of great information here, and obviously a proper calibrated monitor is the first important step in the process!! Thank you so much!!
Nov 9, 2018 12:51:09 #
Number one sir. If your monitor doesn't support RGB, it would be hard to tell the difference.
Nov 10, 2018 06:46:23 #
Nov 10, 2018 06:58:34 #
yssirk123 wrote:
Very close, but #1 would be my choice
Thank you for commenting...that was my original choice also!
Nov 10, 2018 08:23:57 #
rlaugh wrote:
which one looks better on your screen?? I see more detail in the white birdhouse in #1, #2 seems to be brighter.
I really can’t see a difference on my screen.
Nov 10, 2018 09:05:46 #
jaymatt wrote:
I really can’t see a difference on my screen.
It is really minimal...thank you for commenting!!
Nov 10, 2018 11:48:10 #
I have good eyes.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
Nov 10, 2018 12:01:13 #
zzzynick wrote:
I have good eyes.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
Well I don't know if you are kidding or not, but as I said, one is RGB, and one is sRGB, and if your eyes are as good as you say, you can see the white birdhouse in #2 has less detail than #1...besides I wouldn't waste my time or someone else's time with a stunt like that....thank you!!
Nov 10, 2018 12:40:43 #
zzzynick wrote:
I have good eyes.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
My monitor is calibrated 32" 4k model.
I can't see a bit of difference in either one.
I think you posted the same image twice.
Just to see if people would take the bait.
Actually, I think that's brilliant.
I wish I had thought of that.
A quick check of the EXIF metadata in both files shows he isn't lying.
Modern operating systems and applications will automatically color manage images of any profile type. The conversion is first to a wide gamut WORKING profile, then to the MONITOR profile for viewing, and ultimately to an OUTPUT profile for image file export, or to a PRINTER/PAPER profile for local printing.
There are very subtle differences in these files. However, as I said earlier, you really do need a monitor capable of displaying 99% to 100% of Adobe RGB in order to see the real differences. VERY FEW UHH members will have such a monitor. They are expensive, compared to what the average hobbyist buys.
Here's one list. https://www.photoworkout.com/best-monitors-photo-editing/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_9T68q7K3gIVrKOzCh0WiggMEAAYASAAEgK0X_D_BwE
Nov 10, 2018 14:45:27 #
rlaugh wrote:
which one looks better on your screen?? I see more detail in the white birdhouse in #1, #2 seems to be brighter.
the first shot seems brighter to my eyes, but my eyes are much more different
than a raccoon's eyes.
Nov 10, 2018 14:56:51 #
The only difference I see Bob, is the cushions are a tad brighter in No.2..I can't see any difference in the white bird house...
Nov 10, 2018 15:08:01 #
merrytexan wrote:
the first shot seems brighter to my eyes, but my eyes are much more different
than a raccoon's eyes.
than a raccoon's eyes.
Well this mask I wear messes up my vision also...thank you my friend!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.