CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Answer: nothing good

Did I get your attention? Are you ready for another urban myth of photography to be knocked down? Here we go.

If you shoot JPEG, are you editing all your images always? If no, don't set your camera to Adobe RGB as you need to, at the minimum, output the colorspace to the general sRGB colorspace before sharing your images.

The choice of color space is a 50/50 choice, as in: sRGB you win, Adobe RGB you lose.

If you shoot RAW, you're wasting your time completely. Why? Your file names get an underscore in the first position like _MG0001.NEF and RAW files don't have a colorspace anyway. RAW files are the original sensor data. Camera sensors don't have a colorspace. Colorspace is an attribute of your digital editor or how the color data is encoded into a display format when the RAW data is converted to JPEG or TIFF, etc. That's how a tool like Lightroom or Topaz Sharpen can use ProPhotoRGB against your RAW files even though ProPhotoRGB isn't even an option in the camera menu options.

Do you shoot RAW and JPEG so you can share the JPEGs quickly? Now you're wasting your time by a factor of 2x. Your 'quick JPEGs' now require a colorspace conversion before sharing, defeating 'quick'. Your RAW files, as noted above, get a less useful filename while having no technical impact of using the Adobe RGB colorspace camera setting.

Now, let's get to the real urban myths:

Myth1 - Adobe RGB is better for printing

Really? Do you print your images? Does your printer (local or third-party) accept files in Adobe RGB? Have you ever compared two prints, one in sRGB against the same image in Adobe RGB? If you have any NO responses to these probing questions, then Adobe RGB is not really better for printing.

Myth2 - Adobe RGB is the better colorspace

Really? When your RAW sensor data was converted to an 8-bit JPEG, the 12- or 14-bit data from the sensor was 'compressed' into the maximum storage capabilities of the 8-bit JPEG format. To simplify the high-level idea, Adobe RGB emphasizes different colors / tones over sRGB, but it cannot 'store' more data in 8-bit than sRGB can store in the same 8-bit encoding. BTW, RGB is literally Red-Green-Blue and this colorspace data is simply all the color tones and relative brightness of mixing Red with Green with Blue to create the rich colors and tones of the world.

When should I use Adobe RGB?

I'm trying to argue: never.

If I haven't convince you yet, consider these four reasons / input requirements, all that must be met together:

a. You shoot in your camera's highest quality JPEG setting, i.e., the highest pixel resolution and the least JPEG compression.

b. You edit all your JPEGs in a workflow that reliably enforces a conversion to the sRGB colorspace for online sharing of the edited results.

c. Any transitions between software in your workflow maintain the ProPhotoRGB (or Adobe RGB) colorspace when the transition files are created.

d. You have a printer that accepts the Adobe RGB files and prints in the Adobe RGB colorspace (and does not perform a behind the scenes sRGB converion).

e. (Optional) You've paid extra (a whole lot extra) to buy an "Adobe RGB" monitor to see your colorspace during editing

Still not convinced? Here's two UHH links:

The first post shows a problem using the wrong colorspace on page 1 of the original post. Just skip to page 2 to see an example of the image converted and posted to sRGB. This is what you risk by using Adobe RGB:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-362867-1.html

Here's a longer, boring thread about the two colorspaces:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-364870-1.html

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Thank you for the informative tutorial.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Whew! Adobe RGB case debunked, until the next article. Hopefully not! Thanks, Paul. Well done.

Photolady2014 Loc: Southwest Colorado

Great info!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I've always used sRGB, and will continue to do so.
(Besides, web browsers display nicer when sRGB is used.)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Paul, as time goes by and we gain more experience with digital photography we can see that many concepts of the past have been erroneous. One of those concepts has been that a photographer NEVER shoot JPEG files. In more than one occasion I have stated that modern JPEG files are not the files of the past full of potential color shifts and artifacts. Modern JPEG are excellent files although I admit they have limitations. Make a good JPEG a TIFF and although it will be an 8 bits file now the file is lossless or work with a duplicate of the original and nothing will be lost.

You are right on, RAW data does not have an imbedded color profile. You are right on, Adobe RGB is not the best color space for a JPEG and you are right on when saying that printers in general, as far as I know, do far better with sRGB than with another color space. I do not know of a professional lab in the Miami area that prints Adobe or ProPhoto. That could be universal.

Modern RAW editors apply some adjustments on their own and although I do not know them all I am sure they apply some sharpness. Those are 16 bits files with lots of information that neither you nor I can see. What actually happens during compression to make the RAW data a JPEG I do not really know but the data goes now to a 8 bits and a compressed color space. Surely lots of information will be lost during that conversion.

As I said, modern JPEG are excellent files SOOC. Engineers and technicians have been working with JPEG files over the years and they are better than ever but it is not a file to keep making edits on it. As I said, they are well served using the sRGB color space when shooting them. I know professional photographers that use JPEG files exclusively, one of them is a famous wedding photographer of South Florida. Her business continues to prosper so her clients do seem to be very happy with her images.

RAW data has lots of information, we all know that. I use RAW data often and perhaps JPEG 10% of the time. I do not edit my JPEG files, perhaps to apply some minor extra sharpening and contrast but that is it. I save to TIFF 8 bits.
The controversy will still continue for some time Paul. I for sure cannot tell the difference in a majority of cases between an original JPEG and a JPEG from a RAW data.

You have posted very interesting and educational information and I thank you for it.

anotherview Loc: California

Good morning. Thanks for your technical presentation of which color space to use. I followed some of it.

So, what camera setting for color space do you recommend for a shooter who outputs his files in the RAW file format?

As to sRGB, this file format proves useful for display on monitors, so I understand. The user must select "No color management" when converting a file to sRGB in the Export converter. This setting ensures proper display of color as produced in Photoshop.

I look forward to your reply.

Edward Booth Loc: Riverview, Florida

Thank you for the post. It was very informative. You have convinced me to change back to sRGB. I always enjoy your posts. Keep them coming.

Edward Booth Loc: Riverview, Florida

Thank you for the post. It was very informative. You have convinced me to change back to sRGB. I always enjoy your posts. Keep them coming.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm not sure I follow (or agree) with all your comments about the editing colorspace and using PhotoShop. But, I don't use PS, so I can't point to specifically how to best use colorspace in this specific software.

On a more general level for the RAW shooter, if your digital editor supports ProPhotoRGB, that's what you should be using through your entire workflow until you output a digital file for online sharing (and probably too for printing). Those output files should be converted to sRGB, only into the edited output file. This is easily done in LR and similar tools that use the "export" paradigm to convert and save the image-edit instructions into a target output file.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks Edward! Explain 'why' (and why not) was the goal of today's post.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks William! Wait till I get my next argument honed to a fine point and attack TIFF too ...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Paul, if you keep attacking you will destroy our faith in digital.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Right on Paul!