Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
SRGB or Adobe RGB
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Feb 13, 2013 07:32:45   #
crimesc324 Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida
 
I have my cameras set at RGB because I print more than post my photos

Reply
Feb 13, 2013 09:58:52   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
GrahamS wrote:
CaptainC wrote:

NO. You are confusing bit-depth with color space with brightness levels. No connection at all. I shoot sRGB, Process sRGB, and print sRGB. And I send 16-bit files to my Epson 3880.

Read this: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

The reason is that for portrait work, virtually all the colors that matter are well inside the sRGB space. If I did landscapes or wildlife, I would use AdobeRGB 1998.

It IS tough to keep it all straight. The sRGB vs. Adobe RGB has nothing to do with brightness - just color space - the ability to reproduce colors.

8-bit vs. 16-bit has to do with the how MANY colors can be produced: 8-bit is millions, 16-bit is trillions.

A raw file has no color space or bit depth until is is processed. In Adobe Camera Raw, down at the bottom of the page, is how you select what is going to be applied to that image when you click Open Image. THAT is when it becomes sRGB, AdobeRGB, 16-bit, or 8-bit. It is also where you choose the pixel resolution. In Lightroom it happens at Export.

I have no idea how other raw processors work, but it has to be something similar.
br NO. You are confusing bit-depth with color spa... (show quote)


Thank the Lord someone knows what he is talking about!

:thumbup:
quote=CaptainC br NO. You are confusing bit-dept... (show quote)


I agree. I admit I didn't spot it though.

Reply
Feb 13, 2013 10:10:59   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
crimesc324 wrote:
I have my cameras set at RGB because I print more than post my photos


I don't see the relevance of this. RGB isn't really an individual colour space, more a sort of generic type. There are several RGB colour spaces, including Adobe RGB (1998), sRGB, BruceRGB, and others which don't have RGB in the name. The standard inkjet printer acceppts RGB files, but it converts them internally. to CMYK in order to be able to print them. At one time, in the early days of digital methods, commercial printers working with offset machines required the photographer to supply them with CMYK files, although they seem to have adapted in more recent times and are willing to do the RGB/CMYK conversion.
GHK

Reply
 
 
Feb 14, 2013 09:46:46   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
my lab only takes sRGB, I guess that's what dictates it for me

Reply
Feb 14, 2013 12:37:50   #
runsthebitterroot Loc: Western Montana
 
I believe that there is something wrong with this graph. The range is probably the same in s or a, but the division of the range is more in aRBG. This may be proven when converting aRBG to sRBG.

Larry

Reply
Feb 14, 2013 14:50:37   #
photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga
 
the graph are shown in 2d, but in really 3d , perhaps that is why the difference

Reply
Feb 14, 2013 15:51:52   #
Rob48 Loc: Portland, ME
 
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Adobe RGB (aRGB) has the bigger color space- extended greens and blues, so if your printer can reproduce it, for landscapes, it's the way to go. For portraits, it probably won't make a difference, unless you are shooting Smurfs or the Green Lantern.

http://www.apnphotographyschool.com/working-spaces-srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/


I shoot in raw and do post capture editing in Photoshop;isn't Adobe rgb better in this instance?

Reply
 
 
Feb 14, 2013 16:05:55   #
CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver
 
Rob48 wrote:
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Adobe RGB (aRGB) has the bigger color space- extended greens and blues, so if your printer can reproduce it, for landscapes, it's the way to go. For portraits, it probably won't make a difference, unless you are shooting Smurfs or the Green Lantern.

http://www.apnphotographyschool.com/working-spaces-srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/


I shoot in raw and do post capture editing in Photoshop;isn't Adobe rgb better in this instance?


Like so many things, it all depends. You may have a monitor and printer that cannot even display/print more than sRGB.

As I mentioned earlier, I do lots of portrait work and all the important colors (flesh tones) are well within that sRGB space, so I shoot in raw, process in 16-bit Tiffs in sRGB, and I print in 16-bit TIFF sRGB for my Epson 3880 and send 8-bit sRGB JPEGs to my commercial printer.

Unless you have a monitor that is at LEAST $700.00+ and specifies that it can display the AdobeRGB 1998 color space, you are not even seeing it. The Eizo line and some of the NEC and Samsung monitors DO display Adobe RGB. But you need to verify which ones. They are $$$$.

I am on an new iMac, the display is perfectly calibrated and gorgeous...BUT it is only an sRGB monitor...works great for me.

For many people, AdobeRGB and certainly ProPhoto RGB is over rated and completely unnecessary. But if it makes you feel better, use it. You just won't be able to see the difference.

Reply
Feb 15, 2013 09:32:44   #
GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K
 
CaptainC wrote:
Rob48 wrote:
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Adobe RGB (aRGB) has the bigger color space- extended greens and blues, so if your printer can reproduce it, for landscapes, it's the way to go. For portraits, it probably won't make a difference, unless you are shooting Smurfs or the Green Lantern.

http://www.apnphotographyschool.com/working-spaces-srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/


I shoot in raw and do post capture editing in Photoshop;isn't Adobe rgb better in this instance?


Like so many things, it all depends. You may have a monitor and printer that cannot even display/print more than sRGB.

As I mentioned earlier, I do lots of portrait work and all the important colors (flesh tones) are well within that sRGB space, so I shoot in raw, process in 16-bit Tiffs in sRGB, and I print in 16-bit TIFF sRGB for my Epson 3880 and send 8-bit sRGB JPEGs to my commercial printer.

Unless you have a monitor that is at LEAST $700.00+ and specifies that it can display the AdobeRGB 1998 color space, you are not even seeing it. The Eizo line and some of the NEC and Samsung monitors DO display Adobe RGB. But you need to verify which ones. They are $$$$.

I am on an new iMac, the display is perfectly calibrated and gorgeous...BUT it is only an sRGB monitor...works great for me.

For many people, AdobeRGB and certainly ProPhoto RGB is over rated and completely unnecessary. But if it makes you feel better, use it. You just won't be able to see the difference.
quote=Rob48 quote=GoofyNewfie Adobe RGB (aRGB) h... (show quote)


:thumbup:

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.