The cause of my endless doubt when editing a photo in PS lays in two opposite rules: 1. Adobe RGB is the best working space for all the process from camera to final output but it must be converted to sRGB before printing or posting. 2. The conversion is always a bad thing.
So is it better: 1. To act how most persons do, working in Adobe RGB and converting at the end or 2. To use sRGB for all the process avoiding the conversion at its end. In this case I would work in PS always seeing the image as it will appear in the print or web (almost)?. What is it the best think to do for practical effects?
Thanks very much for the help.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on September 25, 2007 at 9:32 AM
You don't have to convert from aRGB to print if you are doing it on your own printer. That comes into play when you send a print out or want to display it on the web. It takes experimentation on difficult prints to figure out what is going to work best for you.
But at the same time, at a given bit depth, sRGB colors are actually closer together resulting in more even transition between shades at the cost of reduced gamut. So under some conditions, especially neutral tones, sRGB may be a better editing workspace. Under wide ranging colors, aRGB or ProPhoto may be a better working space.
Just my thoughts.
Because I have been sending out snapshots in sRGB right now, I'm using an sRGB workflow. It just makes life easier. When I switch to making prints in a couple months, I might switch to an aRGB workflow for a while, especially if I am working on some prints that I'm having trouble with.
Mel-
Posted by Lance Warley on September 25, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Gigi, sadly I have nothing to offer you on this subject, but I just wanted to say that I luv the fact that you referenced Shakespeare.
If you're sending out the files for printing, it is important consult with the lab. The three labs we use for prints and other products from our studio are very specific, not only in their recommendations on camera settings, but also for monitor calibration and workflow. That's for portrait work, but I have to imagine that any high end lab will have a set of recommendations for settings regardless of the subject matter in a print.
There's lots in print and on the web about printing your own. Haven't followed through, but one printer I respect a lot has high praise for this source.
Posted by PHEROLD on September 25, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Gigi, here is a link to a brief overview of the different "camps" that people fall into: www.colorwiki.com
Readers of this forum are most likely wanting to retain the most color in their photographs. So the reason for using a larger working space is to be able to do that. Many home inkjet printers have a significantly larger color gamut than do offset printers, or laser printers using silver halide paper. So a lot depends on where you are going to get your images printed, today and ten years from now. Keep in mind that technology changes, and the ability to get more color out of printers will likely improve dramatically over time. Keeping your images in a larger space than you need right now might come in very handy someday. Even today, there are colors you cannot see on your monitor (saturated cyans and greens) that can be captured by your camera, and printed by many printers - but those will not be available to your printer if converted to sRGB.
Oh, Darn. Now you've gone and got me started...
Anyway, conversion is not always a bad thing. The ability to convert from one colorspace to another exists, and should not be used without thinking, but should be used to good purpose.
Thanks for your answers. I have found very interesting the article published by colorwiki. My doubt is now less Hamlet-like. I am near to the solution.
Thanks again.
Discussion
5 repliesSo is it better: 1. To act how most persons do, working in Adobe RGB and converting at the end or 2. To use sRGB for all the process avoiding the conversion at its end. In this case I would work in PS always seeing the image as it will appear in the print or web (almost)?. What is it the best think to do for practical effects?
Thanks very much for the help.
But at the same time, at a given bit depth, sRGB colors are actually closer together resulting in more even transition between shades at the cost of reduced gamut. So under some conditions, especially neutral tones, sRGB may be a better editing workspace. Under wide ranging colors, aRGB or ProPhoto may be a better working space.
Just my thoughts.
Because I have been sending out snapshots in sRGB right now, I'm using an sRGB workflow. It just makes life easier. When I switch to making prints in a couple months, I might switch to an aRGB workflow for a while, especially if I am working on some prints that I'm having trouble with.
Mel-
Doesn't happen in NPN every day.
If you're sending out the files for printing, it is important consult with the lab. The three labs we use for prints and other products from our studio are very specific, not only in their recommendations on camera settings, but also for monitor calibration and workflow. That's for portrait work, but I have to imagine that any high end lab will have a set of recommendations for settings regardless of the subject matter in a print.
There's lots in print and on the web about printing your own. Haven't followed through, but one printer I respect a lot has high praise for this source.
www.colorwiki.com
Readers of this forum are most likely wanting to retain the most color in their photographs. So the reason for using a larger working space is to be able to do that. Many home inkjet printers have a significantly larger color gamut than do offset printers, or laser printers using silver halide paper. So a lot depends on where you are going to get your images printed, today and ten years from now. Keep in mind that technology changes, and the ability to get more color out of printers will likely improve dramatically over time. Keeping your images in a larger space than you need right now might come in very handy someday. Even today, there are colors you cannot see on your monitor (saturated cyans and greens) that can be captured by your camera, and printed by many printers - but those will not be available to your printer if converted to sRGB.
Oh, Darn. Now you've gone and got me started...
Anyway, conversion is not always a bad thing. The ability to convert from one colorspace to another exists, and should not be used without thinking, but should be used to good purpose.
Thanks again.