In my RAW converter I go under 'Adjustments" and change the color space from sRGB to Adobe, but when I look at the Metadata in the file info for the image it says:
If I understand color spaces correctly, Adobe RGB is a larger color space than sRGB, meaning it has a larger gamut. The main difference is in the extended cyans, greens, magentas and oranges possible with AdobeRGB that are not possible with sRGB. If you have recorded your image with sRGB and those colors are present in the scene, but clipped by the color space, there will be no benefit to converting to AdobeRGB.
It seems to make sense to use AdobeRGB throughout the workflow, and only convert to sRGB for those images that will be displayed on computer screens, which typcially are 8 bit (or less) devices - this is the reason sRGB was developed as a standard working color space. If you are going to print your images, you'll want to take advantage of the greater gamut possible with the newer printers, or if you are going to publication where CMYK process is used - in each case, the color space will be richer and larger.
If your image does not have those colors to begin with, it really doesn't matter - either space will work just fine. I typically shoot and process in AdobeRGB, then do the conversion (if necessary) at the end, just before downsizing for the web. If I am printing, I leave the image in AdobeRGB and save the image as a 16 bit TIFF or PNG file.
If you have recorded your image with sRGB and those colors are present in the scene, but clipped by the color space, there will be no benefit to converting to AdobeRGB.
RAW files (which Joshua captured according to his post) have no color space.
I don't think so, Preston.
RAW data is a grayscale data. Rendering/encoding that data into a color space is the job of the RAW converter, either via the camera itself or a software utility.
John and Walter: Thanks. That helps my understanding.
So, if RAW files have no color space, then one should be able to convert the file in a suitable converter and assign any color space to it they desire. Correct?
In Josh's case, if Adobe RGB is available in his RAW converter, he should be able to assign it to his converted file. Even if the metadata shows the colorspace as 'uncalibrated' Adobe RGB should be the imbedded profile when the file is opened in PS. If it is not, then my original suggestion would appear to be the way to go.
So, if RAW files have no color space, then one should be able to convert the file in a suitable converter and assign any color space to it they desire. Correct?
Yep...that's correct. I'd check the settings in the RAW converter again, since there should be one where you tell it what color space to assign.
In Josh's case, if Adobe RGB is available in his RAW converter, he should be able to assign it to his converted file. Even if the metadata shows the colorspace as 'uncalibrated' Adobe RGB should be the imbedded profile when the file is opened in PS. If it is not, then my original suggestion would appear to be the way to go.
Exactly.
Your original advice was indeed correct.
I was hoping he would mention which converter he uses that leaves an 'uncalibrated' tag for ARGB. Something doesn't sound right.
Discussion
9 repliesColorspace: uncalibrated
where as before it would say:
Colorspace: sRGB
Any help???
BTW, I shoot Canon and use CS2.
After converting the RAW file, go to Edit>Convert to Profile and select Adobe RGB. Your metadata should reflect the new colorspace.
-PB
It seems to make sense to use AdobeRGB throughout the workflow, and only convert to sRGB for those images that will be displayed on computer screens, which typcially are 8 bit (or less) devices - this is the reason sRGB was developed as a standard working color space. If you are going to print your images, you'll want to take advantage of the greater gamut possible with the newer printers, or if you are going to publication where CMYK process is used - in each case, the color space will be richer and larger.
If your image does not have those colors to begin with, it really doesn't matter - either space will work just fine. I typically shoot and process in AdobeRGB, then do the conversion (if necessary) at the end, just before downsizing for the web. If I am printing, I leave the image in AdobeRGB and save the image as a 16 bit TIFF or PNG file.
RAW files (which Joshua captured according to his post) have no color space.
Wouldn't a RAW file have to have some kind of colorspace/gamut that would be converted to a useable colorspace such as Adobe RGB?
Just curious.
-PB
RAW data is a grayscale data. Rendering/encoding that data into a color space is the job of the RAW converter, either via the camera itself or a software utility.
So, if RAW files have no color space, then one should be able to convert the file in a suitable converter and assign any color space to it they desire. Correct?
In Josh's case, if Adobe RGB is available in his RAW converter, he should be able to assign it to his converted file. Even if the metadata shows the colorspace as 'uncalibrated' Adobe RGB should be the imbedded profile when the file is opened in PS. If it is not, then my original suggestion would appear to be the way to go.
-PB
Yep...that's correct. I'd check the settings in the RAW converter again, since there should be one where you tell it what color space to assign.
Exactly.
Your original advice was indeed correct.
I was hoping he would mention which converter he uses that leaves an 'uncalibrated' tag for ARGB. Something doesn't sound right.