My reading indicates that, ultimately, the "larger" color space of AdobeRGB will allow a "better" color expression than sRGB whether shooting RAW or JPEG.
In the real world I've never been able to tell a difference between the two, even on 8.2 Mp sensor prints shot in RAW and interpolated to 20x30 inches.
Anyone else? Am I wrong about that?
Posted by Paul Burwell on July 14, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Benjamin,
It does not matter what the camera is set to if you are shooting RAW. You can set the color space, without any fear of degredation in whatever RAW processing software you use, when you process your images.
As Paul said the color space is applied when the RAW file is converted to a JPEG or other format. This is from a discussion at http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw3/raw3.htm
"This is where raw gains another advantage. The raw file has not had a color space assigned to it. Rather, this generally occurs at the time of the conversion. Thus, shooting in raw provides color space flexibility. The photographer can choose the color space that best matches the color space of the device that will be used to present the image. This is especially advantageous when the photograph will be used with more than one output device. In this case, the photographer can perform a separate conversion for each application, individually selecting the color space for each use."
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 14, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Yes, to everything above.
Steve, for nature photography, you will almost never see a situation where you can tell the difference between the colorspaces. You really need to be near the edges of the color gamut to see something and in the outdoors, you'll be talking about a few small pixel clumps here and there, at worst. The slight color shift will never register with your brain anyway.
If you are shooting in the studio, where color accuracy is absolutely critical, then yes, you *might* run across situations where it is an issue. The quote given in the above reply explains why - it will depend on the output method used.
My preference is to use Adobe RGB. It won't hurt anything, at least anything I'll ever shoot.
Posted by David Bostedo on July 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Dan - I'd disagree if you're talking about sRGB. I've definitely seen a few images that have colors outside of the sRGB gamut. If you do gamut warnings on a fairly highly saturated Adobe RGB image, and look at warnings outside of sRGB, it's not that hard to get colors out of gamut.
Now if you're talking about Adobe RGB vs. Pro Photo or some other large space, then that's probably true.
I agree with David. While I generally save an image after conversion in ProPhoto Color Space I also routinely check for out of gamut colors prior to printing. Of course, many ProPhoto images need to be converted to Adobe RGB, but sRGB just doesn't have enough range to fill the complete color space my Pixma Pro 9500 printer can handle. Yes, much less out of gamut situations with sRGB, but also much less color gradations and less smooth color transitions. We also have the situation where printers will be better and better at printing wider gamuts. So saving in the highest color space available will allow us to take advvantage of this improvement without reprocessing the image
The only time I use sRGB is for web images. My prints all made from files using the Adobe RGB color space.
-P
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 15, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Hmmm, I'll have to take a look at some of my images. I've never really noticed the difference, but Velvia aside, most of my colors aren't too saturated.
I know you can easily get to out of gamut warnings with man-made colors, especially studio and product work, and I have seen it there moderately often, but that is a direction I generally don't go.
So saving in the highest color space available will allow us to take advantage of (future) improvement(s) without reprocessing the image
Amen to that!
That's why I save all of my processed RAW master files unsharpened and in the largest color gamut possible.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Yikes!!!! I just looked at a zinnia I shot earlier this evening that had colors which were unreal (I'll get a post of it in the floral gallery tonight or tomorrow). It was pretty much one gigantic out of sRGB gamut warning with a few stray bits of the actual image okay.
Discussion
12 repliesIn the real world I've never been able to tell a difference between the two, even on 8.2 Mp sensor prints shot in RAW and interpolated to 20x30 inches.
Anyone else? Am I wrong about that?
It does not matter what the camera is set to if you are shooting RAW. You can set the color space, without any fear of degredation in whatever RAW processing software you use, when you process your images.
Best regards,
"This is where raw gains another advantage. The raw file has not had a color space assigned to it. Rather, this generally occurs at the time of the conversion. Thus, shooting in raw provides color space flexibility. The photographer can choose the color space that best matches the color space of the device that will be used to present the image. This is especially advantageous when the photograph will be used with more than one output device. In this case, the photographer can perform a separate conversion for each application, individually selecting the color space for each use."
Steve, for nature photography, you will almost never see a situation where you can tell the difference between the colorspaces. You really need to be near the edges of the color gamut to see something and in the outdoors, you'll be talking about a few small pixel clumps here and there, at worst. The slight color shift will never register with your brain anyway.
If you are shooting in the studio, where color accuracy is absolutely critical, then yes, you *might* run across situations where it is an issue. The quote given in the above reply explains why - it will depend on the output method used.
My preference is to use Adobe RGB. It won't hurt anything, at least anything I'll ever shoot.
Dan, your perspective was especially helpful.
Now if you're talking about Adobe RGB vs. Pro Photo or some other large space, then that's probably true.
-P
I know you can easily get to out of gamut warnings with man-made colors, especially studio and product work, and I have seen it there moderately often, but that is a direction I generally don't go.
Amen to that!
That's why I save all of my processed RAW master files unsharpened and in the largest color gamut possible.
David, thanks for bringing it to my attention!
(edit: here is the zinnia
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=101900&CGISESSID=43c374fd94aeeb9877963b99c1cf3cb3&u=31879 )