The in-camera color space choice is for JPEG images only. If you're shooting in RAW format, then you assign the color space in your RAW converter after the fact.
AdobeRGB has a wider color gamut than sRGB, so that's what I choose in Adobe Camera Raw. I save my master and print files in this color space and only convert to sRGB color space for images destined for the Web.
John explained the issue for jpegs. I have my camera set to Adobe RGB. I use LightRoom and CS6. My RAW's all are ProPhoto color space which is even wider than Adobe RGB. While most devices today can't display the full spectrum of colors that ProPhoto offers, why throw out that color information when in a few years, we will likely have that technology at our fingertips.
Just as John and Keith do, all my work is in a wide-gamut space (Adobe RGB in my case). I also work with 16-bit files, converting to 8-bit for printing and for the Web. Images bound for the Web are saved with sRGB imbedded in the jpeg file.
You can Google for color gamut plots that will show you how the various color spaces handle color.
Posted by Rick Turner on July 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Thanks for the replies.
This helps me better understand what I have been reading.
So shooting in RAW as John suggest and I always do, setting camera menu srgb, adobe rgb does not.
Are these settings appropriate for Lightroom 5.
Posted by Greg Vaughn on July 17, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Hi Rick,
I would recommend that you change that setting in your LR preferences to ProPhoto RGB. When initially processing your images to produce a master file you want the widest possible gamut of colors - even if current monitor and printer technology can't reproduce all of them. Once you're satisfied with the work on the master file, you can make a copy of it and change the color space to Adobe RGB (for most printers) or sRGB (for any electronic display and some commercial print shops), and convert to 8bits.
As others have pointed out, if you shoot RAW, the in-camera setting for color space doesn't matter. However, you may find it preferable to have your camera set for sRGB. If it is set for AdobeRGB, the image on the camera LCD may look flat and lacking vibrancy, and not what you're actually seeing or want to capture. The sRGB setting on most cameras will render a slightly snappier, more colorful image on the LCD, and closer to what you're experiencing.
Colorspace and rendering intent and bit depth and bears oh my!
Very good suggestions here, and if I may I just want to calrify a couple points and offer something to think on with the future in mind.
Like John said, raw files aren't in any color space, that gets applied when you open them with ACR or LR (which is mainly the same ACR code). Therefore, you ALWAYS want to open raw in the biggest container possible, then squish it down later for output if you absolutely have to. Definitely heed the suggestion to open raw files in 16 bit ProPhotoRGB, always always always. Reason is, the output of web or print or whatever doesn't come into play yet, you just want to make sure you have all of your cake ingredients in the biggest bowl possible, hence, 16 bit ProPhotoRGB. I set my Canon on 5D Mark Whatever on AdobeRGB but that and Picture Styles are for JPEG and video output, raw data is the 1's and 0's off of the sensor (and some other metadata of course), so what you pick when opening raw files is what gets applied. JSYK, your camera shoots 14-bit and a 16-bit image file is actually 15 bits with 1 bit for other uses, but nonetheless, the amountg of data in the 14/15 model is enormously better than any compressed 8-bit thing.
OK, in 14/15 bit you now can hammer has hard as is allowable with edits and corrections and whatever else. When done, save that as is, don't change color space or bit depth. It's your master file, keep it as robust as possible. Here's why:
WEB OUTPUT: I think we all know that web browsers are sRGB, that's the standard, so you're going to have to convert your beautiful image to sRGB and destroy all of the reds because the world will see your image through sRGB glasses, that's just how it goes. And because we save things as JPEG for a small filesize for the web, you automatically get your image stuffed down into an 8-bit container called a JPEG because that's all JPEGs can handle (I know, you all know that, lol). Being that most people use standard 6-bit TFT LCD monitors in the world, that'll do fine. It has to, not many choices yet. Some may argue that it's better to edit in sRGB because all they do is web-based stuff. a better workflow may be to edit in your widest matrix of image data, then taylor your output file to the needs at that moment. This allows you to still output a wide-gamut 16-bit image for other reasons (see next paragraph).
PRINTING: I used to read so many times that photographers "create a high-res 8-bit JPEG for printing" and I used to cringe, because I used to think, what if printing capability expands? Well, it has. At least with Canon printers, Epson has not gotten the memo yet evidently, but they will, because this is the next level of printing capability and it's already on us. For example, Canon provides its straight 8-bit print drivers for its printers, then also provides a second add-on driver called an XPS driver which supports UP TO 16-bit printing. Before I explain what that means, I will say that 16-bit printing with XPS drivers on my Pixma Pro9500 MKII and Pro-100 printers is truly way better than straight 8 bit printing. I get NO BANDING in the skies with 16-bit; 8-bit is not great, definitely noticable. How it works: If you have a Mac, great, print and be happy, Macs support 16 bit printing natively. Windows 7 & 8 do not natively, but they do provide a "tunnel" to get 16-bit print data to a capable printer, if, and only if the printer manufacturer takes the time to write the drivers that utilize the tunnel provided by Microsoft in Win 7 and Win 8. That's what Canon has done with their XPS drivers, and the results are outrageous. Epson has NOT, at least the last time I checked. They will have to eventually. Also, Windows XP does not do 16 bit printing at all, one more reason I want every photographer on the face of the earth to ditch XP as fast as humanly possible and get on Win 7 or 8. ANYWAY, when you print 16-bit, it's really a 14 bit image as you know, but still immensely more data going to the printer by three orders of magnitude. Eventually all printers and OS's will support 16 bit, so you need to have a master file with all of that data available. You may have 8-bit image files saved now and that's fine, but for the future, you'll want to redo them as 16, so by having the master file in the widest color space at 16 bit is a great place to be. Editing and printing with 16 bit ProPhotoRGB is one of our best options to preserve image data right now, IMO. LR and Photoshop handle that with ease once you set it up correctly. That's a whole other post right there, lol.
I realize that 80% of my answer focused on bit depth and not colorspace, but the two go hand-in-hand because choosing a lesser format for your master file means data destruction, the very thing we want to avoid. I also just remembered that Alain Briot has a series on printing and master files, and I realize I've used that term throughout this post. I've not gotten the chance to go through his course on that, so if I've misused that term versus how Alain teaches it, go with his definition, not mine! (small disclaimer there )
Agree with Greg Vaughn. I too keep sRGB on Camera so that images look as expected on screen too ( since I shoot RAW only). If I was shooting jpg, I would have kept Adobe 1998, since color space gets kind of attached to it. So my suggestion is:
If shooting jpg, keep Adobe 1998 color space on camera
If shooting RAW, keep sRGB on camera & open in Pro-Photo when editing in raw processing software and finally "convert to Profile" (sRGB for web and some printing).
Also as I know camera screens only show sRGB and most low cost monitors too. High end IPS monitors do show Adobe 1998 color space.
High end IPS monitors do show Adobe 1998 color space.
The higher end Eizo, NEC, and Samsung screens with IPS panels can display 96-98% of Adobe RGB. However, I want to point out that it's a misconception that all IPS panels will do this. Some reviews I've read, where color gamut tests are performed, show that actual color gamut is 70-76% Adobe RGB.
So, if one is looking to obtain a IPS screen, look closely at the specs. Also, the higher end monitors have 10 bit or 16 bit LUT, but in order to take advantage of this, your video card and driver must have 10 bit support.
Discussion
11 repliesImporting in lr 5 in srgb or rgb.
I remain confused on this issue.
thanks in advance
Rick
AdobeRGB has a wider color gamut than sRGB, so that's what I choose in Adobe Camera Raw. I save my master and print files in this color space and only convert to sRGB color space for images destined for the Web.
You can Google for color gamut plots that will show you how the various color spaces handle color.
Here's one: Various Color Gamuts
--P
This helps me better understand what I have been reading.
So shooting in RAW as John suggest and I always do, setting camera menu srgb, adobe rgb does not.
Are these settings appropriate for Lightroom 5.
I would recommend that you change that setting in your LR preferences to ProPhoto RGB. When initially processing your images to produce a master file you want the widest possible gamut of colors - even if current monitor and printer technology can't reproduce all of them. Once you're satisfied with the work on the master file, you can make a copy of it and change the color space to Adobe RGB (for most printers) or sRGB (for any electronic display and some commercial print shops), and convert to 8bits.
As others have pointed out, if you shoot RAW, the in-camera setting for color space doesn't matter. However, you may find it preferable to have your camera set for sRGB. If it is set for AdobeRGB, the image on the camera LCD may look flat and lacking vibrancy, and not what you're actually seeing or want to capture. The sRGB setting on most cameras will render a slightly snappier, more colorful image on the LCD, and closer to what you're experiencing.
The choices you have circled in your screenshot are both sRGB, and you should choose either AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB as has been suggested.
Thanks for the replies. This helps
If you included an image to your post above, I'm not seeing it--just a lot of empty space.
--P
Very good suggestions here, and if I may I just want to calrify a couple points and offer something to think on with the future in mind.
Like John said, raw files aren't in any color space, that gets applied when you open them with ACR or LR (which is mainly the same ACR code). Therefore, you ALWAYS want to open raw in the biggest container possible, then squish it down later for output if you absolutely have to. Definitely heed the suggestion to open raw files in 16 bit ProPhotoRGB, always always always. Reason is, the output of web or print or whatever doesn't come into play yet, you just want to make sure you have all of your cake ingredients in the biggest bowl possible, hence, 16 bit ProPhotoRGB. I set my Canon on 5D Mark Whatever on AdobeRGB but that and Picture Styles are for JPEG and video output, raw data is the 1's and 0's off of the sensor (and some other metadata of course), so what you pick when opening raw files is what gets applied. JSYK, your camera shoots 14-bit and a 16-bit image file is actually 15 bits with 1 bit for other uses, but nonetheless, the amountg of data in the 14/15 model is enormously better than any compressed 8-bit thing.
OK, in 14/15 bit you now can hammer has hard as is allowable with edits and corrections and whatever else. When done, save that as is, don't change color space or bit depth. It's your master file, keep it as robust as possible. Here's why:
WEB OUTPUT: I think we all know that web browsers are sRGB, that's the standard, so you're going to have to convert your beautiful image to sRGB and destroy all of the reds because the world will see your image through sRGB glasses, that's just how it goes. And because we save things as JPEG for a small filesize for the web, you automatically get your image stuffed down into an 8-bit container called a JPEG because that's all JPEGs can handle (I know, you all know that, lol). Being that most people use standard 6-bit TFT LCD monitors in the world, that'll do fine. It has to, not many choices yet. Some may argue that it's better to edit in sRGB because all they do is web-based stuff. a better workflow may be to edit in your widest matrix of image data, then taylor your output file to the needs at that moment. This allows you to still output a wide-gamut 16-bit image for other reasons (see next paragraph).
PRINTING: I used to read so many times that photographers "create a high-res 8-bit JPEG for printing" and I used to cringe, because I used to think, what if printing capability expands? Well, it has. At least with Canon printers, Epson has not gotten the memo yet evidently, but they will, because this is the next level of printing capability and it's already on us. For example, Canon provides its straight 8-bit print drivers for its printers, then also provides a second add-on driver called an XPS driver which supports UP TO 16-bit printing. Before I explain what that means, I will say that 16-bit printing with XPS drivers on my Pixma Pro9500 MKII and Pro-100 printers is truly way better than straight 8 bit printing. I get NO BANDING in the skies with 16-bit; 8-bit is not great, definitely noticable. How it works: If you have a Mac, great, print and be happy, Macs support 16 bit printing natively. Windows 7 & 8 do not natively, but they do provide a "tunnel" to get 16-bit print data to a capable printer, if, and only if the printer manufacturer takes the time to write the drivers that utilize the tunnel provided by Microsoft in Win 7 and Win 8. That's what Canon has done with their XPS drivers, and the results are outrageous. Epson has NOT, at least the last time I checked. They will have to eventually. Also, Windows XP does not do 16 bit printing at all, one more reason I want every photographer on the face of the earth to ditch XP as fast as humanly possible and get on Win 7 or 8. ANYWAY, when you print 16-bit, it's really a 14 bit image as you know, but still immensely more data going to the printer by three orders of magnitude. Eventually all printers and OS's will support 16 bit, so you need to have a master file with all of that data available. You may have 8-bit image files saved now and that's fine, but for the future, you'll want to redo them as 16, so by having the master file in the widest color space at 16 bit is a great place to be. Editing and printing with 16 bit ProPhotoRGB is one of our best options to preserve image data right now, IMO. LR and Photoshop handle that with ease once you set it up correctly. That's a whole other post right there, lol.
I realize that 80% of my answer focused on bit depth and not colorspace, but the two go hand-in-hand because choosing a lesser format for your master file means data destruction, the very thing we want to avoid. I also just remembered that Alain Briot has a series on printing and master files, and I realize I've used that term throughout this post. I've not gotten the chance to go through his course on that, so if I've misused that term versus how Alain teaches it, go with his definition, not mine! (small disclaimer there
If shooting jpg, keep Adobe 1998 color space on camera
If shooting RAW, keep sRGB on camera & open in Pro-Photo when editing in raw processing software and finally "convert to Profile" (sRGB for web and some printing).
Also as I know camera screens only show sRGB and most low cost monitors too. High end IPS monitors do show Adobe 1998 color space.
Thanks Paul DeCesare, nice reading
The higher end Eizo, NEC, and Samsung screens with IPS panels can display 96-98% of Adobe RGB. However, I want to point out that it's a misconception that all IPS panels will do this. Some reviews I've read, where color gamut tests are performed, show that actual color gamut is 70-76% Adobe RGB.
So, if one is looking to obtain a IPS screen, look closely at the specs. Also, the higher end monitors have 10 bit or 16 bit LUT, but in order to take advantage of this, your video card and driver must have 10 bit support.
--P