# Adobe RGB vs sRGB [I know you're probably sick of this...]



## macpro88 (May 18, 2012)

...but bare with me please. Researching I find mixed reviews (Ken Rockwell anyone?? lol), I'm sure I'll get them here as well, but hopefully I can get a better understanding if I describe my photography style/habits/etc...

First off, I will NOT being a ton of printing, maybe a few pieces here and there for personal use, but that's about it (is this the main reason to just skip Adobe RGB and shoot sRGB RAW?).

I shoot RAW, Canon 7D, process in Photoshop CS5.

Is it worth shooting Adobe RGB and then convert to sRBG if I am mostly going to be sharing pics on the web? In no way am I a pro and doing this as a full time job, it is more of a hobby for me, and all I want to do is just create art through photography to share with the online communities.

Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?

Thanks y'all!


----------



## Overread (May 18, 2012)

Far as I know colourspace isn't fixed for when you shoot RAW. In the RAW editor you can change the colourspace to any one you want. Also if you're not going to learn editing to a greater depth and if you're mostly only showing photos online and doing small time printing then sRGB is more than enough. 

No point having everything set to another colourspace if you're always converting it to sRGB and many printing labs request photos in sRGB anyway. Most of the advantage of other colourspaces are in editing, but you've really got to know what you're doing to actually make use of this.


----------



## MReid (May 18, 2012)

Do everything srgb.


----------



## ChristianGrattan (May 18, 2012)

macpro88 said:


> Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?
> 
> Thanks y'all!



A smidge yes, but it is a tricky thing to figure out. The bottom line is that the more you get into it the less it feels like science and the more it seems like voodoo.

I want to be helpful here so, I am trying to say, don't worry about it too much.

I would say shoot in adobe cause it is the bigger space.  You can't get that info back. It is super easy to change it to SRGB.  Make an action to open the file in SRBG and then make a droplet and keep it on your desktop. It is no extra work to open your shots in SRBG.  Keep the unedited files in adobe just in case.

The thing is that eventually, if you are printing a bunch, you will work your color loop out with the printer.  

For the screen, keep in mind that very few people actually have their monitor properly calibrated.  I went over to a buddy of mine's house, and calibrated his monitor for him.  He charges 5K per wedding.  If he does not have an accurately calibrated monitor then the chances that others do is slim. 

There are tons of tricks to get the correct white balance before you start shooting.  This could be helpful in your situation too.

Let me know if this made it clearer at all.


----------



## macpro88 (May 18, 2012)

Sweet, thanks for the input guys! I now have a better understanding of this.

Will play around with shooting Adobe RGB in RAW and see what happens, though just to play it safe I'll shoot sRBG RAW. We shall see.

Again thanks, I now have a better understanding!





Graystar said:


> As for Ken Rockwell, his AdobeRGB article is misleading.  I also find that his rambling style of writing puts me to sleep, and I recommend not reading anything he writes.



I agree on this lol I don't most of his stuff seriously. A good beginning insight I guess, but I know what's what and how to do better research than to just take one guy's "blog" and call it fact haha

Thanks again.


----------



## KmH (May 18, 2012)

Once again. Raw image data files have no color space. There is no Adobe RGB, or sRGB, in a Raw file.

Choosing one or the other of those settings in your camera menus, has zero effect on the Raw image data file.

However, your Raw converter application may develope the Raw image data file such that the file is developed 'as shot', but the color space can be changed to any other color space. 

Per the recommendations of many image editing experts, I do all of my Raw conversions and image editing in the ProPhoto RGB color space, and then as a near the last step, convert to the color space needed for output.

FWIW - *JPEG* is an acronym for *J*oint *P*hotography *E*xperts *G*roup. *TIFF* is an acronym for _*T*_agged *I*mage *F*ile *F*ormat.

Raw is not an acronym, which is why it's just Raw, and not RAW.


----------



## macpro88 (May 18, 2012)

Sweet, thanks KmH, you all are awesome.

Now, I can't wait to get off work...

I wanna play around with this.

Also, two new lens are coming today


----------



## Buckster (May 18, 2012)

KmH said:


> Raw is not an acronym, which is why it's just Raw, and not RAW.


Apparently, you didn't get the memo...

RAW is short for _*RAWR!!!*_  It's a technical photographic term which means "AWESOME"!!!  :thumbup:

_





You should see if there's a pill available to help you chill on your spelling/grammar OCD._


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 18, 2012)

ChristianGrattan said:


> macpro88 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I over thinking? Am I good to just shoot RAW in sRGB?
> ...



You want to come over and calibrate my monitor? please!


----------



## Imajize (May 18, 2012)

I mostly shoot for web, so I always shoot and export in sRGB.  If I shoot in RGB, then the colors get slightly changed when I export for web in sRGB.  It's a nightmare.  Shooting and editing in the same colorspace will keep everything good and consistent, especially since you'


----------



## Garbz (May 19, 2012)

I wrote a major post (rant?) about this a while ago in the discussion forum. Probably worth the read as it will explain what you gain for your extra complexity: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...prophoto-colour-management-general-worth.html

In summary: 
- AdobeRGB only makes sense if you have any way of outputting something in the format like nice prints or a wide gamut monitor.
- The improvement is so marginal that I don't even bother despite having a wide gamut monitor.
- AdobeRGB using an 8bit colour space (JPEGs) does more harm than good, so you need to up the bitdepth and then you have extra file space to deal with.
- Colour management is a HUGE pain the arse which can go wrong at a multitude of places for only a very minor gain.

Also if you shoot in RAW and edit in something like Lightroom then the whole editing process takes place in a wide colour space (MelissaRGB) anyway. The decision of what colour space to work with only happens at export. 
It sounds like you should really stick to sRGB


----------



## KmH (May 19, 2012)

Tutorials on Color Management & Printing


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2012)

Garbz said:


> I wrote a major post (rant?) about this a while ago in the discussion forum. Probably worth the read as it will explain what you gain for your extra complexity: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...prophoto-colour-management-general-worth.html
> 
> In summary:
> - AdobeRGB only makes sense if you have any way of outputting something in the format like nice prints or a wide gamut monitor.
> ...



^^^^^^What he said. Personally, I LIKE added complexity and arcane differentiation and  truly minimal nuance in all things I do, so I write my grocery lists in Latin and translate them at the last seconds on an as-needed basis. I also compute my estimated tax amounts in Euro, and then convert them to dollars at the last possible moment. And when I buy gasoline, I always insist on figuring out my prior tank's load of fuel efficiency in kilometres per litre, and then using a simple, easy conversion formula and my old Picket slide rule to convert that info (the *Adobe kilometres-per-litre*) into the newer, miles per gallon (*sRGB*) figure that 99 percent of other devices and people are expecting. I don't know WHY more people do not understand the true value of the added nuance of grocery lists in Latin, or the sheer beauty of the Euro, or the amazing feel and look of fuel efficency calculations done in litres and kilometres using a 1970's Picket slide rule!!! Geeze!!!


----------



## chuasam (May 19, 2012)

I use ProRGB but output to sRGB most of the time because that's why the average photolab uses.


----------



## macpro88 (May 19, 2012)

sweet, thanks guys for the added input.

and Derrel, you crack me up lol


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 20, 2012)

For me, there seems to be absolutely no reason to use Adobe RGB.  Printing labs won't accept it.  It doesn't display on most monitors.  It needs to be converted before publishing.  It also has a smaller gamut than the ProPhoto colorspace.

Basically, Adobe RGB is a middleground compromise that has all of the hassle and about 20% of the percieved benefits.  It is outdated and at this point, irrelevent.

For me, 99% of things I do is in sRGB.  For the atypical shot that exhibits banding or the color not being quite right, I will run it though in ProPhoto to see if that helps.  As far as Adobe RGB, I don't use it and I can't think of a reason anybody should.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 20, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > For me, there seems to be absolutely no reason to use Adobe RGB.  Printing labs won't accept it.
> ...



Based on that text, they also accept ProPhoto colorspace which is superior to Adobe RGB.

I didn't say there was no reason to use anything other than sRGB.  I said there was no reason to use Adobe RGB.  It has a more limited color gamut and contains all of the hassle that a broader colorspace has that is only a click away.  Adobe RGB is antiquated and irrelevent at this point.

Personally, there are only 4 color spaces that I use and here they are in order of use.... sRGB, LAB, CMYK, ProPhoto, and the other three are usually only temporary transitions so I can do something I need to do.  Output files are converted back to sRGB.


----------



## greybeard (May 20, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Graystar said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



This is how I am thinking on the whole color space thing.  My LR 3.6 doesn't recommend Adobe RGB as it can't reproduce all the colors available to Lightroom 3.6.  Adobe LightRoom recommends ProPhoto, so what is the point of Adobe RGB?


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 20, 2012)

greybeard said:


> This is how I am thinking on the whole color space thing.  My LR 3.6 doesn't recommend Adobe RGB as it can't reproduce all the colors available to Lightroom 3.6.  Adobe LightRoom recommends ProPhoto, so what is the point of Adobe RGB?



It's kind of like Blue-Ray vs HD DVD or VHS vs Betamax.  Some formats thrive and find a market.  Some become obsolete.  Adobe just continues to include Adobe RGB as an option.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 20, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Based on that text, they also accept ProPhoto colorspace which is superior to Adobe RGB.
> ...



Most printing labs will only accept sRGB.  Probably 95% of them.  The 5% that will accept an alternate color profile and actually know what to do with them can use ProPhoto just as well as they can Adobe RGB.

Adobe RGB is the odd man out.  In my opinion, it is a middleground that holds no value because it is a bad compromise between two better formats.


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2012)

Graystar said:


> I don't agree with your assessment that the improvement is marginal, nor that using Adobe RGB in an 8-bit space is problematic.



While the first part is subjective the latter part is not. 

It's true you do get some colours that appear out of gamut in nature, but in practice the improvement really is marginal in the sense that even if you display it perfectly you'd only really be able to notice in a side by side comparison. I've told people in the past, every wonderfully saturated and perfectly edited image they have ever seen floating around the internet has been sRGB, so if you want to take great photos you have much bigger things to worry about than your colour space. 
In a more practical case I have a monitor which covers 97% of the AdobeRGB gamut, I also edit in Lightroom which uses an internalised colour space called MelissaRGB which can cover every possible colour. Yet the reality is when I hit export I can't tell the difference in 99% of my photos. When I bump up the saturation I can't tell the difference in 98.9% of my photos either. Where I can tell the difference, the difference is again something only really relevant when viewed side by side and registers as a rounding error on my scale of worry compared to sharpness, noise, posterisation, and other things where people can tell the picture looks bad without something to compare it to. 

Some cases where I've noticed differences in gamut for final photos:
- The very centre of sunsets are more orange in AdobeRGB photos. 
- Green LEDs / Green Lasers look better in AdobeRGB photos. 
- I once (only once) took a photo of an ocean where I noticed an ever so slight desaturation in the cyans when I exported. The photos was shot with a polariser and had both saturation / vibrance turned up. (incase anyone is interested this is the pic here https://secure.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/4468465353/in/photostream)
Another case where you're likely to hit a limit is HDR work as the result usually contains quite a lot of artificial saturation. But then I think back to pictures like this https://secure.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2638890034/in/photostream which also look just fine. 

In general there are benefits. But they are ever so slight. 

As for the 8bit vs 16bit thing. That's just simple maths. An 8bit image pretty much only just covers the sRGB gamut as it is without causing posterisation. It's a simple fact that there's more than 16.7million colours within the AdobeRGB gamut with a deltaE greater than the noticeable difference the human eye can see. There's a double whamy of badness because AdobeRGB primarily pushes the green end of the spectrum of which the human eye is most sensitive to visible changes. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at about greyscale images, but remember a colour image is just 3 greyscale images, and the bitdepth is both an issue and highly field relevant in colour images.


----------



## Helen B (May 23, 2012)

I use Adobe RGB for printing. Here are some reasons, in no particular order:

It's not exactly difficult to use Adobe RGB, not even slightly difficult;
Adobe RGB is a better match to most printer gamuts than sRGB or ProPhoto (which is much bigger);
If I do the printing on an inkjet printer, the quality of the workprints are judged, not the image on the monitor;
I know, from the use of ColorThink Pro, that many of my images have colours that are not in sRGB but are in both Adobe RGB and the printer gamut; and
All the printing companies I use either accept or ask for Adobe RGB, including the large web offset company that prints my commercial work who will only accept 8-bit Adobe RGB.



8-bit or 16-bit?
I work in high bit, but _may_ prepare the final output for print in 8-bit.
Not all printer drivers will handle 16-bit (though many now do). If the driver will use 16-bit, then why not use it?
The visible differences between 8-bit and 16-bit colour images are usually very small - remember that Adobe RGB does not get printed to an Adobe RGB space - the black and white points (and therefore the difference between them) are set by the printer/ink and paper respectively. Printing in 16-bit is most likely to be beneficial with greyscale images that will be printed on glossy paper with ink that produces a high density range.

What's right for me isn't going to be right for everybody - no need to say that, of course.


----------



## CCericola (May 23, 2012)




----------



## epatsellis (May 26, 2012)

I have many of the same issues as Helen, shooting for repro, but since the majority of my work is transitioning to in-house printing and fine art reproduction, and the Canon 8300 has such a wide gamut, I use ProPhoto. The differences aren't always readily visible on screen, but in print they are drastically different, especially when going from sRGB to ProPhoto. Granted, not everyone is willing (or cares) to get the last iota of performance that their equipment is capable of, nor do many here use a scanback on a 4x5, but for those of us that are, the extra work is well worth it.


----------

