canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => Technical Support => Topic started by: gunnar997 on October 20, 2012, 12:24:06 AM

Title: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: gunnar997 on October 20, 2012, 12:24:06 AM
I shoot for my University Yearbook and the publishing company recently requested that we begin shooting in AdobeRGB color space. I don't really understand what the difference in the 2 is and why they would have us change it, not that is difficult to change back and forth. I was just curious if anyone may know why they requested this or if Adobe color space has an advantage or something over sRGB?
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: bow26 on October 20, 2012, 01:50:07 AM
From what I have read and heard, Adobe RGB has a bigger color range and it is better suited for printing when compared to sRGB. On the other hand, sRGB is optimize for screen and web usage.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: MarkII on October 20, 2012, 02:31:17 AM
When you have (for example) a JPEG file, each pixel is characterised by 'red', 'green' and 'blue' numbers.

The colour-space defines how these numbers map to an actual colour - it is what allows you to determine that { 90, 90, 10 } represents a particular shade of 'burnt-yellow', for example. sRGB and AdobeRGB are just different ways of mapping those numbers to actual colours. AdobeRGB is a mapping that can encompassed a much broader range of colours - including colours that can not be represented in sRGB at all.

Every method you have for displaying your images will have some limitations on the colour space. For example, a printer may be limited by the ink colours that it has, and a monitor by the particular characteristics of its phosphor or LCD filters.

Generally, it is easier to display sRGB images - partly because the smaller range of colours means that more output format can show the image as you intended, and partly because for historical reasons sRGB is widely used. However, some output formats (or image processing software) may be able to use a broader range of colours than sRGB can represented - in which case using AdobeRGB is a better bet.

Note that if you shoot in RAW, the CR2 files have a colour space that is defined by the colour-filter array on the camera sensor - the broadest colour space possible, but specific to any given make/model of camera. However, when you process the RAW files you can choose to re-map this to sRGB, AdobeRGB or any other space that you choose.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: JohanL on October 20, 2012, 03:49:44 AM
Gunnar,

I am trying to attach an image that illustrates the difference. So if it does'nt work, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: JohanL on October 20, 2012, 03:59:48 AM
It worked! Here are two more colour spaces for information:
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: JohanL on October 20, 2012, 04:05:17 AM
Hmmmm! Did not work out the way I meant. Here is the other one:
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: Quasimodo on October 20, 2012, 05:17:25 AM
When you have (for example) a JPEG file, each pixel is characterised by 'red', 'green' and 'blue' numbers.

The colour-space defines how these numbers map to an actual colour - it is what allows you to determine that { 90, 90, 10 } represents a particular shade of 'burnt-yellow', for example. sRGB and AdobeRGB are just different ways of mapping those numbers to actual colours. AdobeRGB is a mapping that can encompassed a much broader range of colours - including colours that can not be represented in sRGB at all.

Every method you have for displaying your images will have some limitations on the colour space. For example, a printer may be limited by the ink colours that it has, and a monitor by the particular characteristics of its phosphor or LCD filters.

Generally, it is easier to display sRGB images - partly because the smaller range of colours means that more output format can show the image as you intended, and partly because for historical reasons sRGB is widely used. However, some output formats (or image processing software) may be able to use a broader range of colours than sRGB can represented - in which case using AdobeRGB is a better bet.

Note that if you shoot in RAW, the CR2 files have a colour space that is defined by the colour-filter array on the camera sensor - the broadest colour space possible, but specific to any given make/model of camera. However, when you process the RAW files you can choose to re-map this to sRGB, AdobeRGB or any other space that you choose.

Interesting. I always shoot in Raw exclusively on my 5D II and 1Ds III (are there differrences on these two sensors in what type of color they can receive in Raw on the sensor?). My main question is this: Would it not make sense to always shoot in AdobeRGB? As I understand it, you can always change the colorspace in post-processing in program such as CS or Lightroom, thus giving you the best, and enabling you to use it the way you want, as opposed to the opposite where you shoot in sRGB because you wanted to produce for web, and then find out that you would like to do more with the picture (apart from the extra space the AdobeRGB takes, which is not relevant for me)?

Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: Spooky on October 20, 2012, 05:56:08 AM
Shooting RAW gives you the full options in post so that gives you the most flexibility and future proofing options.

What is important to realise is that there is still only 255 steps between colours in either colour space (8bit jpeg), adobe rgb having more of a step between each colour. This is only important when you tweak the curves and potentially stretch and get banding in areas like sky. This is why capturing raw, converting to 16 bit depth and choosing srgb or adobe rgb to edit is best, choosing which one really depends on the final display (monitor or print).

Just my 2p!
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: Quasimodo on October 20, 2012, 06:34:37 AM
Shooting RAW gives you the full options in post so that gives you the most flexibility and future proofing options.

What is important to realise is that there is still only 255 steps between colours in either colour space (8bit jpeg), adobe rgb having more of a step between each colour. This is only important when you tweak the curves and potentially stretch and get banding in areas like sky. This is why capturing raw, converting to 16 bit depth and choosing srgb or adobe rgb to edit is best, choosing which one really depends on the final display (monitor or print).

Just my 2p!

So are you saying that it does not matter if my cameras are set on sRGB or AdobeRGB, because I am shooting in Raw? and that everything can be fixed in post? While opposed to Jpg. where the setting on the camera is more limiting wheter you have your camera set on sRGB or AdobeRGB?
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: PeterJ on October 20, 2012, 07:12:08 AM
So are you saying that it does not matter if my cameras are set on sRGB or AdobeRGB, because I am shooting in Raw? and that everything can be fixed in post? While opposed to Jpg. where the setting on the camera is more limiting wheter you have your camera set on sRGB or AdobeRGB?
That's how it works, a raw file doesn't have a color profile as such and you can also fix white balance later with raw. When I say "as such" the camera can still embed the camera settings that applications like LR will use by default, but changing it later doesn't have any implications.

I guess the easy way to think of it is that raw is a capture of what the camera sensor has captured at that point in time and all that will ever be available even in a 100 years. Meanwhile in that 100 years monitors and printers will probably have progressed much further and today's gamuts will be considered obsolete.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: Quasimodo on October 20, 2012, 09:34:23 AM
So are you saying that it does not matter if my cameras are set on sRGB or AdobeRGB, because I am shooting in Raw? and that everything can be fixed in post? While opposed to Jpg. where the setting on the camera is more limiting wheter you have your camera set on sRGB or AdobeRGB?
That's how it works, a raw file doesn't have a color profile as such and you can also fix white balance later with raw. When I say "as such" the camera can still embed the camera settings that applications like LR will use by default, but changing it later doesn't have any implications.

I guess the easy way to think of it is that raw is a capture of what the camera sensor has captured at that point in time and all that will ever be available even in a 100 years. Meanwhile in that 100 years monitors and printers will probably have progressed much further and today's gamuts will be considered obsolete.

Thank you:)
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: gunnar997 on October 21, 2012, 01:24:17 AM
Gunnar,

I am trying to attach an image that illustrates the difference. So if it does'nt work, I'm sorry.

i understand the 1st chart.. but what are 2nd and 3rd if you could expand a little more?

thank you everyone this helped very much!
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: PeterJ on October 21, 2012, 03:43:09 AM
i understand the 1st chart.. but what are 2nd and 3rd if you could expand a little more?
On the charts Johan posted the D50/D65 is for different sources of illumination. Check out the following page, I'd probably just stick with the introduction and table down the bottom unless your math is a lot better than mine :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant)
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: gunnar997 on October 21, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
I also would like to know if there is a newer AdobeRGB color space than 1998? that is what LR3 has so i just wanted to be sure it is the most recent best version? cause 1998 seems rather old.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: PeterJ on October 22, 2012, 02:24:06 AM
I also would like to know if there is a newer AdobeRGB color space than 1998? that is what LR3 has so i just wanted to be sure it is the most recent best version? cause 1998 seems rather old.
Just looked it's all that LR4.1 has, your question made me wonder but take a look at the reference here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space)

The AdobeRGB(1998) Specification, May 2005 (PDF). Seems they like to stick with the original release year even though there have been revisions since, although after a very quick look it looks like the revisions have only clarified things and not changed basic operation. Anyway don't forget it's dealing with changes in basic printing technology, I don't know a great deal about that area but can't remember reading about any amazing new processes any time recently. I'm guessing it was more about the era that digital typesetting became 'serious'.
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: Quasimodo on October 22, 2012, 01:26:14 PM
Thank you Mikael :)
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: wickidwombat on October 22, 2012, 07:50:18 PM
Is it really  difficult deep colors and shades it is better to work in ProPhoto color space and then proof the colors in to a smaller color space like Adobe RGB or S-rgb  and then convert.The profiles today has not the necessary data included for a conversion such as from ProPhoto to S-rgb shall be done  right

/quote]

I dont quite get what you are saying here can you clarify?
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: gunnar997 on October 22, 2012, 09:53:53 PM
So are you saying that it does not matter if my cameras are set on sRGB or AdobeRGB, because I am shooting in Raw? and that everything can be fixed in post? While opposed to Jpg. where the setting on the camera is more limiting wheter you have your camera set on sRGB or AdobeRGB?

Yes that is right, but remember that DPP reads meta data and color space from the camera if you have chosen so in DPP.
a setting you can turn off in DPP so you can select your own color space to work in .
The differences between Adobe RGB and s-rgb  are seen mainly in green,red and cyans
For a year book it does not matter if you choose to work in the color space Adobe RGB or s-rgb, the important thing is that the photos are tagged with Adobe RGB or s-rgb so that a CMYK conversion can be done right.
If the subject contains deep red and green colors and shades and these are  printed on glossy paper then Adobe RGB is preferable because of the  larger color space.

Is it really  difficult deep colors and shades it is better to work in ProPhoto color space and then proof the colors in to a smaller color space like Adobe RGB or S-rgb  and then convert.The profiles today has not the necessary data included for a conversion such as from ProPhoto to S-rgb shall be done  right

If you have any questions feel free to ask,this is my area






[/quote]

Well about 75 to 80% of my images contain pretty deep reds considering i attend the University of Arkansas and Cardinal is our main color.. also we do print on glossy paper at 400dpi.. not sure if the dpi could affect that but i figured it may since it will have more detail.. and based on my deduction more detail would mean more color detail?
Title: Re: Color Space: sRGB vs AdobeRGB
Post by: revup67 on November 14, 2012, 12:06:57 AM
Mikael--this is a great thread that was started here.  I've gained some additional insight on the viewing vs. printing.  I wish cameras had the ProPhoto RGB.

One other point I wish to add is making sure your monitor shares the same profile.  After buying a new Samsung 27" monitor yesterday I proceeded to install the drivers and was looking for calibration software of which this monitor did not come with.  In windows 7 however one can make various changes to match what they are shooting in their photos.  For Windows 7 users (and perhaps Win 8 and Vista) try this:  right click on the screen of your Win 7 PC and choose "screen resolution". There you should see the profile of your monitor listed (mine was a T27B350) in the display box. If not you may need to seek out your monitor's driver on the manufacturer web site or CD that came with the monitor, install then choose your model. Next Click Advanced Settings, Choose the Color Management Tab, make sure under the Device Tab your monitor is listed and highlighted. Now the fun begins, choose the Advanced Tab. Under Device Profile you can choose your monitor or you might choose sRGB or Adobe RGB. I left my camera to shoot in sRGB so I chose this vs. Adobe RGB. If your screen matches what your camera shot then the photos should be spot on. Under the ICC rendering these are personal choices but I set mine primarily to photography and Absolute Color Metric. Lastly, click the calibration button to completely fine tune your contrast, GAMMA, brightness etc. As final step you will see the Microsoft Clear Light wizard. When you are done your monitor should be spot on.
If I have left out anything or someone else wishes to comment please do so.