5D3 for landscapes

[Kernuak]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

[briansquibb]

Like many of you on this forum I was petrified the results would suck, because let's face it, the 5D3 is just designed to be a landscape camera. The DR is too low to get any meaningful details from the shadows, and the resolution just doesn't give you the critical sharpness you need for large-format prints.
Landscape Designer VA

DR too low?

Large format prints are best served by large files - try doing a pano in portrait mode - 3 wide will give a seriously large detailed print.

[well_dunno]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

Perhaps a bit off topic but I came across this article some time ago -   http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

does anyone have experience with prophoto rgb? Any comments/tips?

Cheers!

[Kernuak]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

Perhaps a bit off topic but I came across this article some time ago -   http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

does anyone have experience with prophoto rgb? Any comments/tips?

Cheers!

I don't have any and haven't really kept up, but the last I heard, there were some possible compatibility issues or at least difficulties in actually displaying the full gamut. Pro Photo does have the widest colour gamut of the three though. Equally though, because it isn't an option in camera, I haven't tried it for that reason as well . Back to the old habits etc. again.

[wickidwombat]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

Perhaps a bit off topic but I came across this article some time ago -   http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

does anyone have experience with prophoto rgb? Any comments/tips?

Cheers!

lightroom uses prophoto rgb by default
its a working colour space not a delivery colour space
adobe RGB for that matter is not a delivery colour space either

if you are going to display images electronically it needs to be sRGB
if you are going to print at a commercial printer most likely sRGB since print has a smaller colour gammut anyway
specialist printers may have their own custom colour profile which you can load to export to
or if you do it all yourself then you colourmanage and calibrate all your stuff in house

but as far as in camera settings goes sRGB is the most appropriate because if you shoot straight to jpg you do it for a reason usually so you dont have to process it, if you want the most available gammut for processing then you shoot RAW and process the raw file
not adobe RGB jpg

[Kernuak]

I finally got to do some landscapes.


Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Floral Kilve Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pink Kilve Pill Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

[Razor2012]

I finally got to do some landscapes.


Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Floral Kilve Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pink Kilve Pill Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Nice shots, what lens did you use?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

Perhaps a bit off topic but I came across this article some time ago -   http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

does anyone have experience with prophoto rgb? Any comments/tips?

Cheers!

I set ACR and PS to use ProphotoRGB 16bit (LR automaticall gives you Melissa which is ProphotoRGB 16bit with a different internal TRC). No sense in clipping anything you don't have too. Even AdobeRGB will clip stuff, especially flowers and sometimes sunsets/fall foliage/etc.

[wickidwombat]

The 5Dmk3 is really good for landscapes too

[LetTheRightLensIn]

if you are going to display images electronically it needs to be sRGB

It doesn't have to be. Anyone using Firefox or Safari and with a wide gamut monitor might appreciate larger than sRGB images when needed. Sure google chrome or old versions of IE will make things look weird but anythng else these days handles it fine. When you need to make sure every last person will at least see it somewhat OK use sRGB but posting some wide gamut galleries isn't beyond bounds these days.

if you are going to print at a commercial printer most likely sRGB since print has a smaller colour gammut anyway
specialist printers may have their own custom colour profile which you can load to export to
or if you do it all yourself then you colourmanage and calibrate all your stuff in house

it depends many print houses expect sRGB but some don't and will take advantage of larger gamut files

but as far as in camera settings goes sRGB is the most appropriate because if you shoot straight to jpg you do it for a reason usually so you dont have to process it, if you want the most available gammut for processing then you shoot RAW and process the raw file
not adobe RGB jpg

OTOH AdobeRGB might make the histogram give you a bit better sense of what is going on for RAW though so you might want to set AdobeRGB (and some might want wider gamut jpgs for display too, although it's a waste at 8bit when shooting stuff that doesn't need more than sRGB)

[Kernuak]

I finally got to do some landscapes.


Curving Rock Shelf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Floral Kilve Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pink Kilve Pill Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Nice shots, what lens did you use?

Thanks, they were taken with the 24mm f/1.4 MkII and 2 and 3 stop Lee ND grads (the last may have had just the 3 stop).

[Aglet]

I set ACR and PS to use ProphotoRGB 16bit (LR automaticall gives you Melissa which is ProphotoRGB 16bit with a different internal TRC). No sense in clipping anything you don't have too. Even AdobeRGB will clip stuff, especially flowers and sometimes sunsets/fall foliage/etc.

I've seen that as well.
And Adobe RGB can be a delivery color space as some printer ink sets are now covering a wider gamut than sRGB.  Best to learn when to use it, sRGB is adequate for most images.

I sometimes wish I had one of the big Canon pro printers so I could try some 16bit/channel prints directly from DPP to maximize tonality and possibly gamut.  Anyone have experience with this method for extreme color like sunsets and highly saturated flower colors?