Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????

[kat.hayes]

I am new to using my 5DM3 and realized that I had it set to sRGB after taking lots of photos.

1. Does it come set by default to sRGB and if so why?
2. I understand that it does not have as large a color gamut as Adobe RGB, though for head shots and non botanical photos, can you really tell the difference?

Thanks.

 

[Sella174]

If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB. The web runs on sRGB. Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.

 

[Jane]

If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB. The web runs on sRGB. Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.

+1

Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.

 

[Sella174]

Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.

I bought my first DSLR secondhand and just couldn't figure out why the stupid thing kept using an underscore for the first character. ;D

 

[Marsu42]

If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

Not quite:
1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation
2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.

However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB.

Not quite: Wide gammut monitors have come down a lot in price recently. And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.

The web runs on sRGB.

Not quite: A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari. But to be fair, this statement of yours was less wrong than the others

Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.

Not quite: Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.

Ugh? How so?

 

[Don Haines]

Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.

I did not know that!

You learn something new every day! Thanks!

 

[cid]

If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

Not quite:
1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation
2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.

very interesting, thank for info

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.

Ugh? How so?

he probably didn't mean conversion, but displaying Adobe RGB image in sRGB color space, to which some web pages are prone and then colors are shifted

 

[Marsu42]

very interesting, thank for info

I only read about the histogram myself recently, but it's probably not that much of a difference - for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.

he probably didn't mean conversion, but displaying Adobe RGB image in sRGB color space, to which some web pages are prone and then colors are shifted

Even so, I don't see why a properly set up color management (in your browser and/or os) wouldn't work - that's the very thing it's designed for. Sticking to srgb w/o color management might sound simple, but it isn't unless you're very careful to pick a monitor that happens to be 99,9% srgb.

 

[Sella174]

Sorry, I feel

1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation

What histogram? Oh, you mean the one that the camera shows you AFTER you've taken the picture.

2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.

Of which the purpose is, beside for generating the utterly useless histogram?

And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.

So when will you pop over to calibrate my screen, before or after you calibrate every other computer and iPad screen on earth?

A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari.

So what do these browsers do with an AdobeRGB photograph that is to be displayed on grandma's uncalibrated sRGB'ish monitor?

Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb

We don't have any of those around here ... just those KODAK self-service kiosks.

Ugh? How so?

Obviously, because the gamuts aren't the same.

 

[Sella174]

Even so, I don't see why a properly set up color management (in your browser and/or os) wouldn't work - that's the very thing it's designed for. Sticking to srgb w/o color management might sound simple, but it isn't unless you're very careful to pick a monitor that happens to be 99,9% srgb.

In my experience colour management only works when you can control all the devices in the chain. As soon as you start handing images over to others, your carefully calibrated colour management flies out the window ... for various reasons, e.g. they use a different colour space in their workflow or just plain none. In these case sRGB is the common language.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm really not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if some other thread mood spills over here.

1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation

What histogram? Oh, you mean the one that the camera shows you AFTER you've taken the picture.

What histogram are you using?

2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.

Of which the purpose is, beside for generating the utterly useless histogram?

It's extremely useful for quick sorting and browsing as a lot of software browsers use it - rendering the raw data takes a lot of time.

And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.

So when will you pop over to calibrate my screen, before or after you calibrate every other computer and iPad screen on earth?

If you don't invest in a cheap monitor calibration tool, that's your bad, I waited too long until I finally discovered how essential this is.

A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari.

So what do these browsers do with an AdobeRGB photograph that is to be displayed on grandma's uncalibrated sRGB'ish monitor?

Obviously they display the photograph as srgb'sih if you set stock srgb in your browser and os color management. Are you sure you know how color management works :-o ?

Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb

We don't have any of those around here ... just those KODAK self-service kiosks.

Ugh, time to move ... where I live (Germany) most internet printing sites are wider gammut than srgb and also a lot of local print shops.

Ugh? How so?

Obviously, because the gamuts aren't the same.

To repeat your full statement: "AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion is never 100% successful because the gamuts aren't the same". When you read it, does that make sense to you?

In my experience colour management only works when you can control all the devices in the chain.

When you edit a shot and then print it, this includes two devices - your monitor (use a color calibration tool) and a printer (use a color calibration tool or the print shop's cms profile). Doesn't sound like rocket science, esp. with soft proofing in software like Lightroom.

In these case sRGB is the common language.

Under closer scrutiny, srgb is rather different between devices that claim to be srgb. Probably better than displaying adobergb or photopro, but still calibration and color management is essential unless you don't care about the accuracy.

 

[Sella174]

... for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.

Gee, that's neat. Too bad the ML chaps stopped developing for the 30D.

 

[Marsu42]

... for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.

Gee, that's neat. Too bad the ML chaps stopped developing for the 30D.

You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.

 

[Sella174]

I'm really not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if some other thread mood spills over here.

No sweat.

What histogram are you using?

Never actually used it (on my sans-LiveView Canon cameras), because it's always after the fact. As in: shoot, chimp, reshoot, chimp, resho... blast, gone is the light.

The live histogram in the viewfinder of my X-T1 does get some serious use for difficult contrasts.

It's extremely useful for quick sorting and browsing as a lot of software browsers use it - rendering the raw data takes a lot of time.

I can see how that will be beneficial. My system works a bit differently: all images are renamed and stored in an "ORIGINAL" folder, then processed and stored in a different folder, plus a small thumbnail (800x600) generated, all using the same filename. So, browsing through the thumbnails, I can know from its filename that of the original file, plus those of the various different processed files of the same image.

If you don't invest in a cheap monitor calibration tool, that's your bad, I waited too long until I finally discovered how essential this is.

It's on the list for when I eventually replace this ancient laptop which is my primary.

Obviously they display the photograph as srgb'sih if you set stock srgb in your browser and os color management. Are you sure you know how color management works :-o ?

My point was that not everyone colour manages, especially those family members who want pictures of other family members, and no matter how well one's own system is, out there in the wild it's ... well, wild.

Ugh, time to move ... where I live (Germany) most internet printing sites are wider gammut than srgb and also a lot of local print shops.

Or buy my own printer.

When you edit a shot and then print it, this includes two devices - your monitor (use a color calibration tool) and a printer (use a color calibration tool or the print shop's cms profile). Doesn't sound like rocket science, esp. with soft proofing in software like Lightroom.

As I said, if you control all the devices in the chain, then color management works perfectly. However, when one cog is beyond your control, all bets are off.

If I walk into the local printers and ask for their "cms profile", the cute gal at reception will probably just giggle. Probably easier to ask what machine they use and then download it from the manufacturers website, hoping the local techie wasn't of the opinion that BruceRGB is superior. (They get like that, our techies: all opinion and no brains.)

Under closer scrutiny, srgb is rather different between devices that claim to be srgb. Probably better than displaying adobergb or photopro, but still calibration and color management is essential unless you don't care about the accuracy.

I attempted consistent colour management between my laptop and my HP Colour Laser. Now I just switch all colour management off and everything is close enough. So, yes, sRGB isn't always sRGB ... especially when dealing with Adobe PDF's.

 

[Sella174]

You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.

Regrettably I must decline the award. My primary camera these past few months has been a FUJIFILM X-T1.

The 30D is the only Canon camera I have left, having sold all the others. Even though it still works 100%, I cannot sell it because it looks like its been dragged to hell and back behind a donkey over gravel (well, nearly). I now use it for copying books, slides and negatives - some of the ML stuff would really help there.

 

[YuengLinger]

The histogram on my 5DIII works great for using studio lights in even very tricky lighting situations--and I use a flash meter. Get the lights set up for "proper exposure," make some adjustments for ambient light, backgrounds, etc., check the histogram on the camera during a few establishing shots, then blast away until something changes.

And when using speedlites, I don't use a flash meter, so the histogram is pretty much essential. Too many times I've been fooled by the display image, but never the histogram.

Same goes for shooting with available light only. I don't want to be toting around a light meter everywhere, especially out for landscape photography.

The histogram on my trusty old 60D seems just as accurate.

As or shooting Adobe RGB, that is a great question. Lightroom uses Adobe RGB for most display purposes, but jumps to ProPhoto RGB for the develop module. I softproof in LR5 and print from it, with amazingly accurate results on an Epson 3880.

I convert to sRGB for displaying stuff on the web and sharing by email.

From searching the web and CR's older threads on this subject, it seems that choosing sRGB or Adobe RGB in camera has no effect on the RAW file, only the embedded .jpg...Is that right???

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I am new to using my 5DM3 and realized that I had it set to sRGB after taking lots of photos.

1. Does it come set by default to sRGB and if so why?
2. I understand that it does not have as large a color gamut as Adobe RGB, though for head shots and non botanical photos, can you really tell the difference?

Thanks.

If you want prints to match what you see on your monitor, and others to see the same thing, use sRGB. Its the default color space for cameras, monitors, printers, and the internet.

Adobe RGB is best for those who have wide gamut equipment and have critical color matching requirements.

Keith Cooper at Northlight has some very good articles on color management. He occasionally graces us with a post or two.

Check it out. You don't want to use Adobe RGB without a lot more knowledge, and probably not then either. It sounds like a good thing, having more colors to chose from, but it brings on trouble for those who don't understand and need it.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

 

[curtisnull]

Here is one of the best explanations I have ever heard...

http://www.garyfong.com/tutorials/adobergb-images-vs-srgb-web-browsers

 

[privatebydesign]

Just to add my two cents;

Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.

No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.

Regrettably I must decline the award. My primary camera these past few months has been a FUJIFILM X-T1.

The 30D is the only Canon camera I have left, having sold all the others. Even though it still works 100%, I cannot sell it because it looks like its been dragged to hell and back behind a donkey over gravel (well, nearly). I now use it for copying books, slides and negatives - some of the ML stuff would really help there.

Don't let the 30D haters get you down. ;D

I still have my 30D. It works and will probably keep on working long after my "newer and better" cameras don't. They were built pretty well back then. My 30D looks pretty bad too, but it still keeps on snapping. ;D