So why don't we just dial in sRGB

[3dogs]

The following article about Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB cautions on the perception of gamut/color space denoting large differences: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm.

The article answers some of the questions of @3dogs as well as sharpens the contrast between the two color spaces.

Perhaps this Adobe color space article may be of further benefit: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Thanks for the links @stratman Cambridge is a very useful site. The Adobe article did fill in a lot of gaps and reminds me to open both LR and PS CC to confirm the settings in the new copies on my new computer.

I may be a bit slow to cotton on being a farmer and all that so I'd just like to run this past for comment....

Given that all didital colour is numeric, and a specific numeric value represents a different colour in each colour space then:-

My chosen space .......Camera - Adobe RGB and capture in RAW (L)
PS & LR - PRO Photo RGB
Monitors- 98% RGB whatever that is.?
Regardless of what I do the moment I convert ANY image I posess to sRGB to send it to this forum it is reencoded into the sRGB colour space! Therefore : if there were ANY colours in my original document that cant be represented by sRGB encoding........they are lost and something else is substituted ??

True or False

 

[stratman]

Pretty much true.

My chosen space .......Camera - Adobe RGB and capture in RAW (L)
PS & LR - PRO Photo RGB

If possible, shoot in RAW format if you want to retain the most inclusive color gamut version of your snapshot and then later define the color space (Adobe RGB, or sRGB, or whatever) with your image software such as Lightroom,Photoshop or whatever. Color space is range of colors that can be recognized, with ProPhoto RGB > Adobe RGB > sRGB in descending order of number of colors available.

Regardless of what I do the moment I convert ANY image I posess to sRGB to send it to this forum it is reencoded into the sRGB colour space! Therefore : if there were ANY colours in my original document that cant be represented by sRGB encoding........they are lost and something else is substituted ??

Going from RAW to whatever RGB color space will cause image data to be removed - whatever is out of gamut in the converted color space - and those colors (out of gamut numerical values) to be mapped to the closest best estimate by the software to colors/numerical values within the gamut of the chosen color space.

It's a numbers game at this point based upon either a color profile embedded in the image , or, if no color profile is found in the image, then determined by the application used such as your printer or web browser. The color profile is a standardization of how to interpret the data in the image file so that the hardware/software used to view/print that image file will then view/print as you intended, or at least to what is possible by that color space and the hardware/software used.

The same thing happens if you save directly to JPG/RGB in your camera - automatically decreased gamut amongst other things. Working with the RAW data file allows you to choose the color space to convert to later and define how the resultant image will appear either for viewing on a computer or on printed media.

Conversion from a wider gamut color space to a lower one is a one way journey. You cannot get back that which has been deleted. Just like saving a loussy JPG file as a TIF file will not improve the image or add back data, converting from sRGB to Adobe RGB will not restore data originally captured before processing into the sRGB color space. Another reason to shoot in RAW and then later convert (non-destructively to the original RAW file) to the desired color space - you can always go back to the RAW file and try again.

Monitors- 98% RGB whatever that is.?

I am not sure what you are referring to - which RGB color space - but it might be your monitor can display 98% of either sRGB or, most likely if an EIZO, of the Adobe RGB color space. Maybe your monitor calibration software will report how much of the color space is displayed.

Hope this answers some of your questions. More reading below that may be clearer than my explanation, plus a little extra for fun.

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page1

http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

http://christinagreve.com/jpeg-raw-beginners-guide-start-shooting-raw-image-mode-easy/

 

[3dogs]

@stratman ........pretty much true puts me back to where I was......which is good so thanks. I was beginning to suspect that I had strayed, so now I need to rename this thread...........
Why do we keep on trying to transmit images and graphics that are made in the AdobeRGB (and bigger) over the internet when it will only transmit sRGB encoded colours.
Way I see it if I want to share an image with this forum I am far more likeley to be able to send a "correct" image if I open my .dng, save it, select sRGB as my colour space and edit it to my satisfaction then send it.
Long winded workflow and just easier to let the computer do it for me BUT if I am preparing say an image for a Digital Show/ Comp. I am thinking that there could be merit in that???

Added
Camera set at RAW L from day one, and AdobeRGB.....at one stage also made a .jpg as well......gave up on that as I got into a right mess with LR trying to use that workflow.
Now I just shoot big RAW files and have nightmares about the cost and durability of more and more storage.....ho hum!!

 

[Emulator]

That's why I am buying a 500GB SSD!! My 250GB is filling up.

 

[3dogs]

That's why I am buying a 500GB SSD!! My 250GB is filling up.

"MAATE!!" you are a SMALL time player
Computer 1 - 2 x 500GB 850 SSD'S + 2TB HDD
Computer 2 - 1 x 500GB 840; 1 x 500GB Hybrid, 2 x 10,000rpm Velociraptor HDD's.
Also in use and in + 60%+ space used
1 - 2TB USB3 portable
3 - 1TB USB2 portable
2 - 500GB USB2 pocket rockets for use with the Mac BookPro 13"

In addition awaiting replacement 3 x 500GB Maxtors that have been nothing but trouble from day one......

AANND......sleep depravation, aggrivated ingrown fingernail(s) chewed out toe nails, Althletes bott, and a herniated wallet.

Sheeesh!!

 

[Emulator]

You have my sympathy, how are you managing your backups?

 

[The Hat]

so now I need to rename this thread...........

To... ? ? , just say..

 

[Emulator]

Oh.... so I did get it wrong.....

You asked in an earlier post "Has anyone a ProPhoto colour space file apart from the Evaluation test .tif?" I was sort of trying to answer that by showing a direct comparison of working in PPRGB and sRGB, starting with the same information from my camera. I found that the PPRGB version gave more printable colours than the sRGB version - markedly so in the blue/cyan region. It's true that you wouldn't see these colours on your sRGB monitor, but that doesn't mean that you can't print them.


You can do it in Gamutvision like this (if it helps).

View attachment 2913

Yes, that seems an interesting approach, these show all three colour spaces against the 9000 II using PC ink and a microporous luster paper profile. Surprisingly similar to your sRGB in the first one.



I think it clearly shows the 9000 II plus PC ink is better than I thought. One might even say that printing in ProPhoto might be beneficial!!!

I am surprised, can you add the Epson 3880 Adobe and ProPhoto gamut images to make up your set?

 

[Emulator]

Simplifying, the Canon 9000 II output gamut (solid) against the Adobe 1998 colour space (dotted). Just a little weak on the more saturated greens.

 

[The Hat]

It all depends on the quality of the printed output, the3880 is above average. Looking at the test pieces my monitor is limited to sRGB, as is also shown by DispCalGUI in the monitor profiling info panel. The 9000II printer is not much better than sRGB looking at Gamutvision, noticeably less than the3880. ProPhoto is significantly beyond the capabilities of either

@Emulator That was something I couldn’t understand, when you said that the 3880 could do a better print than your 9000 could, I just put that down to something that you may have been doing wrong in your print setup before output.

I have the predecessor to the 9000 and it can blow any of my Pro pigment printers away on gloss, dye ink is still the king on photo glossy paper..