SRGB vs. Adobe (1998) RGB

This is likely a basic question for all the pros out there, but here it is:
In Scott Kelby's The Photoshop CS Book (2003), it says on p. 116: "Photoshops' default color space (sRGB...) is arguably the worst possible color space for professional photographers." He says this color space is designed for Web designers and mimics a cheap PC monitor from years ago.
He recommends changing the default setting to Adobe RGB (1998), saying "This is probably the most popular RGB setting for photographers because it reproduces such a wide gamut of colors and it's ideal if your photos will wind up in print."
Then comes the instruction book for the Canon 5D Mark II, which recommends sRGB because Adobe RGB "is mainly used for commercial printing and other industrial uses. This setting is not recommended if you do not know about image processing, Adobe RGB, and Design rule for Camera File System 2.0 (Exif 2.21). The image will look very subdued in the sRGB personal computer environment and with printers not compatible with Design rule for Camera File System 2.0. Post-processing of the image with software will therefore be required."
So-- Is there a 'best' setting for a non-pro who wants the 'best' possible prints? Should the camera and CS4 have the same settings, either sRGB or Adobe (1998)? Does this have anything to do with the price of eggs in China?
Thank you for your help. John

T. Schmidt,
The videos in question are titled
The Art of Fine PrintingFrom Camera To Print, so they are
very much about and for photography. They are of little interest to someone not primarily involved with photography.
My take on color management books is very subjective and definitely photography-oriented, of course.
Real World Color Management by Fraser et al. remains the basic color management book. I also very much like Andrew Rodney's
Color Management for Photographers.
I am not in the Margulis camp, even though I did read the
Canyon Conundrum and
Professional Adobe Photoshop, which I still have, without having profited much from the latter and not at all from the former. I don't care much for Scott Kelby either. (I prefer to avoid L*a*b and CMYK altogether.)
> the best up to date book about Color Management in general or for print,
I am not quite sure what to make of that phrasing.
or" for print? As far as I'm concerned, color management is the art of maintaining color accuracy and consistency
from capture to print.
>97% of the time I get an untagged image it's sRGB
Quite a few untagged image files floating around turn out to be in Color Match RGB or Monitor RGB, so I can't assume sRGB. What I can tell you is that I encounter fewer and fewer untagged files myself, as my known stance on beating morons who give me untagged files with a baseball bat seems automatically to shield me from said morons for the most part.

Similar Messages

Converting from sRGB to Adobe 1998

Hello!
I am an artist doing digital paintings on Photoshop CS3.
I drew an outline of my drawing in one shade of blue and realised the colour profile was in sRGB.
I have now converted the psd document to colour profile Adobe 1998.
When I start to put colour in, underneath the blue outline layer -will the colours be of Adobe 1998 quality?
(I plan to do gradients/blend colours and eventually print my work out. I have heard the colours can look choppy when done on sRGB mode)
Probably a silly question but I am new to this and would like to get it right
Any help would be much appreciated!
Thank you
Natalie

Yes the new colours will be Adobe RGB quality. (But I dont think you need it, id just stick with 'safer' sRGB). A wider gamut like Adobe RGB may make banding worse unless you're working in 16bit.

Converting RGB images (sRGB or Adobe RGB) to 709 color space.

I'm trying to determine the correct way to convert RGB images (sRGB or Adobe RGB) to 709 color space. I can't just use the "covert to profile" function to do this because it does not produce results that fall within the 16 to 235 range that 709 dictates. I've read that you can simply use the "Levels" adjustment and change the output levels to 16 to 235. While this would clearly compress the luminance to the correct range, I'm not entirely clear if the end result would be a proper conversion (i.e. if color and gamma, for example, would be technically correct.)
I noticed that converting the profile to "HDTV (Rec. 709)" does alter the image, so I'm wondering what the result would be if I did both this AND used the levels control to compress the output range to 16 to 235.
Thanks for any feedback on this.

(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._709
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._601
The transfer functions for Rec.709 (1) refer to the range [0..1] or for 8 bits per pixel [0...255].
It seems that the clipping, black=16 and white=235 has to happen after the application of the
transfer function. If this should be true, then we don't have a level compression but a level
clipping at both ends, as already for Rec.601 (2), like here:
The ICC-Profile HDTV(Rec.709) in Photoshop contains the primaries and the white point
(both like that in sRGB) and the transfer functions for [0..1], coded by a LUT with high resolution,
as found by Profile Inspector. There is no clipping.
By the way, that`s the internal profile name, I don't know the file name of the profile.
Softproofing, source in sRGB, target HDTV(Rec.709), without clipping:
With numbers not preserved: no change of the appearance, as expected.
With numbers preserved: shows the effect of different effective gammas.
Your questions are very clear and I'm not sure whether my comments help. The information
in the internet is not convincing.
Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Aperture identifying Pro 1 RAW Adobe 1998 when it's sRGB

I'm having trouble with my Canon Pro 1. I'm shooting in RAW in the "standard" sRGB workspace (there's an option for Adobe 1998). However, Aperture labels the photos as Adobe 1998. The Preview application also reads the file to be Adobe 1998 (get info while in Preview). One curious thing I noticed, is that when the menus are setup for Finder to show a preview of a photo, it appears that OS X is using the correct color space (or a different one at least). I am importing directly into Aperture from a card reader.
Because I was curious, I checked to see if there was a problem when shooting in JPEG mode. Aperture identifies the color space correctly. Has anyone else had this problem or know how to fix it? I'm using Aperture 1.0

Okay, I understand that Aperture is using its own
special color space that is wider than Adobe 1998 or
sRGB. But, I guess my question is, will Aperture's
color space display two identical pictres (albeit
different color spaces) as the same even if one is
Adobe 1998 and the other sRGB? Because if not, I
think there'd be a problem since the color would not
remain constant when I finally export it as sRGB.
No, although since the AdobeRGB space holds a greater range of colors it may look a little richer.
Also, if you are talking about RAW files it will not matter since any colorspace you include in a RAW file is just a "hint" to an application that is reading that RAW files what color space is preferred after conversion.
Also I noticed this: When Finder shows a preivew of
the file, it seems that it's using a different color
space than that of Aperture or Preview.app because
the tonality is slightly cooler. The image that the
OS shows is, I think, the same as that when Preview
converts the "adobe 1998" file to its true sRGB. So
I'm guessing that the OS's interpretation is right.
Why is there an inconsistencey between the
applications and the Finder/OS?
The image Finder shows is generally from the thumbnail created by the camera itself. So it's slightly different just because the OS X conversion is a little different than the in-camera conversion. It has nothing to do with the colorspace.

Color profile (sRGB Vs. Adobe RGB)

Hello,
As I am struggling with choosing the 'right' color profile for my photo's (either sRGB or Adobe RGB) I was wondering what your opinion of this subject is. I have searched the internet for the information about this subject, but the forums/answers/information couldn't give me enough satisfaction.
For editing photo's I am using Adobe Photoshop, for my library I use iPhoto. Some photo's are uploaded to sites as www.facebook.com. Sometimes I order a photo book via iPhoto.
Because there are pros and cons for both sRGB and Adobe RGB I am not sure which profile I have to choose. I would like to choose one format, since this will standardize my library.
Looking forward to your opinion.
Best Regards,
Jelle

Larry & Terence,
Did you do any on-screen testing or proofing? All modern browsers support ICC profiles and should show improvement with Adobe RGB in certain color ranges (NOT just Facebook).
Apple products aren't "designed" for sRGB. sRGB is a standard developed by Hewlett Packard and Microsoft (and I think we all can agree those aren't Apples best friends). sRGB is the default for most Cameras and SmartPhones, that doesn't mean it's the best.
Most monitors sold in the last 5 years have wider gamut support than the sRGB.
Article "Can the entire sRGB color gamut be displayed on today's LCD monitors?"
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-bad-working-space-profile.html
"sRGB was created to match the display characteristics of consumer-grade CRT monitors manufactured in the1990s." "LCDs use a completely different technology to make colors..." "All wide gamut monitors by definition can show more greens, yellows, and cyans than sRGB."
Apple even suggests "Adobe RGB offers a wider gamut than sRGB, and is usually a better choice, if available." in this article:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2026
iPhoto 6 and newer have support for ColorSync profiles, older versions may not work with Adobe RGB and could cause the color to look worse. If a profile isn't present, or isn't supported iPhoto assigns Camera RGB. Complaints about "dark" color from iPhoto are more than 5 years old.

SRGB or Adobe RGB in camera when using Aperture?

I would appreciate any help I can get with this one:
Which color space should I use in my D300 (sRGB or Adobe RGB) if I'm using Aperture and why? I'm referring to shooting RAW. Or does color space only matter if I shoot JPEGs? Does it depend on output?
Thanks,
Jerry

It depends on your needs. Adobe RGB is a wider color space so if you're going to do any work with the photo, it will give you a little more flexibility without clipping the colors. But you WILL have to convert it to sRGB before sending to a printer or publishing to the web, if you don't want issues with non-color-aware browsers (which means, pretty much any browser but Safari).
Still... Aperture makes using RAW as easy as JPEG with numerous benefits so there's little reason to shoot JPEG and use Aperture

SRGB or Adobe RGB

What do I have to choose on my camera Canon D400
sRGB or Adobe RGB
And after I made that choice do I have to choose those setting in Bridge and PS CS5 too?

sRGB is the safest bet (Adobe RGB has a bit more color gamut if you know what you are doing)
if you shoot RAW (16 bit recommended) for highest quality, the camera capture space doesn't matter
i recommend these Adobe Color Settings mostly for the color management policies that warn you of profile mismatches and preserve embedded profiles (set the working spaces as you like)...

SRGB vs Adobe RGB

What the heck is the difference between sRGB vs Adobe RGB?
Do I have to reset this in my camera too?
I have a Canon 5D Mark 11
Thanks, Penni

The »s« in srgb supposedly stands for »standard« (though »small« or »s..t« have also been mentioned) and this color-space is so small as to be representable without clipping on most monitors, so it’s recommended to be used for internet-work.
AdobeRGB on the other hand is much larger and intended for professional image-editing.
If You wonder what small and large mean in this context just create an rgb-document with a Spectrum-gradient and assign (not convert) different profiles to it and see how the appearance of pixels of any given rgb-value change.
Or compare the two profiles in ColorSync Utility (in the Utilities-folder).
Of course working in the larger space can cause problems when an image has to be output in a smaller space (as many/most offset printing spaces are), but soft-proofing can help recognize them in time.
Anyway reading up on color management should do You no harm.
It would seem advisable to shoot RAW-images if Your camera offers that option.

Book photos sRGB or Adobe RGB?

Which profile should the images for a book have?
sRGB or Adobe RGB?

I am sorry but I do not think you really understood what profiles are for. An image (be it a JPEG, TIFF or even PDF, since it DISPLAYS something) MUST have metainformation on what its color values mean independently of what device you want to display them on. Without that info a PDF output would be caothic and unforseeable, since each device would interpret it according to the device's defaults.
That metainformation, combined with the information of how a device displays color (that is, a calibrated screen or printer), makes it possible to display images in several devices as close as possible to each other and to its supposed abstract colors (real colors, independent of device). If there is no metainformation (a profile) on what those RGB or CMYK values mean independently of any device, you are simply subject to the color shifting that any device is naturally subject to cause when not instructed on how to correct it. I.e. if a pixel in your image is a neutral gray -not color tinted- and you display it on a screen that shifts to red, you can still make it show a neutral gray if the color engine of your software shifts the image to the opposite color before displaying it. The software accomplishes that by combining the device profile you created when calibrating the device -or at least, by associating it to a default profile intended for that device- and the profile of the image. This is an oversimplification, since profiles in images deal with quite more than just color shifting.
PDF's are intended to be portable (hence, what the P in PDF stands for) and, then, must have a way of guaranteeing that color is reproduced as faithfully as the displaying device allows to. PDFs without information on profiles would be useless to their aim without this metainformation.
So PDFs DO STORE profile information.
The only catch up on this is that PDFs can contain several images, so in fact PDFs do not embed a single profile to govern all images inside it, but one profile for each embedded image.
Quoting you, then, those embedded profiles are what make the point of the PDF - " a self contained freely readable document in its own format" *that displays the same colors in all devices* (* = as close as the device is able to, as long as the device is calibrated, and as long as the device's software also is profile-aware; which can apply pretty much to any computer).
Answering the question of the first poster, I'd go for sRGB, since that is the color gamut most cameras are calibrated for. While AdobeRGB is wider, you will probably not be getting a wider color gamut since your camera did not capture it in the first place. Besides, not all printing services have a decent color workflow, and some will ignore the profiles you embedded (which is catastrophic since that means they will interpret the color values in your photos according to another supposed profile -because by definition, always that there is an interpretation of color values into an output, a theoretical profile is being used even if not aware of that, since that is what a profile does: turn abstract -digital- color values into real colors). And since sRGB is quite more used than AdobeRGB, their device will most probably output closer to the former. AdobeRGB images interpreted in an sRGB color space become dramatically desaturated.
I hope that helps. If you need me to be more explicit on something, just ask.

What happened to Adobe 1998?

Under "View" - "Proofing Profiles" -there is no selection for Adobe 1998, which is the color space all my photos are shot in. It's there in PSCS2, but not in Aperture. What am I missing? Thanks for the help.

I really don't think it's a bug at all, because as I
stated, I think/assume that AdobeRGB is the default
and is the profile used to display images when
"Onscreen Proofing" is not enabled.
And what if I import a file in sRGB or ProPhoto RGB?
There has to be some default underlying color space used I agree. Bridge uses sRGB. But that’s not a reason not to show Adobe RGB (1998). But worse, all matrix profiles appear to do absolutely nothing when you select them. Maybe someone can confirm or deny this. Open a very saturated image and select sRGB, then ProPhoto RGB or any other simple, matrix profile. Do you see a change? I can’t. Why are they there in the first place?
There’s no legal issue that I can think of since you can clearly select Adobe RGB (1998) elsewhere in the application.
"In contrast with Adobe Photoshop, you don't have to
set your "workspace." Instead, Aperture will always
work in a wide gamut, except for when you apply
Onscreen Proofing, which shows you how your work
should look in final output.
The reason you need to specify a working space in Photoshop is to define what it assumes for untagged files. Aperture (and all Apple color applications) are not that smart. They simply pick either your display profile (dumb) or Generic RGB. In Photoshop you have the option to say to it “When you encounter an untagged RGB file, assume it’s in this color space.” That’s useful. Apple app’s don’t work that way, at least since Tiger when the ColorSync untility removed the settings for such assumptions (a good idea since it didn’t really work anyway).
Tip: In some cases, the profile lists don't match.
As I mentioned, they tell you this but not why (like lots of other goofy designs in Aperture).
Adobe RGB, for example, is included as an Export
Preset option but not as an Onscreen proofing option.
Try using ColorMatch RGB or Wide Gamut RGB when
proofing for Adobe 1998."
Again, this kind of defies any color management logic. Again, selecting such options doesn’t appear to change the soft proof anyway.
BTW, I’ve sent an email to the Product Manager asking him to clarify this. We’ll see...

Adobe 1998 Not in PS CC?

I just got PS cc. I shoot in RAW. I have an Epson R3000. I have an iMac with Mavericks.
Adobe support just told me that "Adobe 1998" is no longer used in Printer Profiles and that it stopped with CS5. Is this really true? What profile should I be using?
This seems bizarre to me. Sorry if this has ben asked a million times.
Thanks,
Jake

True it was there and you could use it, but it's not a device profile. That's why Adobe left it out.This help doc explains it.
Preparing to print from Photoshop
When I go to File > Print in Photoshop CC on my Macbook, I get a Print Settings dialog.
Under Color Management > Color Handling I use "Printer Manages Colors" and my color profiles are grayed out.
If I choose "Photoshop Manages Colors", I get my device or Printer profile.
The bottom line is that while you got along just fine using Adobe RGB for your printer profile, it was never meant for that, you should be using the Epson Profile.
If you use "Printer Manages Colors" Photoshop ignores the profiles and lets the Printer decide.

SRGB or Adobe Color Space

What do I need to set my Color Space to? sRGB or Adobe? Also what setting should I have in Aperture 2 to get the best color. I use a D300.

as the other feedbacks mention, your d300 raw files don't have a color profile as such. aperture itself works with a wider color gamut than sRGB or adobe RGB, no need to set anything within aperture. once you leave aperture, color profiles become essential.
as a rule of thumb...
- sRGB jpg for export to web, email, clients
- 16 bit proPhoto for editing in photoshop
- adobe RGB or sRGB for print (ask your printer what he prefers)
also - some people mention CMYK for print. while print documents are prepared in CMYK, i'd always send your images in RGB and let the graphic designer (or printer) convert them to CMYK. they often use specific profiles that match their machines.

Screen calibration 1998 RGB

For the longest time I had my screen set to a personalized calibration. Recently I switched it to the 1998 RGB profile so as to better unify my photo editing with my boss's computer. However the screen went way over blue and when I tried to switch back to my personalized profile it wasn't there. When I tried to calibrate it again an error occurred.
I figured out how to get passed the error (apparently as long as you don't save the profile with slash or dashes it will save) but I'm still curious as to why my 1998 RGB color profile is so horribly out of whack.
Can anyone answer this question for me? Is there a way to remedy it?
My computer is old, I bought it in 2007 but had it upgraded a year ago. I'm working on Snow leapord 10.6.8
Another thing is for some reason there are three identical 1998 color profiles to choose from. They are all the same and all crazy cyan/blue.
I'm really curious as to how the files got corrupted
so any thoughts?
thanks
eve

Adobe RGB 1998 isn't a monitor profile. Neither is ColorMatch RGB, or virtually any of the other canned profiles.
when I tried to switch back to my personalized profile it wasn't there.
Your personalized profile is still on the system. Can't look at Snow Leopard's preferences at the moment, but there should be a check box to show all profiles you can use for a monitor. Yours would be one of the ones listed above the line, as in this example:
When I tried to calibrate it again an error occurred.
That shouldn't happen. What was the error message?
Another thing is for some reason there are three identical 1998 color profiles to choose from. They are all the same and all crazy cyan/blue.
That's because various software packages dump that profile onto the system. OS X itself puts copy in the System folder. Photoshop will put another copy in its Application Support folder, which ColorSync finds via an alias in the Profiles folder. They're all the same, but in different folders. The color of your monitor goes wacky because it's not meant to be used as a monitor profile.

Photosmart 8750 - Which to use when printing - sRGB or Adobe RGB?

I've been printing with the 8750 and previously with the B8350, and have always sent my images to the printer as TIF files in Adobe RGB. I use conventional softproofing technique in Photoshop CS4 and get minimal, but expected color shifts (if any).
But recently I dredged up some old reviews of the 8750 which say that its output closely matches sRGB. Got me thinking... with this printer, should I be converting my images to sRGB before sending to the printer? Will I get truer color with less color shift from clipping?
Chas

It depends on your needs. Adobe RGB is a wider color space so if you're going to do any work with the photo, it will give you a little more flexibility without clipping the colors. But you WILL have to convert it to sRGB before sending to a printer or publishing to the web, if you don't want issues with non-color-aware browsers (which means, pretty much any browser but Safari).
Still... Aperture makes using RAW as easy as JPEG with numerous benefits so there's little reason to shoot JPEG and use Aperture

SRGB or Adobe RGB for stills?

When preparing photos in PS to bring into PP, does the color space matter?
1. For HD video which color space should I use?
2. For 4K video which color space should I use?
Thanks.

Anyone on this?
Thanks.

SRGB vs. Adobe (1998) RGB

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for