sRGB or Adobe RGB

[DueyDooDah]

To follow through with Mark's RAW post, which color space do you shoot in?

 

[Anewman]

To follow through with Mark's RAW post, which color space do you shoot in?

Well if you shoot RAW it does not matter.

But I convert raw files to PhotoPro RGB 16bit, and then I have actions that convert/resize to the needed colorspace, bit depth and resolution with one click.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I put depends. I shoot in RAW and my camera doesn't use a standard colorspace.

I do most of my work in Lightroom, which uses ProPhoto RGB. It has a very wide gamut, so I don't have any clipping problems.

When I generate JPGs for display online, I convert to sRGB. I do this because some browsers are not colorspace aware and sRGB tends to look best on them.

When I work in PS, I usually use Adobe RGB. I should probably switch to Pro Photo, but I haven't bothered.

 

[photo_chick]

My camera is normally set for AdobeRGB, but if it is something that I know I am going to be sending to a lab (usually work for someone else) I will use sRGB to better match with that particular lab.

 

[Furgus]

I put depends. I shoot in RAW and my camera doesn't use a standard colorspace.

I do most of my work in Lightroom, which uses ProPhoto RGB. It has a very wide gamut, so I don't have any clipping problems.

When I generate JPGs for display online, I convert to sRGB. I do this because some browsers are not colorspace aware and sRGB tends to look best on them.

When I work in PS, I usually use Adobe RGB. I should probably switch to Pro Photo, but I haven't bothered.

I pretty much do the same thing.

 

[Groucho]

Just regular ol' sRGB for me. I haven't seen any reason to use anything else, though I assume that such reasons must exist otherwise no one would bother... I very rarely print so I'm not concerned with that aspect of it.

 

[Anewman]

Just regular ol' sRGB for me. I haven't seen any reason to use anything else, though I assume that such reasons must exist otherwise no one would bother... I very rarely print so I'm not concerned with that aspect of it.

Well I shoot at MAX RESOLUTION too, even though I seldom print or display at that size.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Well I shoot at MAX RESOLUTION too, even though I seldom print or display at that size.

If you shoot at a resolution below the maximum, the extra pixels are lost forever. If you shoot RAW, as I believe Groucho almost always does, you can always go back and assign a colorspace with a larger gamut later if you decide you want to.

 

[Master Mason]

I shoot and process in the Adobe. To be honest, I don't even know why, it was just what Kelby reccomended in both of the books I have by him.

Could someone explain the difference.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I shoot and process in the Adobe. To be honest, I don't even know why, it was just what Kelby reccomended in both of the books I have by him.

Could someone explain the difference.

I took a shot at explaining it in this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=18959682#post18959682

 

[Anewman]

If you shoot at a resolution below the maximum, the extra pixels are lost forever. If you shoot RAW, as I believe Groucho almost always does, you can always go back and assign a colorspace with a larger gamut later if you decide you want to.

Very true, point is we will WORK with as much data as possible even if image will be displayed as a 8bit sRGB 600x800 web image. It is obvious when it comes to resolution, but not so obvious when it comes to gamut.

 

[Master Mason]

I took a shot at explaining it in this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=18959682#post18959682

thank you, I read the post, and it makes a lot of sense to me now. And I guess the reason he recommends adobe is because your working in adobe with the products he writes about.

Ah for the old days of which film and how much grain instead of which colorspace and how much noise huh??

 

[photo_chick]

Ah for the old days of which film and how much grain instead of which colorspace and how much noise huh??

Yes, I do miss film sometimes! Seemed so much easier. But with digital we can change ISO right there. I don't miss putting 100 in the camera and wishing halfway through it was 800, or lugging a camera for color and a camera for black and white.

 

[Groucho]

If you shoot at a resolution below the maximum, the extra pixels are lost forever. If you shoot RAW, as I believe Groucho almost always does, you can always go back and assign a colorspace with a larger gamut later if you decide you want to.

Of course, if you shoot RAW, you get the full resolution no matter what is selected elsewhere, too.

Resolution pays obvious and immediate benefits even if you won't be viewing it at that size. I'm not sure yet about the color spaces.

Yes, I do miss film sometimes! Seemed so much easier. But with digital we can change ISO right there. I don't miss putting 100 in the camera and wishing halfway through it was 800, or lugging a camera for color and a camera for black and white.

Reading through the old photo books lately, I'm glad to not have to deal with film... special films for shooting under different lights, special developers to deal with them, and/or special filters for lighting conditions... I'm very happy to be able to just flip a switch during my RAW conversion to change white balance, and that's just one small part of the process. I also like that I can duplicate nearly any color filter in post-processing instead of doing it during the shooting.