Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Not wishing to open a can of worms here (like RAW vs JPEG) but what colour space is the preferred choice? Never considered this before as up until now I have always used sRGB but recently read an article and checked with my manual (Nikon D300s) which suggested Adobe RGB could be better. As I do a fair amount of processing in photoshop and rarely do my own printing then should I be using Adobe to get better colour results? Would this be of benefit when shooting weddings or portraits or is it really just suited to landscape photography? Sorry, loads of questions here but would be grateful for all your thoughts.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
The basics of what Nikon say in the manuals is this.
If your images will be going straight to print with very little post processing, Then sRGB will do the job.
If your images are going to be heavily post processed, use Adobe RGB.
Raw just gives you a whole lot more scope for post processing work using either of these colour spaces.
Quote: Would this be of benefit when shooting weddings or portraits
Depends on how much you intend mangling the images during any post work.
Adobe RGB is not purely for landscape, Its just a much wider colour space, ie: Has a bigger gamut of colour.
Therefore more room for making fine adjustments.
Though for weddings and portraits etc, It does/can add a lot of time to your workflow......
RAW has always been my choice but until now I have not given any consideration to the colour space.
I'd use either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto every time in preference to sRGB for the advantage of having the larger colour space. You can always convert to a narrower colour space at a later stage if desired but you can never put back what wasn't there in the first place.
Sorry, just picked up your 2nd comment. I wouldn't say I over do the work on my images and if it is going to add to the time then it probably isn't worth it.
I use sRGB as my photos either go straight to printer on site, or online with minimal editing. The labs I use also specify sRGB.
As I print on a 'home' printer then I use sRGB as that's what they're set up for.
Generally I use sRGB but I find that some HDR software converts to Adobe RGB. Having read the previous replies, I think I will change my in-cam setting to Adobe RGB and convert later for print. Interesting thread, especially for folk like me who didn't really fully understand why I was stuck in sRGB. I have to add that the lab I use for print specify sRGB.
Seems I just missed you at the WW2 re-enactment at Maiden Newton back in July. Keith and Sandy from YCC bumped into you there as I was off buying a burger! When I rejoined them they said they had stopped to have a chat with you. Never mind, might see you next year if they hold the event again.
Quote: As I print on a 'home' printer then I use sRGB as that's what they're set up for.
That's incorrect. Many modern 'home' inkjet printers are able to print colours outside of the sRGB colour gamut.
My printer has the option to print Adobe RGB in the colour management file. It is an HP Photosmart 8250. A few years old now but not a bad printer.
Quote: add to the time then it probably isn't worth it
Thats the problem, If you have a big job or two to get through, Cutting down the number of post operations per job, Can make up a lot of time, That said you can always " Batch " convert your images, Lets say from Adobe RGB to sRGB, At the same time convert from RAW to Tiff or JPEG, Depending on the software, You can batch all at the same time.
So just for those few details the added time factor, Is not going to add up to a whole lot.
Its only where you are making individual adjustments on a large number of images, That the time starts clocking up.
The last thing, That always causes some controversy is, You computers Monitor, Not many monitors can actually display/show the full Adobe RGB gamut, Most default to sRGB anyhow.
So whilst you have more working space with Adobe RGB, You can't always see the entire gamut.
Mad or what, The only solution is a very very expensive monitor, Is it worth it.....? To some maybe, But its debatable if anyone outside of the photographic business would notice or care, So long as they are happy with the images, Thats all that counts.
Whatever, You could always give it a try, If you find it slows your workflow to much, Switch back to sRGB.
Interesting stuff. I do "batch" convert RAW to JPEG but did not realise the same could apply to Adobe RGB to sRGB. As for spending a small fortune on a new monitor, I think I know the answer to that one.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View July's Photo Month Calendar