aRGB or sRGB

[trjwv]

I know this is widely debated, but I was wondering which color you use and why? My thoughts are capture and save in aRGB, then convert to sRGB in uploading to the web or online printing company, as in mpix etc... What are you doing and why?

 

[Cliff3]

It doesn't much matter if you shoot raw since raw files aren't associated with a color space until they are demosaiced. I exclusively shoot raw.

If you are shooting jpegs, then you should probably choose aRGB since it has a larger gamut than sRGB and you may as well give yourself as much processing flexibility as possible before you have to commit. Generally speaking you will need to convert to sRGB prior to printing or publishing to the web.

(edit: and someone who dropped $5k on a D3S as your signature indicates should really already know this...)

 

[compuwar]

I know this is widely debated, but I was wondering which color you use and why? My thoughts are capture and save in aRGB, then convert to sRGB in uploading to the web or online printing company, as in mpix etc... What are you doing and why?

Capture in 14-bit raw, work in 16-bit Lab TIFF, convert to sRGB JPEG for output.

Raw gives me the most options for processing each image, so I'll only drop out of it if I need a high frame rate.

16-bit Lab space gives me the entire color space encompassed by human vision to work in. After I make all my adjustments, I'm ready to start looking at output.

sRGB because that's what most output devices use, though I will convert to Web color space for things I know will be Web-only.

My goal is maximum flexibility all along the chain. For instance, when my raw converter of choice (RPP) updated to include some film tone curves, I could go back to my raw files and re-process them to enhance the output, which wouldn't have been nearly as well done if I'd started with JPEGs. TIFFs out of my raw converter give me the most options in terms of processing choices with additional software- in film terms, the raw files are my stock, the TIFFs are my developed positives or negatives and the JPEGs are my prints.

Paul

 

[Ruahrc]

In my experience, the print places I have used recommend to keep your files in aRGB, or even prophoto if sending in 16-bit. Most printers can print well outside the sRGB colorspace and can even exceed aRGB in some areas. The printer profiles they make/use will do the proper converting from the source data.

Ruahrc

 

[compuwar]

(edit: and someone who dropped $5k on a D3S as your signature indicates should really already know this...)

How much you spend on equipment has no bearing on what you do or don't know, or if you should or shouldn't ask for advice.

If I was forced to routinely shoot in low light, I'd have gotten a D3s (and saved myself a chunk of money!) in a heartbeat because of the ability to shoot publishable shots at ISO 9600, no matter what my workflow.

Paul

 

[Cliff3]

How much you spend on equipment has no bearing on what you do or don't know, or if you should or shouldn't ask for advice.

If I was forced to routinely shoot in low light, I'd have gotten a D3s (and saved myself a chunk of money!) in a heartbeat because of the ability to shoot publishable shots at ISO 9600, no matter what my workflow.

Paul

I read a lot and I don't ask too many questions. Mine is a different style from most people. It's not very chatty, but most answers are already out there and the process of discovering them helps me to learn.

If the OP wants to drop $10,000 on gear that's his business. But if there is a disconnect between apparent knowledge and the knowledge that would reasonably be expected by such an equipment expenditure, as there is in this instance, then it is worth noting.

 

[trjwv]

Thanks Paul....exactly as I thought....

 

[compuwar]

If the OP wants to drop $10,000 on gear that's his business. But if there is a disconnect between apparent knowledge and the knowledge that would reasonably be expected by such an equipment expenditure, as there is in this instance, then it is worth noting.

I tend to purchase my gear based upon capability, so I don't really see a disconnect between purchasing something with a specific capability and some pre-conceived level of knowledge.

I'm also fairly cynical, and if DPR is any evidence, there are a whole heck of a lot of D3s body owners who don't have basic composition and exposure knowledge (just because you CAN take every image in near darkness doesn't mean you SHOULD.)

The requisite knowledge is the same, no matter if you're shooting with a Digital Rebel or a D3x- and there's a big difference between reading something and experience with something- sometimes that's tempered with experience sometimes not- but I still don't see how gear cost is relevant to its operation. Should you shoot a Sigma 50mm lens any differently than a Zeiss 50mm lens? Should you have to take a test to be able to own the Zeiss? Does it matter if someone got the gear first or the knowledge first? Should it? I think not.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

In my experience, the print places I have used recommend to keep your files in aRGB, or even prophoto if sending in 16-bit. Most printers can print well outside the sRGB colorspace and can even exceed aRGB in some areas. The printer profiles they make/use will do the proper converting from the source data.

Ruahrc

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

My advice is to know which colors your image uses, and whether these can benefit from the additional colors afforded by Adobe RGB 1998. Ask yourself: do you really need the richer cyan-green midtones, orange-magenta highlights, or green shadows? Will these colors also be visible in the final print? Will these differences even be noticeable? If you've answered "no" to any of these questions, then you would be better served using sRGB. sRGB will make the most of your bit depth because it allocates more bits to encoding the colors present in your image. In addition, sRGB can simplify your workflow since this color space is also used for displaying images on the internet.

What if you desire a speedy workflow, and do not wish to decide on your working space using a case-by-case method? My advice is to use Adobe RGB 1998 if you normally work with 16-bit images, and sRGB if you normally work with 8-bit images. Even if you may not always use the extra colors, you never want to eliminate them as a possibility for those images which require them.

 

[snberk103]

Capture in 14-bit raw, work in 16-bit Lab TIFF, convert to sRGB JPEG for output.

Raw gives me the most options for processing each image, so I'll only drop out of it if I need a high frame rate.

16-bit Lab space gives me the entire color space encompassed by human vision to work in. After I make all my adjustments, I'm ready to start looking at output.

sRGB because that's what most output devices use, though I will convert to Web color space for things I know will be Web-only.

My goal is maximum flexibility all along the chain. For instance, when my raw converter of choice (RPP) updated to include some film tone curves, I could go back to my raw files and re-process them to enhance the output, which wouldn't have been nearly as well done if I'd started with JPEGs. TIFFs out of my raw converter give me the most options in terms of processing choices with additional software- in film terms, the raw files are my stock, the TIFFs are my developed positives or negatives and the JPEGs are my prints.

Paul

Thanks. I hadn't thought about working in LAB before. Everything else I've been doing. I've taken your advice in past as well, don't often post a thanks.

Colour Spaces is not an easy topic to master fully.