[noahdsnell]

Background
I shoot RAW (DNG) and my camera is currently set to sRGB mode.I use Lightroom 5 only. I am currently debating whether I should use sRGB or Adobe RGB. I do post to the internet (social media and my website) but my primary focus is on fine art prints. My printing is done by a professional lab offsite (in America right now) and I am currently looking for a new lab that prints on Fuji Crystal Archive. I am quite new to color management, but have purchased a Colormunki Display calibrator and am buying a new 24" monitor specifically for photography (looking at Asus PA248Q and Dell U2410). If I decide on staying with sRGB, I will buy the Asus. If I move to Adobe RGB, I will buy the Dell.

Questions
In my situation, what do you guys think is best for me: sRGB or Adobe RGB?
If I buy the Dell U2410, how will I be able to edit my old images when camera was set to sRGB? Or does it not matter because I was shooting RAW?
With the Dell U2410, how would I be able to edit for the web? Keep one version of the digital image for print and one for the web?
Does sRGB and Adobe RGB really make a difference at the end?

[DSims]

I don't think the AdobeRGB setting on the camera is useful for most people. It affects the JPG files. If you're going to do significant editing you want to use the RAW files (as you already do), and they have all the color information anyway. A JPG file should normally have the sRGB color space, since almost any target (web or print) will assume that's what color space a JPG has.

The only situation I can think of where the Adobe RGB setting is useful is if you must shoot JPG-only for some reason, yet you still want to heavily edit the files (and in fact are now virtually forced to, because the "non-standard" color space will probably need to be converted).


Does anyone else know of a better reason to use Adobe RGB?

If you convert the RAW files for editing (say to TIFF for Photoshop) you're going to use a color space with a wider gamut anyway - typically Pro Photo. AdobeRGB is kind of stuck in the middle and of minimal use, unless your target is specifically expecting it.



So, get the monitor you want. I can't say which is better, but I did see the ASUS the other day, and it looked pretty good. If you still have time to take the ColorMunki Display back, do so now. The i1 Display Pro is literally 5x faster (well, maybe only 4.5x) - I've tested it on the same software. If you calibrate often, you'll be happier if it takes 10 minutes instead of 45 or 50, and you'll do it more often. If you have other displays, such as a laptop, it multiplies the time savings.

[jatrax]

Or does it not matter because I was shooting RAW?

There is no color space with RAW. You can attach one in camera but the software may or may not actually use it. For example Lightroom uses Pro Photo and there is no option to change it, so it does not care what you set in the camera. If you move back and forth from Lightroom to Photoshop you should keep them both the same so use Pro Photo both places. But in Photoshop you do have to change it as PS allows lots of options.

Basic rule of thumb is stay as wide as possible as long as possible. So edit everything in Pro Photo and when you export select the color space needed by the printer. Some printers will take AdobeRGB, some only sRGB, you have to ask. For web always use sRGB.

With the Dell U2410, how would I be able to edit for the web? Keep one version of the digital image for print and one for the web?

I think you are confused about how Lightroom works, if you are shooting in RAW then there is no need to save off versions, just leave them alone in the RAW with your edits. When you need an image, for web, for print or whatever, you go to Lightroom and export that image in the format and colorspace you need. You set that up in the export presets. I have no copies of my images in TIFF or Jpeg. I just have presets set to export for the formats I need. So if I need to send a 16bit TIFF in AdobeRGB to my printer for a fine art print, that is all set up as a preset. If I need that same image as a web size 8bit sRGB, again it's just a preset.

In Lightroom you don't "edit for the web" or "edit for fine art". You edit, period, then export to the format you need for the purpose. This allows you to make a completely different export down the road, say if your printer changes, without going back to edit anything. You just change the export preset.

Also is the Dell U2410 still available? I thought it was discontinued some time ago.

[noahdsnell]

There is no color space with RAW. You can attach one in camera but the software may or may not actually use it. For example Lightroom uses Pro Photo and there is no option to change it, so it does not care what you set in the camera. If you move back and forth from Lightroom to Photoshop you should keep them both the same so use Pro Photo both places. But in Photoshop you do have to change it as PS allows lots of options.

Basic rule of thumb is stay as wide as possible as long as possible. So edit everything in Pro Photo and when you export select the color space needed by the printer. Some printers will take AdobeRGB, some only sRGB, you have to ask. For web always use sRGB.

I think you are confused about how Lightroom works, if you are shooting in RAW then there is no need to save off versions, just leave them alone in the RAW with your edits. When you need an image, for web, for print or whatever, you go to Lightroom and export that image in the format and colorspace you need. You set that up in the export presets. I have no copies of my images in TIFF or Jpeg. I just have presets set to export for the formats I need. So if I need to send a 16bit TIFF in AdobeRGB to my printer for a fine art print, that is all set up as a preset. If I need that same image as a web size 8bit sRGB, again it's just a preset.

In Lightroom you don't "edit for the web" or "edit for fine art". You edit, period, then export to the format you need for the purpose. This allows you to make a completely different export down the road, say if your printer changes, without going back to edit anything. You just change the export preset.

Also is the Dell U2410 still available? I thought it was discontinued some time ago.

I understand how Lightroom works - just the whole color space thing that is a bit confusing to me. It's all about matching what I see on my monitor to the print or web version of that image. If I edit on a Adobe RGB monitor, then convert to sRGB for the web and look at it on a sRGB monitor (which the mass majority of people will have in their homes), will it not look different in any way? I have heard that when doing so, images become oversaturated.

So if Lightroom uses ProPhoto, and I am editing on a Adobe RGB monitor - I am actually limited to the Adobe RGB color space anyway so the Lightroom using ProPhoto is useless for me (unless I use a monitor with a higher gamut than Adobe RGB). Am I right?

Also, I found a Dell U2410 used for $300.

[stevebrot]

I understand how Lightroom works - just the whole color space thing that is a bit confusing to me.

Here is the best color space resource I know of. As for LR, the soft proof feature is a good first step, though it is of limited usefulness when going to a subtractive color system (e.g. your printer).

Tutorials on Color Management & Printing


Steve

[photodesignch]

RAW has no color space definition. You can apply to whatever to it. sRGB is for most of 8bit outputs such as monitor, printer.. AdobeRGB is just another representation of color gamut. Majority of the output devices won't support it unless it's for professional printing.

For WEB, you are likely to use sRGB because majority of browsers do not understand AdobeRGB (Legacy browsers) and only browser that will read color profile ICC is Apple Safari. So there is no point to embed any color space, color profile ICC to web. Just output as it is for sRGB. Secondly, web browsers will all rendering color differently due to different engines. The only color defined to be safe, and always accurate it's called web color 216 safe color palette. That means majority of your photo will likely to have color shift even it looks good on your computer. After all the destructive compression such as JPEG or the hosting site compression (such as facebook, flickr) good luck finding the perfect color palette!!!

Although Adobe claimed AdobeRGB has wider color gamut, but it's not entirely accurate. Because the final file saved into constrained file format. If both AdobeRGB and sRGB saved into JPEG.. Which means, no matter how well your color gamut is, you are only allow to be saved into 8bit color space. That means, AdobeRGB is more likely to be fine tuned for printing just like pantone. However, sRGB will present better on WEB or your screen. BUT! since you are saving into JPEG.. none of them gives you "more information" on colors.. You simply can't display a color that's not in RGB (00-FF) range.

As for 16bit color file format or higher.. Although we like to believe they carry much more colors.. But in reality, the constraint is indeed our display monitor.. Therefore, even you have a 64bit file, you are still going to be displaying 8bit on your screen. So they don't really "CARRY" or "DISPLAY" more colors.. They just basically allow you to have color shift just like RAW.. You are taking 8bit color palette from 16, 24, 36, 48 bit of color data, and shift to wherever your starting point is (That's what RAW's white balance is.. you shift all your 8bit color variables starting from your "WHITE" color).

Back to your question.. if you are considering AdobeRGB monitor.. It just means you probably need to match a AdobeRGB printer and both needs to be calibrated "almost" match to each other.. But web/browser, it simply don't matter... So it really depend on what you are outputting. AdobeRGB is strictly if you are matching printer.. Many designers might consider using AdobeRGB because they can do more accurate colors in AdobeRGB..

I hope that makes sense fo ryou.

[stevebrot]

only browser that will read color profile ICC is Apple Safari.

Are you sure about this? I agree with your advice to output to sRGB, but I do believe that support for color management extends to other than Apple Safari. My systems, for example, both using Firefox on Windows 7 Pro, support embedded ICC.

Is Your Browser Color Managed?

This is an important consideration when publishing to the Web that has affected members on this site. Several times in the last year, I have seen images uploaded to this site for consideration for the Exclusive Gallery where the JPEG was saved in one colorspace, but the forum software mapped it into a munged rendition in sRGB with predictably poor results for the small version displayed to the judges.


Steve

[photodesignch]

Are you sure about this? I agree with your advice to output to sRGB, but I do believe that support for color management extends to other than Apple Safari. My systems, for example, both using Firefox on Windows 7 Pro, support embedded ICC.

Is Your Browser Color Managed?

This is an important consideration when publishing to the Web that has affected members on this site. Several times in the last year, I have seen images uploaded to this site for consideration for the Exclusive Gallery where the JPEG was saved in one colorspace, but the forum software mapped it into a munged rendition in sRGB with predictably poor results for the small version displayed to the judges.


Steve

Steve,

only newer Firefox works with embed ICC. not all Firefox versions supports it. Safari is natively supporting it but you can not manage it. You can only use preset color palette. Others browsers simply only support sRGB.

Web browser color management guide

As for the newest Firefox supporting ICC, you can't say both of your windows and your Firefox supports AdobeRGB either. Windows ICC only works for particular software such as Adobe Photoshop.... It was never natively support into OS level. On the other hand, OSX is natively support ICC. All mac comes with proper monitor profile to start with. When you are loading images, OSX will automatically matching color ICC with your camera, then re-match to OSX monitor for calibration. That's one nice thing about Mac.

[jatrax]

So if Lightroom uses ProPhoto, and I am editing on a Adobe RGB monitor - I am actually limited to the Adobe RGB color space anyway so the Lightroom using ProPhoto is useless for me (unless I use a monitor with a higher gamut than Adobe RGB). Am I right?

I'm no expert, I just know what works for me. You always use the widest gamut you can and only go smaller for final use. By using an Adobe RGB capable monitor and Pro Photo colorspace you are not limiting yourself. All you can see on the monitor is the Adobe RGB colors but the full Pro Photo gamut is still available for editing. So when you do down gamut for final print the rendering engine has available all of the ProPhoto gamut. But if you start with Adobe RGB you have already thrown away a lot of potential. And even worse for sRGB. But that's all immaterial because Lightroom always uses ProPhoto anyway and does not give a choice.

The process I use, and many others as well, is edit in Prophoto regardless of the monitor you are looking at and only down gamut on export. I print fine both to my Canon Pro-1 and to print labs, and I export for web just fine. I sell images everyday over the web that were developed using ProPhoto and exported to either sRGB or AdobeRGB depending on the agency. If there was a problem I would not be selling and the agencies would be the first to tell me things were messed up.

The link Steve posted is the best source I have read as well. It is a good place to start at least.

Lightroom soft proofing can be useful but it is tricky to set up and you need the correct profiles for your printer and paper. If you are printing to an outside lab they might be able to provide you with the profiles they use.

[stevebrot]

Steve,

only newer Firefox works with embed ICC. not all Firefox versions supports it.

You mean Firefox prior to version 8 (ca 2010)? Current version on my box is 35.0.1. Color management in Firefox is old news. BTW...I don't know what you are smoking regarding native OS support for AdobeRGB in Windows vs. Mac OS. I was not aware that color management was needed at the OS level, particularly on the Mac where even the UI is an application.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'm no expert, I just know what works for me. You always use the widest gamut you can and only go smaller for final use. By using an Adobe RGB capable monitor and Pro Photo colorspace you are not limiting yourself. All you can see on the monitor is the Adobe RGB colors but the full Pro Photo gamut is still available for editing. So when you do down gamut for final print the rendering engine has available all of the ProPhoto gamut. But if you start with Adobe RGB you have already thrown away a lot of potential. And even worse for sRGB. But that's all immaterial because Lightroom always uses ProPhoto anyway and does not give a choice.

Yep, capture and work wide and publish (usually narrower) to the target device. For the Web this would be sRGB as the lowest common denominator.

I might clarify that LR uses a variant of ProPhoto RGB for the Develop module. The other modules use Adobe RGB. You can use AdobeRGB, sRGB, or whatever you want for the monitor, but my best experience has been to use a custom ICC based on calibration. That way you are able to leverage the full physical gamut of the monitor without introducing screwy mapping. (Been there...done that with the Windows 7 drivers form my Samsung monitor...)


Steve

[photodesignch]

You mean Firefox prior to version 8 (ca 2010)? Current version on my box is 35.0.1. Color management in Firefox is old news. BTW...I don't know what you are smoking regarding native OS support for AdobeRGB in Windows vs. Mac OS. I was not aware that color management was needed at the OS level, particularly on the Mac where even the UI is an application.


Steve

Even firefox has color management, but different browsers still renders differently. It's a given, and never had a solution. Because you can't simply tell all the browser users to use specific browser on specified version to view your work. It's not an ideal solution whatsoever.

Apparently you don't understand the need on the os level. Osx will apply automatic icc adjustment on anything, the photo preview, the enlargement, even inserting to proper photo apps if they don't have color space icc specified by default.

[stevebrot]

Apparently you don't understand the need on the os level. Osx will apply automatic icc adjustment on anything, the photo preview, the enlargement, even inserting to proper photo apps if they don't have color space icc specified by default.

I guess that explains why, according to your linked resource above, Safari had a fail for full ICC support at the time the article was published (2013). The graphic below was provided as an example.


Left side is Firefox, on the right is Safari. The left side is the appropriate rendering.

Perhaps that is because OS X is fiddling around here. I suspect you may not understand the nature of image rendering on your operating system. OS X may supply a a rendering engine bundled with desktop environment (several X desktops provide the same on Linux), but ultimately it is the application that decides what engine is used for image display. For most products this means bundling their own rendering engines. Doing so is highly desirable and provides enhanced stability to the application (not held hostage by Apple for proper display). That being said, mapping to the monitor ICC is something else and both Safari and Firefox do that properly.

As for "Even Firefox...", I would suggest that Firefox was among the leaders and not a follower in this arena. A little Google work will flesh out the history here.


Steve

(...read the linked article cameratico article back in 2013 when it was first published...)

[photodesignch]

I guess that explains why, according to your linked resource above, Safari had a fail for full ICC support at the time the article was published (2013). The graphic below was provided as an example.


Left side is Firefox, on the right is Safari. The left side is the appropriate rendering.

Perhaps that is because OS X is fiddling around here. I suspect you may not understand the nature of image rendering on your operating system. OS X may supply a a rendering engine bundled with desktop environment (several X desktops provide the same on Linux), but ultimately it is the application that decides what engine is used for image display. For most products this means bundling their own rendering engines. Doing so is highly desirable and provides enhanced stability to the application (not held hostage by Apple for proper display). That being said, mapping to the monitor ICC is something else and both Safari and Firefox do that properly.

As for "Even Firefox...", I would suggest that Firefox was among the leaders and not a follower in this arena. A little Google work will flesh out the history here.


Steve

(...read the linked article cameratico article back in 2013 when it was first published...)

Hi Steve,

I have no intention to debate right or wrong. Clearly browser war to the "standard" never going to have a solution whatsoever. No matter if Firefox or Safari is doing better it's very irrelevant to any end user, simply because you can not force what people use at home. There is no point to argue what is standard and what not, because it may apply to you, but in larger general user base, they really do not care. To reach out larger audience, sRGB is what most of monitor, browser would do, and that's what most of people would use. That is why even Firefox would support proper ICC, but so what? Not every one is using Firefox. Not that many mobile devices uses Firefox, and surely we know by fact, mobile users stands large portion of user base for internet browsing today.

And EVEN Firefox is correct on ICC, it's still doesn't make any sense simply because most of online image hosting service will "re-size" or even "re-generate" your image after uploaded. The hosting image engine could potentially strip out or alter your image data. So there is actual no point to care about the "custom ICC". The reason to it is because again.. Even you embeded proper ICC to your image, the end user can't possibly print the exact color because they don't have that ICC file inside of their system nor pairing to their printer or output devices. Because mainly most of people are still using sRGB!!!

What color system allows us to do is to calibrate our own system properly. However, when present to others (online or not), to convert the existing sRGB or AdobeRGB is necessary evil. I had more than once had issues that designed something with my system's color icc profile, but printing services CAN NOT and WOULD NOT have the proper match for the color. Printing will always off from the color I designed. Simply put! The mistake is to assumed others viewing or printing for your "custom ICC" which is the most stupidest move ever.

We, as a designer or photographer professionals.. We use custom ICC to calibrate our own tools to make refine adjustment to achieve best of our work. However, handing over your work to others "custom ICC" doesn't make too much sense at all. Same goes to online. Even you can properly using your custom ICC embedded into your photo.. The viewers from the other end really do not care about it. Are you going to force them to download your custom ICC and properly installed on their system so they can see "what you see"?

Back to the actual question.. AdobeRGB and sRGB differ by shifting the color space, you won't gain "more color". It's a fact just because our output devices simply do not support it. Even you can afford expensive output devices such as AdobeRGB printer or monitor. It still won't guarantee a thing what others viewing from their end. That is why I suggested to keep in RAW but output in standard sRGB. You will see a little color shift on the final product but that's just necessary evil for now.

The point to have ICC management system across your system in OS level is to have unified experiences on any apps you put image in. Not every photo editors would work like Photoshop to warm you of an image that has different ICC embed. To make unification across os is very smart move. You will never come across wrong matching icc from different files. os will convert it in real time while indexing and generating the preview.

[noahdsnell]

Ok, thanks guys.
I guess I'll go with the Dell U2410 and start using Adobe RGB.

Once I edit my image with the wide gamut monitor, I would also like to export it in sRGB for web viewing. How would I do this so that the sRGB version of the photo matches exactly what I see on the wide gamut monitor? When posting to my website and social media, I would need people to see the image just as I did on my wide gamut monitor.