Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-20-2020, 08:23 PM - 1 Like   #1
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,836
Colour Space

I have left my K3 and K1 in default sRGB color space mode, but both have the larger AdobeRGB space available. Most of my images are viewed on a screen only, but occasionally I want to print one that turns out particularly striking.

What do you do: sRGB or AdobeRGB? And why? Does it affect file size? What are the implications for post processing and in particular for printing?

12-20-2020, 09:13 PM - 1 Like   #2
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
Good question. If there is a difference in file size, it is minimal. For RAW, there is no difference in the data. The color space is applied to the sensor data during RAW processing and may be overriden at will. With in-camera JPEG, the color space has already been applied and AdobeRGB should provide a broader gamut for more graceful and easier post-processing than sRGB.

That said, device support for AdobeRGB, even with the profile embedded, is not guaranteed. For broadest compatibility, sRGB is a better choice and something that may be applied as a final step when making an output file for publication. This is easier a tool that supports nondestructive editing.

One more thing, file names for AdobeRGB from the camera are always prefixed with the "_" character.


Steve
12-20-2020, 11:46 PM   #3
Tas
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul the Sunman Quote
I have left my K3 and K1 in default sRGB color space mode, but both have the larger AdobeRGB space available. Most of my images are viewed on a screen only, but occasionally I want to print one that turns out particularly striking.

What do you do: sRGB or AdobeRGB? And why? Does it affect file size? What are the implications for post processing and in particular for printing?
G'Day Paul,

I shoot in Adobe RGB. I've not compared files sizes as I just accepted it to be the size it is to get the Adobe RGB colour gamut.

For post processing I use On1 PhotoRAW and don't have any issues in processing with images captured in Adobe RGB. I export in SRGB for the interweb. When processing in Adobe RGB you should look for a screen(s) that can match the colour space you use. A lot of screens don't mention Adobe RGB but I guess if your screen can't show you the full or close to full Adobe RGB colour space is there any point considering using it?

I've not printed in ages, but this is the advice from the company I've used previously for printing: When calibrating my screen what colourspace and file format should I use?

Not a definitive answer but hope that helps.


Tas
12-20-2020, 11:58 PM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,528
I would recommend using the largest color space you can use, if you are just shooting JPEG I would go with Adobe as this will give you the most leeway in processing and also give you a wider gamut for future uses. You can always convert it to SRGB later for publishing to the web. Now a lot of browsers are both adobe and now even Prophoto which is an even larger color space. Here you can find out if your web browsers is to look here
http://color.org/version4html.xalter
Here you can find out if the browsers you are using is Prophoto ready
https://photographylife.com/is-your-browser-color-managed

I like to use the largest for all of my editing Prophoto as this gives me the largest amount of editing room for later processing and for future proofing my work. Most cameras do not allow you to save as Prophoto but most raw converters do.

Here is one of the reasons why I use Prophoto this is one of the image that I frequently print, this graph represents all of the color found in that image and the wire frame is the Adobe color space. All of the data points that fall outside of that wire frame would be lost and I would not be able to recreate
as you can see I would be loosing a lot of the data in that image
Now here is what I am able to print here is the same data points but plotted with my printers gamut as seen with a wire frame
As yo can see all of the blue that is found in that image can also be printed, If I had save that image as a Adobe I would have thrown away color data that I could have reproduced in my printed image

I have given up on trying to control how my images are going to be viewed by other users as most of the time they are doing so on uncalibrated viewing devises, much of the time most of the viewing is being done on current browsers that can use Prophoto. the only time I use anything other than Prohoto is for hosting sites that will convert them to srgb


Here's a good video


12-21-2020, 12:05 AM   #5
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul the Sunman Quote
I have left my K3 and K1 in default sRGB color space mode, but both have the larger AdobeRGB space available. Most of my images are viewed on a screen only, but occasionally I want to print one that turns out particularly striking.

What do you do: sRGB or AdobeRGB? And why? Does it affect file size? What are the implications for post processing and in particular for printing?
If most of your images are viewed on screen or posted on the web, there is little point in using AdobeRGB. Unless you have a wide gamut monitor, you (and other web viewers) will only be able to see sRGB colours and you are relying on your computer graphics software to convert any out of gamut colours to sRGB of which you will have no control.

When I print, I use a commercial printer who prefers sRGB colour profiles or paper/printer specific profiles which I download and tag my images with.

For extensive post processing it is generally advised to work in the widest colour space possible until you have completed your edits. Then convert to the colour space you require. But in this case you are better off editing a raw file or a 16 bit TIFF and save that in AdobeRGB or the even wider ProPhoto colour space. You can then use that image as your "master" to create a jpeg from in whichever colour space you require. By using a AdobeRGB jpeg from the camera you are limiting yourself to the 8 bit jpeg format.
12-21-2020, 01:06 AM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Michail_P's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Kalymnos
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,006
I prefer prophoto for editing and sRGB for the export. You sometimes get surprised by the conversion of reds and magentas (they tend to be muted). I always compare the colors after the color space switching of the raw. When printing, I understand that sRGB is the safest way due to hardware compatibility issues.
12-21-2020, 02:07 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,836
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Tas Quote
G'Day Paul,

I shoot in Adobe RGB. I've not compared files sizes as I just accepted it to be the size it is to get the Adobe RGB colour gamut.

For post processing I use On1 PhotoRAW and don't have any issues in processing with images captured in Adobe RGB. I export in SRGB for the interweb. When processing in Adobe RGB you should look for a screen(s) that can match the colour space you use. A lot of screens don't mention Adobe RGB but I guess if your screen can't show you the full or close to full Adobe RGB colour space is there any point considering using it?
Thanks Tas. As I said, my cameras are set to sRGB, but I shoot Raw exclusively, so if I understand stevebrot correctly, it makes no difference. I too use ON1 Photo Raw, so am interested in your perspective.

The reason I am asking these questions is that I am researching to buy a new monitor. Does anyone have any suggestions for a 27" photo-monitor that doesn't cost the Earth? A couple of the BenQ offerings seem good.

12-21-2020, 04:02 AM   #8
dlhawes
Guest




LG27GL850 - pre-calibrated for color at the factory, and a less expensive alternative to monitors that you can calibrate using external computer-attached devices.
12-21-2020, 04:54 AM - 1 Like   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul the Sunman Quote
Thanks Tas. As I said, my cameras are set to sRGB, but I shoot Raw exclusively, so if I understand stevebrot correctly, it makes no difference. I too use ON1 Photo Raw, so am interested in your perspective.

The reason I am asking these questions is that I am researching to buy a new monitor. Does anyone have any suggestions for a 27" photo-monitor that doesn't cost the Earth? A couple of the BenQ offerings seem good.
You understand correctly shooting raw exclusively it does not really matter if you set sRGB or Adobe RGB. Although I expect not It may have an effect on how you see the colours on your camera LCD. My guess is that the LCD may only cover the gamut of sRGB, if you are lucky.

Assuming you want a quality monitor for photo editing and colour matching for print then the following points are important to consider, otherwise there are many good and cheap monitors to be had:

For a photo monitor the best are seen to come from Eizo and NEC but usually these do 'cost the earth' at least in comparison. I have heard good things about some of the newer BenQ, but have had little exposure to the mark.

Should your budget not stretch far enough then have you considered buying a 24" quality monitor from the likes of the main players? Not sure what is available and pricing at the moment but it may be that you can get into Eizo or NEC 24" at a similar price to the BenQ offering?

Also consider colour gamut and resolution which can be of aid when printing in particular - wider gamut allows display of colours outside of smaller gamut of sRGB. Note some printer and ink combinations can exceed Adobe RGB gamut in certain areas. Higher monitor resolution e.g. 4k is desirable but unlikely to fall within budget, instead firmly in the 'costing the earth' category.

Advantages should include being able to view closer to actual print size when images seen on screen at 100% (helpful for printing evalutation), increased image resolution/sharpness compared to 100ppi monitors and noise appearance reduced. The latter most helpful when evaluating images for sharpening and noise reduction prior to printing.

You should also budget for a monitor calibration device. X-Rite and Datacolor are the usual options. X -Rite should be favoured and the i1Display is highly recommended or the slightly cheaper and less capable ColorMunki Display.

Factory pre calibrated is rather meaningless unless it is stated to what aim points and even then in the unlikely event that the calbration aim points match yours for viewing and print matching. The monitor profile that you create during the calibration/characterisation process will be used by colour savvy applications to display your images correctly (within the limitations of the monitor) and this process needs repeating as over time monitors will drift and a new profile needed to continue getting accurate colour

Last edited by TonyW; 12-21-2020 at 05:15 AM.
12-21-2020, 06:20 AM   #10
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul the Sunman Quote
Does anyone have any suggestions for a 27" photo-monitor that doesn't cost the Earth? A couple of the BenQ offerings seem good.
I use an Eizo CS2730 wide gamut monitor. 27 inch/ 2560x1440 resolution. Unfortunately it is expensive, but does come with its own software for calibration. You still need to buy a hardware calibration "puck".

I have heard good things about the BenQ wide gamut monitors so if you find a good deal on one I would go for that.
12-21-2020, 07:12 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mooncatt's Avatar

Join Date: May 2020
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
I've been eyeballing a couple LG 27" 4K monitors. They seem to get good reviews on rtings, especially after calibration, and don't break the bank. May not be the best, but I'm by no means a pro, so I don't have much justification for the high end models.
12-21-2020, 08:54 AM   #12
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,114
I may be wrong here but I thought the point of 4k monitors was for gaming and watching films. If you look at an average image published on say this forum, on a 4k screen, won't you need a magnifying glass to view it ?

Last edited by pschlute; 12-21-2020 at 09:53 AM.
12-21-2020, 09:59 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
I may be wrong here but I thought the point of 4k monitors was for gaming and watching films. If you look at an average image published on say this forum, won't you need a magnifying glass to view it ?
For average forum and web viewing in general I agree that 4k likely to be overkill. After all it seems likely that most images maximum size not likely to exceed 1024 pixels longest direction and will display just fine on most monitors.

So why may 4k (or more!) be worthwhile over a standard monitor in particular for printing?

To generalise a standard monitor will display up to about 100 pixels per inch (measure the width of the screen and divide by the graphic card display figures). My 24" Eizo displays about 94 PPI at the rec. resolution of 1920x1200PPI screen measures just over 20" widest

So assume we are printing to a Canon printer with a native resolution requirement of 300 PPI. On our standard monitor (100 PPI) if we view at 100% we are looking at the image data as if through a 3x loupe with all artefacts enlarged. This includes noise and resolution/sharpness. If we try and compensate and view at a smaller zoom ratio we will now not have enough PPI to get an accurate feel.

More pixels means less magnification when we set our editing view to 100% and consequently a more accurate view of sharpness requirements and noise characteristics of the data
12-21-2020, 10:09 AM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
So assume we are printing to a Canon printer with a native resolution requirement of 300 PPI. On our standard monitor (100 PPI) if we view at 100% we are looking at the image data as if through a 3x loupe with all artefacts enlarged.
Printer dpi is not the same as monitor PPI, so best not use that as a basis for comparison. Better to use actual display frame linear dimensions.


Steve
12-21-2020, 11:08 AM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mooncatt's Avatar

Join Date: May 2020
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
I may be wrong here but I thought the point of 4k monitors was for gaming and watching films. If you look at an average image published on say this forum, on a 4k screen, won't you need a magnifying glass to view it ?
Gamers lean towards 1080p monitors because those typically have higher refresh rates and lower response times at a reasonable price. (You can get that in higher resolutions, but prices seem to jump a fair bit to do so.) That, coupled with the higher frame rates possible, make those monitors desirable. When it comes to action, you are not likely to see much difference between 1080p and 4K on a small screen.

4K works better with image editing, where you are paying attention to fine details. There's zero reason to want high refresh rates and hyper low response times to display largely static images.

It's all about the right tool for the job.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, adobergb, attention, camera, colour, colours, details, dslr, image, monitor, photography, ppi, print, printer, ratio, resolution, screen, sharpness, size, space, srgb, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space X Puts The US back In Space Racer X 69 General Talk 13 05-31-2020 04:12 PM
Colour space questions. velvia Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 04-26-2020 02:40 PM
Lightroom export in sRGB colour space not same as screen? BigMackCam Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 12-16-2015 06:21 PM
Colour Space petsinwater Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 10 04-02-2014 04:31 PM
Colour Space Tall Guy Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 05-07-2008 06:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top