[mattdm]

I suspect I'm more or less typical. I'll have a very competent camera, and I have a pretty good monitor and one piece of pretty good software along with whatever Pentax software my camera arrives with. It's unlikely I'll be printing at home when I want prints, my graphic artist skills are limited beyond doing cartography layout, and I mostly want to practice photography, not graphic artistry. [...]

I think my nutshell advice above really applies in this situation: work in sRGB, and if you have the disk space, save the RAW.

(Honestly, I'd even go further and say forget the RAW except in special cases, and just work in JPEG. I know a guy who does great work and whose photos are now featured in large ad campaign all over Boston who does exactly that. On the other hand, I don't want to get this dragged into *that* debate. )

I'm confused further because as a GIS Analyst I knock off some pretty darned impressive maps with all kinds of cool graphics on them using an HP1050C plotter. I do it almost every day. They come straight out of ArcMap - a program which is most definitely not focused on high end graphics manipulation. The stuff printed on the photo glossy paper for public presentations and whatnot really catches the eye. All of that is done straight from the default driver for that plotter - if there's settings for different colorspace settings, I haven't even noticed them in the three years I've been running plots out of that machine.

This is different, because the important thing with this kind of graphic is clear, bright colors -- not accurate representation thereof.

So... is there any kind of general concensus on whether Joe Sixpack should stick with sRGB, step one up to Adobe RGB, or go whole hog and flounder around trying to get everything set up properly in ProPhoto RGB?

Adobe RGB isn't necessarily a step up. Just different. One advantage it has over ProPhoto RGB is that the new wide-gamut monitors are able to cover it completely -- it's possible that in the next decade aRGB will work as well for Joe Sixpack as sRGB does now, but ProPhoto RGB by its nature never will be.

Edited to add: Did mattdm just adress just this in the message he posted while I was writing this?

Maybe.

A book I really like which includes a lucid explaination of color spaces among a general discussion of color is photographer Michael Freeman's Mastering Color Digital Photography. The caveat is that like all books I've seen from that publisher, the editing is a bit shoddy, and there's a tendency to put key information in long, fine print captions rather than in the main text. Other than that, though, wholeheartedly recommended.

[Rick]

I think my nutshell advice above really applies in this situation: work in sRGB, and if you have the disk space, save the RAW.

(Honestly, I'd even go further and say forget the RAW except in special cases, and just work in JPEG.

Hmmm... you sound just like Ken Rockwell! (Is that an insult in the digital world?)

RAW is good for me. Big HD's live here, and the costs of terabyte storage is getting ridiculously affordable. Then there's Blu-Ray, that I haven't even bothered to look at yet.

This is different, because the important thing with this kind of graphic is clear, bright colors -- not accurate representation thereof.

Actually, they aren't different. Maps are all about clear bright colors, matching colors, etc - particularly in thematic mapping that is heavy on raster data. When using color ladders for symbolization, it is pretty important that even if the shadesets are very close to each other, they ARE uniform throughout the map and discernibly different from each other.

Additionally, many maps prepared these days have included embedded graphics for public presentations, the company logo, etc. It has never occurred to me before to think about color space when including a supplied .tiff or .jpg of a bighorn sheep or expanse of range and mountains when preparing a map for The Nature Conservancy, for example.

Anyways, GIS/cartography is another subject. Although I do see third party software offered for map layout and printing, so some guys obviously do think more is needed in color management and printing.

Adobe RGB isn't necessarily a step up. Just different. One advantage it has over ProPhoto RGB is that the new wide-gamut monitors are able to cover it completely -- it's possible that in the next decade aRGB will work as well for Joe Sixpack as sRGB does now, but ProPhoto RGB by its nature never will be.

Aha! Well, I will have to check the home and work monitors and see if any of them support aRGB. CD's for them should be laying around somewhere. All less than a year old; not likely, but maybe...

A book I really like which includes a lucid explaination of color spaces among a general discussion of color is photographer Michael Freeman's Mastering Color Digital Photography.

Thanks... I'll add it to the reading list.

[BarneyCG]

There is a problem with what you started in this thread; let me explain by analogy.

Do you have a sleeping partner? (Question is rhetorical, I don't care who you sleep with--it's just the easiest analogy I could quickly conjure.) A wife, girlfriend, significant other that shares your bed?

For the purpose of this analogy let's say you do and further that the bed is king-sized. Normally you put sheets, blankets and maybe a spread or comforter on that bed--all sized to king-size dimensions.

Now it's a cold night and the power is off so the lights are out and you cannot find any candles. And some trickster has slipped into your bedroom and replaced all the linen, blankets and comforter with similar items sized for a childs twin-bed.

I can guarantee that either you or your sleeping partner is going to have a rough night!


Well you've done something very similar with your color management advice. RAW conversion and color management are super-king-sized topics (In the US that would be a California King Bed-extra wide, extra long!). And telling folks to shoot RAW, with AdobeRGB default supplied to EXIF and then working in ProphotoRGB is very much like putting twin-sized linen and covers on that king sized bed and asking two adults to sleep there on a cold night.

Somebody is going to be 'out in the cold'.







Don't take this wrong; I concede you may actually know a little about these two topics! But this 5 cent verse from the gospel of benjikan doesn't provide enough context to be useful to any of the faithful--as I scan the thread I'm forced to conclude that overall, this thread is replete with error and mis-statement.


Until we get to davemdsn---users should take his advice: find a good book on the subject(s), read that.

Whoa there cowboy ... The OP's first post suggested that using RAW should be done as a matter of course if you do any serious amount of PP. He made no comments on colour spaces until asked what RAW format he used, and even then he only said what he did. He made no pretence of instructing people how to use colour spaces or even how to do RAW conversion. Obviously both these operations require proper research before being able to complete them competently.

I'm aware that you have a problem with benjikan but this obvious animosity towards is getting tiresome. While I may find benjikan's "full on" nature a little too much for me at times I appreciate he is trying to share his techniques with others, and unlike some of the junk that can be found on the web his techniques have the benefit of being used in a "Pro" environment. That is not to say that others can't do it better or that you may not like some of what he does, but please give your hate campain a rest.

[PDL]

OK - let’s get back to the basics - shooting RAW.

I started shooting RAW after a photo workshop - after I had purchased another SD card and a small HD to dump SD contents too (Wolverine flashpac 7000 40GB). Once I got to the point where I had the available storage - I started shooting RAW all the time.

I loaned my camera to my son, who is in Art school - and the instructor told him to shoot in RAW only - because it has more data contained in the image than JPEG - and this was a course in the use of Photoshop. (He aced it - by the way - his desired degree is going to be in 3D game animation)

By its nature RAW has more information - and that is what digital imaging is all about - information. I do shoot jpeg once in a while - but that is for things that are trivial - meaning I do not intend to keep it for the long term. For my stuff - I want the equivalent of the original negative in film - the RAW format is my negative.

When using only jpeg and you edit - save - edit - save - you can not get back to the original and each save will degrade the image. The way around this is to use your computers file system to copy the jpeg an only work off of copies. JPEG is a display format - not an editing format.

As for color-space - I want the one that gives me the greatest range. All of my computers are set to use Adobe RGB as is my printers profile. And when I print at Costco (can't beat the price) I use their Printer profiles - no problem - easy to adjust with the RAW image. I use PPL, Adobe Elements, Adobe Lightroom and MS Digital Image Suite 2006 (for jpeg stuff - can not see RAW). What I see is what I print. Every professional that I know of uses RAW for the most part - especially for stuff they make money on --- they need the negative.

PDL

---

Last edited by PDL; 04-23-2007 at 09:38 AM. Reason: Added more pontification

[mattdm]

As for color-space - I want the one that gives me the greatest range. All of my computers are set to use Adobe RGB as is my printers profile. And when I print at Costco (can't beat the price) I use their Printer profiles - no problem - easy to adjust with the RAW image. I use PPL, Adobe Elements, Adobe Lightroom and MS Digital Image Suite 2006 (for jpeg stuff - can not see RAW). What I see is what I print.

What monitor are you using?

It's a really common misconception that setting the monitor color space to Adobe RGB in your OS or application will make it be Adobe RGB. As I mentioned before, most monitors -- including really nice top-of-the-line models -- can't actually display the whole range of Adobe RGB.

The fact that many people (not you specifically -- I have no idea what monitors you have) don't realize this and think "what I see is what I print." without ever noticing that it's actually not indicates to me that the added advantage in most cases must be outside the range of easily noticeable.

[jfdavis58]

This meesage is in reply to Option where he states something silly about books being outdated.




This could be considerably longer and more detailed; you don't seem the type to read such a discourse.

"Shoot RAW, convert to lossless-16 bit-ProPhotoRGB file format" cannot be said to be completely wrong. But it's not completely right either; it is less than optimal.

A few minutes with Lightroom will reveal the current digital workflow preferences.

Shoot RAW, manage RAW is the first key element. Shoot RAW includes several key factors: WB capture, initial conversion colorspace based on intended output and exposure adequacy. WB is something you cannot accurately estimate; an on site/on scene measurement is critical to successful conversion. Initial color space selection coupled with WB tends to give good in camera previews and the C-Space tagging provides at least an intent reminder.

RAW management is fully functional in Lightroom; browsing the online documentation will reveal particulars not essential to answering your question.

Lightroom makes an inital conversion from RAW to ProPhoto tagged RGB, holds that image in virtual memory and sends it to a well calibrated and profiled monitor. Key is the well calibrated and profiled monitor. Any edits to the photo are based on this image and stored external to the original file in either the Lightroom database or XMP sidecars; hence the terminology: non-destructive editing.

It not clear exactly how the export features work. From observing the time elapsed for a batch of files it would appear that Lightroom makes a new RAW conversion for each file in the batch when export is requested. Two computational paths are possible: RAW to RGB tagged Prophoto, edits applied, then conversion to output and tagged as required. Or RAW to RGB tagged as required, edits applied then output. The former is old-school, the latter current and preferred. The central question here is how edits done in ProPhoto space are translated into edits for the target color space. The results speak for them selves: excellent!

Shoot RAW, Manage RAW. Convert, tag, and edit specific to output.

An item to be displayed on the browser, either directly or via internet should be sRGB tagged/spaced, sized, edited and sharpened for typical screens (currently fitting an 800 by 800 pixel box seems acceptable).

An outsourced print should be tagged/spaced and sized as specified by the outsource (typically 4 by 6 inch prints are sRGB and 1200 by 1800 pixels--300ppi). Editing and sharpening should be appropriate.

A home/office print is similar to an outsource print unless the printer is controlled by a raster image processor. Then following the requirements listed in the RIP documentation is a smart move. For an ordinary desktop inkjet photo printer, some users report a gain in green and yellow response by tagging/spacing the output file as aRGB. This REQUIRES printer control to be managed by a sophisticated color management module in an editor like Photoshop or a pretty printer like QImage ALONG WITH custom ICC printer profiles that match the printer/ink and paper being used. The Windows operating system printer driver must be operated in a benign fashion; printer drivers do not typically possess the capability to manage the necessary profile conversions. The actual 'gain' in image quality is difficult to ascertain.

Images for publication require input from the printing facility. PostScript reigns supreme; keep it in mind! This means aRGB everywhere. A RAW file or an RGB image tagged aRGB and at original pixel dimensions in a generic lossless file format (TIFF) are typical. Sophisticated and capable photographers might be allowed to perform the CMYK plate separations-they will certainly be involved in proofing!

Every RGB space share some common characteristics which make it suitable for editing: uniformity of distribution and discrete continuity as defined by calculus. Some are better than others for specific tasks, none are omnipotent.

The problems with one size fits all, one line solutions is two fold: one size doesn't fit all and one line is seldom sufficient. I don't care who's gospel is being recited.

In my professional work I utilize the internet, mailed disk, and three different outsource printers; at least six different basic workflows. There are five different paper surfaces and seven different sizes of print; now the combinations of workflow and profiles becomes staggering. Personal work is web based and printed on two different machines; again three workflows and countless profile combinations. I may not be typical; but I'm not extraordinary either.

That's all the generic stuff. There are some delightful specifics.

Will Crockett can be found at the Shoot Smarter University on-line. He does portraits of extraordinary quality--all in sRGB. He teaches the technique for a premium fee. Katrin Eismann teaches and lectures as well as authors; her 'skin' work involves CMYK tagged/spaced images. An incredible technique endorsed by most magazine publishers as standard procedure. Dan Margulis had a thing for Lab space. Then it expanded; he now uses whatever space 'works' so seeing something spaced HSB or CMYK or RGB-even some experimental RGBs is his norm. Anything by Bruse Fraser; especially his Creative Pro articles

Pentax users engaging their first dSLR, or perhaps their first SLR of any kind seem to be from 4 to 6 years behind the curve--behind their brethren using Canon and Nikon. They seem prone to finding secondary or tertiary sources of information. Information that is often hacked and inaccurate. Books are their only salvation; very few, if any secondary or tertiary sources have found their way to print.

[jfdavis58]

Hi people,

Well...., I confess. In the minimum I'm a bit cunfused with all this.
It seems that there are a lot of ways of doing it well or I'm wrong?

Can someone contribute with some links or pdfs that may help to clarify some ideas?

Many thanks.
Regards,
Palu

p.s. - I love the 20th century books...

Yes I can, send and e-mail and I return it with the list---it's extensive; measured against the typical forum post sized type about 5-7 pages.

[jfdavis58]

This reply if for PDL; to a statement he makes about his use of aRGB for essentially everything.




OK, Im trying to make some sense of this.

Let's check some things, OK.

From your desktop, right click on any open space and select properties. Click the settings tab and then advanced button. Click on the Color Management tab and tell us what it says in the box below the line: "Color profiles currently associated with this device:"

Label your answer "Monitor profile:' [put info here]

Cancel twice.


Start>Printers and faxes. Right click the printer you use for photos and select proerties. Click the color management tab and follow a reporting path similar to the monitor but now label it printer:...

These would represent the boot strap monitor profile and the default printer profile used in the absense of any form of bootstrap monitor profile loader or an over-riding printer profile selection from an editor such as in the Photoshop print dialog.

Close (X) out the dialogs back to the desktop.

Click Start>All Programs>Start-up and tell us if you have a bootstrap montior profile loader such as "MonacoGamma" for example.

Report as:

Bootstrap loader:[put name here].

Note: if you have re-booted many times since last profiling the monitor, the monitor profile from above should be the one the bootstrap loader installed!

From your post you use Elements?!

Under the Edit menu> Color preferences. Which button is highlighted?

Cancel out.

You will need to tell us your personal printer type to proceed with this process.

Elements has only a limited color management module/engine. It cam make an s or aRGB tagged image play nice with a printer profile only if that profile can be selecte in the page settings dialog--otherwise it uses the default printer profile---that is not aRGB.

The Elements color managment dialog is misleading in several ways. Most notably is that not all monitors can display all sRGB space.

There is no soft proofing in Elements, You cannot assign the Costco profile and this is a good thing. Apparently some Costco outlets have both 'a' and sRGB to their printer profile conversion capabilities. As long as you have a correctly tagged file it SHOULD come out in print as you see it on a well calibrated and profiled monitor--I assume yours is?

For people who don't every buy or experiment with Photoshop it's very hard for them to imagine the tremendous advantage it has over Elements and other programs wrt the color management. If you provide the information requested, I will be able to draw you a map show exactly how your system is configured and what if any changes you might make for greater or improved performance. You too, like several others in this thread have some misconceptions. Of course if you think it's OK as is, feel free to say so and continue on.

[mattdm]

Hey jfdavis58 -- when you reply, could you at least quote a tiny bit or give an indication as to who "you" refers to in your posts? Because in linear thread mode, there's no way to tell who you're talking to (and I find the threaded mode klutzy). Thanks.

[jfdavis58]

To Matdm, about tying my posts to whom I am replying.



Did I get them all sorted, now?

I come from a very linear forum system where folks had long time associations and virtual intimacy at a much higher level--sorry, I'll try harder.

[joele]

I do shoot in PEF, though I must admit most of my photos I keep the JPEG I make from the PEF but not the PEF itself.. Maybe only 20% of the PEFs I bother keeping. Otherwise the storage required gets silly..

[jsteel77]

Do it Steve.

I was in your exact position a couple of months ago. I put in an Infrant ReadyNAS NV+ with 4 Seasgate Barracuda 400G SATA3.0 drives configured in Raid 5. This gives me 1.2 TBs of redunant storage.

It has been worth every penny I've invested. The only thing I would recommend, that I don't currently have, is a gigabit network.

What does this mean in "computer for dummies" language??


I'm finding my laptop is quickly running out of storage after I started shooting RAW format. What are some cheap alternatives for storage?

Thanks...

John

[nystateofmind27]

John, 500gb external hard drives are under $200 now.

[khardur]

I do shoot in PEF, though I must admit most of my photos I keep the JPEG I make from the PEF but not the PEF itself.. Maybe only 20% of the PEFs I bother keeping. Otherwise the storage required gets silly..

nearly the same here - I shoot RAW 99% of the time, (the other 1% I regret not shooting raw... go figure)

after I do the required PP work I plop the .PEF into a separate folder, and keep the .jpgs. The PEF's get backed up onto DVD's every so often and then purged, why do I need to keep them on the hard drive if I've done all the PP already?

[RBellavance]

John, 500gb external hard drives are under $200 now.

Make sure you have a decent backup strategy. I would, at a minimum, keep two drives in a mirrored configuration and keep 2 copies of all photos on CD or DVD, with at least one copy being stored off-site. As a matter of fact, that is what I currently do.