The K-7 is my first DSLR. I've always been fascinated with photography, and recently started learning more about it. I eased into it with my previous compact super zoom (Canon S3 IS), and figured I was finally ready to take the plunge into a real camera system. Things were going well, my skills have been improving, and I continue to learn every day. I've taken thousands of pictures with my K-7 over the last month alone, and I feel like I'm getting a better eye for composition and such. But one thing kept bugging me about my pictures. I'd look at the shots taken by other people on this forum, and many of them took my breath away. By comparison, my pictures felt bland and lifeless. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get scenes to "pop" properly. At first I blamed my inexperience, I figured I must not have the camera set right, but nothing I did helped. My pictures continued to come out bland and lifeless despite the awesome things I was trying to capture.
What was I doing wrong?
When I first got my K-7, the first thing I did while wading through the menu was switch the color space from sRGB to Adobe RGB. Years and years of reading about the "larger color space" provided by Adobe RGB conditioned me into thinking that anything else would be inferior. Since all the applications I use are color management-aware, I figured I would benefit from this wider color space by preserving it throughout my workflow, right up until the printing process. Even the K-7 manual brags about the "expanded color space" provided by Adobe RGB.
What the heck was I thinking? I feel like such an idiot now!
I finally did some reading into what exactly Adobe RGB does. Turns out it's not as simple as all the articles I read led me to believe. It's not just an expanded color space, it's a compressed color space meant to fit within the constraints of the standard method used by computers to interpret color. It's intended to provide closer compatibility with the final output of a professional photograph: the 4-color printer. While Adobe RGB does contain a wider range of color information, that wider range is completely useless for mere mortals like me. And since most applications can't take advantage of it, it results in bland, washed-out colors when displayed on a screen. 99% of the pictures I take get displayed on a screen.
On top of that, the difference in printed output (if one manages to maintain the Adobe RGB profile throughout the workflow) is minimal at best. I can't actually tell the difference by looking. Most places that print pictures don't even care, they use sRGB too. And when those places try to print a picture with an Adobe RGB profile, the picture comes out as bland and lifeless as it does on the monitor.
So last night I changed my camera's setting back to sRGB, and it was like magic. All of a sudden, the bland lifelessness was gone. My pictures POPPED, everything looked great! I'm not suddenly a better photographer, but I feel much more encouraged to continue learning. It's like I broke down a barrier that was preventing me from progressing.
I'm not saying Adobe RGB is useless. It has its place in the professional world where the workflow and equipment can support it, and where the tiny improvement in final result is desired. But for me? It's a completely useless complication. It is NOT like the difference between shooting RAW and JPG. Not even close.
After learning this, I decided to go out and take pictures of the same scenes I got last week. Here are some comparison shots:
This is with Adobe RGB:
And this is one week later with sRGB (and slightly different white balance):
This if with Adobe RGB:
And this is one week later with sRGB:
This is with Adobe RGB:
And this is one week later with sRGB:
And this is probably most telling of all. I just took these shots in my basement with a tripod. The camera was set to Manual mode. White balance was set manually with a white card. Aperture is F4.0, shutter speed is 1/4, ISO is 100. Focal length is 58mm using a DA* 50-135mm. Both pictures use the EXACT same settings with one difference. The first is in Adobe RGB color space, the second is in sRGB.
And here are some 100% crops of details that really struck me:
The sRGB shot is on the left, and the Adobe RGB shot on the right. Notice the brilliance of the green. The orange of the pool table looks bright and colorful on the left, but drab and boring on the right. The sRGB one is much closer to the real thing, I'd even say identical.
Again, sRGB on left, Adobe RGB on right. Notice how the dummy's skin tone is much deeper in the sRGB version. It's all washed out and pale on the Adobe RGB side. Again, the sRGB version is closer to the real-life view.
And finally, notice how green the pine needles are on the left (sRGB) compared to the right (Adobe RGB). The red also stands out more, and really shows off the light that's shining on it. The red on the Adobe RGB side looks darker, but not very eye-catching.
I realize this post is rather long and already has a lot of pictures, but I've got one last example to show. This is another "studio" shot in my basement. One half of the picture is in Adobe RGB, the other in sRGB. Can you tell which is which? There's a straight vertical line near the middle, it goes right through the polar bear badge near the bottom of the bag.
Again, I'm not dismissing Adobe RGB's usefulness for professionals. But for the vast majority of us, it's nothing but a hindrance.
edit: You can easily see these same results for yourself on your camera, especially with the VGA screen on the K-7. Just take two shots of the same thing, one with sRGB and one with Adobe RGB, and flip between them to see the difference. The camera's display cannot take advantage of Adobe RGB at all.
Last edited by GoremanX; 01-09-2010 at 12:22 AM.