AdobeRGB vs. sRGB - please help!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/28/2005 09:05:29 PM · #1

I shoot portraits with my 20d. Recently, I tried using AdobeRGB because it has a larger colorspace than the sRGB. The problem is that the picture, taken at the same f8, 1/200 looks better (more colorful) in sRGB, but more nuetral in AdobeRGB. My clients like the warm look of the skin in sRGB but I feel the bigger colorspace will offer more detail on the portraits.

Why is my AdobeRGB so bland out of the camera, and how can I make it better in Photoshop? Or should I just stick with sRGB?

Thanks,
Eric
//www.eslayphotography.com

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/28/2005 09:08:47 PM · #2

the actual difference between the two is pretty small... it's similar to switching from different films from what i've heard. The sRGB is definately easier to get good results from. If it works for you, then use it for your professional work until you can figure out aRGB during your spare time? I use both, but when I shoot raw I usually convert to aRGB which I find to be trickier... sometimes frustrating. I don't know if that helps...

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

08/28/2005 09:16:03 PM · #3

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the difference is not small at all. Adobe RGB has a much wider color gamut the sRGB. sRGB is closer to CMYK in view. I suspect the problem is more with you monitor calibration than the color space. sRGB probably looks better because it's the native color space on your PC.

dustin03

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/28/2005 09:17:55 PM · #4

If you want to collect for information in you image file, shoot RAW. Convert to sRGB and jpeg after you made adjustment in the RAW file. RAW file are much larger and more work envolved, however, all your information is there, color, details, ects. Depending how where you go for prints, most pro printers use the sRGB color profile. At least most of the printers in my area do. If you print at home/business, as aways make sure that your camera, software, computer and printer are all calibrated to the color profile you choose. I have always worked best in sRGB....

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/28/2005 09:19:03 PM · #5

i've heard there is an 18% color difference but only in certain colors. You probably couldn't tell a lot of shots printed apart in either aRGB or sRGB. Don't get me wrong, I agree the aRGB is better, but I read a very in dept article about them both compaired.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/28/2005 09:23:18 PM · #6

//www.nulab.com.au/newsletter/november2004/sRGBViaAdobe.htm
Note on page 2 where it states FACT ONE.

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 21:23:28.

08/28/2005 09:23:32 PM · #7

Unless you have a custom colorspace set up you should probably be working in AdobeRGB. sRGB is a web based colorspace. When you publish to the web you may want to covert over to that. I'm preety sure that the Save for Web option in PS does that for you automatically.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/28/2005 09:25:06 PM · #8

The whole time I was thinking that it was a problem with me or my monitor calibration. One day I was out shooting Fall leaves, and the colors were just deadly- none of the vibrant reds and oranges I was seeing on the trees. On a hunch, I switched back to sRGB and EUREKA! The color was back! I saved those two shots in case anybody asked this question (both straight out of the camera at the same settings):

Needless to say, I'm not in any hurry to return to Adobeland. ;-)

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/28/2005 09:28:10 PM · #9

The Color Management chapter of Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Photographers is available as a free PDF download. It should answer a lot of your questions and more if you take the time to read and understand it.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/28/2005 09:29:44 PM · #10

My understanding has always been that sRGB is a very selective colorspace designed to work on the average (whatever that is) PC monitor. Therefore, if your images are destined for the WWW, sRGB will give you the best, most vibrant reproduction.

Adobe RGB is a wider colorspace designed to get images to the world of print. If you're images are destined for printing, Adobe RGB will give you the best color saturation, etc.

Here's a clip from Photoshop CS Help:

Adobe RGB (1998)
Is the largest recommended RGB working space and suited for print production with a broad range of colors.

sRGB
Is designed to reflect the characteristics of the average PC monitor. sRGB is suitable for RGB images destined for the Web, but not recommended for print production work.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/28/2005 09:31:08 PM · #11

Originally posted by scalvert:

Needless to say, I'm not in any hurry to return to Adobeland. ;-)

In a color-managed application like Photoshop, it would be trivial to use the "Convert To Profile..." option to take the AdobeRGB-tagged file and convert it to the sRGB color space, at which point the result should be identical. The reason AdobeRGB colors look "drab and dreary" is because the overwhelming majority of applications are not ICC profile aware, and just assume every image is sRGB (this includes browsers like IE and Firefox).

I don't even want to get into the debate about which color space you should use. I shoot in sRGB because the devices I output to expect sRGB files, and they actually have a smaller gamut than even sRGB.

A good reference on sRGB vs AdobeRGB is here (including showing the gamut of a typical Fuji Frontier).

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 21:37:07.

08/28/2005 09:31:57 PM · #12

Originally posted by scalvert:

I'm glad somebody asked this because I ran into the same problem. Knowing that Adobe RGB has a wider gamut, I switched my 300D to that space last Summer, and I couldn't figure out why all my shots looked like mud. Every single image seemed to be really dull out of the camera, and it was difficult to restore the saturation without making the color look weird. I was getting stuff like this for months:

The whole time I was thinking that it was a problem with me or my monitor calibration. One day I was out shooting Fall leaves, and the colors were just deadly- none of the vibrant reds and oranges I was seeing on the trees. On a hunch, I switched back to sRGB and EUREKA! The color was back! I saved those two shots in case anybody asked this question (both straight out of the camera at the same settings):

Needless to say, I'm not in any hurry to return to Adobeland. ;-)

All the color information is there in AdobeRGB (and more), you just have to learn to bring it out.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

08/28/2005 09:39:28 PM · #13

"FACT ONE: there are no printers with a color space (aka output space) that is larger (holding more volume of data) than sRGB. "

This may be true, currently. There are also no printers that print 16bit. Eventually there could be. I'll be alive (hopefully) for a long time. I'd rather shoot my files for the future than the now. I also have never had problem with working up files for print in Adobe 98. All my images on my site were worked up in the Adobe colorspace.

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 21:42:01.

08/28/2005 09:40:24 PM · #14

Originally posted by EddyG:

...it would be trivial to use the "Convert To Profile..." option to take the AdobeRGB-tagged file and convert it to the sRGB color space, at which point the result should be identical.

Should be, but aren't. I tried that and it didn't work. The sRGB images were still more saturated than Adobe RGB converted to that profile. I've researched all the things you and John are saying in great detail, but it just didn't work that way for me in practice. FWIW, I do print work on a daily basis (using Adobe RGB for editing), and my browser of choice is Safari, which IS ICC-aware.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/28/2005 09:44:15 PM · #15

Originally posted by nsbca7:

All the color information is there in AdobeRGB (and more), you just have to learn to bring it out.

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have switched to Adobe RGB in the first place and left it there for 4 months. I am VERY familiar with editing and color management (having started with Photoshop version 1), but I just couldn't edit some Adobe RGB files to improve upon (or even match) what sRGB gave me right out of the camera.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

08/28/2005 09:46:31 PM · #16

Shannon, if I understand you correctly, you have both your 350XT and Photoshop set to default colorspace of sRGB, right? Have you experimented with printing your images with these settings, and converting them to Adobe RGB before printing?

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

08/28/2005 09:48:08 PM · #17

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
All the color information is there in AdobeRGB (and more), you just have to learn to bring it out.

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have switched to Adobe RGB in the first place and left it there for 4 months. I am VERY familiar with editing and color management (having started with Photoshop version 1), but I just couldn't edit some Adobe RGB files to improve upon (or even match) what sRGB gave me right out of the camera.

I would say there's something wrong. I scan and shoot into Adobe all the time with no problems. I did a major studio test when I first go the 1Ds with all the color profiles it offered and Adobe won hands down.

08/28/2005 09:52:50 PM · #18

I normally have Photoshop set to Adobe RGB (for print), but I leave it in sRGB at home since most of my editing here is on sRGB files for this site or photo output. I went through a bunch of experimentation back when I was getting muddy photos, but I can't recall everything I did. What I DO know is that Adobe RGB looked like mud (on-camera, on-screen, and in Photoshop), and sRGB didn't. It sounds like the original poster is facing the same situation.

For anything super-critical, I'd shoot RAW anyway, which would make this a moot point.

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 21:54:32.

08/28/2005 10:09:47 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

I shoot RAW always. I have a custom color prifile set up on my Mac, but it is propbly closer to Adobe RGB then anything.

Originally posted by strangeghost:

That would probably be about the equivilent of saveing in JPG then converting to TIFF. You lose color information when you covert a file tosRGB. You can not get that back by going to AdobeRGB.

All this may be moot nayway, as the monitor you work with and the printer you print with are limiting factors.

I shoot in RAW, save in TIFF and work in a wide gammut colorspace.

eslaydog

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/28/2005 11:03:08 PM · #20

Wow! Thanks for all your input! The muddy aRGB is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm great in the studio, and great with Photoshop, but like other posters, my aRGB is bland on screen AND in print. For those of you who use aRGB, what workflow do you use? I'd love to try it on my test prints to see if I can make it work - like I said, I do see slightly more detail and nuetralness in the aRGB... but skintones and everything else is pale.

Thanks again!
Eric
//www.eslayphotography.com

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 23:03:56.

08/28/2005 11:14:26 PM · #21

Originally posted by eslaydog:

I think you were meaning AdobeRGB being bland? That's what you were talking about earlier.

eslaydog