# Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????



## kat.hayes (Nov 25, 2014)

I am new to using my 5DM3 and realized that I had it set to sRGB after taking lots of photos.

1. Does it come set by default to sRGB and if so why?
2. I understand that it does not have as large a color gamut as Adobe RGB, though for head shots and non botanical photos, can you really tell the difference?

Thanks.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB. The web runs on sRGB. Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.


----------



## Jane (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.
> 
> However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB. The web runs on sRGB. Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.
> 
> When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.



+1 

Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Jane said:


> Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.



I bought my first DSLR secondhand and just couldn't figure out why the stupid thing kept using an underscore for the first character. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.



Not quite:
1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation
2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.



Sella174 said:


> However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB.



Not quite: Wide gammut monitors have come down a lot in price recently. And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.



Sella174 said:


> The web runs on sRGB.



Not quite: A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari. But to be fair, this statement of yours was less wrong than the others 



Sella174 said:


> Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.



Not quite: Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb



Sella174 said:


> When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.



Ugh? How so?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 25, 2014)

Jane said:


> Also if you use the Adobe setting, you lose the first letter of your filename. It's replaced by "_" (underscore). This may or may not matter to you.


I did not know that!

You learn something new every day! Thanks!


----------



## cid (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.
> ...



very interesting, thank for info 



Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.
> ...



he probably didn't mean conversion, but displaying Adobe RGB image in sRGB color space, to which some web pages are prone and then colors are shifted


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

cid said:


> very interesting, thank for info



I only read about the histogram myself recently, but it's probably not that much of a difference - for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.



cid said:


> he probably didn't mean conversion, but displaying Adobe RGB image in sRGB color space, to which some web pages are prone and then colors are shifted



Even so, I don't see why a properly set up color management (in your browser and/or os) wouldn't work - that's the very thing it's designed for. Sticking to srgb w/o color management might sound simple, but it isn't unless you're very careful to pick a monitor that happens to be 99,9% srgb.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Sorry, I feel 



Marsu42 said:


> 1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation



What histogram? Oh, you mean the one that the camera shows you AFTER you've taken the picture.



Marsu42 said:


> 2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.



Of which the purpose is, beside for generating the utterly useless histogram?



Marsu42 said:


> And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.



So when will you pop over to calibrate my screen, before or after you calibrate every other computer and iPad screen on earth?



Marsu42 said:


> A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari.



So what do these browsers do with an AdobeRGB photograph that is to be displayed on grandma's uncalibrated sRGB'ish monitor?



Marsu42 said:


> Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb



We don't have any of those around here ... just those KODAK self-service kiosks.



Marsu42 said:


> Ugh? How so?



Obviously, because the gamuts aren't the same.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Even so, I don't see why a properly set up color management (in your browser and/or os) wouldn't work - that's the very thing it's designed for. Sticking to srgb w/o color management might sound simple, but it isn't unless you're very careful to pick a monitor that happens to be 99,9% srgb.



In my experience colour management only works when you can control all the devices in the chain. As soon as you start handing images over to others, your carefully calibrated colour management flies out the window ... for various reasons, e.g. they use a different colour space in their workflow or just plain none. In these case sRGB is the common language.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

I'm really not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if some other thread mood spills over here.



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. the histogram is based on this setting, with adobe rgb you get a better representation
> ...


What histogram are you using?



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. in every cr2 there's a full jpeg thumbnail with the color space selected.
> ...


It's extremely useful for quick sorting and browsing as a lot of software browsers use it - rendering the raw data takes a lot of time.



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > And in any case you should calibrate the monitor and use color management even with an srgb model.
> ...


If you don't invest in a cheap monitor calibration tool, that's your bad, I waited too long until I finally discovered how essential this is.



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of browsers have built-in color management nowadays: IE, Firefox, Safari.
> ...


Obviously they display the photograph as srgb'sih if you set stock srgb in your browser and os color management. Are you sure you know how color management works :-o ?



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Many better photo labs have printers that go beyond srgb
> ...


Ugh, time to move  ... where I live (Germany) most internet printing sites are wider gammut than srgb and also a lot of local print shops.



Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh? How so?
> ...


To repeat your full statement: "AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion is never 100% successful because the gamuts aren't the same". When you read it, does that make sense to you?



Sella174 said:


> In my experience colour management only works when you can control all the devices in the chain.



When you edit a shot and then print it, this includes two devices - your monitor (use a color calibration tool) and a printer (use a color calibration tool or the print shop's cms profile). Doesn't sound like rocket science, esp. with soft proofing in software like Lightroom.



Sella174 said:


> In these case sRGB is the common language.



Under closer scrutiny, srgb is rather different between devices that claim to be srgb. Probably better than displaying adobergb or photopro, but still calibration and color management is essential unless you don't care about the accuracy.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ... for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.



Gee, that's neat. Too bad the ML chaps stopped developing for the 30D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ... for the real deal use Magic Lantern and the full raw histogram.
> ...



You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm really not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if some other thread mood spills over here.



No sweat.



Marsu42 said:


> What histogram are you using?



Never actually used it (on my sans-LiveView Canon cameras), because it's always after the fact. As in: shoot, chimp, reshoot, chimp, resho... blast, gone is the light.

The live histogram in the viewfinder of my X-T1 does get some serious use for difficult contrasts.



Marsu42 said:


> It's extremely useful for quick sorting and browsing as a lot of software browsers use it - rendering the raw data takes a lot of time.



I can see how that will be beneficial. My system works a bit differently: all images are renamed and stored in an "ORIGINAL" folder, then processed and stored in a different folder, plus a small thumbnail (800x600) generated, all using the same filename. So, browsing through the thumbnails, I can know from its filename that of the original file, plus those of the various different processed files of the same image.



Marsu42 said:


> If you don't invest in a cheap monitor calibration tool, that's your bad, I waited too long until I finally discovered how essential this is.



It's on the list for when I eventually replace this ancient laptop which is my primary.



Marsu42 said:


> Obviously they display the photograph as srgb'sih if you set stock srgb in your browser and os color management. Are you sure you know how color management works :-o ?



My point was that not everyone colour manages, especially those family members who want pictures of other family members, and no matter how well one's own system is, out there in the wild it's ... well, wild.



Marsu42 said:


> Ugh, time to move  ... where I live (Germany) most internet printing sites are wider gammut than srgb and also a lot of local print shops.



Or buy my own printer.



Marsu42 said:


> When you edit a shot and then print it, this includes two devices - your monitor (use a color calibration tool) and a printer (use a color calibration tool or the print shop's cms profile). Doesn't sound like rocket science, esp. with soft proofing in software like Lightroom.



As I said, if you control all the devices in the chain, then color management works perfectly. However, when one cog is beyond your control, all bets are off.

If I walk into the local printers and ask for their "cms profile", the cute gal at reception will probably just giggle. Probably easier to ask what machine they use and then download it from the manufacturers website, hoping the local techie wasn't of the opinion that BruceRGB is superior. (They get like that, our techies: all opinion and no brains.)



Marsu42 said:


> Under closer scrutiny, srgb is rather different between devices that claim to be srgb. Probably better than displaying adobergb or photopro, but still calibration and color management is essential unless you don't care about the accuracy.



I attempted consistent colour management between my laptop and my HP Colour Laser. Now I just switch all colour management off and everything is close enough. So, yes, sRGB isn't always sRGB ... especially when dealing with Adobe PDF's.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.



Regrettably I must decline the award. My primary camera these past few months has been a FUJIFILM X-T1.

The 30D is the only Canon camera I have left, having sold all the others. Even though it still works 100%, I cannot sell it because it looks like its been dragged to hell and back behind a donkey over gravel (well, nearly). I now use it for copying books, slides and negatives - some of the ML stuff would really help there.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 25, 2014)

The histogram on my 5DIII works great for using studio lights in even very tricky lighting situations--and I use a flash meter. Get the lights set up for "proper exposure," make some adjustments for ambient light, backgrounds, etc., check the histogram on the camera during a few establishing shots, then blast away until something changes.

And when using speedlites, I don't use a flash meter, so the histogram is pretty much essential. Too many times I've been fooled by the display image, but never the histogram.

Same goes for shooting with available light only. I don't want to be toting around a light meter everywhere, especially out for landscape photography.

The histogram on my trusty old 60D seems just as accurate.

As or shooting Adobe RGB, that is a great question. Lightroom uses Adobe RGB for most display purposes, but jumps to ProPhoto RGB for the develop module. I softproof in LR5 and print from it, with amazingly accurate results on an Epson 3880.

I convert to sRGB for displaying stuff on the web and sharing by email. 

From searching the web and CR's older threads on this subject, it seems that choosing sRGB or Adobe RGB in camera has no effect on the RAW file, only the embedded .jpg...Is that right???


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2014)

kat.hayes said:


> I am new to using my 5DM3 and realized that I had it set to sRGB after taking lots of photos.
> 
> 1. Does it come set by default to sRGB and if so why?
> 2. I understand that it does not have as large a color gamut as Adobe RGB, though for head shots and non botanical photos, can you really tell the difference?
> ...


 
If you want prints to match what you see on your monitor, and others to see the same thing, use sRGB. Its the default color space for cameras, monitors, printers, and the internet.

Adobe RGB is best for those who have wide gamut equipment and have critical color matching requirements.

Keith Cooper at Northlight has some very good articles on color management. He occasionally graces us with a post or two.

Check it out. You don't want to use Adobe RGB without a lot more knowledge, and probably not then either. It sounds like a good thing, having more colors to chose from, but it brings on trouble for those who don't understand and need it.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html


----------



## curtisnull (Nov 26, 2014)

Here is one of the best explanations I have ever heard...

http://www.garyfong.com/tutorials/adobergb-images-vs-srgb-web-browsers


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 26, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Just to add my two cents;
> 
> Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.



No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > You're actually on a 30d as your only camera?! in that case, my "Mr. Budget" award passes from me to you.
> ...



Don't let the 30D haters get you down. ;D

I still have my 30D. It works and will probably keep on working long after my "newer and better" cameras don't. They were built pretty well back then. My 30D looks pretty bad too, but it still keeps on snapping. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Adobe's linear gamma and proprietary version of ProPhoto, named after the developers wife Melissa Gaul, is still for all intents and purposes ProPhoto. I was trying to provide a simple explanaton for a user who may be intimidated by color management.



Thanks for not burdening us with accurate explanations, but keeping it simple :->


----------



## kaffeetrinker (Nov 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have any of those around here ... just those KODAK self-service kiosks.
> ...



Ach echt? Das interessiert mich. Nenn mir doch mal einige Internetdruckereien die auf große Farbräume setzen.
_Oh really? I'm interested in stuff like that. Name some german printing sites which are using wide gamut colorspaces._


----------



## Nethawk (Nov 26, 2014)

Oy. The first page is painful to read. One poster should be banned from ever discussing color management. ;D

As stated above, in-camera doesn't matter unless your working output is JPG (or TIFF). RAW images contain a wider gamut than either AdobeRGB or sRGB and will not be changed regardless of camera setting. It is recommended that any non-RAW images be created in AdobeRGB and only changed based upon the output device. You can convert AdobeRGB to sRGB (for web or monitor output) or any other ICC profile (for printing), but you can't convert backwards (sRGB is the smaller color space). Despite claims to the contrary, as long as you are using ICC-aware software (photoshop, lightroom, etc.) color management and conversion are relatively straightforward. If posting to the web output to sGRB, for a professional printer install their ICC profile (which will almost always be based on AdobeRGB) and output to its format.

Great info on Lightroom above. For more check out this link:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/color-management.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

kaffeetrinker said:


> Oh really? I'm interested in stuff like that. Name some german printing sites which are using wide gamut colorspaces.



I'm using this one: http://www.saal-digital.de/service/support/artikel/Article/show/sartikel/icc-profil-im-photoshop-einrichten/ ... by delivering pictures in srgb you might loose some gammut their devices provide. Ymmv a lot if you actually see the difference between a shot delivered in srgb vs argb though, but you can check by using softproofing with the respective icc profile.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 26, 2014)

Sure. If you are producing images that will be used for the web and are shooting in JPG.

Lets say, for instance, you are shooting photos for a marathon. You are shooting say 2000 runners, and this is basically a churn and burn, you turn in your card, get paid and pretty much all they process is maybe slight exposure adjustments, but pretty much those images are what they are. If they are AdobeRGB, then ALL of those images will have to be converted to srgb to look o.k. on the web.


----------



## Nethawk (Nov 26, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Sure. If you are producing images that will be used for the web and are shooting in JPG.
> 
> Lets say, for instance, you are shooting photos for a marathon. You are shooting say 2000 runners, and this is basically a churn and burn, you turn in your card, get paid and pretty much all they process is maybe slight exposure adjustments, but pretty much those images are what they are. If they are AdobeRGB, then ALL of those images will have to be converted to srgb to look o.k. on the web.



This is true, however the reverse is also true - and irreversible. If they are all sRGB then your client will be limited in creating print copies. Down-conversion is painless, up-conversion is impossible. It's a good idea to check first if you're often in this situation.

Another good reference for further education. http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/in-camera-color-spaces.html


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 26, 2014)

kaffeetrinker said:


> Ach echt? Das interessiert mich. Nenn mir doch mal einige Internetdruckereien die auf große Farbräume setzen.
> _Oh really? I'm interested in stuff like that. Name some german printing sites which are using wide gamut colorspaces._



cyberlab.at uses a wide gamut chain and also supplies the proper color profiles for softproofing. In case the printers are to far away or it's about media types I don't want to handle myself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 5, 2014)

GraFax said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > GraFax said:
> ...



Well you failed.

The request for help was specifically about Adobe RGB and sRGB as selected in camera. Adding a third, and unselectable, colour space into the mix, and mislabeling it to boot did nothing to help anybody let alone provide a 'simple explanation', so forgive me for trying to correct some of your inaccuracies.

If you are using Lightroom you don't have a choice regarding colourspace and it never uses ProPhoto, all internal colourspace handling is automatic until export. If you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it doesn't matter which colourspace you assign in camera as it will ignore them both anyway.

The Melissa colourspace is not proprietary, it is freely published and usable, just take the chromacity values of ProPhoto and a gamma of 1.0. To label Melissa Gaul as 'the developers wife' is also a gross misrepresentation, true she is married to Troy Gaul one of the original developers, but she was also the Adobe QE manager for Lightroom and as such played a key roll in the development herself. Indeed she is still at Adobe but moved from her managers position in 2007 after over 9 years.

Now, having said all that I still don't feel smart, but I also didn't feel the need to bring in spurious misinformation into this thread and then try to put somebody down that pointed out some factual errors.


----------

