# sRGB vs Adobe RGB



## msdarkroom (Mar 18, 2012)

Which do you use, AND, why?

And what color space do you use in LR/PS from there?

Just curious to see some reasoning and who is doing what.

Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2012)

sRGB, because that's what is used by the print lab I use (and by most print labs, actually).


----------



## bigblue1ca (Mar 18, 2012)

sRGB, what Neuro said.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2012)

Lightroom is prophoto color space. I set my cameras to Adobe RGB because my printer has a wide enough gamut to handle it pretty well, and i prefer to edit in the widest possible color space.

However, if you are producing web pages, SRGB is the setting to use.

LR4 now finally has soft proofing, which allows you to control your edits to work with your choice of printers. I have seldom seen any of my images that were out of gamut for my Epson 3880.

It is a comples subject, so until you are ready, use SRGB and simplify your life.

Highly recommended is the articles about color management at Northlight Images. Don't forget to calibrate your monitor, or prints will seldom match what you see on the monitor.


----------



## msdarkroom (Mar 18, 2012)

I use adobe rgb and the prophoto color space in LR and PS. I wait until the end of the workflow to convert to sRGB. 
I am just curious what others are doing. 
Thanks guys.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 18, 2012)

I'm on sRGB, if only more because it was the default, it's the default for computers, and monitors.

My monitor does 98% AdobeRGB (Dell Ultrasharp), i'm sure if i bothered searching I could figure out how to put X and KDE to AdobeRGB, at the moment I print at the local Kodak Express photolab, I'm not sure if they handle AdobeRGB but I could ask.
But it's all too much bother. The best difference you'll see between the two is in the greens, and I just don't do enough landscapes, and I don't sell anything, to justify all the bother.
For me, it's just the case of sRGB is 'good enough', so no need to get better...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 18, 2012)

I use adobe RGB as that was the original recommendations when the first DSLRs came out with the d60's, 10D, nikons D1X, etc. things have changed and gotten better with sRGB, but I still use adobe RGB if nothing more but out of habit.


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 18, 2012)

adobe RGB. I was told by a pro who has spent years doing commercial photography, stock work and the like to switch to that setting, so I took his word for it and have been using it ever since. Never thought it would be a problem with print labs.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 19, 2012)

sRGB, for the reasons neuro mentioned. Did some testing with my own printer with adobe with shots that contained lots of greens even, and I just don't see it. But I very rarely do my own printing anyway, but i wanted to see for myself.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 19, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lightroom is prophoto color space. I set my cameras to Adobe RGB because my printer has a wide enough gamut to handle it pretty well, and i prefer to edit in the widest possible color space.
> 
> However, if you are producing web pages, SRGB is the setting to use.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## funkboy (Mar 19, 2012)

Agree completely with each of Mt. Spok's statements. Read the color management guides at Northlight, and if you want to go further, read Real World Color Management by Bruce Fraser. It's really the definitive guide for understanding digital color workflow.

Lightroom natively works in Prophoto RGB, and anything given to a print shop or output to a printer should be maintained in that color space (if the lab supports it of course). If you have to downconvert to Adobe RGB or SRGB for a lab or the web then it's the last step that you want to take in your workflow. Personally I find that the Relative Colormetric method with black point compensation works well for most photographic needs.

Personally I shoot with cameras set to Adobe RGB, but would love to see Prophoto RGB available as an option. IIRC at least with the older Firewire 1D cameras you could actually load your own custom color profiles into them. Also, the Adobe DNG converter tool has a camera profiling tool that opens up a lot of possibilities for customizing the way Lightroom handles the color of your images. Keith at Northlight has a good article on how to use it & why it's useful.

To answer your question as to _why_ you want to do use the widest color space available for your device, the answer is simply to allow it to record the widest range of colors possible. Why would one want to work in Prophoto RGB when the images coming out of the camera are defined in AdobeRGB? Because once you get the image into Lightroom you start shifting around things like exposure, white balance, and all the other controls that affect color. Manipulating the data in the image can easily push its gamut outside the range of the original color space. When that happens, clipping & loss of detail like the magenta roll of thread in this image are the result. This article has another good example of an image with colors that don't clip in Prophoto but do in AdobeRGB & are even worse in SRGB.

Definitely looking forward to trying out LR4's soft proofing like Photoshop has.

It's worth pointing out that having a good monitor and calibration device (& knowing how to use them) are paramount to getting your color workflow close to doing what you want it to do.


----------



## Cardad (Mar 19, 2012)

I have a wide gamut monitor (NEC PA), so I use Adobe RGB to view and process photos. To me, the color is much better. Depends on your needs. I rarely print.


----------



## Terry Rogers (Mar 19, 2012)

Long before I became interested in photography or knew anything about it, I got married. I was very poor and hired a "cheap" photographer. We'll, you get what you pay for.

Looking back, I suppose it's not fair to judge him for using one of the the original rebels with a kit lens as I wasn't paying very much (and didn't know any better).

However, I think he fancied himself a pro shooter because he was shooting with the adobe RGB color space. How do I know this? Because he gave me jpegs in adobe RGB. I didn't firgure out why the images looked dull and lifeless with terrible colors until years later when I began learning about digital photography. When I realized the jpegs were in adobe RGB and converted them to sRGB for viewing on my monitor the colors improved significantly (as my basic jpeg viewer didn't support adobe RGB).

While the photos still remained so so, at least the colors weren't messed up anymore because I was trying to view them in the wrong color space.

While this experience didn't convince me not to shoot in adobe RGB, I shoot in sRGB for convenience sake. I am not a professional and don't control my color from input to output. So I have no need to be precise with my color. sRGB is just more convenient for me.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 19, 2012)

well this topic is not all that straight forward as there are 3 distinct parts 

1. what you shoot
2. what you process
3. what you deliver

1. WHAT YOU SHOOT

if you are shooting in raw the setting in camera sRGB or Adobe RGB has no relevence this setting affects the in camera JPEG only 

If you are shooting in JPG you are far better off shooting in sRGB as it will be more universally correct for MOST printers and all web applications.

General rule here is in camera leave it in sRGB unless its aspecific client request. the setting doesnt effect RAW

WHAT I DO:
I shoot RAW and sRGB small or medium jpg files that way i can dump out the jpgs for someone to view or make a selection from quickly and use the RAW files for editing

2. WHAT YOU PROCESS

This is related to the colour space you processing applications use for example lightroom processes in prophoto RGB by default so it uses the full extent of the RAW information, you can configure you working space to whichever format you like but its best to do all processing on RAW files in the best available colour space.

WHAT I DO:
I leave the processing settings in lightroom and photoshop in prophoto RGB since i only process RAW and output sRGB Jpegs

3. WHAT YOU DELIVER

This is the colour space relating to the output, all output for web needs to be in sRGB so if you are outputing for this purpose you will need to convert you processed images to sRGB for delivery

Printing, Generally sRGB is correct for most printers unless you are printing to a calibrated setup with Adobe RGB or get a specific client request for Adobe RGB you are still best outputting your JPGs to sRGB

WHAT I DO:
I convert all processed deliverables to sRGB jpg files at maximum quality

That's about the most simplified expanation I could come up with


----------



## Old Shooter (Mar 19, 2012)

+1 wickid!

What a great breakdown!


----------



## msdarkroom (Mar 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> well this topic is not all that straight forward as there are 3 distinct parts
> 
> 1. what you shoot
> 2. what you process
> ...



This is interesting. I did not know that it was for in-camera jpegs only.
I shoot raw. I use Prophoto in LR and PS. I export to the lab and web using sRGB.
I had no idea that the colorspace in camera did not matter if you were using the raw format.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## JR (Mar 19, 2012)

sRGB


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 19, 2012)

adobeRGB

With NEC Spectravision Wide Gamuts, thats my workflow.

Convert to sRGB as needed.

With the upcoming 2-card slot capability - I wonder if I can set color on each output - EyeFi SD set as sRGB for that immediate web output while my RAWs at adobe?


----------



## cps_user (Mar 19, 2012)

srgb or adobeRGB only applies to jpg files, not raw. So you can shoot raw on card 1 and jpg in either srgb or adobeRGB on card 2 as you please


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 19, 2012)

cps_user said:


> srgb or adobeRGB only applies to jpg files, not raw.



Thanks, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 19, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> cps_user said:
> 
> 
> > srgb or adobeRGB only applies to jpg files, not raw.
> ...



I shoot raw too, so I can always decide later on what to export. However, I've set the jpg sidcar file to small and srgb to have an idea of "what would have the camera done on basic settings" for comparison.


----------



## AJ (Mar 19, 2012)

Use Adobe RGB when processing _and_ printing to your own printer from Photoshop. 

I experimented with it. I could see the difference on my prints, but I didn't really prefer one over the other. So I went back to sRGB to keep things less confusing and to have a common platform for other output modes that I use (web, slideshows, small prints, enlargements, gallery wraps, Blub books)


----------



## Spooky (Mar 20, 2012)

I've set all my cameras to adobe rgb and shoot raw+jpeg. My reasoning is to capture in the widest possible gamut, process in LR or PS using adobe rgb so that I am using a wide colour space to avoid clipping or compressing, and save as PSD files for archive. The only time to export as srgb is for web use. I use a spyder3 to profile my monitor (which can only display srgb) and also profile my various printer papers, whose profiles I use from PS / LR.
The setting of the camera is only relevant IF I use the jpeg, if I need to do a major tweak to the image, then I will use the raw file and use adobe camera raw and export the adjusted image as adobe rgb, etc.
IMHO, the idea is to use as wide a gamut as possible IF you are going to edit and move the rgb curves in an image, this gives you some 'headroom' to avoid clipping / banding colours. Another thing that I've seen here is that folk don't realise that they can't view the adobe rgb gamut on their screen (unless it is a specialist monitor), hence the out of gamut warning triangle use in PS / LR, so it's ideal if you can 'proof' view and use profiles for printing. For web use, convert to srgb at the end of editing so that you can view the rendition.
You may not see any difference, but why not give yourself the maximum capture gamut and future proof the colour space of your images (there may be wider gamut printers in the future which can make use of adobe rgb etc).


----------



## msdarkroom (Mar 20, 2012)

Spooky said:


> I've set all my cameras to adobe rgb and shoot raw+jpeg. My reasoning is to capture in the widest possible gamut, process in LR or PS using adobe rgb so that I am using a wide colour space to avoid clipping or compressing, and save as PSD files for archive. The only time to export as srgb is for web use. I use a spyder3 to profile my monitor (which can only display srgb) and also profile my various printer papers, whose profiles I use from PS / LR.
> The setting of the camera is only relevant IF I use the jpeg, if I need to do a major tweak to the image, then I will use the raw file and use adobe camera raw and export the adjusted image as adobe rgb, etc.
> IMHO, the idea is to use as wide a gamut as possible IF you are going to edit and move the rgb curves in an image, this gives you some 'headroom' to avoid clipping / banding colours. Another thing that I've seen here is that folk don't realise that they can't view the adobe rgb gamut on their screen (unless it is a specialist monitor), hence the out of gamut warning triangle use in PS / LR, so it's ideal if you can 'proof' view and use profiles for printing. For web use, convert to srgb at the end of editing so that you can view the rendition.
> You may not see any difference, but why not give yourself the maximum capture gamut and future proof the colour space of your images (there may be wider gamut printers in the future which can make use of adobe rgb etc).




I agree completely with the logic of using a wide colorspace to prevent clipping, but why not use prophoto in Lr/Ps?


----------



## Spooky (Mar 20, 2012)

Good question! Pro photo would give me the largest possible space and give me room to work the image, but I feel that, 
a - I don't tweak the image that much to warrant the headroom,
b - adobe rgb is not that far from the srgb gamut that screen and printers use so I won't be 'losing' too much after space change*,
c - my camera doesn't capture in pro photo (otherwise I would)

Pro photo is great during the edit and possible future proofing of the images, just another space conversion which I personally don't do. It does allow for saturated colours which I personally can't see the need for just now, but I do see the advantage from manipulation of the image.

*During the 'down conversion' I think you may see clipping of image detail that is only visible in the pro photo space, if that detail is in the saturated, out of adobe rgb gamut? although this should be a very small case...


----------



## pwp (Mar 20, 2012)

The greater majority of professional shooters will deliver their files in the industry default Adobe RGB colour space. Here's a thorough article on accepted industry guidelines: http://acmp.com.au/assets/Uploads/apdig2.pdf This article also discusses the sometimes murky waters of delivering your files in CMYK. This is only recommended if you know the exact profile of the exact printing press that will be printing the job. Otherwise stay with Adobe RGB for client file delivery.

I routinely deliver clients a folder of full sized, processed finished Adobe RGB files either JPEG or TIFF depending on client requirements, plus a folder of the same images saved as sRGB at 72ppi ready for web use.

However if you're making prints at home or having prints done at a local lab, these are optimized for the narrower gamut sRGB colour space. 

If you shoot RAW it will make no real difference whether your camera is set to sRGB or Adobe RGB. This decision is made at RAW conversion time where you can choose your output preferences.

Paul Wright


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 20, 2012)

Problem with ProPhoto is you need a more capable monitor. There are a few monitors out there that will deliver the 1.07 billion colors, since most monitors displaying 16.7 million colors aren't enough

If you want to use the ProPhoto color space you really also should have gear that is capable, and most monitors that are out there are not


----------



## Spooky (Mar 20, 2012)

I hope this thread isn't getting too heavy... I believe that the colour space should be driven by the output device (and archiving the image in the best future proof way). 
For web, srgb must be used as most people will view the image using an srgb 'device'. 'Most' monitors cannot display more than the srgb gamut. 'Most' home users inkjet printers cannot print near the adobe rgb gamut. Do this wrongly and either you will get clipping or muddy colours. 
Stick with srgb throughout to keep it simple if you are not manipulating your jpeg images (much) but it 'could' handicap you if you need to swing the tone curves around.

The use for adobe rgb and pro photo is during edit and saving to archive, to maximise future edit quality, _not_ for current viewing, unless you can get the images printed using a wide gamut printer...


----------



## Yoshiyuki Blade (Mar 20, 2012)

Maui5150 said:



> Problem with ProPhoto is you need a more capable monitor. There are a few monitors out there that will deliver the 1.07 billion colors, since most monitors displaying 16.7 million colors aren't enough
> 
> If you want to use the ProPhoto color space you really also should have gear that is capable, and most monitors that are out there are not



"Most" may even be an overstatement. I'd venture to guess that most LCD monitors being used are cheap 6-bits with some kind of interpolation, whether spatial dithering or temporal frame-rate control, to achieve 8-bit colors. 

I think you're confusing color space with color depth. Color depth describes how many "steps" you can take within a confined space. So you can have 1B colors (10-bit) in sRGB or ProPhoto and both would benefit noticeably. Apparently ProPhoto requires a 16-bit workflow to prevent banding due to the sheer "breadth" of the space.


----------

