What colourspace are you using? Adobe RGB, SRGB or someting else

CvanDijk

« on: March 05, 2008, 07:19 »

#link

I use most of the time adobe RGB in both my camera and Photoshop.
I was wondering what you're using, and what you think works best for stock.


	Ignore \| Logged

stokfoto

« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2008, 07:51 »

#link

I always use RGB too. if I am not wrong RGB is preferred .


	Ignore \| Logged

rimglow

« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2008, 07:54 »

#link

I've always read that it's Adobe RGB for print and SRGB for the web. Since all the photos are being viewed on the web, then it should be SRBG.
If someone is buying a microstock photo for print, they can convert.


	Ignore \| Logged

stokfoto

« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2008, 07:55 »

#link

here is a nice read on the topic
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 09:36 »

#link

sRGB for the micros and I try to switch to Adobe RGB for Alamy. It is a pain doing this though, as I sometimes forget to change the settings.


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2008, 10:15 »

#link

Always supply to ALL libraries in RGB format. They mostly convert to sRGB for their smaller sizes.

It is better to take and store and sell your pictures as RGB because it has a wider gamut than sRGB. You cannot get back information that you have got rid of.


	Ignore \| Logged

CvanDijk

« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2008, 10:45 »

#link

I thought the same as Seren, but when I look at my pictures at Dreamstime, they don't look so colourful as the same ones on Istock or Shutterstock.
I was wondering if that was because I have all my files in Adobe RGB and not in sRGB.


	Ignore \| Logged

Read_My_Rights

« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2008, 10:51 »

#link

Quote from: Seren on March 05, 2008, 10:15

This is why you shoot in RAW and submit in sRGB - You can always go back and re-develop with another flavour.


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2008, 11:44 »

#link

Adobe RGB have a larger color space than sRGB. So I always choose adobe RGB


	Ignore \| Logged

holgs

« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2008, 12:07 »

#link

As I understand it Adobe RGB files look flat if viewed in a browser that doesn't recognise colour profiles, but the previews on most of the sites are shown in sRGB, so it really doesn't matter. It matters for the end product though, and I'm sure many designers have expressed a preference for Adobe RGB files.


	Ignore \| Logged

digiology

« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2008, 12:23 »

#link

Like holg said - I believe everything your viewing is sRGB. The differences your seeing is whatever the site has done to your file during processing. I thought they just changed the size but obviously the colour shifts also. See thread I started here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,1948.msg16396.html#msg16396

samples in above thread:
http://clarkcreative.ca/chicken.jpg
http://clarkcreative.ca/orangestripes.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/maunger/images/stockSiteColorDiffs.jpg


	Logged

rjmiz

« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2008, 12:27 »

#link

Deleted by Author due to having second thoughts


« Last Edit: March 05, 2008, 18:16 by rjmiz »	Ignore \| Logged

michealo

« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2008, 12:35 »

#link

Check out what Ken Rockwell has to say on the matter:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm


	Ignore \| Logged

Travelling-light

« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2008, 13:18 »

#link

I upload everywhere in Adobe RGB, and also noticed that our photos look very dull on DT, as compared with IS and SS, so I uploaded some in sRGB They didn't seem to look any better, so went back to Adobe RGB.

As others have said, it's easy enough to convert to sRGB, but you shouldn't do it the other way.

Apparently IS deliver (to the customer) the two smallest sizes in sRGB, but medium and above in Adobe RGB.

I don't know what the others do.

Linda


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2008, 14:00 »

#link

I once used Adobe RGB exclusively, but switched to sRGB when I started shooting stock.


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2008, 18:11 »

#link

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on March 05, 2008, 10:51

This is why you shoot in RAW and submit in sRGB - You can always go back and re-develop with another flavour.

No, because many buyers from agencies buy for print use. If you convert sRGB to RGB you don't get such a good colour gamut. So I ALWAYS sell in RGB where possible, because buyers can always discard information they don't need.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2008, 22:30 »

#link

For the most part, images posted in Adobe RGB don't look as 'full' or 'colourful' as those posted in sRGB - by using Adobe RGB you may be losing a few sales.

Those of you who are keen on using Adobe RGB because of it's wider colour space would do well to read the Ken Rockwell link posted above.


« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 00:57 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2008, 00:34 »

#link

We sell for extremely low prices on the microstock sites and I was under the impression that most of the images are used on the internet, so I don't have a problem with sRGB. I think sharply is right about the colors. I have noticed some of my Adobe RGB uploads to alamy look a bit dull compared to my sRGB files.


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2008, 01:32 »

#link

Ken Rockwell is well known as a wind up merchant...

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2008, 01:44 »

#link

Plus, I'm not going to lose a sale because of something so trivial. If a magazine approaches me and says "we want the picture in RGB" it's quicker and easier to already have it sitting there in RGB. It takes me a few seconds to convert it to sRBG if they want that, but it could potentially take an awful lot longer to go back to the RAW file (if I can find it) and process it again.


	Ignore \| Logged

The Corey

New Member

« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2008, 02:11 »

#link

Generally it is better to work with files and formats that give you the most amount of data headroom. Hence RAW converted to uncompressed Tiffs or PSD files, 16bit, Adobe 1998 or even better Pro Photo RGB. (Storage is cheap ). At my job for a stock company we keep a 300dpi, 8bit, 50MB, Tiff, Adobe 1998 master file of all of our final select images ( and we have close to 10,000)

Why? Room to manipulate and longevity of the file. Adobe 1998, without explaining the science, gives you a wider color spectrum to work with ( and Pro photo RGB even more). This translates to more shades of color within the red, green and blue spectrum. The moment you convert to sRGB you are basically throwing colors out the sRGB translators don't understand and matching them with the closest value. It's like going to the paint store and looking for a specific shade of blue to match the paint in the living room and they tell you " Well we don't have that exact color of blue but we have one that is almost as close". The manipulation thing is a whole different story.

When printing Adobe 1998 is going to give you a richer photo than sRGB. However the difference is online viewing. For example if you take a photo saved as Adobe 1998 and try to display on most web sites ( take Flickr for example) it's going to look terrible. Why? Most websites display mode is sRGB. Since sRGB doesn't "contain" all of the colors of Adobe 1998, it will replace them with the closest match (this is where the dull look comes from).

The best option is to shoot, work in, save, and submitt images in Adobe 1998. If you need to make files for web viewing run the conversion to sRGB in Photoshop first before you post. Sites like Alamy do this for you. You submit a file in Adobe 1998 and they run a batch operation generating the correct thumbnail and sRGB conversion. I even have a really simple action set up in Photoshop that converts the images to sRGB before saving for the web

If you have any questions please let me know. This is all pretty dense but well worth knowing.


	Ignore \| Logged

Seren

« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2008, 02:16 »

#link

Quote from: The Corey on March 06, 2008, 02:11

Generally it is better to

You said exactly what I wanted to. I'm just not very good at saying things.

I don't go as far as you though, I just keep my RAW, my RGB JPEG and a sRGB JPEG saved for web at 600px high.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2008, 02:39 »

#link

Alamy convert the thumbnails and zoomed images to sRGB but how many of the microstock sites do this?


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2008, 03:39 »

#link

I'm by no means an expert on this - so I should probably keep my big mouth shut - but the evidence seems incontrovertible.

Ken Rockwell, on one of his pages (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm ... in which he also tells us what an amazing, brilliant, multi-faceted person he is, having invented pretty well everything that's anything in photography) says "Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors."

Well Ken, when I take an image in Photoshop and switch it from Adobe RGB to sRGB it immediately goes flat, dull and lifeless. I can see that with one click. Try it for yourself.

On top of that, another guru, Scott Kelby, writes, "Photoshop's default color space (sRGB) is arguably the worst possible color space for professional photographers. This color space was designed for use by web designers , and it mimics an 'el cheapo' PC monitor ...

Honestly, I wouldn't even recommend this space for web designers today, and it's fairly ghastly for photographers ..."

'nuff said. I'm sticking with Adobe RGB.