Author Topic: Adobe RGB or sRGB ?? (Read 10609 times)

luissantos84 · « **on:** December 30, 2010, 18:54 »

Hi there, what are you using? I mainly use sRGB, I guess colors look a lot nicier on previews.. I have read that is the more usual on the web etc.. heard also that using sRGB it's with 8 bit pictures, instead of 16.. that's is a bad thing right?

thanks in advance

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2010, 04:07 »

I use sRGB for all the micros. I use adobe RGB for alamy, as they say that's what most of their buyers are used to. I use 8bit for all files I upload, don't think you can have a 16bit jpeg file. I use 8bit when editing unless there is a blue sky with subtle tones. Not sure if editing in 16bit helps reduce banding but I use it with those images. I remember Yuri tested 8bit and 16bit editing and couldn't see much difference.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2010, 04:24 »

Actually editing in 16 bit and saving in 8 bit, which is necessary for JPG files, can cause problems and strange banding. Editing in 16 bit can be complicated and create more problems than using less colors.

This is the modern world, not everything is print. RGB isn't necessary. So that would make the obvious _opinion_ sRGB.

The whole claim of more colors is a fallacy, since you can't use or see all those colors. What you actually get is more shades between the colors. And when the picture is saved as a JPG you have 8 bit color, so no gain. At least that's the way I read it?

RH · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2010, 12:14 »

I'm shooting in AdobeRGB and uploading in AdobeRGB.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2010, 17:03 »

Quote from: RH on December 31, 2010, 12:14

I'm shooting in AdobeRGB and uploading in AdobeRGB.

Then you aren't uploading 16 bit files are you if they are JPGs, so the whole "more colors" theory is lost once you convert them to 8bit files, and people who look at your shots on the web will see flat looking pastel colors, instead of bright sRGB colors.

Why would you do that?

bunhill · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2010, 18:14 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 31, 2010, 04:24

The whole claim of more colors is a fallacy,

No Adobe 98 RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB. Typically that means less chance of the blues being clipped at the shadow end and less chance of the reds being clipped at highlight end.

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 30, 2010, 18:54

Hi there, what are you using? I mainly use sRGB, I guess colors look a lot nicier on previews

iStockphoto previews and websized downloads are sRGB even if you upload wider gamut Adobe 98 images. iStockphoto does the conversion.

If you upload sRGB images iStockphoto converts them to Adobe 98 at L and above. So there is a theoretical slight quality advantage uploading Adobe 98 - and having iStockphoto convert them to sRGB for previews and websized downloads. Either way your previews should look fine.

This has come up many times on the iStockphoto forum and has been confirmed by admins there. It was also pointed out by Rob that either sRGB or Adobe 98 is fine. It's a slight difference.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2010, 18:15 »

Some sites, SS for one, displays sRGB much better that AdobeRGB. I would shoot RAW, process to Adobe RGB.TIF and do a conversion to sRGB.jpg for upload.

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2010, 18:20 »

My RF stuff all goes to iStockphoto. But surely the best would be to upload what works best for any particular site. Different versions for different sites. Presumably you already need different versions with different keywording metadata for different sites depending what schemes are used. Eg Alamy keywording is very different from iStockphoto which is very different again from places which still use the old free text systems.

Different output versions is easy enough to automate with Lightroom or Aperture.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2010, 20:55 »

Quote from: Zeus on December 31, 2010, 18:15

Some sites, SS for one, displays sRGB much better that AdobeRGB. I would shoot RAW, process to Adobe RGB.TIF and do a conversion to sRGB.jpg for upload.

exactly what I do

RacePhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2010, 23:02 »

Quote from: Zeus on December 31, 2010, 18:15

Some sites, SS for one, displays sRGB much better that AdobeRGB. I would shoot RAW, process to Adobe RGB.TIF and do a conversion to sRGB.jpg for upload.

Exactly!

That's what I was getting at. When we get done and upload, it doesn't matter anymore. But I guess there are some different opinions of what a web browser can actually display and all the complications of making different files for different sites and the fact that the end user, most of the time, doesn't care and doesn't know how to handle and process RGB!

Canon or Nikon?

Compression 11 or 12?

UV filter or not?

RAW or JPG - but always edit as TIF?

Tripod or Monopod...

Nice friendly troll luissantos84

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2010, 23:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 31, 2010, 23:02

Quote from: Zeus on December 31, 2010, 18:15
Some sites, SS for one, displays sRGB much better that AdobeRGB. I would shoot RAW, process to Adobe RGB.TIF and do a conversion to sRGB.jpg for upload.

Exactly!

That's what I was getting at. When we get done and upload, it doesn't matter anymore. But I guess there are some different opinions of what a web browser can actually display and all the complications of making different files for different sites and the fact that the end user, most of the time, doesn't care and doesn't know how to handle and process RGB!

Canon or Nikon?

Compression 11 or 12?

UV filter or not?

RAW or JPG - but always edit as TIF?

Tripod or Monopod...

Nice friendly troll luissantos84

ahah

Nikon, compression 12, no uv, raw, tripod!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2010, 23:21 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2010, 23:13

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 31, 2010, 23:02
Quote from: Zeus on December 31, 2010, 18:15
Some sites, SS for one, displays sRGB much better that AdobeRGB. I would shoot RAW, process to Adobe RGB.TIF and do a conversion to sRGB.jpg for upload.

Exactly!

That's what I was getting at. When we get done and upload, it doesn't matter anymore. But I guess there are some different opinions of what a web browser can actually display and all the complications of making different files for different sites and the fact that the end user, most of the time, doesn't care and doesn't know how to handle and process RGB!

Canon or Nikon?

Compression 11 or 12?

UV filter or not?

RAW or JPG - but always edit as TIF?

Tripod or Monopod...

Nice friendly troll luissantos84

ahah

Nikon, compression 12, no uv, raw, tripod!

Happy New Year!

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** January 01, 2011, 19:39 »

Quote from: bunhill on December 31, 2010, 18:14

If you upload sRGB images iStockphoto converts them to Adobe 98 at L and above. So there is a theoretical slight quality advantage uploading Adobe 98 - and having iStockphoto convert them to sRGB for previews and websized downloads.

If you upload the sRGB JPEG, how can the conversion to Adobe can improve quality? In my ignorance, it's just like creating a TIFF from JPEG, like many sites do.

SNP · « **Reply #13 on:** January 01, 2011, 19:52 »

I began shooting sRGB. I switched to aRGB and continue to upload aRGB. I process in Camera RAW as 16-bit and only convert to 8-bit to save my final jpeg. In my opinion, this delivers the best quality to the print customer. If your color profile in shooting matches your color profile in processing and final image, I don't think your thumbnails should appear flat. Websites will convert the thumbnails to sRGB, but this shouldn't effect image quality if your embedded color profile matches each step in your capture/processing. as far as I know anyways. I haven't had any problems since switching to aRGB.

mtkang · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:14 »

anyone know how to change a ICC profile of a jpg?

I just realise that a jpg i uploaded to many websites appear as dull color compare to color i saw in adobe bridge or photoshop, i do a check and realise it is in prophoto RGB..

how can i change it? i convert that from Tiff from photoshop..

edit: just realise it is under 'edit' -> 'convert to profile'..

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Adobe RGB or sRGB ?? (Read 10609 times)

luissantos84

sharpshot

RacePhoto

RH

RacePhoto

bunhill

PeterChigmaroff

bunhill

luissantos84

RacePhoto

luissantos84

RacePhoto

madelaide

SNP

mtkang

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors