pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: sRGB or Adobe 1998?  (Read 9340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 24, 2008, 11:45 »
0
I'm curious what format people submit in. sRGB or Adobe (1998)? I know that big most trad agencies want Adobe 1998 but how about micros. Does the extra punch sRGB give make it worthwhile.

Pete


alias

« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2008, 12:23 »
0
Use Adobe 98 for iStockphoto.

iStockPhoto automatically makes sRGB versions for various thumbs, and for the web-sized versions which it sells. So the images look fine on the web. Other sizes are sold as Adobe 98 - automatically converted if necessary. There are likely to be fewer quality issues when converting from Adobe 98 to sRGB (for the web versions) than doing it the other way around.  Since Adobe 98 is a wider gamut than sRGB.

For Shutterstock and Dreamstime you probably want to produce sRGB versions. It makes sense to build a work flow which makes it easy to output different final versions for the different sites (I guess at the same point in the workflow where they get keyworded differently for the different sites).

I have no idea about any other microstock sites.

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2008, 13:10 »
0
I would shoot in Adobe RGB and then convert to sRGB for upload. 

As far as I know istock is the only place that converts the thumbs of Adobe RGB images to sRGB. 

It makes sense to shoot with the higher color gamut, but you are just too much at a disadvantage when your thumbnails display on most sites if you don't convert to sRGB. 

At one time it might have made sense to tweak an extra copy of everything in Adobe RGB for istock (although I never have), but with sales at their lowest point ever for independents there I don't think it's worth the extra workflow step. 

JMHO.

michealo

« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2008, 13:15 »
0
I suspect it makes little to no difference

« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2008, 13:29 »
0
I suspect it makes little to no difference
Your probably right but there some agencies who know how to make a thumb look good and some who don't.

jsnover

« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2008, 14:06 »
0
I've done everything in Adobe RGB for a long time, but while I was independent, I converted to sRGB for upload. Of the micros, AFAIK only IS handled automatically producing sRGB for display and many images that are Adobe RGB look awful when displayed as if they were sRGB. Doesn't matter if the buyers would prefer Adobe RGB if they never buy your images because they look gray and dull!

I never bothered making two versions - too much hassle. Now I'm exclusive, I upload Adobe RGB.

vonkara

« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2008, 16:27 »
0
This is what an RGB's does... only Istock manage it correctly

Istock
Sorry for the size we can't take the description thumbs anymore

StockXpert and all others ( Dull colors )


All the rest of my portfolio is in Adobe. This was the only test I does and it was enough to keep me shooting adobe
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 16:29 by Vonkara »

« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2008, 16:44 »
0
I would shoot in Adobe RGB and then convert to sRGB for upload. 

As far as I know istock is the only place that converts the thumbs of Adobe RGB images to sRGB. 

It makes sense to shoot with the higher color gamut, but you are just too much at a disadvantage when your thumbnails display on most sites if you don't convert to sRGB. 

At one time it might have made sense to tweak an extra copy of everything in Adobe RGB for istock (although I never have), but with sales at their lowest point ever for independents there I don't think it's worth the extra workflow step. 

JMHO.

Yep I have to agree with this - a lot of my older uploads are Adobe RGB, but I've since changed to sRGB.

alias

« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2008, 17:01 »
0
it's no big deal to output different versions for different sites. Easy enough to build it into a workflow - and you already have to do different versions of your uploads for the sites which still have not implemented CV based keywording. Disk space is cheap.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2008, 04:06 »
0
I have stuck with Adobe RGB. Here's why, and you can decide for yourself.

Adobe 98 space is much bigger than sRGB. If your file is in the sRGB space any colours that were in the original image or file will either be clipped or compressed, depending on the rendering intent used. In other words, they're effectively gone.

Read here for more, which suggests that the best answer is ProPhoto RGB.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2008, 06:25 »
0
I think that all agencies convert our images to sRGB. So, if you submit your images in some other RBG profile thank sRGB your images will look different on the WEB than on your original file. So, I guess it's better to work with bigger color space, and than to convert it to sRGB to see the result and then to submit. In the beginning I worked in adobr RGB, but when I converted my photos to sRGB some of them looked to red. So, I decided to work everything in sRGB, and since then I don't have problems with color balance of my images. I personally think that for microstock you don't have to worry too much about this.

This is the last sentence of an article that talks about color spaces and their usage:

"But, on the other hand, an image file in a wide space such as ProPhoto RGB needs to be kept in a cage, so that it doesn't accidentally get into the outside world. Anyone receiving a copy of such a file who doesn't know what they have, and who doesn't function in a properly colour managed workflow, or who presumes that the file is sRGB, can inadvertently use it to produce some really horrid results."
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 06:27 by whitechild »

« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2008, 09:37 »
0
I have stuck with Adobe RGB. Here's why, and you can decide for yourself<...>
While techincally AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB are better than sRGB, it is much worse practically (as already explained above).

* By default, internet browsers don't represent AdobeRGB colors correctly on screen, they look dull
* Many of microstocks don't convert preview files into sRGB

* Therefore if you upload your pictures in AdobeRGB to microstock the colors will look dull for buyers. So choose sRGB even it isn't the best one.

« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2008, 15:52 »
0
What is conclusion!?

1. Shoot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB and upload in AdobeRGB.
2.Shot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB, converting and upload in sRGB.
3.Everything in sRGB.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 15:54 by borg »

« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2008, 16:09 »
0
What is conclusion!?

1. Shoot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB and upload in AdobeRGB.
2.Shot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB, converting and upload in sRGB.
3.Everything in sRGB.
Various scenarios are possible indeed. My choice - don't bother and save time - so I convert to sRGB while doing conversion from RAW.

« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2008, 16:57 »
0
I put my images in a master library where they reside as Adobe 1998 Tif files. From there I output them using Lightroom to whatever spec is necessary. it is here I will convert to sRGB for all except iStock thanks to the information provided. I have been very disappointed at how images look on some of the sites. I'll see if lowering the quality to sRGB will improve them.

Peter



RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2008, 18:52 »
0
What is conclusion!?

1. Shoot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB and upload in AdobeRGB.
2.Shot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB, converting and upload in sRGB.
3.Everything in sRGB.

One = everything is sRGB all the time.

I'm not concerned with display on one sales site thumbnails as much as I am with the actual file when someone gets it.

TIFFs sRGB 300 DPI are what I use for editing and save as my master files. Nice and simple.

Had to edit this after I looked at the camera which is set to sRGB. Good thing someone asked, or I wouldn't have known. I'm not sure if I wanted to know, since I changed nothing.  ;)

By the way, we may think that buyers all have super monitors, but they don't. Some are looking at photos on laptops with fuzzy grey screens. Some on Macs with glossy bright displays, some on desktops with over saturated LCDs. I suspect that many people shooting stock don't even have high quality CRTs for editing, which may explain some rejections? (lets hope the reviewers have good displays) Why go through all the trouble of guessing what people will see in hopes that they have good equipment and that it will be the single deciding factor deciding why they buy a photo?

sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet.

Looked at my photos which are IEC 61966 2.1: "Default RGB Colour Space sRGB". Somehow the standard RGB is actually sRGB?

When I ran them through a photo colorspace checking software they came up "failed" as not being RGB.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2008, 04:25 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2008, 05:48 »
0
Exactly...  I do everything in sRGB, for micros and for macros.


alias

« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2008, 06:26 »
0
I wonder whether the people with sRGB based workflows get more rejections. Given the way in which sRGB clips and compresses colors compared to the wider gamuts (Adobe 98 and ProPhoto).

Personally I switched to ProPhoto for my workflow, about the time that Lightroom was released. I output final versions depending on what is required.

It's the same as you wouldn't work with 8 bit images - only as final output. Your eye might not be able to see the difference on all monitors but the histogram might.

« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2008, 07:19 »
0
Come on, sRGB isn't THAT bad :) When I convert from RAW to sRGB tif I always take care to avoid clipping of deep shadows and/or bright highlights.

« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2008, 07:22 »
0
When I convert an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB in Photoshop, I can never see any change in the appearance of the image. I doubt that most people can tell the difference with most images. Adobe RGB images only look bad on the web because browsers can't interpret the color accurately (browsers assume they are sRGB when they aren't). Image editing software has no problems. I think Yuri said somewhere that he always uses sRGB for micros.

« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2008, 07:36 »
0
When I convert an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB in Photoshop, I can never see any change in the appearance of the image.
Unfortunately it isn't that easy. If you do just a blind conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB in photoshop you will most likely get parts of your histogram clipped.

I think it's easier to do the conversion during RAW processing, just by setting the default to sRGB and controlling the histogram.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4683 Views
Last post July 11, 2006, 16:48
by Striker77s
31 Replies
12921 Views
Last post March 08, 2008, 08:26
by stokfoto
12 Replies
4239 Views
Last post April 06, 2008, 17:44
by vonkara
14 Replies
8096 Views
Last post January 02, 2011, 09:14
by mtkang
10 Replies
1633 Views
Last post February 22, 2019, 01:19
by rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results