MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: sRGB or Adobe RGB  (Read 5180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 11, 2006, 10:37 »
What colour space do you use.

Do you set it that way in the camera or change it once in photoshop etc.

I have always used sRGB (default setting) but wonder if I should change.

I thing most publishing houses and therefore designers prefer Adobe RGB.

« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2006, 14:05 »
adobe RBG is a larger color space than sRGB, so you should work in adobe.  I am not sure what the stock sites want though.. i haven't really check it out.  but if you shoot in jpg, you should have your camera set to adobe RGB and if you have to convert it later then do it in photoshop.

If you shoot in RAW you can convert it to whatever colorspace you want when you bring it into photoshop.  I usually use Pro Photo RGB which has a larger color space than adobe RGB.

« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2006, 14:06 »
on a further not.

For you own use, if you post an image to the web or something, it is best to put in in sRGB as it will display the most accruatly on all the various browsers/screens.

« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2006, 14:16 »
Pro Photo RGB and other large color spaces are great but only if you use 16 bit.  If you plan on using 8 bit stay with sRGB.  Basically your shades won't transistion very smoothly because you are increasing your step size between shades of color.  When you go to 16bit that isn't a problem. 


« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2006, 15:22 »
Striker77 - is that the same for adobe RGB?

« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2006, 15:27 »

Sock sites generally require sRGB8 bit JPEG's, although I imagine that will change over time.  (Some Macro sites take 8 bit TIFF, sRGB)

For my own stuff I shoot sRGB jpeg...  All the times I've shot raw "just in case" it's only saved the day for me once, so I've given up on it. :-).  I find my 20D and 10D give good enough jpeg's for 99.9% of my use, although the 1D jpeg's sometimes suck.  (1D mk1, 4Mp, not the new one)

I don't need better than 8bit workflow, as my output is either the paper which is worse than 8bit sRGB, or a Fuji Frontier at the lab I use which is also 8 bit. I don't worry about the editing gamut side so much, as If I have to do more than levels and sharpen to an image to sell it I generally wont bother, I'm a bit old school and like to get it right in the camera.  I stretch to doing cloning of zits, and removing wrinkles etc in portraits though :-)...

Black and white is a different matter though, I'll muck around for ages editing B&W images to get the tone range I want in 16 bit, then convert back to 8bit for sending to the lab.

Different strokes for different folks. :-).

Cheers, Me.

« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2006, 16:48 »
Striker77 - is that the same for adobe RGB?

Yes and no. The transistion between shades won't be as smooth if you switch to aRGB and stay in 8 bit, but it is probably still good enough. So there is no huge issue with 8 bit aRGB. But going to a huge color space like Pro Photo RGB you should definitely stay in 16 bit space. Personally I mainly use 8 bit sRGB and hardly ever deviate from it. I always shoot in RAW and keep the original RAW file for all my images. So if I have a special need I can convert it to my desired color space in 16 bit and process it properly. But most of my work is for family, friends and stock sites. Taking special care to process everything in 16 bit with a large color gamut just isn't worth it. It only slows things down with no real benefit.



Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
Last post March 08, 2008, 08:26
by stokfoto
12 Replies
Last post April 06, 2008, 17:44
by vonkara
20 Replies
Last post December 26, 2008, 07:36
by MikLav
14 Replies
Last post January 02, 2011, 09:14
by mtkang
10 Replies
Last post February 22, 2019, 01:19
by rinderart


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle