Can RAW files be converted to different colour spaces?

[Miaow]

so how do you find out which monitors support aRGB and ProPhoto?

Currently I have a Samsung SyncMaster BWX and cannot find out via the online specs.

Do FULL HD monitors support all formats?

do you mean argb as in adobergb? Why would you want to work in abodeRGB when most browsers support sRGB more?

[Calxoddity]

so how do you find out which monitors support aRGB and ProPhoto?

Currently I have a Samsung SyncMaster BWX and cannot find out via the online specs.

Do FULL HD monitors support all formats?

Hooboy! We're getting into a whole other discussion here. The short answer to your question is "almost definitely not, but don't worry as most monitors don't."

I'm not sure I understand your qeustion re HD. "Full HD" is generally regarded as being 1080P resolution - it doesn't refer to colour gamut coverage (ARGB and SRGB are not formats). I guess the short answer here is "no".

Here's a link that provides a lot of info on monitors: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

PS - Just re-reading my response and it seems a little terse, but it's not because I'm being mean - it's because once you start trying to explain the ins and outs on this topic you never stop! Panel types, viewing angles, calibration or not, default gamut (usually exceeding SRGB) can all have a bearing on how you see the colours, and that's before we consider factors like the constraints of your target output and how accurate your colour vision is....

Regards,
Calx

[arthurking83]

apologies Rick, didn't mean to imply that you said that raw images are colour space aware.

but my point was only that, RAW images never lose any colour values as they are not colour space aware, regardless of what colour space you've set the camera too.

Where there may be any issues in viewing a raw file, set to one colour space, and subsequently converted to another colour space, would only be in the embedded image!

(I think??) there may be some image viewers or editors capable of handling raw files, that may display the embedded jog file as the thumbnail. FSViewer may be one of them(but I'm not sure??) as what's happened to me using that program has been weird.
If I open an NEF file in FSViewer, it displays the NEF as any of the Nikon software does, which implies that it's reading the embedded Nikon camera data(such as Picture Control settings) correctly, OR that it displays the embedded jpog file so that it performs quickly, which it does. Faster than any other raw viewer that I've used so far, in displaying hundreds of NEF images at once. Could just be optimal programming? I've also tried using Bibble Pro5, which is reputed to be the fastest raw image editor available.

What FSViwer does tho, is that it displays the NEF perfectly, but if I convert the NEF to a raster image, the resultant image looks less than woeful(and that's sugar coating the description by a long way too!.. nothing short of the worst raw to jpg/tiff conversion I've ever seen!).
**This is Nikon specific, and in my circumstances tho!!**

So what could happen(to any type of raw file):
if your raw image editor/converter is displaying a certain looking image(which looks good), which you then convert to a different colour space, if that program uses the embedded jpg for display purposes, and it's converting the embedded jpg as well as the raw data, then the display of that embedded jpg is obviously going to look affected in some way.

I highly doubt that any software would meddle with the embedded jog image in the raw file, but who knows what they do?.. and I'm not a programmer to be able to fully understand what happens to the raw file.
Other alternatives could be that, if the camera is set to aRGB, and then converted to sRGB using one program(eg in my case CaptureNX) and then I subsequently open that raw image in FSViewer..

1. I'm not sure if there's going to be any embedded exif data in the embedded jpg image(why would there be, it should be optimized for display in the camera), so being a jpg, the default colour space(for any viewer to display the jpg) would be sRGB.
2. there is exif data in the raw image then the software would assume that the embedded jopg would be the same(eg. aRGB).
3. if the software assumes that the embedded jpg is aRGB after colour conversion to another type, by another program, then it may display the jpg in the wrong format.

I'm curious by it all, but as I've never had any issues converting colour spaces using Nikons software, which is the only software I use to convert NEF's to raster images, I've never seen any colour anomalies.

crikey! I hope that made sense.. now I'm confused

[monkey]

@calx. thank i know little at the moment about monitors so wasnt sure bout my Full HD question either. is it best to work with a monitor then that supports Adobe RGB so you can get a true indiciation of what is going to be printed? If you dont have a Adobe RGB monitor then should you not save images that you want printed as Adobe RGB?

@Miaow the reason to work in Adobe RGS is to get better looking prints.

[ricktas]

If you want a monitor that can display the full AdobeRGB gamut, you are looking at several $thousand to get one. Some are now reporting about 97% AdobeRGB gamut and coming down in price, so its only a matter of time before technology allows us a full gamut at a reasonable price.

[monkey]

thanks ricktas. do you use a AdobeRGB monitor? Do most people at the moment use sRGB monitors and still saves prints in adobe RGB?

is 100% full gamut?

[ricktas]

100% is full gamut and I wish I did have an adobeRGB monitor. I think another important factor is monitor calibration with a Colorvision Spyder, Munkey, Eye-one, etc.

97% adobe gamut monitors are expensive: http://www.imagescience.com.au/produ...ge-CG241W.html
100% ones are even more so : http://www.imagescience.com.au/produ...ge-CG221-.html

[monkey]

wow you are not wrong!!!

Do you know what gamut the latest LCD/LED TV are usually at? The reason i ask is that im thinking of buying a new TV and teh samsungs come with a free 26 inch screen i could use purely for my office.

Also so given that you have an sRGB monitor do you get prints done in Adobe RGB or sRGB

[ricktas]

wow you are not wrong!!!

Do you know what gamut the latest LCD/LED TV are usually at? The reason i ask is that im thinking of buying a new TV and teh samsungs come with a free 26 inch screen i could use purely for my office.

Also so given that you have an sRGB monitor do you get prints done in Adobe RGB or sRGB

you would have to get the model details from samsung and contact them re gamut etc of that monitor, but as it is free, it is probably cheap too (see post above re price of adobe monitors). Prints should be done in sRGB unless your printer can handle adobeRGB (ask them).

[monkey]

yep i saw the prices thanks. hence my 'you aren not wrong' to the expensive advice from you
.
Yes my printer can support Adobe RGB however since i cant see sRGB? Given i cant see Adobe RGB on my monitor what should i do.

[ricktas]

take your photos in RAW and keep them. At present, convert to sRGB for printing and web display, but in future as prices drop etc, you still have the RAW file to use again and benefit from the available bigger colourspace at that time.

[Calxoddity]

Monkey,
Another thing to consider in all this - your printer's gamut will in all likelihood be less than the monitor unless you've spent bazillions on the printer, so the prints won't occupy the ARGB colourspace in any case and trying to squeeze ARGB into the available colourspace at printing can cause colour ickiness (sorry - technical term ).

Your hard earned cash would be better spent in ensuring the existing monitor is calibrated and the printed output looks like the pikkie on the screen (and use SRGB colourspace as your generic colourspace).

Regards,
Calx

[monkey]

hey calx thanks for that. I get them printed at a printing centre that supports aRGb if i want it too. But i hear what your saying, i might for now spend some cash to calibrate the monitor and concentrate on sRGb until things get cheaper.

what do pros do if they dont have a sRGB monitor?

[jev]

That's a thinking-error. Just because the final output device is not able to completely cover the larger color space of AdobeRGB doesn't mean it doesn't benefit from the larger color space of AdobeRGB (as compared to sRGB). A printer might be able to show much more yellow than a monitor can or that fits in either sRGB or AdobeRGB. That you can't see it on your monitor doesn't mean you won't benefit from it. Check out the excellent interactive color gamuth models from DrycreekPhoto to get a feeling for it. Take for example AdobeRGB as reference model, sRGB as wireframe model and select an Epson 2200 on professional glossy paper for your solid model. Than look at the yellow and green - the printer can print much more yellow and green than fits either sRGB or AdobeRGB. Here's a screendump from that:
colorspace.jpg
The red wireframe is sRGB, the white wireframe AdobeRGB and the solid is what Epson can print. It certainly pays to use AdobeRGB (or even Profoto!) if you are going to a subtractive color based device from a additive color system.

Something similar is true for monitors (though obviously not the difference between additive and subtractive color systems). Look for example at the Eizo CG-220 LCD: that almost fits AdobeRGB but it is able to generate a bit more orange to purple than AdobeRGB can respresent.

[Calxoddity]

Thinking error? Does not compute! A simplification maybe... Once you start getting printer and screen gamuts that are too widely divergent, it's harder to predict the appearance of the printed output. The printer may (for example) be able to do brighter yellows, but if that's not the result you're after, it's a wasted sheet.

If you have a Mac you can use the Colorsync utility to compare gamuts like in Jev's pikkie. I use it to compare different papers' output gamuts on my R1900 in relation to my screen sometimes.

Next time you're in an Apple Store, check it out (Applications/Utilities/Colorsync, click on a profile then right click on the resulting gamut graph and select "hold for comparison", then click on the other profile from the list that you want to compare it to. Instant overlay!).

Regards,
Calx

[wideangle]

OK, thanks for all the responses! This area of photography is certainly deep and at times confusing!!

[wideangle]

As a follow-up I have found some interesting and clear reading about sRGB/Tagged and untagged images etc.
http://www.vaps.org.au/Documents/sRG...20Untagged.pdf

[cinvala]

Slightly off topic, maybe.
When I transfer images from my camera to my computer using lightroom 2. and save them as a .dng file, is there a colour space attached to the file at that point?

[wideangle]

Slightly off topic, maybe.
When I transfer images from my camera to my computer using lightroom 2. and save them as a .dng file, is there a colour space attached to the file at that point?

There should be, check your colour settings within lightroom to see what it is using, or alternatively right click a jpg thumbnail and see what colour profile is embedded - not sure why but colour profiles cannot be seen when right clicking a TIFF image for EXIF data.

[jev]

There should be

No, there should not be a color profile in there. DNG just is Adobe's idea of RAW...