A end to the colour debate

[cupic]

I have try both but still deciding between the two.I am talking about Adobe RGB and sRgb.I know that sRgb is well suited to web pages and that Adobe RGB is main purpose is printing but I have not been convince about a wider colour in Adobe RGb.has any one got opinions as I want to make sure that what I shoot in RAW will give me the best in prints.Apologize that my monitor isn't calibrated at all

Does this make sense

cheers

[Tannin]

If your monitor isn't calibrated, there isn't much point in even considering this question. it's like asking if you should clip the paitent's left toenail first or maybe the right one when you haven't got around to stopping the bleeding. But with that said, the reality is that it really won't matter - printers are notorious for having a poor colour gamut, so either one of those will easily out-perform your print system. SRGB is the better choice insofar as it is more standard and you'll have fewer troubles with converting stuff.

[CherylB]

If you are shooting in raw you are going to have to calibrate your monitor! It doesn't matter which colour space you use - without calibration, your prints will not match what you see on your screen.

[Kym]

You can calibrate manually (not at all brilliant but better than nothing) see: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...445#post232445

[cupic]

Valuable lesson handy thanks Kim.Im already seeing the benefits using the free calibration tools


cheers

[ricktas]

Along with screen calibration, the majority of monitors cannot display the entire sRGB colour spectrum so finding one that gives you all the benefits of AdobeRGB means spending a lot of money. Some of the high end Eizo monitors display all or almost all of the Adobe colourspace, but expect to pay at least a couple of thousand $$$ to get that. So why would you use AdobeRGB? Same reason you backup your photos to a several hard-drives, or make DVD copies of them. Future-proofing! It will only be a matter of time before AdobeRGB spectrum monitors are to be had for less than $500.00 in large sizes, and then you will see the reason why taking your photos in that colourspace was worth it. You will have much more information in your files to use and SEE.

But in the end, it is again a personal choice, just the same as what camera brand you use.

[Tannin]

It will only be a matter of time before AdobeRGB spectrum monitors are to be had for less than $500.00 in large sizes, and then you will see the reason why taking your photos in that colourspace was worth it. You will have much more information in your files to use and SEE.

Really?

I don't deny that monitors will improve (though they are taking a long long time to do it) and that a better colourspace will (eventually) become the standard, but that colourspace is most unlikely to be Adobe RGB.

It is unusual indeed to see this bloke make actual sense - a lot of what he writes is simply designed to attract attention - but now and again (possibly by accident) he gets it exactly right. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

To read up on the limitations of Adobe RGB, try this article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

If you are trying to future-proof your work, shooting in Adobe RBG makes no sense at all. Yes, it is a (slightly) bigger colour space, but it's totally non-standard - you have to convert every image you use before you can place it anywhere for people to look at - and that is very restrictive.

Colour spaces only apply to rendered images, remember. The Adobe RGB vs sRGB vs ProPhoto RBG vs whateveryoulikeRGB question only arises when you render an image into a particular representation (such as a JPG file) on a particular device (such as a monitor). If you want to future-proof your work, save it in a non-rendered form (such as a raw file) and you can then render it into any colour space you like, subject only to the limitations of your raw converter.

[reaction]

People ignore the fact whether ARGB or sRGB you are still saving (generally) 12bits/channel in RAW. It's not like ARGB saves any more info. It's like being able to store the numbers (2,4,6,8,10) in ARGB and (4,5,6,7,8) in sRGB and the difference I believe is mainly in the greens only.

So since I don't print, I stick to sRGB.

[Longshots]

This is one of those moments that I feel compelled to suggest some reading that explains colour and colour management.


If you really want to understand what you're talking about, The best book on this subject is :

Color Management - Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy, Fred Bunting


Worth the read and will explain in detail some of the common misunderstandings.

[ricktas]

If you are trying to future-proof your work, shooting in Adobe RBG makes no sense at all. Yes, it is a (slightly) bigger colour space, but it's totally non-standard - you have to convert every image you use before you can place it anywhere for people to look at - and that is very restrictive.
.

Really??

obviously you haven't kept up with the fact that most current website browsers are colourspace aware, and that you can easily upload aRGB files and have them display with some degree of accuracy. Given that a lot of people do not calibrate their monitors, I understand your POV, but you do not NEED to convert aRGB files to another space at all.

[Longshots]

Earlier this year I was teaching Colour Management at a Design College. The level of misunderstanding was and is (even in the professional arena) still huge.

And yes I completely agree with Rick on his previous comment.

And what made me smile was the link to the Luminous Landscape article. What the article demonstrates is that the much under used ProPhoto colour space is bigger and better than Adobe 1998 Colour Space, and that in turn is bigger and better than SRGB. And what it then concludes is that if someone assumes that the file is not the usual consumer standard of SRGB, you're going to get some "horrid results". Yep, that will happen every time. So make sure you convert for the end use. However if anyone really wants to "visually understand", then go and have a look at the article again - and scroll down to the last diagram. That diagram demonstrates that the largest colour space, where you can experience "greater manipulation without damage" is the largest RGB colour space. Working in the largest colour space, and converting to a smaller colour space, particularly for the end use - web or photoprint - makes the most sense.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

FWIW, I'm the coauthor and co founder of the Australian Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines

Which is a brief, and reasonably simplistic guide. Which was all produced at no cost

http://www.apdig.com/

Of course, if you want a lot more detail, then the international UPDIG site has a lot more information (plus they also received massive funding )

http://www.updig.org/


And finally I dont think that "monitors are taking a long time to improve" ? There are plenty of wide gamut monitors out there. In fact there is a huge choice. True they costs more. But like everything in life, you pay for what you get.

[reaction]

The real issues is, will generic monitors one day exceed sRGB and display ARGB? When will tech make ARGB gamut monitors $100 cheap?

In theory it should happen right? Tho I think from CRT->LCD we lost in terms of color initially (not sure about now)

I think most of us pay for mid-range monitors which are not wide gamut

[Longshots]

its a time issue Reaction - eventually I'm sure that they will - but expecting wide range at $100 is not likely as the majority of users dont have the need for them. But yes in theory, they'll be there soon. It doesnt seem that long ago I paid a ridiculous 5 figure sum for a Sony 42 TV, and now I can get a much better screen for a 42" $600 which would include a twin high definition tuner. Thats a decade worth of time. So yes I'm sure wide gamut cheapies will be there.


I dont know a great deal of price availability of wide gamut monitors but I can give a big tick to the Dell 24" series. While I have a couple of Eizo's on one computer for the post production work, the other computers which arent used for day to day critical work have 2 Dell 24's and they're very very good for the money. Quick check and the latest pricing on them is sub $700 for a 24" which is pretty good when compared with a price of $3500 for the similar sized Eizo. When considering this, just remember that there is a large price difference between a compact camera, and a digital slr, both produce images, both have considerable differences in quality.

I definitely would be able to see a difference between what I'm doing in the subtle colour ranges between my Eizo and what I see on my Dell - and then again there would be a huge difference between what a $100 monitor would be able to display.

[reaction]

the difference tho is while a DSLR gives results your compact camera friends can see, a wide gamut monitor most likely benefits only you, your friends on their $100 won't see it!
that's why I think "the majority of users" and us non-pro enthusiasts will move to wide gamut at the same time, ie when it's $2-300 mark.
but since wide gamut isn't marketed in the mainstream, it may take a while...

[Longshots]

No sorry reaction you dont get it I'm afraid. Friends on their $100 will definitely see the difference when they go and get their prints, or see it printed in commercial purposes, or any of the other end uses and suddenly see banding and many other issues that a smaller gamut range wont display.

But I'd agree that some non pro enthusiasts probably wouldnt be able to tell the difference. And then again I've seen some non pro enthusiasts walk around (or displayed by many here in their signatures) with better gear than I possess. So I think you would be surprised what many people want - And I wasnt necessarily aiming my response at non pro enthusiasts, because there are many pros, semi pros, and eager to be either, plus enthusiasts.

And maybe its me, but I see plenty of WG monitors being advertised, at what I consider very decent pricing, but it aint going to be sub $100 for a while.

However this is getting off topic, because I was explaining the issues of colour profiling and what Wide Gamut monitors can do, and why they do it - not an argument about why you dont need them, or cant see the difference.

And I see plenty of wide gamut monitors marketed in the mainstream.