Adobe RGB (1998) vs. ProPhoto RGB

[New Contributor Has a Question]

As a new contributor, I would like to know if ProPhoto RGB is an acceptable color space. Or, if I must use Adobe RGB (1998). Or, if either color space is deemed acceptable. Please advise.

[Martin Bennett]

To retain the maximum data, and as it is not possible to recover data you have already thrown away. I process and save everything in ProPhoto and then export the file to the client / agency as per their stipulated requirements.  

[WPL]

Every agency and most online printers will either ask for Adobe RGB (1998) or SRBG, but as Martin said you want to be working in ProPhoto RBG up until the point of export.

[wiskerke]

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/maintaining-maximum-image-quality.asp

 

Alamy says: We recommend you use Adobe RGB (1998). This is the industry standard for imaging professionals.

So they seem to allow other profiles. Some people here on the Forum have reported they always use sRGB.

Yikes!

Except that then there are no conversion mistakes possible. And from time to time people have questioned either their own calibration method or the conversion Alamy uses especially for the thumbnails.

 

wim (AdobeRGB almost exclusively)

 

edit: typo

[Robert M Estall]

is this some kind of wind-up? You say you are a new contributor but you have zero images. quick of the mark or something else? Do I need to know what ProPhoto RGB is? have you any special interest? Why would I move away from the industry standard: Adobe RGB 1998

 

Do what it says on the tin!

[wiskerke]

Some stock agencies require ProPhoto. It's a tad better than AdobeRgb 1998 for nature, but the main reason is it's more future proof, when we will all work in 16 bit. And the output will be mainly to screens and not to paper.

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1203/mh1203-1.html

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

 

wim

[Lionel]

For the OP:  You can learn a lot about colour spaces by reading either "Real World Color Management" by Brian Fraser, Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting or "Adobe PhotoShop CS4/5/6 for Photographers" by Martin Evening; if you are tempted to buy either book, make sure you get the latest edition (Brian Fraser is deceased).  To be sure, there are many other good books out there, I'm mentioning these just because I've read them.  To a large extent color spaces are a manifestation of physics, so less likely to change than the technology we use such as cameras, screens and printers.  I agree with Wim that ProFoto is more future-proof.

 

But perhaps you know this.....

 

Regards

Lionel

[Klinger]

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/maintaining-maximum-image-quality.asp

 

Alamy says: We recommend you use Adobe RGB (1998). This is the industry standard for imaging professionals.

So they seem to allow other profiles. Some people here on the Forum have reported they always use sRGB.

Yikes!

Except that then there are no conversion mistakes possible. And from time to time people have questioned either their own calibration method or the conversion Alamy uses especially for the thumbnails.

 

wim (AdobeRGB almost exclusively)

 

edit: typo

 

Yes I'm one of those people who uses sRGB exclusively, everywhere, for everything.

 

Yikes? Maybe, but try reading this...

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

 

"sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet. So long as you haven't screwed with anything, you and the world are shooting in sRGB. "

 

This runs along with the debate whether to save at 12 or is 11 OK. Well if Adobe came out and said, 12 is now 24, the debate would be, "how can someone save at anything low like 23" Only the Max. will do.

 

If people who buy/license the images can't use ProPhoto RGB properly or decode it without extra steps, I don't know why anyone would want to produce images for sale using that? RGB can be probilmatic if not handled properly. I chose the standard that works best for the most people. (I might be wrong)

[dustydingo]

is this some kind of wind-up? You say you are a new contributor but you have zero images. quick of the mark or something else?

 

?? He/she might have a first submission (aka contribution) of several thousand images awaiting QC. Why would that make it a wind up?

 

dd

[Colin Utz]

I used to submit in Adobe RGB, since this year, I submit sRGB. I changed my mind, after reading a post in the old forum, from a long time Alamy member (David C.?).

 

My brother in law owns a printing company. He says, it doesn´t matter, which colour space. He has to proof the results, anyway. Another friend works at a local newspaper. Nobody cares there, too. If somebody really needs something special, they will contact Alamy.

 

Since Alamy doesn´t convert the thumbnails, they look better in sRGB. I also remember an interview with Alamy´s CEO, where he said, sRGB is ok.

 

But that´s my oppinion, that can change in a minute, when somebody convinces me to do something different. 

[wiskerke]

It's pretty simple: if your work doesn't need it and your client doesn't want it, why use anything better than sRGB.

 

If your work requires AdobeRGB or your client prefers it, then use AdobeRGB.

If your work requires ProPhoto RGB or your client prefers it, then use ProPhoto RGB.

 

If you have no idea what it's all about or why one should be better than the other, please use sRGB. (And that includes Ken Rockwell.)

If you have to go beyond sRGB, you probably know why.

If you have to go beyond sRGB because your client requires it, but you have no idea, you have two options:

A:

Tell the client I have no idea, please go to someone who has;

or B:

go back to school -or read one of the books already mentioned, but don't expect to be able to send the client the work first thing tomorrow ;-)

 

wim

 

edit: typo

[Colin Utz]

@ Philippe

 

You are right, if you shoot and safe JPEG, only. But if you shoot and safe RAW, it doesn´t matter. Than you can deliver whatever the client wants.

[Klinger]

 

@ Philippe

 

You are right, if you shoot and safe JPEG, only. But if you shoot and safe RAW, it doesn´t matter. Than you can deliver whatever the client wants.

 

Now, why didn't I think of that

Indeed, that's very true. Well, let it be a tip for those who only shoot Jpegs or Tiffs 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

You left out people who are just lazy and that would be me.

 

Mostly I think some people are over thinking the color space question. That's why I mentioned saving at 11 vs 12. Does it really matter and make a difference? Or is it just doing everything to the Max.?

 

Nikon or Canon? Heck I think they are both wonderful and now add a few more makers. Elements, Lightroom, PS, CS, Corel? It can depend on many factors and in the end, most of this is a personal decision.

 

I'm fairly convinced there is no right and wrong in many of these questions, and color space is one, we have varied opinions and personal preferences.

 

Real simple. I shoot JPEG, do critical editing as a TIFF and save as a JPEG again. Also save most of those TIFFs for future changes, just in case. Some people prefer RAW with extended options and abilities. Including needing special software to decode it, and now being forced onto the cloud to edit their own work. I'm happy down here.

[Lemmy]

 Including needing special software to decode it, and now being forced onto the cloud to edit their own work. I'm happy down here.

I shoot RAW and need no special software to edit it. I import into Lightroom and that's it. 

 

No-one has 'been forced onto the cloud' to edit their own work. You seem to have misunderstood what Adobe have done. The software is on your machine as are your images but you must go online to license and pay monthly to use some Adobe products. If you don't pay the Adobe license, then you just edit in some other program.

 

Having said that, I don't do much digital manipulation on my pictures so I won't be subscribing to Photoshop in future. I have CS4 and even that strikes me as bloated overkill more suited to art editors than photographers. I think I've fired it up maybe three times in the past year so £50 a month strilkes me as no bargain.

[Russell Watkins]

One thing I will say is that I follow Alamy's recommendations and submit here in AdobeRGB but my images on Alamy look a bit flat in browsers when compared to my images on other sites that require submissions in sRGB colour space.

 

I'm considering switching to sRGB because of that.

[dov makabaw]

I like to keep things simple and not try to outguess the client now or in the future.

 

I only shoot in RAW. Cards and storage are not that expensive that space is an issue any more.

 

I only process in ProPhoto RGB so that I have the maximum data/gamut to process in.

 

I then transfer or print the images in the best colour space acceptable to the client.

 

Do not understand the argument for for shooting in jpeg unless you are so good that every image is perfect first time off. In my case that is rarely the case!!

 

dov

[David Kilpatrick]

ProPhotoRGB is only of any value if you work in 16-bit. Since the raw file is probably an effective 11-13 bit true depth at the most (whether claimed 12 or 14) and only a very few at theoretically 16, it's already as good as anything you can save out of it. If you work in 8-bit, the actual effect of sRGB versus aRGB versus ProPhoto works more on the subtlety of colour gradation (sky banding, etc) than on the extremes of gamut. Unless your image contains extremes of gamut, you don't need either aRGB or ProPhoto. All they do is have some completely wasted bit depth sitting there NOT recording anything. sRGB, while it either clips or transforms colours beyond the screen/inkjet gamut, does so and then uses all the 255 steps in each channel well (in an 8-bit file).

 

End result - using aRGB (which I do a lot) can actually produce lower quality than sRGB for the majority of lighting conditions and subject colours; using ProPhoto will do even worse. You can get more banding, more noise and more unexpected colour shifts (unless you stick to 16-bit right to the end, as this has enough steps to portray a wide gamut smoothly). Of course your screen can't show it. So what do I do? Use sRGB more these days. The sky colours look better. I use aRGB too. Fortunately, Adobe Camera Raw will show you the difference this choice makes (more or less) and show it well in the histogram.

 

Another good reason for using sRGB is that your camera histogram, which you may use for exposure judgement, is nearly always based on an sRGB conversion used by the LCD monitor screen.

[Niels Quist]

 Use sRGB more these days. The sky colours look better. I use aRGB too. Fortunately, Adobe Camera Raw will show you the difference this choice makes (more or less) and show it well in the histogram.

 

Another good reason for using sRGB is that your camera histogram, which you may use for exposure judgement, is nearly always based on an sRGB conversion used by the LCD monitor screen.

 

But all your uploads to Alamy are still aRGB, I guess, David.

 

I am asking because I may also consider to change to sRGB as the shifting between the two is a pain in the neck (RAW conversion and images in two colour spaces - I shoot RAW, always), and my aRGB images look paler at other sites (look okay at Alamy). I have been sticking to aRGB to comply with the desired colour space to Alamy.

[Niels Quist]

One thing I will say is that I follow Alamy's recommendations and submit here in AdobeRGB but my images on Alamy look a bit flat in browsers when compared to my images on other sites that require submissions in sRGB colour space.

 

I'm considering switching to sRGB because of that.

 

Your images look okay to me - powerful colours...

[Russell Watkins]

 

One thing I will say is that I follow Alamy's recommendations and submit here in AdobeRGB but my images on Alamy look a bit flat in browsers when compared to my images on other sites that require submissions in sRGB colour space.

 

I'm considering switching to sRGB because of that.

 

Your images look okay to me - powerful colours...

 

Thanks Niels - I think my images elsewhere are a little more rich, though. But who's to say which is "right"?

[Alexandre Fagundes]

 

 

One thing I will say is that I follow Alamy's recommendations and submit here in AdobeRGB but my images on Alamy look a bit flat in browsers when compared to my images on other sites that require submissions in sRGB colour space.

 

I'm considering switching to sRGB because of that.

 

Your images look okay to me - powerful colours...

 

Thanks Niels - I think my images elsewhere are a little more rich, though. But who's to say which is "right"?

 

 

Niels, this depends on the computer and the software the guy is using.

In the other agency I use that doesnt convert the images to sRGB, my images look perfect in my desktop, not the same in my notebook, though, adobe rgb look pale there and I can barely see any difference in my desktop.

I didnt upload any Adobe RGB to Alamy, so can´t tell if there is a difference or not.

[Alexandre Fagundes]

 

 

@ Philippe

 

You are right, if you shoot and safe JPEG, only. But if you shoot and safe RAW, it doesn´t matter. Than you can deliver whatever the client wants.

 

Now, why didn't I think of that

Indeed, that's very true. Well, let it be a tip for those who only shoot Jpegs or Tiffs 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

You left out people who are just lazy and that would be me.

 

Mostly I think some people are over thinking the color space question. That's why I mentioned saving at 11 vs 12. Does it really matter and make a difference? Or is it just doing everything to the Max.?

 

Nikon or Canon? Heck I think they are both wonderful and now add a few more makers. Elements, Lightroom, PS, CS, Corel? It can depend on many factors and in the end, most of this is a personal decision.

 

I'm fairly convinced there is no right and wrong in many of these questions, and color space is one, we have varied opinions and personal preferences.

 

Real simple. I shoot JPEG, do critical editing as a TIFF and save as a JPEG again. Also save most of those TIFFs for future changes, just in case. Some people prefer RAW with extended options and abilities. Including needing special software to decode it, and now being forced onto the cloud to edit their own work. I'm happy down here.

 

 

Klinger the discussion here is not about RAW or JPEG, but color space. When you take a picture in JPEG you can choose in your camera which color profile will it use, normally you can choose between sRGB or Adobe RGB.

That means, the discussion is also adressable to you, even if you take only JPEGs

[Ed Rooney]

deleted

[DDoug]

Color information is necessarily lost in the conversion from RGB to CMYK, and the color space that minimizes that loss is the best choice when shooting for print. I have no experience with ProPhoto, but as to the choice between sRGB and aRGB, supplying publishers with what they need seems a lot more important than how snappy an image looks as a thumbnail on a screen.