Colour space

[Richard Tadman]

I have always shot using Adobe 1998 colour space, having been told some years ago by two (still) well renowned and much published photographers that Adobe was preferable, having a larger colour palette than sRGB.

I've never had a problem with Alamy QC on this issue or getting a faithful rendition of colours when comparing my (calibrated) monitor images to reproductions. That said I rarely print out images for my own use.
This morning I submitted an image to a large and reputable lab' who advised me that they have converted my colour profile to sRGB to avoid producing "undesirable results"? In fairness they may have converted previous images I have sent to them without my knowledge.

This caused me to try and research the difference and possible detriment they referred to.

What do other contributors do? and does anyone have a definitive view on the relative merits. Thanks

Richard

[Niels Quist]

I submit to Alamy in aRGB for the same reasons as you.

 

Some years ago I also submitted news and reportage images to another agency, Dxxxxxx - and aRGB images seemed very pale and colourless there. People with a natural suntan were suddenly rather pale.

 

Conversion is done much better at an earlier stage. So, if you need both colour spaces - I would probably today produce a copy of both colour spaces  - and perhaps delete one of them after the uploads.

 

Niels

 

 

.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Niels Quist

[Reimar]

Let's face it.  In a color managed environment, it will make little noticeable difference.  Maybe some microstock sites struggle with this.  I don't think a reputable lab should have this problem. I agree aRGB is preferable.  Here's a fun fact.  That MS site that should know better, very ironically does not accept Adobe RGB images, but asks for sRGB.  Go figure.

[Niels Quist]

17 minutes ago, Reimar said:

Let's face it.  In a color managed environment, it will make little noticeable difference.  Maybe some microstock sites struggle with this.  I don't think a reputable lab should have this problem. I agree aRGB is preferable.  Here's a fun fact.  That MS site that should know better, very ironically does not accept Adobe RGB images, but asks for sRGB.  Go figure.

 

Yes, one should should think so. But in my case the difference was clearly noticeable - and it wasn't a microstock site - but a news site bought by one of the big ones. But my problem with this is long gone - images removed - and now producing aRGB only.

[Richard Tadman]

22 minutes ago, Reimar said:

Let's face it.  In a color managed environment, it will make little noticeable difference.  Maybe some microstock sites struggle with this.  I don't think a reputable lab should have this problem. I agree aRGB is preferable.  Here's a fun fact.  That MS site that should know better, very ironically does not accept Adobe RGB images, but asks for sRGB.  Go figure.

 

In fairness the lab didn't have a problem but just alerted me. Your point about MS is interesting. Thanks.

[Richard Tadman]

Thanks Niels and Reimar for your responses. It made me wonder how all (joke) my prospective purchasers will handle the printing of my Adobe 1998 images if it's such an issue. Those I have been fortunate enough to see in print look fine. 

[spacecadet]

Before I knew the difference, sRGB.

Now I do know the difference, sRGB.

[Harry Harrison]

In my opinion Alamy should specify which they prefer, in fact it shouldn't be a preference, it should be one or the other, Adobe (1998) RGB or sRGB. The only reference that I have seen to this is a thread where someone asked them this question and they replied that they ignored the colour space, which would be madness and surely must be untrue. To be specific, to take an image in the wider colour space and treat as if it was sRGB would be the same as 'assigning' that colour space in Photoshop, i.e. bad news, as would the reverse situation, colour spaces are there for a reason. I can't believe they do this in fact.

 

I suspect that they don't want to deter those who shoot sRGB jpegs, or those who don't know one way or the other. I've said this before I think but the key is perhaps knowing what colour space they provide all their images in for download. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Ed Rooney]

When I worked at one of the Time Warner magazines (part-time retirement job), the tech department people told me that all major magazine publishers use Adobe 1098 RGB. For prints?  sRGB might work better. 

[MDM]

12 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

In my opinion Alamy should specify which they prefer, in fact it shouldn't be a preference, it should be one or the other, Adobe (1998) RGB or sRGB. The only reference that I have seen to this is a thread where someone asked them this question and they replied that they ignored the colour space, which would be madness and surely must be untrue. To be specific, to take an image in the wider colour space and treat as if it was sRGB would be the same as 'assigning' that colour space in Photoshop, i.e. bad news, as would the reverse situation, colour spaces are there for a reason. I can't believe they do this in fact.

 

I suspect that they don't want to deter those who shoot sRGB jpegs, or those who don't know one way or the other. I've said this before I think but the key is perhaps knowing what colour space they provide all their images in for download. 

 

Alamy used to specify Adobe RGB but no longer do so. Common sense would say to upload in the wider color space (Adobe RGB)and allow the buyer to decide. If it is colour critical work, then it may be very important. I think I did see somewhere as well that Alamy provide untagged images which seems strange I agree.  

[Richard Tadman]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Before I knew the difference, sRGB.

Now I do know the difference, sRGB.

 

Are you prepared to share this as you will see from the thread that there appears to be a variety of opinions?

[Richard Tadman]

Here's a "You Tube" video that purports to clarify the difference. If I am to believe this it recommends using Adobe RGB for prints! 
I also wasn't aware that sRGB preceded Adobe RGB as a colour space.

 

 

Confused? I am - but the reality seems to be that it could be a futile argument (unless you know otherwise) along the lines of the Canon v Nikon debate.

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

Are you prepared to share this as you will see from the thread that there appears to be a variety of opinions?

Eh? I have shared it.

[MDM]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Before I knew the difference, sRGB.

Now I do know the difference, sRGB.

 

2 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

Are you prepared to share this as you will see from the thread that there appears to be a variety of opinions?

 

I would suggest that this is just a flippant comment and has little of substance to commend it. From conversations with spacecadet over several years, I would be really surprised if he has suddenly developed a high degree of understanding of colour management to back up the statement. If you really want to get an idea of what happens to a raw file when you convert it to AdobeRGB or sRGB, then the soft proofing facility in Lightroom is excellent. The problem always though is that you can't actually see the difference unless you have a wide gamut monitor and even then the variations may not be evident -- similar to the 16 versus 8-bit debate

[M.Chapman]

After submitting aRGB to Alamy for years, I found (after the commission cut debacle) that some other libraries only accept sRGB. IMHO the difference between sRGB and aRGB just isn't large enough to justify the extra effort of producing different versions for each site (especially given the falling revenue per image) so I've now standardised on sRGB throughout my workflow. This also has the benefit that histograms now appear consistent between LR and PS and I feel the images look better (punchier) when viewed by non-colour managed users..

 

Mark (FX runs for cover)

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Richard Tadman]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

I would suggest that this is just a flippant comment and has little of substance to commend it. From conversations with spacecadet over several years, I would be really surprised if he has suddenly developed a high degree of understanding of colour management to back up the statement. If you really want to get an idea of what happens to a raw file when you convert it to AdobeRGB or sRGB, then the soft proofing facility in Lightroom is excellent. The problem always though is that you can't actually see the difference unless you have a wide gamut monitor and even then the variations may not be evident -- similar to the 16 versus 8-bit debate

 

Thank you MDM. I was genuinely interested in Space Cadet's understanding of this issue. Seemingly he is not prepared to share his wisdom, however I appreciate your contribution.

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

 

I would suggest that this is just a flippant comment and has little of substance to commend it. From conversations with spacecadet over several years, I would be really surprised if he has suddenly developed a high degree of understanding of colour management to back up the statement. If you really want to get an idea of what happens to a raw file when you convert it to AdobeRGB or sRGB, then the soft proofing facility in Lightroom is excellent. The problem always though is that you can't actually see the difference unless you have a wide gamut monitor and even then the variations may not be evident -- similar to the 16 versus 8-bit debate

Sorry but that's a bit unpleasant. It's not a flippant comment at all, the OP asked what others did and I answered. I'm not sure you should assume anything about my knowledge of colour management. It's sufficient.

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

Thank you MDM. I was genuinely interested in Space Cadet's understanding of this issue. Seemingly he is not prepared to share his wisdom, however I appreciate your contribution.

You actually asked what other contributors did and I answered. You also asked for a "definitive view" which I didn't offer- others are probably more qualified to do that.

As I recall, when I looked into it I concluded that there wasn't very much difference for the sort of work I do. That's all, no mystery.

Edited July 5, 2019 by spacecadet

[MDM]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Sorry but that's a bit unpleasant. It's not a flippant comment at all, the OP asked what others did and I answered. I'm not sure you should assume anything about my knowledge of colour management. It's sufficient.

 

It wasn't intended to be unpleasant -  just calling it as I see it. You are not backing up what you say and to be honest I don't think you could and I totally disagree. But do explain your point of view please.

[Mr Standfast]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Before I knew the difference, sRGB.

Now I do know the difference, sRGB.

I get it.

[M.Chapman]

5 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

It wasn't intended to be unpleasant -  just calling it as I see it. You are not backing up what you say and to be honest I don't think you could and I totally disagree. But do explain your point of view please.

 

Perhaps your earlier comment gives an insight?  (see below - my bold highlight)

 

11 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The problem always though is that you can't actually see the difference unless you have a wide gamut monitor and even then the variations may not be evident

 

I assume customers choose images based on viewing on a monitor and I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Alamy disclose the colour space of images when displaying thumbnails or zooms. Don't they only find that out after downloading?

 

Mark

Edited July 5, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Richard Tadman]

I appear to have inadvertently provoked a somewhat heated debate.

 

To rewind; I have always been told on good authority by internationally renowned professional photographers far more knowledgeable than me, that Adobe 1998 colour space has a larger range and is more universally used by those who make a living out of these things.

I also understand that in Photoshop for example you can use Edit>Convert to Profile>  in the Destination Space select sRGB and convert the output.

My query, possibly badly expressed was based on trying to understand the science behind the two options and whether there really was a significant difference, and if so what were the merits and detriments of each.

Thank you for all your contributions. I guess at the moment I'd summarise this as "no wiser but better informed."

[Niels Quist]

1 hour ago, Richard Tadman said:

I also understand that in Photoshop for example you can use Edit>Convert to Profile>  in the Destination Space select sRGB and convert the output.

 

If you make this change on the RAW file it replaces the camera setting. If you do the above on the jpg file there will be at least some deterioration.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Niels Quist

[Richard Tadman]

2 minutes ago, Niels Quist said:

 

If you do this on the RAW file it replaces the camera setting. If you do this on the jpg file there will be at least some deterioration.

 

Yes; thanks for the clarification Niels

[Richard Tadman]

Yes Niels - good point