Nick Hatton Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Hi folks just been wondering if I am using the right colour space in my camera, I have my 5D 11 set to sRGB is this ok or would Adobe RGB be better suited to selling on Alamy? would be grateful for you thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Beastall Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Limb Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Yes, Adobe RGB which I sometimes see as Adobe RGB 1998 - sRGB, often nicknamed Small RGB, is for web use But in Camera Adobe RGB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan Bearing in mind it was written over 10 years ago, I wonder if printers and monitors have improved somewhat since then? I believe Alamy request Adobe RGB for submissions, although will accept either. It's also been stated (see this thread) that, when producing thumbnails of your images, Alamy convert AdobeRGB to sRGB first to improve rendering in web-browsers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Why Adobe RGB? It is a larger color space with more data. It can easily be converted to sRGB by Alamy or a client if they want to. Changing the space the other way round does not really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I only use DSLR's in RAW with the color space of aRGB and import to LR as 16bit before I do any corrections. From those TIFF's I make my 8bit JPEG's for upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 If shooting in RAW the camera's colorspace setting is meaningless. The colorspace for the RAW image is determined when the RAW image is converted in your RAW converter software to TIFF, JPG, etc. If shooting in JPG or RAW + JPG then the camera's colorspace setting is used to set the in-camera JPG's colorspace. Alamy used to specify Adobe RGB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Why Adobe RGB? It is a larger color space with more data. It can easily be converted to sRGB by Alamy or a client if they want to. Changing the space the other way round does not really work. Never used to have this problem in the early days. It was either B&W or colour (color). Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hatton Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 Thanks all, looks like I have had it wrong for the last 12 months! just hope it has not affected my sales, 6 sales last 12 months with average of 500 images, could this have been more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 The weird thing, as I understand it, is that my camera sensor has three colour channels R,G and B. Each digitised to 12 or 14? bits. So doesn't my image data start off as regular/straightforward RGB? If the RAW file allows all possible permutations of R, G and B to be stored already, where do the "extra" colours in AdobeRGB come from? Probably an oversimplification, but it puzzles my simple brain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I disagree with you, Phil Sorry to say that I can not back up my thoughts scientifically. 80% of the time I do a custom color balance and it just makes more sense to me to leave my camera's set to aRGB. Most of the time I'm working with Nikon D800's I also have all of my support equipment set to aRGB as well. The only time I switch to sRGB is when I am doing final prep on an image to size for a client's social media or the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I disagree with you, Phil Sorry to say that I can not back up my thoughts scientifically. 80% of the time I do a custom color balance and it just makes more sense to me to leave my camera's set to aRGB. Most of the time I'm working with Nikon D800's I also have all of my support equipment set to aRGB as well. The only time I switch to sRGB is when I am doing final prepcame on an image to size for a client's social media or the web. My choice of wording was probably not the best. The colorspace geeks seem to indicate that camera RAW image data does have some kind of colorspace. But I don't think its the usual sRGB/aRGB we usually think of when trying to figure out which of the camera's colorspace settings to choose. The thread below has more than enough info to make one's head hurt on the subject: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=22471.0 I don't believe that unconverted RAW camera data can be assigned a colorspace by the camera's colorspace settings in the usual aRGB/sRGB colorspace terms we think of such as when we export a JPG image from LR/PS/etc. which assigns a colorspace to the image file for print or web use. FWIW - I also keep my camera's set to Adobe1998. Then export the image file out of LR/PS assigning whichever colorspace is appropriate for the end use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan Oh dear, I never dreamed anyone on Alamy would take that utter numpty seriously! Ken Rockwell is the biggest tool ever to walk the photography planet take no notice of what he says - he's a clueless idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 I disagree with you, Phil Sorry to say that I can not back up my thoughts scientifically. 80% of the time I do a custom color balance and it just makes more sense to me to leave my camera's set to aRGB. Most of the time I'm working with Nikon D800's I also have all of my support equipment set to aRGB as well. The only time I switch to sRGB is when I am doing final prepcame on an image to size for a client's social media or the web. My choice of wording was probably not the best. The colorspace geeks seem to indicate that camera RAW image data does have some kind of colorspace. But I don't think its the usual sRGB/aRGB we usually think of when trying to figure out which of the camera's colorspace settings to choose. The thread below has more than enough info to make one's head hurt on the subject: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=22471.0 I don't believe that unconverted RAW camera data can be assigned a colorspace by the camera's colorspace settings in the usual aRGB/sRGB colorspace terms we think of such as when we export a JPG image from LR/PS/etc. which assigns a colorspace to the image file for print or web use. FWIW - I also keep my camera's set to Adobe1998. Then export the image file out of LR/PS assigning whichever colorspace is appropriate for the end use. That is all very academic and mind-boggling stuff and Phil is correct with his original statement for all practical purposes: If shooting in RAW the camera's colorspace setting is meaningless. The colorspace for the RAW image is determined when the RAW image is converted in your RAW converter software to TIFF, JPG, etc. The simple fact is that it if you are shooting raw, then it does not matter what color space or what white balance settings you have - you can choose something completely different at the raw conversion stage and have no adverse effect on the image or its data. I have on occasion accidentally changed the white balance settings and it is a simple matter of changing this on the computer. The color space and white balance are of course important if shooting JPEGs as they will be locked in at the time of shooting. They also influence what you are seeing on the camera screen. As for the OP, if you are shooting in sRGB JPEG, then you are throwing away huge amounts of data. This doesn't make any sense at all. If you just have the camera set to sRGB but are shooting raw, then you lose nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 The weird thing, as I understand it, is that my camera sensor has three colour channels R,G and B. Each digitised to 12 or 14? bits. So doesn't my image data start off as regular/straightforward RGB? If the RAW file allows all possible permutations of R, G and B to be stored already, where do the "extra" colours in AdobeRGB come from? Probably an oversimplification, but it puzzles my simple brain.... Further to my posting I've been doing some reading up on this - at the risk of becoming even more confused It's clear that different colour spaces can contain different ranges of colours (gamut?). It's also clear that Photo RGB has a wider gamut than Adobe RGB which has a wider gamut than sRGB. So, the theory goes that, if you work in Adobe RGB you can process more colours than if you work in sRGB. i.e. if you work in sRGB, you risk clipping or throwing away colours. This is all fine and dandy. But my camera only has a sensor with a simple RGB filter which presumably has it's own gamut. What I've not noticed in reviews of different cameras is how wide the gamut of the camera sensor is and how does it compare with the gamuts of sRGB and Adobe RGB? We can buy a "wide gamut" monitor, but I've not noticed a digital camera described as "wide gamut". Am I missing something? Mmmm... Nevertheless I capture in RAW, convert to AdobeRGB and do all my editing in LR/PS. Then, as a final step, I produce two jpegs, one in sRBG for upload to Fine Art America and my own use (general viewing on my Mac or PC, emailing to friends etc.), the other in AdobeRGB for upload to Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan I wouldn't take anything written by Ken Rockwell seriously. He's not a photographer and is well-known for having very odd opinions (such as not believing in shooting RAW). He's often laughed at by photographers. Geoff. I think you might have to explain that statement, or at least explain why the colour space article is invalid.. I read it and it seems internally consistent and well- reasoned. I certainly can't see the difference. AFAICS his disinclination to use RAW is conditional and predates LR. Perhaps he would have a different opinion now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 OP, there are differing opinions as to the preferable colour space, or rather, as to how much difference it makes. You haven't got it "wrong", or if you have, so have I for the last 7 years. I understand that there may be a slight improvement in print reproduction in ARGB over sRGB but as I said above I can't see it. Many of my sales never go near print of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 The weird thing, as I understand it, is that my camera sensor has three colour channels R,G and B. Each digitised to 12 or 14? bits. So doesn't my image data start off as regular/straightforward RGB? If the RAW file allows all possible permutations of R, G and B to be stored already, where do the "extra" colours in AdobeRGB come from? Probably an oversimplification, but it puzzles my simple brain.... Further to my posting I've been doing some reading up on this - at the risk of becoming even more confused It's clear that different colour spaces can contain different ranges of colours (gamut?). It's also clear that Photo RGB has a wider gamut than Adobe RGB which has a wider gamut than sRGB. So, the theory goes that, if you work in Adobe RGB you can process more colours than if you work in sRGB. i.e. if you work in sRGB, you risk clipping or throwing away colours. This is all fine and dandy. But my camera only has a sensor with a simple RGB filter which presumably has it's own gamut. What I've not noticed in reviews of different cameras is how wide the gamut of the camera sensor is and how does it compare with the gamuts of sRGB and Adobe RGB? We can buy a "wide gamut" monitor, but I've not noticed a digital camera described as "wide gamut". Am I missing something? Mmmm... Nevertheless I capture in RAW, convert to AdobeRGB and do all my editing in LR/PS. Then, as a final step, I produce two jpegs, one in sRBG for upload to Fine Art America and my own use (general viewing on my Mac or PC, emailing to friends etc.), the other in AdobeRGB for upload to Alamy. Do you submit to Fine Art America in sRGB so your images look better on the screen? Would that also affect how they look in a print? Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 The weird thing, as I understand it, is that my camera sensor has three colour channels R,G and B. Each digitised to 12 or 14? bits. So doesn't my image data start off as regular/straightforward RGB? If the RAW file allows all possible permutations of R, G and B to be stored already, where do the "extra" colours in AdobeRGB come from? Probably an oversimplification, but it puzzles my simple brain.... Further to my posting I've been doing some reading up on this - at the risk of becoming even more confused It's clear that different colour spaces can contain different ranges of colours (gamut?). It's also clear that Photo RGB has a wider gamut than Adobe RGB which has a wider gamut than sRGB. So, the theory goes that, if you work in Adobe RGB you can process more colours than if you work in sRGB. i.e. if you work in sRGB, you risk clipping or throwing away colours. This is all fine and dandy. But my camera only has a sensor with a simple RGB filter which presumably has it's own gamut. What I've not noticed in reviews of different cameras is how wide the gamut of the camera sensor is and how does it compare with the gamuts of sRGB and Adobe RGB? We can buy a "wide gamut" monitor, but I've not noticed a digital camera described as "wide gamut". Am I missing something? Mmmm... Nevertheless I capture in RAW, convert to AdobeRGB and do all my editing in LR/PS. Then, as a final step, I produce two jpegs, one in sRBG for upload to Fine Art America and my own use (general viewing on my Mac or PC, emailing to friends etc.), the other in AdobeRGB for upload to Alamy. Do you submit to Fine Art America in sRGB so your images look better on the screen? Would that also affect how they look in a print? Paulette I seem to recall that it was stated somewhere that sRGB was preferred for FAA, so (rightly or wrongly) that's what I've been doing. My sRGBs on FAA look OK on screen to me, and the prints I've had from them have been very good too. Maybe I should load an AdobeRGB version of one of the same images on FAA so I can compare and see if they look a bit dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan I wouldn't take anything written by Ken Rockwell seriously. He's not a photographer and is well-known for having very odd opinions (such as not believing in shooting RAW). He's often laughed at by photographers. Geoff. If he's not a "photographer" - who took these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 The weird thing, as I understand it, is that my camera sensor has three colour channels R,G and B. Each digitised to 12 or 14? bits. So doesn't my image data start off as regular/straightforward RGB? If the RAW file allows all possible permutations of R, G and B to be stored already, where do the "extra" colours in AdobeRGB come from? Probably an oversimplification, but it puzzles my simple brain.... Further to my posting I've been doing some reading up on this - at the risk of becoming even more confused It's clear that different colour spaces can contain different ranges of colours (gamut?). It's also clear that Photo RGB has a wider gamut than Adobe RGB which has a wider gamut than sRGB. So, the theory goes that, if you work in Adobe RGB you can process more colours than if you work in sRGB. i.e. if you work in sRGB, you risk clipping or throwing away colours. This is all fine and dandy. But my camera only has a sensor with a simple RGB filter which presumably has it's own gamut. What I've not noticed in reviews of different cameras is how wide the gamut of the camera sensor is and how does it compare with the gamuts of sRGB and Adobe RGB? We can buy a "wide gamut" monitor, but I've not noticed a digital camera described as "wide gamut". Am I missing something? Mmmm... Nevertheless I capture in RAW, convert to AdobeRGB and do all my editing in LR/PS. Then, as a final step, I produce two jpegs, one in sRBG for upload to Fine Art America and my own use (general viewing on my Mac or PC, emailing to friends etc.), the other in AdobeRGB for upload to Alamy. Do you submit to Fine Art America in sRGB so your images look better on the screen? Would that also affect how they look in a print? Paulette I seem to recall that it was stated somewhere that sRGB was preferred for FAA, so (rightly or wrongly) that's what I've been doing. My sRGBs on FAA look OK on screen to me, and the prints I've had from them have been very good too. Maybe I should load an AdobeRGB version of one of the same images on FAA so I can compare and see if they look a bit dull. Hmmmm. It's been a while since I uploaded there so I'll have to check that. Maybe they do want it. I wonder what I did. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinS Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan Never gave the difference any thought; but dutifully saved files as aRGB all these years. After reading the KR piece, I created two jpegs, one of each, of several images. Looking at them in a variety of browsers and software, I have yet to see the slightest difference in how they appear on screen, except that on one the tiny filmstrip aRGB image in Bridge was definitely dull. The past few months have afforded me some time to process images, so thank you, Alan, for the opportunity to re-examine an issue I've been ignorant of. Not sure I want to extend my trials to printing (ink too costly), but if I do I'll post any findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Nick, have a read on the article by Ken Rockwell "kenrockwell.com" about the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. Some good reading and in-depth research given. Alan Never gave the difference any thought; but dutifully saved files as aRGB all these years. After reading the KR piece, I created two jpegs, one of each, of several images. Looking at them in a variety of browsers and software, I have yet to see the slightest difference in how they appear on screen, except that on one the tiny filmstrip aRGB image in Bridge was definitely dull. The past few months have afforded me some time to process images, so thank you, Alan, for the opportunity to re-examine an issue I've been ignorant of. Not sure I want to extend my trials to printing (ink too costly), but if I do I'll post any findings. You can't see any differences on screen unless you have a wide gamut monitor. If you want to see what happens, then use softproofing in Lightroom with different destination color spaces - you probably won't see the actual color differences by eye but you can see how much is out of gamut - generally far more in sRGB than AdobeRGB. You can something similar in Photoshop if you don't have Lightroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Shantz Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 I've always submitted aRGB images to Alamy since that at least used to be what they recommended as the buyer might need them for a high end printer. The local photo printers use Fuji film printers, and sRGB is recommended for these printers unless you want to download and use a custom space which may, or may not, result in an improvement on any given machine. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinS Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 Thanks, MDM, for the info. Shooting RAW and submitting aRGB to Alamy is no problem and I will continue to do so. But I have to wonder how many buyers use this as a criterion for choosing one image over another, or if any end users care. Edit: Grammar, thanks Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.