Adobe or sRGB?

[ErnestM]

When you shoot, what do you leave your colourspace on and why?

ErnestM

[GetCarter]

I use sRGB... because I do most of my printing myself and don't tend to send to pro labs.

I tried out Adobe and although there is a lot more one can apparently do with the colours in this format, the colours looked pants when downloaded onto my PC. Life being short enough, I stuck to sRGB.

I also generally drink instant coffee, and don't build my own cars, so my chioce should be viewed with that in mind.

Steve

[V6GTO]

A quote from Scott Kelby's book...

"The first thing you'll want to change is the RGB colour space. Photoshop's default colour space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) is arguably the worst possible colour space for proffesional photographers....was designed for use by Web designers, and it mimics an "el cheapo" PC monitor from four or five years ago."

Martin.

[te51cle]

Adobe 1998 because all my serious work is for prints and 1998 is recommended for printed output. If I was focussed on web work the it would be sRGB.

However... Someone showed me the colour space/gamut limits of different paper types earlier this year and even for the best of them their ability to reproduce different colours is even smaller than sRGB, so I'm not sure it matters too much as long as you're happy with the images you create for your use !

[ErnestM]

GetCarter said:

I tried out Adobe and although there is a lot more one can apparently do with the colours in this format, the colours looked pants when downloaded onto my PC. Steve

You just hit on the reason for my question as I too have read some things by mr Kelby (and quite a funny but interesting author he is). The thing is, after using Kelby's suggestions for fixing colour, the prints on the Epson R1800 looked quite a bit better using Adobe colourspace plus Kelby's tricks for shadow, midrange and white, etc...

They continue to look crap on my monitor (NEC Multisync LCD 1980SX if that makes any difference).

ErnestM

Edited to add : The images look too "washed out" if that makes any sense...

>> Edited by ErnestM on Friday 4th November 16:50

[Captain Beaky]

Have you got a colour profile for your monitor ? It won't make a bad monitor into a good one but it can help with consistent colour rendition.

[ErnestM]

I have it using the ICC profile that came with it (the monitor). Everything else looks pretty good. The only things that looks "washed out a bit" are pcitures when I colour correct them. The thing is, as stated above, they print better when I use Kelby's tips (prior to doing that, pictures always printed a bit darker than what was on screen).

I've tried to compensate by fiddling with the monitor. I even gave Adobe's Gamma tool a whirl but it does not seem to like LCDs very much.

ErnestM

[V6GTO]

Interesting...

When I'm happy with an image on my monitor, I hit "print" and out pops a washed out image. It's neccesary to up the contrast and saturation to get a decent print. (Canon i9950)

Martin.

[GetCarter]

V6GTO said:

Interesting... When I'm happy with an image on my monitor, I hit "print" and out pops a washed out image. It's neccesary to up the contrast and saturation to get a decent print. (Canon i9950) Martin.

I guess it would be REALLY annoying if I said that when I hit "print" it comes out looking just like the image on the monitor wouldn't it.

[ErnestM]

Not if you told us what type of monitor, graphics card and what your gamma, ICC profile and it's particulars (gamma, white temp, etc, etc) were. Oh, and we'd also like to know the settings on the monitor itself - contrast, brightness, etc, etc.

Willing to learn...

ErnestM

PS: Of course it might be irritating if you said, "Dunno, just plugged the old thing in and never touched it..."

[simpo two]

ErnestM said:

PS: Of course it might be irritating if you said, "Dunno, just plugged the old thing in and never touched it..."

Funny you should say that...

I don't know how it works but they look great on the monitor and come back from PhotoBox even better. Probably two wrongs making a right, but I can either (a) spend the rest of my life worrying about it and trying to understand profiles, or (b) spend the time making nice pix

[ehasler]

GetCarter said:

V6GTO said: Interesting... When I'm happy with an image on my monitor, I hit "print" and out pops a washed out image. It's neccesary to up the contrast and saturation to get a decent print. (Canon i9950) Martin. I guess it would be REALLY annoying if I said that when I hit "print" it comes out looking just like the image on the monitor wouldn't it.

[smug]
Me too
[/smug]

In my case, my LCD monitor is set to 100% brightness and contrast (default setting), and is profiled using ColorVision OptiCAL software and a Spyder (done with curtains closed and all lights turned off in the room). Within OptiCal, Gamma is set to 2.2, and whitepoint is Native. Luminance is set to black = 1.00 and white = 250.00. I use Epson paper (with an Epson 2100 printer), and the correct profile from Epson. I convert my images to Adobe RGB (1998), and have set that to be the default working space within Photoshop. I only convert to sRGB when I save an image to display on the web.

I did have to try a number of different paper/profile combinations to find the one that gave the best results, however getting a custom print profile made would have been another option.

In my opinion, getting your monitor correctly calibrated and profiled is a must - doing it by eye, or even Adobe Gamma is never going to give you accurate results.

Finding (or creating) an accurate printer profile is the next step - these need to be for the same printer/ink/paper combination that you're using, and most paper manufacturers offer these for free download - some are better than others though, so you will need to try them out.

>> Edited by ehasler on Friday 4th November 21:47

[Methanol]

The sRGB colour gamut has just 35% of the visible colours specified by CIE. is one of the narrowest gamut of any working space. Adobe RGB 1998 however has about 50% which covers most of the colours achievable on a CMYK printers, but by using only RGB primary colours on your computer display.

For shadows about 25%, midtones about 50% and highlights about 75%

So, Adobe RGB 1998 is the way to go.

(Hi Ed, how's it going dude?)

[ehasler]

Methanol said:

So, Adobe RGB 1998 is the way to go

Or maybe even ProPhoto RGB (clicky)

Hi Simon - tried to mail you a while back but it bounced! Hopefully catch up at a meet soon

[Methanol]

ehasler said:

Or maybe even ProPhoto RGB (clicky)

Gimmy a break Ed, my printers just about managing with Adobe RGB 1998. and I'm not buying the Eizo. Not at £3.5k anyways


>> Edited by Methanol on Friday 4th November 22:24

[ErnestM]

Ed, I've seen those Spyder things. Glad to see that they work.

Question - My monitor is set at 100% brightness and 50% contrast as it comes from the factory. Would you recommend leaving it there and then doing any changes via the colour profile? Or should I try to fiddle with the monitor?

ErnestM

I REALLY apologise for getting off topic here as I was originally asking just so that I would know proper settings for the 350D

[Methanol]

Profile your monitor and set your 350 to Adobe RGB 1998

I've got an Monaco Optix XR to sell.

>> Edited by Methanol on Friday 4th November 22:29

[ehasler]

ErnestM said:

Question - My monitor is set at 100% brightness and 50% contrast as it comes from the factory. Would you recommend leaving it there and then doing any changes via the colour profile? Or should I try to fiddle with the monitor?

I'd leave it at the default settings, and then refer to the documentation of the profiling hardware/sofware in case they suggest anything different.

The new V2 version of the Spyder is meant to be even better, or else you could look at the Gretag Macbeth Eye One Display 2 - both around £200, but well worth it if you're keen to get the best from your photos.

[Methanol]

Maybe this may help: (here)