A quick question colour profile ?

[spudhead]

So which colour settings do you use in your settings/ sRGB -or adobe RGB and does anyone use any colour profile options? and this is in regard to normal daily shooting not adapted bodies, thank guys

 

[Roland]

I use Adobe RGB with Capture One since it was suggested by their spokesperson.

 

[spudhead]

OK one for RGB, I use capture one but am using sRGb but recently questioning myself

 

[spudhead]

Whatever is default.

probably RGB adobe then I believe its the preferred option for printing as far as most camera makers are concerned

 

[spudhead]

I found this in the A7IV manual.

Honestly, this sounds to me like one of those irrelevant settings that don't even need to be there.

"When a large part of the image is vivid red or green."

I don't think I've ever noticed my reds or greens not being vivid enough. I guess maybe it's an Adobe thing.

View attachment 37045

could be irrelevant Tim I am sure someone will give us an in depth answer, anyway it is a in camera option and in fact an option in capture one editing software so guess it is an option in photoshop etc

 

[spudhead]

Here's an interesting article. I do not know how old it is, but according to it you always want sRGB for posting on the 'net.

Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose?

Which is the best Color Space sRGB or Adobe RGB? Which one you use and why depends on your needs - see which this author uses, and discuss in the comments.

digital-photography-school.com

Yep I have read several of these over the last couple of years and have always shot sRGB anyway after trying adobe RGB

 

[spudhead]

It almost sounds like unless you plan to print on a printer with the Adobe profile, sRGB is pretty much the only real option.

Yep Tim I have used both and there does seem to be a difference

 

[spudhead]

Yep Tim I have used both and there does seem to be a difference

One reason I asked this is because when looking on line at reviewers and when out and about shooting a was suprised by how many people were shooting in the vivid option

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

As referenced above, if you have an Adobe RGB monitor with a wide colour gamut(normally up to a billion colours),
and if you are shooting in Adobe colour profile, this is useful to explore the full colour range of your image. Basically
in Adobe you will see a deeper range of shades within any singular colour channel but if you do not have access to
a similar specified print facility you will not see the same colour depth and need to check the SrGB profile to see
what your print facility will produce.

If you do not have access to Adobe RGB printing however, to enable appropriate colour coordination, you are probably
wasting your time in shooting Adobe RGB profile images.

An Adobe RGB image on a suitably specified monitor will look substantially different if printing in SrGB.

Except for very high end professional purposes it is probably best to default to SrGB colour profile shooting and printing
in 90% of cases.

 

[iain clyne]

I have stuck with sRGB. You would need to have the right equipment in the form of monitors printers etc to see any benefit.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Absolutely iain ....Adobe SGB is great for analysing your images for colour depth but if printing is your thing and unless you have access to such high end printers forget it.

In fact buying a monitor to view Adobe RGB is something of a waste of money if you are into printing and limited to SrGB
As most commercial printers use this colour Gamut.

 

[AlphaWorld]

So which colour settings do you use in your settings/ sRGB -or adobe RGB and does anyone use any colour profile options? and this is in regard to normal daily shooting not adapted bodies, thank guys

First part of the answer: the in-camera setting is somewhat irrelevant if you are shooting RAW. You can set the camera to sRGB and import the image as Adobe RGB or an even bigger colour space if you want to (such as ProPhoto). All the in-camera setting does is specify the default choice of colour space.

Why would you choose a smaller colour space? if you are working in a smaller colour space, you get finer resolution from your 14 bits - the steps are smaller.

Why should you choose a larger colour space? If you are photographing a scene that includes colours which are inside a large colour space, but not inside a small colour space, then the small colour space cannot show the colour - it gets clipped to the closest thing inside the range of the colour space. "Out of gamut" colours are basically what you are trying to address with a larger colour space.

Things to consider:

• can your monitor display the full gamut of your colour space? This used to be a major problem, because wide gamut monitors were ridiculously expensive (as in many thousands of dollars). Even now, the kinds of monitors you pick up cheaply are likely to have a limited gamut. The sRGB colour space was specified to be within the capabilities of decent monitors at the time it was defined.
• can your monitor display the colour accurately? Even if the monitor can theoretically display all of the colours in your selected gamut, will it display the right colours for what you ask it to display? The best monitors have high precision lookup tables in hardware to convert an incoming signal into the appropriate colour on the screen - these are called "hardware calibrated" monitors. If your monitor doesn't have hardware calibration you can approximate it using software calibration, but that reduces the available detail.
• have you calibrated your monitor? You need to calibrate your monitor for it to display accurate colour, and I don't mean one of those programs where you eyeball the colours - I mean using a proper hardware calibration device (technically a spectrophotometer - but hardware calibrator is what most people call it). I use an i1 Display Pro (from a company whose name has changed more than once: Gretag MacBeth to XRite to Calibrite - possibly others). If you use a hardware calibrated monitor, but don't calibrate it, then it will show you wrong colours - the colour output changes with age and use - you need to recalibrate every so often. Not as often as we used to need to - CRT monitors needed recalibration much more often.

I'm not going to get into the subject of printing - that's considerably more complicated (you don't just need to calibrate your printer - you have to calibrate it for the ink and the paper you are printing on, plus the light under which you plan to display the print...). Prints may have a smaller gamut than monitors.

The usual complaint is "why bother? People are going to look at my images on lousy monitors, so why should I try for accurate colour?" - answer is that if you produce an image with accurate colour, then your image will match the colours of another image that was produced on a calibrated system - your reds will look the same as their reds, your skin tones will match their skin tones. If your images all look greener (or bluer, or more orange) than those from other people, your images will be described unflatteringly

The whole subject of accurate colour is a lot bigger than whether you use sRGB or Adobe RGB. I'm no expert. In fact, the deeper I look into it, the more I feel that I'll never fully understand it all

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Bottom line either you restrict your photography activity to online image transfer/imaging/presentation at Adobe RGB or if you need to print then unless you are in for more expensive printing cost stick with SrGB as the most widely available and cost effective printing profile.

Evaluation of the most suitable shooting colour profile/Gamut cannot be divorced from full workflow review including printing (in-house or third party)needs.

 

[iain clyne]

There is one other thing to consider in this, the human eye can only see 1 million colours.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Maybe, but it all boils down to this:

Our images look just fine.

If you are happy, that's cool.

There is one other thing to consider in this, the human eye can only see 1 million colours.

According to whom? I thought eye sight varies between people.

Even if it's true that doesn't mean that we could represent them with 100 levels each of red / green / blue (which would one million - our eye response is is not linear - more logarithmic (like our hearing).

 

[iain clyne]

It came form this research done for the BBC.

What are the limits of human vision?

From spotting galaxies millions of light years away to perceiving invisible colours, Adam Hadhazy explains why your eyes can do incredible things.

www.bbc.com

 

[iain clyne]

Everyone has a different impression of the colours of whatever they have taken a photo of and endeavour to get the same colour that is in their head and what's on the monitor to match.

 

[Clide]

So which colour settings do you use in your settings/ sRGB -or adobe RGB and does anyone use any colour profile options? and this is in regard to normal daily shooting not adapted bodies, thank guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVOaNhw65Q . This you tube video called Color Science Made Simple by Dan Steinhardt and Jeff Schewe is one of the very best explanations of sRGB vs adobe RGB vs Pro phot RGB. I am not sure it refers to how you should shoot but they do a great job of why you should consider one over the other.

 

[Matthias]

Quick question, semi on-topic. Do you guys calibrate your laptop/monitor for colors? If yes, how?

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Fundamentally the issue was originally between using Adobe RGB over sRGB....

The primary issue is developing/reviewing images on a wide gamut monitor with 1 billion colours in accordance with
the adobe RGB gamut, and the greater depth of colour this will provide, versus transmitting these images to others
on the internet who may not have a similar high gamut monitor and will see a different colour version of the transmitted
image including printing from an image based upon Abobe RGB to a SRGB printer when many third party print companies
print exclusively in sRGB excepting for the higher end commercial printers.

Without detailed colour calibration, at each image transfer interface point, the Adobe RGB and SRGB images will never be
visually the same......

For some it will be an issue, for others maybe not......

 

[Gaz]

Some of my office printers were loaded with “adobe postscripts” if memory is still working. [we hardly ever print anything these days at work so printers are obsolete technology]

Those printers promised more accurate/reliable reproduction from screen to printer if you set all your stuff with drivers that have the word adobe in it.

 

[Gaz]

I use a gadget called a color Luminator, which reads among other things, the luminance contrast between different surfaces. [people with a vision impairment might detect luminance contrasts even if they cannot make out shapes]

When you suggest calibrating your monitor, there has to be something you’re using as a baseline. Something tangible, i.e. not virtual. That means printing.

Since printing is less likely, an image on your screen won’t be seen by others as you mean it to be. They have their own monitors set however vivid they prefer, for instance.

This adds greater complexity and a measure of serendipity to the art of photography. So many crappy Microsoft PC monitors abound.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Don't disagree Gary,
the issue still remains for those that need accurate representation of photographic images from monitor to printed image
and/or between individual users monitors, without detailed calibration.......and yes these days, printing is becoming less and less of a need for most.