RGB or sRGB for Printing images?

[RM_Drake]

"I'll just bet that once a file is optimized for which ever printer it won't matter a hoot which standard was used."

You'd lose that bet. If you set your camera to capture rRGB and later print the shot on an Epson 2200, the deep blues, green, and cyans you could have printed with that printer won't be there, because you told the camera to throw them away. See my other post in this thread, and note the plots of the sRGB, Adobe RGB, and Epson 2200 gamuts.

When you choose the sRGB color space, as Hendrick said, "All colors outside sRGB are gone forever. Converting sRGB to a larger color space is useless. You simply risk losing even more color data." In other words, sRGB is the smallest color space; converting it to Epson's larger color space is useless. If your shots are destined only for the Web and you never print your work, use sRGB. Otherwise, capture as much color information as you can, because once it's gone, you can never get it back. --Randy

P.S. If your service bureau cannot work in a color space larger than sRGB, it's time to find another service bureau. Even Costco and Wal-Mart make their printers' actual ICC profiles available for professionals to use with color-managed software like Photoshop.

[Andy_Pearlman]

If you put an Adobe 1998 file on the web, it will look like the image on the right, because browsers (including email) are not color managed and can't natively display the wider gamut of colors availble in this colorspace. If you reduce the gamut by changing mode to sRGB, you force the image to find and use only colors that the browser CAN display. If you save this image and open it in PS yourself, the two versions will look virtually the same because PS colormanages them.



When I shoot for possible reproduction (not just inkjet, but actual 4-color) I use Adobe 1998, and convert only the web versions (if necessary) to sRGB. I will shoot sRGB when I'm doing casting, scouting, or reference stuff not destined for print.

Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio

[Allen_P]

Sorry to have to disagree with all the mathematicians on the board, but, best bet is to keep it simple and learn to color correct properly and calibrate your monitor. Remember you're working on what is essentially an sRGB monitor, so, if you work outside of that space you are really guessing at your corrections.

There are the same number of colors in sRGB and Adobe '98. They are mapped differently which tends to lure people to Adobe with the "wider" gamut. Wider gamut does not mean better. People think that with a wider gamut there is more to get. However, you need something better than your monitor to show the difference and something better than CMYK to print it. Best of luck to ya [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I would concentrate on learning to color correct properly. Until you can do that, working with all the profiles, spaces, (imaginary or real) will not do you any good.





ap

[HendrikG]

Allen,

It seems you have a bad understanding of color and color management. Although I agree to keep it simple if things are a bit confusing. sRGB is the safest color space since it’s also the smallest. Remember that all displays are different. sRGB monitors do not exist; sRGB is approximating that of the average computer monitor.

I recommend reading some books:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/resources.htm

sRGB is an unnecessary limitation of your work. More and more people realize that the most important factor in (digital) photography is maximizing and preserving the quality of the picture through the entire workflow within the practical boundaries. Working with large color spaces is not a great effort and easy with some knowledge about color management. More and more people choose to work with even larger color spaces (like Prophoto) to extract all color data from their camera’s.

Choose sRGB if you want to keep it simple, but I expect that those photographers also choose jpeg files instead of RAW.

[HendrikG]

Btw, Allen, you are right you don’t get more colors.

The size of the working space's gamut determines the spacing of the 256 possible values of each channel. In a large gamut space, the values are spread farther apart than in a small gamut space. A wider gamut gives you a wider range of color, but it doesn't give you more colors. The same number of colors are simply stretched over a larger color range. This means you don't have as fine control over the color as you would in a smaller-gamut space.

In a smaller gamut space, you have finer control over color and tone, because the data points are packed closer together, but you lose the ability to specify the very saturated colors that would be available in a larger gamut space.

That’s the reason you want to work with 48-bit images in large color spaces if you want to avoid, posterization or banding (the combing effect in histograms).

Using 48-bit RGB images’, having three 16-bit color channels, has 65536 levels per color channel, compared to 256 with 24-bit images! [Truthful its 0 to 32768 since PS CS does not use the negative range. It seems a limitation, but it’s still an enormous difference compared to low bit editing.]

[Allen_P]

Hendrik,

[ QUOTE ]
sRGB monitors do not exist; sRGB is approximating that of the average computer monitor.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for agreeing with me. I said monitors are "essentially" sRGB.

[ QUOTE ]
sRGB is an unnecessary limitation of your work. More and more people realize that the most important factor in (digital) photography is maximizing and preserving the quality of the picture through the entire workflow within the practical boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said the magic words: "Practical boundaries". When you work within a color space like Adobe RGB (which is supposed to map more closely to CMYK) you run the risk of playing with colors that you cannot accurately see on your monitor.

[ QUOTE ]
More and more people choose to work with even larger color spaces (like Prophoto) to extract all color data from their camera’s.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, especially if they can SEE all the colors.

If you get good results by using the profiles, etc, more power to you. Most people want to live in a world of "What you see is what you get". WYSIWYG [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Since monitors are built more toward the sRGB spectrum and not the others, it would be best to work within that space. Unless, of course, you're a good guesser.

[ QUOTE ]
Choose sRGB if you want to keep it simple, but I expect that those photographers also choose jpeg files instead of RAW.


[/ QUOTE ]

For archival purposes RAW is great. But again, the onus is on those who think they can actually see all the colors. Remember that going from 8 bit to 16 bit or higher is going from millions to trillions of colors. Can you see all of them?

ap

[Allen_P]

Again, read my above post. You must eat alot of carrots. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[HendrikG]

Hehe, I think we both have the ideal workflow. This is a common topic were there are two sides and to be totally true …I never had a costumer who said wow you have much better colors. I like to maximize the quality. You are right, on screen we can’t see differences, but I was talking about print purposes. Most printers have a much wider gamut then sRGB or even Adobe RGB. In print those differences are visible (with some pictures).

Did you ever tried the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test Scoring Software? Confronting!

I think everyone must do the research and choose the best workflow for their work. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

All the best,

Hendrik

[Marko]

The WORKING space for images to be printed should ideally by Adobe RGB. For images to go to the web, sRGB is a good bet. Though I usually leave mine on Adobe and rarely switch back and forth unless I'll be doing a lot of web stuff, which is not too common. I can live with the slightly washed out images on the web rather than colors that are way off in print.

You'll also need the profiles of your destination printer as well. That's very important. And "soft proof" on your monitor what your color/contrast will look like at the destination via the "View" menu. If you've got all your profiles properly set-up, and your monitor's calibrated, it should give you a very close facsimile. And if your destination printer should happen to be CMYK, you'll need to convert a copy (always a copy) of your file to CMYK as well as converting to the printer profile (which you should do anyway, CMYK or RGB printer) when things are looking exactly as you want them. Always convert color space and profiles on a copy, as the final step.