Colourspace

gubbs

Can anyone give a quick & simple expanation and some guidelines for the colorspace settings to use on the: camera, in the raw conversion, and within PS CS

I'm getting a little (read "very") confused and I was finding that the colours as shown in the raw conversion window weren't matching the image once it was in the work area.

Many thanks

cletus

gubbs wrote:

Can anyone give a quick & simple expanation and some guidelines for the colorspace settings to use on the: camera, in the raw conversion, and within PS CS

I'm getting a little (read "very") confused and I was finding that the colours as shown in the raw conversion window weren't matching the image once it was in the work area.

Many thanks

Gubbs,

I use Adobe RGB all the way through (camera, RAW conversion, inside PS CS). The only issue I've found is that when I'm ready to generate a jpeg to display on the web I have to use the Image > Mode > Convert to Profile... command to convert to sRGB first. Just be aware that when you run the Convert to Profile command, PS will flatten your image (i.e. you'll loose all your layers) so make sure to save your work before running CtoP.

lynnma

cletus wrote:

Gubbs,

I use Adobe RGB all the way through (camera, RAW conversion, inside PS CS). The only issue I've found is that when I'm ready to generate a jpeg to display on the web I have to use the Image > Mode > Convert to Profile... command to convert to sRGB first. Just be aware that when you run the Convert to Profile command, PS will flatten your image (i.e. you'll loose all your layers) so make sure to save your work before running CtoP.

I know this is for Gubbs but thanks Cletus.. great little bit of info here. Since I've been converting to sRGB as Pathfinder suggested I've been much happier with my dgrin uploads... have'nt had to push the saturation at all to get the same colors as the originals.
Lynn

Baldy

Here's a help section on sRGB and Adobe 98 (and why your photos look washed out on the web if you save in Adobe 98):

http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color

Some people say that having the camera do the RAW > Adobe 98 conversion is a bad idea since you can do it better in Photoshop than the camera can. And some say that letting it do the RAW > Adobe 98 conversion and then having you do the Adobe 98 > sRGB conversion is also a bad idea because Adobe 98, covering a broader range of colors with the same number of bits to do it in, gives coarser increments from color to color than sRGB does.

In my opinion, use Adobe 98 if you're going to pre-press (like a magazine) and they ask for it, and use sRGB for everything else.

Good reference: http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

tmlphoto

Baldy wrote:

Here's a help section on sRGB and Adobe 98 (and why your photos look washed out on the web if you save in Adobe 98):

http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color

Some people say that having the camera do the RAW > Adobe 98 conversion is a bad idea since you can do it better in Photoshop than the camera can. And some say that letting it do the RAW > Adobe 98 conversion and then having you do the Adobe 98 > sRGB conversion is also a bad idea because Adobe 98, covering a broader range of colors with the same number of bits to do it in, gives coarser increments from color to color than sRGB does.

In my opinion, use Adobe 98 if you're going to pre-press (like a magazine) and they ask for it, and use sRGB for everything else.

Good reference: http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

I believe Baldy has it right. After much reading and forum surfing I have changed from using Adobe 98 to sRGB and have been very happy. I also have given up converting to 16bit and just use 8 bit. These two issues are very controversial from what I have read. Its kinda like arguing about religion, so you will have to make your own choice based on the available evidence.

gubbs

Thanks everyone, I think all that's got me sorted out

Baldy

tmlphoto wrote:

I also have given up converting to 16bit and just use 8 bit.

Me too. Dan Magulis frequently makes the comment in forums that theoretically, using 16-bit makes a lot of sense. But he hasn't seen an image that actually looks better after curves adjustment, etc., in 16-bit than it did using 8-bit.

Far as I know, no one has been able to produce an example that does.

It's like saving your images in JPEG 12 instead of 10. Theoretically, since JPEG is lossy, 12 could look better on some images. But practically, as far as I know, no one has been able to produce an image that looks better printed as a 12 (which is twice the file size) than a 10.