When to convert to sRGB?

largelylivin

I am shooting events, 300-500 photos at a time and relatively new to handling this volume of processing.

My K10D allows you to chose either sRGB or Adobe colorspace. Early on I decided to shoot in sRGB in order to eliminate an extra step in the processing.

Typically I record both DNG and JPEG so that I can use the JPEGs to upload for proofs, again trying to minimize the processing overhead, and then do back to the DNG for prints that are ordered.

Is this a bad choice?

claudermilk

Nope, that's the right choice. Your JPEGs are already in the color space necessary to view correctly on the web. The RAW DNG files shouldn't care what the camer asetting is, you choose the color space when you convert. In most cases it doesn't matter anyway & using aRGB is simply an additional thing you have to remember to deal with. If you run into an image with a blown channel, you can always convert to aRGB and fix it in your editing software, then convert to sRGB as needed.

jfriend

largelylivin wrote:

I am shooting events, 300-500 photos at a time and relatively new to handling this volume of processing.

My K10D allows you to chose either sRGB or Adobe colorspace. Early on I decided to shoot in sRGB in order to eliminate an extra step in the processing.

Typically I record both DNG and JPEG so that I can use the JPEGs to upload for proofs, again trying to minimize the processing overhead, and then do back to the DNG for prints that are ordered.

Is this a bad choice?

Are you displaying the images on the web?

Are you printing at home? If not, where are you getting the prints done?

I ask these questions because if you are displaying on the web, then those images have to be sRGB or their colors won't display properly in many browsers. And, if you are printing through Smugmug or through many local printers (like Costco) or through many online printers (like EzPrints or MPIX), your printed images will also have to be sRGB. So, if you your result always needs to be sRGB and you do volume event photography, you're probably best just keeping your images in sRGB all along.

The best arguments for AdobeRGB are when:

1. You feel like you fully understand colorspaces and when to use which ones
2. When you understand printer profiles and soft proofing
3. When you have a fully color calibrated workflow so you are pretty sure you can see accurate colors on your screen that will match what is printed
4. And, when you are generating prints through a mechanism that supports a larger colorspace than sRGB (printing yourself or printing via a LAB that accepts images in a larger colorspace than sRGB)

If your output is always going to be sRGB anyway, in my opinion there isn't much to be gained by starting in AdobeRGB. You have the RAW file so you can always go back to that if you want to tweak an image for maximum color reproduction. And, if you aren't fully comfortable with a colorspace-managed workflow, it's possible to make mistakes with AdobeRGB that will mess things up far more than you could have improved things.

For my soccer photography which is displayed on the web and printed at both Costco and EzPrints, I shoot in RAW and save to sRGB JPEG.

For another reference on the topic, Smugmug's info on AdobeRGB is here and a really good overall explanation of the possible benefits of AdobeRGB here.

arodney

largelylivin wrote:

My K10D allows you to chose either sRGB or Adobe colorspace. Early on I decided to shoot in sRGB in order to eliminate an extra step in the processing.

Doesn't matter how you set the camera's encoding if you're shooting Raw. Raw is Raw, you can produce any color space you wish (depending on the Raw converter, some only allow a few options of well supported working spaces).

As for the JPEGs, seems like sRGB makes the most sense in your workflow. You can always post them and go back to the Raws to produce a wider gamut color space for more demanding printing needs. Note one 'issue' with Raw+jpeg. Its very difficult and time consuming to match them. The JPEGs are built from the Raw data in camera using very complex and proprietary processing. Unless you use the camera manufacturers Raw converter (and even then), you can't be guaranteed the two renderings will match. It is for this reason I stopped shooting the +JPEG. I render the Raws as I wish in Lightroom, then select them and do a batch JPEG conversion in sRGB. The two visually match. So if you're under major time constraints (you need to post JPEGs ASAP), you might want to consider this. IF you're posting a JPEG and someone on the receiving end hopes to have a version in a wider gamut space or larger file size or even in something other than the JPEG format, you're going to be working hard to get the Raw to match that JPEG.

Icebear

Thant You, Thank You, Thank You
Andrew, coming from you, that sets me free! I've felt like a guy with a 2" **** in a locker room of studs. I was afraid to be "inadequate" plugging along in sRGB, so I dutifully clicked ProPhoto or AdobeRGB, and then lived with sucky results. Now you've set me free!

I can stumble along with everything set to sRGB until I can gain some more book learnin' THEN make intelligent (well maybe) decisions about color space, profiles, etc.

Woo-hoo!!!