CS3 Bridge and color spaces

KatWoman

I am not sure why your images are coming up with poor colour on windows but this is what I do (to send customers small jpegs to look at). I assume your monitor is properly profiled?
1 in Camera I turn off all sharpening and noise reduction and put into ADOBE RGB space. Record at max camera resolution.
2 In bridge ACR I adjust the raw file (ACR 4.1 or 2 has some new sliders which I recommend updating to) and save as PSD ADOBE RGB in full camera resolution
3 When ready to send customers images I go to Bridge and select all the images to be sent (the converted files in PSDformat)
4 In bridge open run Tools>Photoshop>Image Processor. This lets you convert the PSD files to Jpegs and set the quality (say 8), convert to sRGB, and select resize to fit and give max pixel dimensions (say 500) and the application will resize the new jpeg to fit the box. Finally there is the option at the bottom of the screen to run a photoshop Action (I have a sharpen for web/screen action but you could also give a touch of extra saturation in the action). You can make the files so that they can be viewed on a screen but will not have enough resolution to print! The converted files are stored in a new folder called jpegs.

The converted files can then be e-mailed or used on the web and are in sRGB and have been sharpened for this use. I have processed all the images on my new web site www.ember-razement.com.au using this technique. I dont have a problem viewing them using windows fax viewer.

Hope this helps
Malcolm

If you look at my web site the colour photos are under the Travel tab – my arty photos are B&W.

Also Image Processor will flatten any multilayer PSD images (and convert from 16 to 8 bit) also in the process of creating the jpegs but leaves the original PSD file untouched. I think I now have everything!!

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

KatWoman

I am not sure why your images are coming up with poor colour on windows but this is what I do (to send customers small jpegs to look at). I assume your monitor is properly profiled?
1 in Camera I turn off all sharpening and noise reduction and put into ADOBE RGB space. Record at max camera resolution.
2 In bridge ACR I adjust the raw file (ACR 4.1 or 2 has some new sliders which I recommend updating to) and save as PSD ADOBE RGB in full camera resolution
3 When ready to send customers images I go to Bridge and select all the images to be sent (the converted files in PSDformat)
4 In bridge open run Tools>Photoshop>Image Processor. This lets you convert the PSD files to Jpegs and set the quality (say 8), convert to sRGB, and select resize to fit and give max pixel dimensions (say 500) and the application will resize the new jpeg to fit the box. Finally there is the option at the bottom of the screen to run a photoshop Action (I have a sharpen for web/screen action but you could also give a touch of extra saturation in the action). You can make the files so that they can be viewed on a screen but will not have enough resolution to print! The converted files are stored in a new folder called jpegs.
The converted files can then be e-mailed or used on the web and are in sRGB and have been sharpened for this use. I have processed all the images on my new web site www.ember-razement.com.au using this technique. I dont have a problem viewing them using windows fax viewer.
Hope this helps
Malcolm

Adobe RGB looks bad in SRGB I knew that
did not realize Bridge was changing the default camera settings after adjusting in ACR

I was hoping to hear I could change and save to srgb in bridge without a lot of actions steps and opening PS at all

this is just for rough corrections to a batch of images for previewing or printing from Windows

thanks

sRGB is not a good colour space for processing images as it is a reduced colour space – it is really only good for images to be looked at with unprofiled screens which most of your customers probably have. RGB is much better space to use for calibrated screens and printing quality prints.

What default camera setting is Bridge changing?

From what you say Image Processor looks like it is whate you want? give it a try.

Malcolm

you can. just under the image’s window, click on the image’s info.

"KatWoman" wrote in message

I started using Bridge RAW to adjust my files and love it! Then I save a copy of my original to show for proofs to the clients who do not have PS or other color profile aware programs.

So the adjusted, saved copies are in Adobe RGB, when I e-mail them to clients or look at them in Windows they look crappy (reds are grayish and other colors dull)

(I am using SRGB in camera and have always used Windows to d/l files previously and I leave them like that cause they look good for internet sharing)

if I put the camera on Adobe RGB the proofs via email will still look bad to most clients who don’t have a program that sees the ARGB profiles such as Windows Picture fax viewer. And if I want to use them on the internet they will look bad too. Do I have to re-open every file and change it’s profile in PS?? It sort of defeats the purpose of using RAW adjustments in Bridge.

I cannot find any place in Bridge to change the color preferences. So other than making everything too red in Bridge to compensate, how can I get it to save my copied images with the RAW adjustments into SRGB space??

"KatWoman" wrote in message

Adobe RGB looks bad in SRGB I knew that
did not realize Bridge was changing the default camera settings after adjusting in ACR

I am afraid I don’t understand :"Adobe RGB looks bad in SRGB" – it doesn’t seem to make sense. Setting a camera to sRGB is bad news for quality images. It seems I don’t understand what your problem is so sorry to waste your and my time.

Malcolm

if you don’t preserve the embedded aRGB profile in sRGB color space, colors look desaturated. web’s browsers don’t have color management system bult-in, hence no preservation …so colors are desaturated because browsers default color space is sRGB. it’s something to do with color management.

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

"KatWoman" wrote in message

Adobe RGB looks bad in SRGB I knew that
did not realize Bridge was changing the default camera settings after adjusting in ACR

I am afraid I don’t understand :"Adobe RGB looks bad in SRGB" – it doesn’t seem to make sense. Setting a camera to sRGB is bad news for quality images. It seems I don’t understand what your problem is so sorry to waste your and my time.

Malcolm

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?

My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this what the OP was trying to do?

Malcolm

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

I think they may mean that displaying an Adobe RGB image as if it were an sRGB image causes color loss.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?

Does it? It’s not clear to me that significant color information is lost, and the most effective way of avoiding problems with Adobe RGB versus sRGB is to use sRGB from the get go, and not have Adobe RGB images lying around.

My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this what the OP was trying to do?

Maybe so, however a simpler workflow would be to stay in 8 bit sRGB for the entire workflow. If you can come up with an actual image, as opposed to a theoretical one, that would suffer from this workflow, I’d be interested.

—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space
and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

I think they may mean that displaying an Adobe RGB image as if it were an sRGB image causes color loss.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?

Does it? It’s not clear to me that significant color information is lost, and the most effective way of avoiding problems with Adobe RGB versus sRGB is to use sRGB from the get go, and not have Adobe RGB images lying around.

My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in
Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this
what the OP was trying to do?

Maybe so, however a simpler workflow would be to stay in 8 bit sRGB for the
entire workflow. If you can come up with an actual image, as opposed to a theoretical one, that would suffer from this workflow, I’d be interested.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

yes Mike you are the only one who gets what I am saying

so far in the past I have remained srgb in the whole workflow camera and download
not a problem, the images look great, print well
recently I had a batch that needed corrections
when I opened and adjusted the images in Bridge ACR it changed the profile to adobe rgb without asking me
I cannot see any preference setting in ACR to output as SRGB

so when I save a copy of the adjusted files they automatically become Adobe profile and looked like crap on Windows

I would have to make Bridge somehow retain the srgb space or open PS and change them all back to srgb
so basically a waste to fix them in bridge if I have to fix every image in PS anyway

My customers have email and most have PC’s these programs use >>>>SRGB I prefer to remain all SRGB throughout the workflow

I suppose Mac users would not understand or see the problem, I think their OS sees color profiles in jpgs

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

KatWoman wrote:
| "Mike Russell" wrote in message
| |> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote: |>
|>> I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour |>> space
|>> and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make
|>> sense.
|> I think they may mean that displaying an Adobe RGB image as if it were an |> sRGB image causes color loss.
|>
|>> Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it? |> Does it? It’s not clear to me that significant color information is lost,
|> and the most effective way of avoiding problems with Adobe RGB versus sRGB
|> is to use sRGB from the get go, and not have Adobe RGB images lying |> around.
|>
|>> My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files
|>> in
|>> Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in |>> sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at
|>> them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of
|>> which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t |>> this
|>> what the OP was trying to do?
|> Maybe so, however a simpler workflow would be to stay in 8 bit sRGB for |> the
|> entire workflow. If you can come up with an actual image, as opposed to a
|> theoretical one, that would suffer from this workflow, I’d be interested. |>
|> —
|> Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
|
| yes Mike you are the only one who gets what I am saying |
| so far in the past I have remained srgb in the whole workflow camera and | download
| not a problem, the images look great, print well
| recently I had a batch that needed corrections
| when I opened and adjusted the images in Bridge ACR it changed the profile
| to adobe rgb without asking me
| I cannot see any preference setting in ACR to output as SRGB |
| so when I save a copy of the adjusted files they automatically become Adobe
| profile and looked like crap on Windows
|
| I would have to make Bridge somehow retain the srgb space or open PS and | change them all back to srgb
| so basically a waste to fix them in bridge if I have to fix every image in
| PS anyway
|
| My customers have email and most have PC’s these programs use >>>>SRGB | I prefer to remain all SRGB throughout the workflow
|
| I suppose Mac users would not understand or see the problem, I think their
| OS sees color profiles in jpgs
|
|

I’m very curious here. I use ProPhoto RGB for editing my images, converting to no profile at all for web display. This lets me reduce the highlight burn during editing and allows the viewer’s computer to display the image as it was intended to.

The methodology behind this has little science and a lot of WYSIWYG in it. If I open one of my RAW camera files with extremes of light and dark colours in ACR, using ProPhoto or Adobe RGB, there is distinctly and visibly less blown highlight (in all colours) than opening it in sRGB.

I tried for a while to change this back to sRGB during import into PS and the on screen image looked unchanged however… Saving it as a 16 bit tiff and opening it with a different viewer showed less highlight detail in the sRGB version.

I seldom use curves. I tried Mike’s tools in the past and they were not to my liking. I much prefer to use levels in my image adjustments but at the end of it all, what I see in a photograph determines my workflow.

Last year I experimented with Mike’s suggestion to keep it all in 8 bit sRGB. For a while I saw little or no difference in the results on screen. Now that I have some substantial monitors, I see visible difference in it.

I think from my visual findings – and I’ve printed photos visually for 45 years – there is a difference in the profiles that is noticeable enough to warrant the extra power and drive space to use a more complex colour space for editing and convert back when needed for other purposes.

Therein lies the crux of it I think. If a photo is worth the effort of editing with photoshop, it should be at it’s highest quality and lower quality copies made where needed. There is not much point in using *ANY* profile if your images are for only web display.

– —

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFICls6huxzk5D6V14RAkw9AJ9N0PcWYrk2/bgmGI01YzA4JOroSgCf ZWmC 7YmPBjMvJyY3CSvQyEUnDrI=
=4Rsx
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:18:23 -0400, KatWoman wrote:

[re "to sRGB or not sRGB, that is the question"]

yes Mike you are the only one who gets what I am saying

Hey, what can I say. Great minds think alike, KW 🙂

so far in the past I have remained srgb in the whole workflow camera and download not a problem, the images look great, print well recently I had a batch that needed corrections when I opened and adjusted the images in Bridge ACR it changed the profile to adobe rgb without asking me I cannot see any preference setting in ACR to output as SRGB

Bridge is a little loosey goosey about accessing the same settings. One particular item of confusion is that fixing one image, then saving everything as a jpg from Bridge does not necessarily use the settings you selected for the first image.

so when I save a copy of the adjusted files they automatically become Adobe profile and looked like crap on Windows

This is the big problem. Even people who are aware of profiles, and are careful, may end up putting their images through a pipeline that assumes Adobe RGB, and then quietly trashes your colors. The customer just thinks, "Well the composition is OK, but I guess KW’s colors are too subtle" and you don’t get a call back. This is the big danger, IMHO.

I would have to make Bridge somehow retain the srgb space or open PS and change them all back to srgb so basically a waste to fix them in bridge if I have to fix every image in PS anyway

There’s a way to do it, but my bridge experience is too thin to offer an explanation.

My customers have email and most have PC’s these programs use >>>>SRGB I prefer to remain all SRGB throughout the workflow

Absolutely.

I suppose Mac users would not understand or see the problem, I think their OS sees color profiles in jpgs

What I think it is, is that it’s a human failing that people use a variety of things about your computer and workflow as status symbols. Is your camera this years latest and greatest, or are you getting by with last years Mark III or D200? Which Mac do you have – is it a funky old G4, or a nice sleek new system? Are you 16 bits, or only 8 bits. Do you use Adobe RGB or that horrible little sRGB? Better yet, do you use ProPhoto RGB. All of this adds up to a mystique that has very little to do with the quality of anyone’s images, which IMHO is the only thing that matters. —
Je ne pris que "le raw", PAS!

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space
and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

I think they may mean that displaying an Adobe RGB image as if it were an sRGB image causes color loss.

OK I understand that but my conversions from Adobe RGB to sRGB with Photoshop doesn’t show the dramatic change the OP described.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?

Does it? It’s not clear to me that significant color information is lost, and the most effective way of avoiding problems with Adobe RGB versus sRGB is to use sRGB from the get go, and not have Adobe RGB images lying around.

I havn’t done any tests myself but have taken results of others on faith (eg the Luminous Landscape web site) For example I have a Canon IPF5000 which I use to print my fine art images (and I want to get the ultimate image quality) and this printer can take greater than 8 bit information and those who have done tests say that this gives nociably different images than obtained with only 8 bits data.

My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in
Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this
what the OP was trying to do?

Maybe so, however a simpler workflow would be to stay in 8 bit sRGB for the
entire workflow. If you can come up with an actual image, as opposed to a theoretical one, that would suffer from this workflow, I’d be interested.

Mike, I suppose it depends on wheather you consider taking 8 bit jpegs in sRGB is not poorer in image quality than Adobe RGB 16 bit and Raw – if so why are we using raw at all? I believe that with my images (printed ones) that there will be a difference. I will have to ponder this question over the next few weeks and see if I can come up with a test.

I don’t do weddings any more (and I am not denigrating this work) and I understand 8 bits only are used by some of the top Australian wedding photographers so I may have been wrong. However in my fine art prints I get PSD images approaching or over 1Gbyte (I don’t flatten until absolutely sure I have done all the editing) and the files are too big for web or e-mailing so Image Processor which can batch process files is, to me, a great tool to flatten, convert to 8 bit jpegs, set the jpeg quality and, at the same time, convert the images to sRGB space. Fine Art prints are generally purchased by knowledgeable collectors who look very critically at the images – wedding images are often loved because they catch significant to them moments in the proceedings no matter what the image qualities such as composition or exposure etc.

KatWoman getting back to your original question re staying in sRGB through ACR – at the bottom of my ACR screen (ACR 4.4.1) in the middle is an underlined line "Adobe RGB (1998): 16 bit …." – if you click on this line it brings up a Workflow Dialog box which seems to enable sRGB to be set as the ACR default. This also enables the bit depth to be set etc. Has the OP tried this?

Malcolm

Malcolm Smith wrote:

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

It’s a case of very poor symantics. You are right, it doesn’t make sense. And if you *convert* an image from AdobeRGB to sRGB it won’t happen. However, if you open an AdobeRGB image in an application that does not recognize color profiles, such as every web browser except Apple Safari, the RGB numbers that refer to Adobe RGB are now displayed as the same numers in sRGB because those applications use sRGB by default for any image. The result is a lower color saturation. That is what was meant.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Mike Russell wrote:

yes Mike you are the only one who gets what I am saying

Hey, what can I say. Great minds think alike, KW 🙂

Or perhaps you two have the same twist… 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

However, if you open an AdobeRGB image in an application that does not recognize color profiles, such as every web browser except Apple Safari, the RGB numbers that refer to Adobe RGB are now displayed as the same numers in sRGB because those applications use sRGB by default for any image. The result is a lower color saturation. That is what was meant.

This make sense, but your explanation sound (to me) as if the ‘lower color saturation’ will in fact only be on screen. Or, will (or when will) the print be affected as well?

the confusion started from computer doesn’t understand colors but digits. it was selected that 8 bits or 256 tones per channel is more than sufficient to produce a smooth gradation. for full colors or 3 channels (RGB), we got 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7…millions of colors. in red channel, digit 0 = black and digit 255 = highest saturation in red color and so are the green and the blue. we know that aRGB has a larger color space than sRGB so its 255s represent higher color saturation (more colors) than the 255s of sRGB. when you take a pix with aRGB profile, and take the same pix without changes (taking studio’s shot is recommended to avoid any fluctuation) with a sRGB profile again, load them in photoshop using eyedropper to read the same pixel, you find that aRGB image has a lower digit or equal in some case than sRGB image. that means unequal digits but consistent color (preserve the embedded profile) due to color management in photoshop transforming the differences describe in the profiles. lower digit means more room for more colors and vice versa in term of 255. but if you take that aRGB image with lower digit displaying in a non color management program which can’t recognize profile such as most browsers and its default color space is sRGB, color saturation will drop due to lower digit based on its sRGB color space.

the next confusion:
your camera has its own color space. it’s its unique color space and that is final. that is its colors’ capability in reproduction.
you take a picture and the colors gamut is produced by the camera, not aRGB or sRGB. it has its own digits representing its colors. but when you assigned one in your camera menu, you are actually telling the built-in program to convert the camera’s digits to aRGB digits or sRGB digits but colors is still the same as before. no such thing as aRGB is better. remember it’s the digits that is converted. not the colors. if aRGB could improve colors better, then it’s rather controversial for manufacturers to include sRGB which is inferior to aRGB.

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?
My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this what the OP was trying to do?

Malcolm

Dave wrote:

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

However, if you open an AdobeRGB image in an application that does not recognize color profiles, such as every web browser except Apple Safari, the RGB numbers that refer to Adobe RGB are now displayed as the same numers in sRGB because those applications use sRGB by default for any image. The result is a lower color saturation. That is what was meant.

This make sense, but your explanation sound (to me) as if the ‘lower color saturation’ will in fact only be on screen. Or, will (or when will) the print be affected as well?

That is a bit tricky, because it also depends on what you do in the printer driver. A non color profile aware application will send the RGB data to the printer driver unaltered. If you happen to know that these data should be AdobeRGB, and you let the printer driver manage colors, you could set ‘AdobeRGB’ in the printer driver if it has that option. Epson printer drivers do have that. In this case, the printed colors will be correct again. Try the same for ProPhotoRGB data and it will fail, because the driver does not have a ProPhotoRGB setting.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

that’s right. it’s display only. for printing, you need the print’s profile to interact with the monitor profile, working space profile, image profile to achieve closely the WYSIWYG. of course you need to understand the CMS workflow and application’s programs (printer and editing) to manipulate it correctly.

"Dave" wrote in message

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

However, if you open an AdobeRGB image in an application that does not recognize color profiles, such as every web browser except Apple Safari, the RGB numbers that refer to Adobe RGB are now displayed as the same numers in sRGB because those applications use sRGB by default for any image. The result is a lower color saturation. That is what was meant.

This make sense, but your explanation sound (to me) as if the ‘lower color saturation’ will in fact only be on screen. Or, will (or when will) the print be affected as well?

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:28 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space
and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make
sense.

I think they may mean that displaying an Adobe RGB image as if it were an sRGB image causes color loss.

OK I understand that but my conversions from Adobe RGB to sRGB with Photoshop doesn’t show the dramatic change the OP described.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?

Does it? It’s not clear to me that significant color information is lost,
and the most effective way of avoiding problems with Adobe RGB versus sRGB
is to use sRGB from the get go, and not have Adobe RGB images lying around.

I havn’t done any tests myself but have taken results of others on faith (eg the Luminous Landscape web site) For example I have a Canon IPF5000 which I use to print my fine art images (and I want to get the ultimate image quality) and this printer can take greater than 8 bit information and those who have done tests say that this gives nociably different images than obtained with only 8 bits data.

My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in
Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at
them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of
which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this
what the OP was trying to do?

Maybe so, however a simpler workflow would be to stay in 8 bit sRGB for the
entire workflow. If you can come up with an actual image, as opposed to a
theoretical one, that would suffer from this workflow, I’d be interested.

Mike, I suppose it depends on wheather you consider taking 8 bit jpegs in sRGB is not poorer in image quality than Adobe RGB 16 bit and Raw – if so why are we using raw at all? I believe that with my images (printed ones) that there will be a difference. I will have to ponder this question over the next few weeks and see if I can come up with a test.
I don’t do weddings any more (and I am not denigrating this work) and I understand 8 bits only are used by some of the top Australian wedding photographers so I may have been wrong. However in my fine art prints I get PSD images approaching or over 1Gbyte (I don’t flatten until absolutely sure I have done all the editing) and the files are too big for web or e-mailing so Image Processor which can batch process files is, to me, a great tool to flatten, convert to 8 bit jpegs, set the jpeg quality and, at the same time, convert the images to sRGB space. Fine Art prints are generally purchased by knowledgeable collectors who look very critically at the images – wedding images are often loved because they catch significant to them moments in the proceedings no matter what the image qualities such as composition or exposure etc.

KatWoman getting back to your original question re staying in sRGB through ACR – at the bottom of my ACR screen (ACR 4.4.1) in the middle is an underlined line "Adobe RGB (1998): 16 bit …." – if you click on this line it brings up a Workflow Dialog box which seems to enable sRGB to be set as the ACR default. This also enables the bit depth to be set etc. Has the OP tried this?

Malcolm

if you click on this line

it brings up a Workflow Dialog box which seems to enable sRGB to be set as the ACR default. This also enables the bit depth to be set etc. Has the OP tried this?

That was exactly what I was looking for in Bridge

I was just coming back to post, I finally saw the Adobe RGB purple title at bottom of image in ACR
it looks like a link and I was able to select output of SRGB

Problem solved

I just tested it

I had my original that looked washed out
I corrected in ACR to make it warmer and added black and a bit of sharpness (long lens windy day, was a bit soft)

the first time I had saved the copies it was output as Adobe RGB- image looks gray in Windows you cannot see the warm correction on skintones and the dark blue dress looked gray and dull

I just opened Bridge and changed to SRGB and saved a copy, now it matches in Bridge and Windows

FWIW Malcolm it did not make a difference in the last batch of images I did process so I am thinking it is more noticeable in certain situations than others

"KatWoman" wrote in message

I started using Bridge RAW to adjust my files and love it! Then I save a copy of my original to show for proofs to the clients who do not have PS or other color profile aware programs.

So the adjusted, saved copies are in Adobe RGB, when I e-mail them to clients or look at them in Windows they look crappy (reds are grayish and other colors dull)

(I am using SRGB in camera and have always used Windows to d/l files previously and I leave them like that cause they look good for internet sharing)

if I put the camera on Adobe RGB the proofs via email will still look bad to most clients who don’t have a program that sees the ARGB profiles such as Windows Picture fax viewer. And if I want to use them on the internet they will look bad too. Do I have to re-open every file and change it’s profile in PS?? It sort of defeats the purpose of using RAW adjustments in Bridge.

I cannot find any place in Bridge to change the color preferences. So other than making everything too red in Bridge to compensate, how can I get it to save my copied images with the RAW adjustments into SRGB space??

"mirafiori" wrote in message

you can. just under the image’s window, click on the image’s info.

Yes found it just a few minutes ago on further inspection of the ACR window No thanks to you
why couldn’t you tell me that 3 days ago??

my problem was NEVER ABOUT PRINTING but having images for users who do not have access to viewers that can use aRGB profiles
therefore I needed to keep the images in or output them in SRGB

as for what’s better or superior color space
it’s a stupid argument sort of like Mac is better than PC in most cases your naked eye is not able to see the difference and most users do not have high quality color calibrated displays

"mirafiori" wrote in message

the confusion started from computer doesn’t understand colors but digits. it was selected that 8 bits or 256 tones per channel is more than sufficient to produce a smooth gradation. for full colors or 3 channels (RGB), we got 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7…millions of colors. in red channel, digit 0 = black and digit 255 = highest saturation in red color and so are the green and the blue. we know that aRGB has a larger color space than sRGB so its 255s represent higher color saturation (more colors) than the 255s of sRGB. when you take a pix with aRGB profile, and take the same pix without changes (taking studio’s shot is recommended to avoid any fluctuation) with a sRGB profile again, load them in photoshop using eyedropper to read the same pixel, you find that aRGB image has a lower digit or equal in some case than sRGB image. that means unequal digits but consistent color (preserve the embedded profile) due to color management in photoshop transforming the differences describe in the profiles. lower digit means more room for more colors and vice versa in term of 255. but if you take that aRGB image with lower digit displaying in a non color management program which can’t recognize profile such as most browsers and its default color space is sRGB, color saturation will drop due to lower digit based on its sRGB color space.

the next confusion:
your camera has its own color space. it’s its unique color space and that is final. that is its colors’ capability in reproduction. you take a picture and the colors gamut is produced by the camera, not aRGB or sRGB. it has its own digits representing its colors. but when you assigned one in your camera menu, you are actually telling the built-in program to convert the camera’s digits to aRGB digits or sRGB digits but colors is still the same as before. no such thing as aRGB is better. remember it’s the digits that is converted. not the colors. if aRGB could improve colors better, then it’s rather controversial for manufacturers to include sRGB which is inferior to aRGB.

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

I must be thick – i still don’t get the point. Adobe RGB is a colour space and so is sRGB so saying Adobe RGB looks bad in sRGB doesn’t seem to make sense.

Setting a camera to record in sRGB loses information so why do it?
My web site has jpegs which were originally multi layer PSD 16 bit files in Adobe RGB colour space and I convert them to 8 bit single layer jpegs in sRGB colour space with the Photoshop Image Processor and I have looked at them on various PC’s with a variety of browsers (5) and on a MAC some of which have never neen near a profiler and they look good to me. Isn’t this what the OP was trying to do?

Malcolm

HERE IS A SCREENSHOT
http://xs126.xs.to/xs126/08171/screenshot-coloroutput221.jpg

same image same ACR settings
aRGB looks bad in Windows viewer
SRGB looks like the corrected image in Bridge

I had forgotten this as I set it soon after CS3 came out. My converted 16 bit raw files were getting through ACR as 8 bits – it took me some time to find this even when the solution was pointed out to me as the field doesnt look like an input field.

By the way I record images as jpegs Adobe RGB and full 16 bit raw which I convert to 16 bit Adobe RGB (I do this as a backup although I usually don’t touch the jpegs). When I look at the two versions the converted raw is far superior to the jpeg particularly in flesh tones. This is also noticable in Bridge when it goes through the folder to create the cache before any ACR processing. I have always assumed that Bridge/ACR does a better job in converting the raw than the jpegs which are converted in camera on the fly. I use top of the line Canon digital cameras.

Glad your problem is solved, Malcolm

"mirafiori" wrote in message

you can. just under the image’s window, click on the image’s info.

Yes found it just a few minutes ago on further inspection of the ACR window
No thanks to you
why couldn’t you tell me that 3 days ago??

i told you on the same day at 10.24 pm but you missed it.

as for what’s better or superior color space
it’s a stupid argument sort of like Mac is better than PC in most cases your naked eye is not able to see the difference and most users do not have high quality color calibrated displays

you’re quite right but aRGB could print more colors than sRGB (certain colors are more saturated) but not better
colors. nevertheless it depends on the printer capability and the man tweaking it.

"mirafiori" wrote in message

"mirafiori" wrote in message

you can. just under the image’s window, click on the image’s info.

Yes found it just a few minutes ago on further inspection of the ACR window
No thanks to you
why couldn’t you tell me that 3 days ago??

i told you on the same day at 10.24 pm but you missed it.

as for what’s better or superior color space
it’s a stupid argument sort of like Mac is better than PC in most cases your naked eye is not able to see the difference and most users do not have high quality color calibrated displays

you’re quite right but aRGB could print more colors than sRGB (certain colors are more saturated) but not better
colors. nevertheless it depends on the printer capability and the man tweaking it.

not intended for printing a final version, one off, manually adjusted, retouched version

but to show a batch of proofs via internet or CD on customer’s comps

On Apr 18, 12:51 am, "KatWoman" wrote:

I started using Bridge RAW to adjust my files and love it! Then I save a copy of my original to show for proofs to the clients who do not have PS or other color profile aware programs.

So the adjusted, saved copies are in Adobe RGB, when I e-mail them to clients or look at them in Windows they look crappy (reds are grayish and other colors dull)

(I am using SRGB in camera and have always used Windows to d/l files previously and I leave them like that cause they look good for internet sharing)

if I put the camera on Adobe RGB the proofs via email will still look bad to most clients who don’t have a program that sees the ARGB profiles such as Windows Picture fax viewer. And if I want to use them on the internet they will look bad too. Do I have to re-open every file and change it’s profile in PS?? It sort of defeats the purpose of using RAW adjustments in Bridge.
I cannot find any place in Bridge to change the color preferences. So other than making everything too red in Bridge to compensate, how can I get it to save my copied images with the RAW adjustments into SRGB space??

sRGB is quite a good profile to use for the web. most problems in viewing the images will be to do with their screen calibration – i.e. not having one!
do the adjustments, and convert to profile sRGB in photoshop. unfortunately it seems like you’re going to have to do this with any image which wont
be viewed on a colour corrected screen.

if you need information on how to convert to profile, check out www.theprintspace.com

"theprintspace_Dom" wrote in message

On Apr 18, 12:51 am, "KatWoman" wrote:

I started using Bridge RAW to adjust my files and love it! Then I save a copy of my original to show for proofs to the clients who do not have PS or
other color profile aware programs.

So the adjusted, saved copies are in Adobe RGB, when I e-mail them to clients or look at them in Windows they look crappy (reds are grayish and other colors dull)

(I am using SRGB in camera and have always used Windows to d/l files previously and I leave them like that cause they look good for internet sharing)

if I put the camera on Adobe RGB the proofs via email will still look bad to
most clients who don’t have a program that sees the ARGB profiles such as Windows Picture fax viewer. And if I want to use them on the internet they
will look bad too. Do I have to re-open every file and change it’s profile
in PS?? It sort of defeats the purpose of using RAW adjustments in Bridge.

I cannot find any place in Bridge to change the color preferences. So other than making everything too red in Bridge to compensate, how can I
get it to save my copied images with the RAW adjustments into SRGB space??

sRGB is quite a good profile to use for the web. most problems in viewing the images will be to do with their screen calibration – i.e. not having one!
do the adjustments, and convert to profile sRGB in photoshop. unfortunately it seems like you’re going to have to do this with any image which wont
be viewed on a colour corrected screen.

if you need information on how to convert to profile, check out www.theprintspace.com

DOM see previous posts in thread copied below

the idea of using Bridge is so I don’t have to open and do adjustments in PS otherwise I would just use adjustment layers and change profiles in an action and use image processor

the images were not matching on the same computer (aRGB is not readable profile in Windows Explorer or other programs)
and you can change that in Bridge I just couldn’t find where

synopsis of solution::

I finally saw the Adobe RGB purple title at
bottom of image in ACR
it looks like a link and I was able to select output of SRGB (instead)

Problem solved

I just tested it

I had my original that looked washed out
I corrected in ACR to make it warmer and added black and a bit of sharpness (long lens windy day, was a bit soft)

the first time I had saved the copies it was output as Adobe RGB- image looks gray in Windows you cannot see the warm correction on skintones

I just opened Bridge and changed to SRGB and saved a copy, now it matches in Bridge and Windows

HERE IS A SCREENSHOT
http://xs126.xs.to/xs126/08171/screenshot-coloroutput221.jpg

same image same ACR settings
aRGB looks bad in Windows viewer
SRGB looks like the corrected image in Bridge