RGB Working spaces

I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.

Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while editing? I’m confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is typically what you’d want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB (1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This isn’t possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous options.

—
You should bring in the file without a profile assigned. Then "Assign" a Profile to the file.
–
Your camera records much more information
than sRGB will let you access.

MSD

Matti Haveri wrote in news:matti.haveri-
:

Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?

If you’re not using RAW format, there is little point. Your images have had their color data truncated to fit into the smaller color space and assigning them to another won’t bring it back.

RAW, however, preserves everything the camera shoots, which is generally more than any of the standard color spaces. You’ll need to fiddle with the pics more, and of course shooting in RAW burns memory card space like mad, but it’s the ultimate answer for color.

Which camera?

<snip>

"Matti Haveri" wrote in message

I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.

Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while editing? I’m confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is typically what you’d want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB (1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This isn’t possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous options.

Depends on your output. If you’re going to a mini-lab or Walmart/Costco photo printer, leave it in sRGB since most of their machines (primarily Fuji Frontiers) are set up for that color space: iow, you’d just have to re-convert back before sending it out, and there’s no advantage gained. OTOH, if you’re going to a 6-7 color home inkjet, to CMYK, or to a high end digital photo printer, convert the file to ARGB98 and work away. Either way you probably won’t notice much difference, except for a few super saturated colors (notably, deep blues).

Last, in Elements (IIRC) the only way to "convert" from sRGB to ARGB98 is to strip the sRGB profile when you do a save-as, then re-open and save again, this time with ARGB98.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Matti Haveri wrote:

I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while editing? I’m confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is typically what you’d want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB (1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This isn’t possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous options.

I’m going to print the images at a shop as 6×4" glossy images, if that matters.

I’d stick with sRGB.

Adobe RGB has several problems – if you simply assign it to your newly captured images, which I don’t recommend, you will be jacking up the saturation. There is a small possibility that this will create some saturated colors that cannot be displayed without clipping.

The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web, printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles, or otherwise posting them.

All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that much, whichever choice you make. BTW – if you want a cheap and easy way to look at these gamuts, check out the Curvemeister gamut viewer:

http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/gamutviewer/
—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

On 11/5/03 11:47 AM, in article
, "Matti Haveri"
wrote:

I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.

Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while editing? I’m confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is typically what you’d want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB (1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This isn’t possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous options.

I’m going to print the images at a shop as 6×4" glossy images, if that matters.

Generally the sRGB space is for Web/monitor and Adobe RGB is for printing/reflective. My Photoshop defaulted to sRGB. You need to set your defaut space to Adobe RGB for 4" x 6" prints and go from there.

____________________________________________________________ ___________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

In article <M1eqb.4895$>,
"Mike Russell" wrote:

The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web, printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles, or otherwise posting them.

These situations will be a smaller problem if you get your Proof Setup correct and edit in Proof Colors view. Of course one must then re-edit in another Proof Colors if one is very, very concerned about the way the images will diplay on a web page.

But I wouldn´t worry about web pages. It is all too likely that the audience will have a screen that is neither calibrated nor able to display even the sRGB gamut in full. Whatever you do, the colors will very likely be biased somehow when they hit the screen of average Joe.

..lauri

OTOH, if you’re going to a 6-7 color home inkjet, to CMYK, or to a high

end

digital photo printer, convert the file to ARGB98 and work away. Either

way

you probably won’t notice much difference, except for a few super

saturated

colors (notably, deep blues).

I wouldn’t recommend CMYK for a consumer inkjet printer: de Windows printer driver converts CMYK back to sRGB, the printer converts it back into it’s device CMYK again. This results in ugly prints (at least it did with my printer…).

Waldo

"Mike Russell" wrote:

[re using Adobe RGB instead of sRGB]

The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web, printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles, or otherwise posting them.

..lauri wrote:

These situations will be a smaller problem if you get your Proof Setup correct and edit in Proof Colors view. Of course one must then re-edit in another Proof Colors if one is very, very concerned about the way the images will diplay on a web page.

It’s true you can use Soft Proofing that way, provided you have the "Preserve Color Numbers" box checked in the Custom Proof setup, but this is not really the way to accomodate multiple uses of an image, and this is one of the few remaining ways to produce an image that is out of synch with its embedded profile.

Rather, use Convert to Profile to convert the colors to sRGB before saving for web. Save for Web does the same as far as color is concerned.

Soft Proofing is actually designed for a slightly different purpose: to preview your image in another color space. For example, with a suitable "paper proof", and "Preserve Color Numbers" un-checked, soft proofing allows you to view how your image will look when printed on a particular inkjet printer/paper combination, or a variety of other image viewing circumstances.

But I wouldn

Mike Russell wrote:

Matti Haveri wrote:

I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is best to edit in Adobe RGB (1998) Working space because its color gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
Should I convert my digital camera’s embedded RGB Working space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (1998) when opening them in Photoshop?
Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while editing? I’m confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is typically what you’d want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB (1998) as the best working space!?

Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (1998)? This isn’t possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the previous options.

I’m going to print the images at a shop as 6×4" glossy images, if that matters.

I’d stick with sRGB.

Adobe RGB has several problems – if you simply assign it to your newly captured images, which I don’t recommend, you will be jacking up the saturation. There is a small possibility that this will create some saturated colors that cannot be displayed without clipping.

I do convert a scanned image to rgb1988 (same as assign to rgb1998?) before and during PS editing. I then preview a softproof with a specific printer+media profile, and tweak in PS if there is any major color shifts. Finally I convert to the media profile before sending the file to the printer. As you stated, there are times that a saturated color would appear drab in softproof as well as in the print.

I am not sure how working in sRGB can fix this problem though, since I believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than either sRGB or rgb1998. If I only intend to print to a specific printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I edit.

The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web, printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles, or otherwise posting them.

When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a lot of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web? I assume that if the image is edited in sRGB, this won’t be as big a problem.

All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that much, whichever choice you make.

This is an interesting statement. The two problems just described seem to imply that the drab softproof or print, and save to web image is due to sRGB having a (much?) smaller gamut than rgb1998. Or is there a different explanation?

Thanks for commenting on two of the (many) problems I face.

BTW – if you want a cheap and easy way to look
at these gamuts, check out the Curvemeister gamut viewer:
http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/gamutviewer/

I’ll check that out.

In comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than either sRGB or rgb1998. If I only intend to print to a specific printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I edit.

AFAIK using a printer profile as a RGB Working space is a bad idea because they often aren’t gray balanced like "device-independent" Working spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) or sRGB are.

rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web?

BTW, aren’t Mac browsers like Explorer and Safari color managed so they support embedded profiles?

wrote:

I do convert a scanned image to rgb1988 (same as assign to rgb1998?) before and during PS editing. I then preview a softproof with a specific printer+media profile, and tweak in PS if there is any major color
shifts. Finally I convert to the media profile before sending the file to the printer. As you stated, there are times that a saturated color would appear drab in softproof as well as in the print.

The colors will always appear a little drabber in the soft proof, since the printer is going to lose a small amount of color range that your monitor is capable of showing. But its possible you’re losing more saturation than necessary due to the way your soft proof and printer are set up. Try setting the rendering intent to Relative Colorimetric in both the soft proof and in your Color Settings, rather than the Adobe default of perceptual, and you will get brighter colors.

I am not sure how working in sRGB can fix this problem though, since I believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than either sRGB or rgb1998.

By working in sRGB you are eliminating the possibility that someone will accidentally look at your images in a non color aware program and see drab colors. Other than that rather important IMHO advantage, there is no difference.

If I only intend to print to a specific
printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I edit.

Adobe does not recommend using a device space as your working space, and there are several good reasons for this. The standard ones are grouped together: For PC use Adobe RGB or sRGB. For Macintosh use ColorMatch or Apple RGB. There are also some interesting working spaces from third parties, including BruceRGB which has a smaller gamut designed to accomodate inkjet printers.

When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a lot
of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web?

No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space – Adobe RGB or whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors will be automatically converted so that they look correct on most people’s monitors.

I assume that if the image is edited in sRGB, this won’t be as big a problem.

Right.

All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that much, whichever choice you make.

This is an interesting statement. The two problems just described seem to imply that the drab softproof or print, and save to web image is due to sRGB having a (much?) smaller gamut than rgb1998. Or is there a different explanation?

It’s related. More than likely you will see an improvement in this if you change your color settings to Relative Colorimetric (relcol for short) Give that a go and see if things brighten up.

Thanks for commenting on two of the (many) problems I face.

You’re not the only one to get caught in this problem.

Haveri Matti asked:

BTW, aren’t Mac browsers like Explorer and Safari color managed so they

support embedded profiles?

Yes, so Adobe RGB images should look fine on a Macintosh running either of these browsers. I don’t think Netscape yet supports them. This doesn’t really work well, though, so I still recommend saving in sRGB to maintain color saturation.

I did a google search and the following article by John Maclean in the adobe.photoshop.macintosh group points out some of these problems in a systematic way:

*** begin John Maclean’s article
Here are my observations:
Safari-

Adobe RGB PSD is about midway in saturation, with WPG (Web Photo Gallery) lowest and SFW (Save for web)highest.
WPG matches Adobe RGB PSD w/ Monitor RGB softproof.

IE5 –

WPG
ColorSync on = images look really dead
ColorSync off = less saturated than Adobe RGB PSD. Very close to PSD w/ Monitor RGB softproof.

SFW
ColorSync on = closest to Adobe RGB PSD, slightly less saturated. ColorSync off = more saturated than Adobe RGB PSD.
***end article

—

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

in article F1Aqb.24701$, Mike Russell
wrote on 6/11/03 10:36 pm:

When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a lot
of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web?

No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space – Adobe RGB or whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors will be automatically converted so that they look correct on most people’s monitors.

Actually, SfW does not convert the colors. If your file is tagged with Adobe RGB (or any other tag), what you need to do is select Image » Mode » Convert to Profile and choose sRGB _before_ you enter SfW. When you do the conversion, Photoshop will do its best to preserve the current look.

In the Convert to Profile dialog box, you have a choice of intents, which intent is best depends on the color content of your image. Try RelCol and then Perceptual. The help file explains the differences.

HTH.

–/ Shangara Singh.
:: Photoshop 7.0 Adobe Certified Expert (ACE)
:: Photoshop 7.0 Essential Tips
:: Photoshop Glossary of Terms, Phrases & Acronyms
:: http://www.photoshopace.com
:: Exam Aids for Photoshop, Illustrator & Dreamweaver :: http://www.examaids.com

Shangara Singh wrote:

in article F1Aqb.24701$, Mike
Russell wrote on 6/11/03 10:36 pm:

When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a lot
of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to
web?

No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space – Adobe RGB or whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors will be automatically converted so that they look correct on most people’s monitors.

Actually, SfW does not convert the colors. If your file is tagged with Adobe RGB (or any other tag), what you need to do is select Image