CCColtsicehockey

what are peoples view on this and what do you use to shoot. I have always used sRGB to shoot however I have been told to shoot in adobe 1998 color mode for my photo class and I have always used sRGB for pictures and to even print and have never had a problem with them. Is there really an advantage to using adobe 1998 color mode. I have to print all my work out for class if that helps at all.

Billiam

It's completely dependent on what your output is, what software you're using, and what platform you're running the software on.

Dan Martin

Welcome to the wacky world of color management!

I posted a few thoughts on sRGB vs aRGB on page 11 of srika's thread: https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...347813&page=11

If you're still shooting JPEGs, stop doing that first before trying different color spaces. If you shoot RAW, it doesn't matter what color space you shoot in because you can always select a different space at the time of conversion. Also with RAW, you can extract 10 to 12 bits of color information for each color versus the 8 bits you get with JPEG. That will give you far better results than just changing color spaces.

If I want to extract the most out of my colours, I shoot RAW and edit in photoshop in a 16-bit PhotoPro RGB space. When I'm ready to output the image to a printer, I will convert the profile to my printer's profile. If I'm displaying the image online, I convert to sRGB.

The theory is that I want to work in the largest colour space possible to avoid clipping, then output to the appropriate profile as a last step. PhotoPro RGB is a larger space than aRGB, so if I need something bigger than sRGB, I go straight to PhotoPro RGB.

Generally speaking though, sRGB is fine. It's a lot easier to work with, and larger color spaces don't necessarily make for better prints.

My advice is to shoot RAW and try processing the image 4 different ways to see what looks best to you when you print it:
1) 8-bit sRGB
2) 16-bit sRGB
3) 8-bit aRGB
4) 16-bit aRGB

Even better, ask your teacher to pick the best print of the bunch.

Billiam

Is that really necessary? I always thought that it was the printer driver's job to do the "color translation" when you selected the profile in the driver's options.

Dan Martin

Either way is fine, I just prefer to let Photoshop handle all of my colour management. It just seems to work better with my workflow...

ChodTheWacko

If you shoot raw, then you have color translation once, RAW -> printer
rather than twice. RAW -> sRGB -> or whatever.

Should make for a better overall pic.


btw if you put pictures on the web, you better output to sRGB.

Billiam

Isn't it RAW -> Photoshop working color space -> printer ?

CCColtsicehockey

guess its time to buy a bigger hd. RAW files are so big.

Dan Martin

srika

valuable lesson learned in that other thread..

CCColtsicehockey

here is my first print shot in RAW with aRGB 1998 color and then taken directly out of RAW with no editing because that was the guidlines for class since we havent "learned" camera RAW yet which sucks cause I like to use it. However I am really happy with how it came out and I am thinking of actually possibly getting it printed however I hate the fact that the people that own the barn replaced the rusted down spout with a ugly white one. They should have bought brown. I hate it so much I want to offer to paint it brown for them almost.

Street Spirit

I photos of old barns and farmland (although this barn looks to be in really good shape)!

CCColtsicehockey

yeah it is in pretty good shape. I love old barns too. have a lot more pics of them. especially like ones like this that are still in good shape with weathered wood.