Pixalo Photography Community

Go Back   Pixalo Photography Community > Photography Forums > General photography questions and answers

General photography questions and answers: Discuss sRGB or Adobe 1998...I read an article in Digital Photography Magazine (or was it Digital Camera Magazine), saying: Set your camera to use ...
Welcome to the Pixalo Photography Community. As a Guest you are free to browse the site, but see what extras you get as a Member here.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16-02-2007, 22:19   #1 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Geir Andersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vestfold, Norway
Posts: 375
Geir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
sRGB or Adobe 1998

I read an article in Digital Photography Magazine (or was it Digital Camera Magazine), saying: Set your camera to use Adobe 1998. This was listed as one of 25 tips, to make you a better photographer. It said this was a "crucial" tip, and best to get right from the start.

As I joined and read through this forum, I think I've only seen people using sRGB. (Note: The article stated, of course, that one needed to convert to sRGB when making a copy for the web.)

What is the best choice, and if this is sRGB, why would a magazine of this size suggest the use of Adobe 1998?

Also a side-question: I just bought a Canon PIXMA iP1200, to use as a simple printer at home. It's not a dedicated photo printer, but a few small tests done now, looks like it's more than enough for home-photos.
One question did come up.. One of the tests were very good, and another of the same shot, using the same file, looked "grey-ish". Remembering a post I saw here sometime in the last week or so, where a user had sort of the same problem. The issue was in the colour-settings in the software and printer.

I have been searching for the last 3 hours now, but can't find that post again. I use Adobe Photoshop CS2. I think it said in the post to use: No Color Management, when printing but I'm not sure. I did try this on another image, and this had none of the grey tint.

This grew to a much bigger post than I intended, but figured I'd get in both questions in this one post .

Sincerely,
Geir Andersen
Geir Andersen is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2007, 22:49   #2 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

sRGB colour space is really aimed at displaying images on the internet/on computers. Adobe 1998 is best for printing. I always use Adobe 1998.

You can configure Photoshop to control all aspects of printing. If you do not, and your printer is over-riding the ajustments you have made in Photoshop, you will never get consistant results.

You can calibrate your monitor, which is the first step in trying to get consistency from the monitor through to the prited photograph. Switch off the printers auto srttings. I have an old canon i560 printer and I have also got it set to use adobe 1998 colur space, and always turn off the option for the printer to ajust the colours automatically. Photoshop actually controls the printer. Doing this will give you a printed result that is fairly close to what you see on the monitor.

Colour management is a can of worms, and can get very complex. Some people even load different profiles for different papers.
__________________
Graham
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2007, 10:12   #3 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Dave Canon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 1,281
Dave Canon is just really nice
Dave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really nice
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

I agree with Graham's advice. If you print you should set your Camera and Adobe PS working space to Adobe RGB (1998). This colour space is larger than sRGB and more suited to printing. It is easy to change to a smaller colour space (e.g. sRGB) using Photoshop but you cannot produce a satifactory print output if you start as sRGB because you have already excluded data. It is only relevant to set the colour space in your camera if you are using JPEG output. If you are using Raw files then you should set Adobe RGB(1998) as the profile in your Raw Converter. Of course, if you are never printing then you could just stick to sRGB.
__________________
Regards Dave

http://www.image001.co.uk
Dave Canon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2007, 14:41   #4 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Geir Andersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vestfold, Norway
Posts: 375
Geir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Thank you both for taking the time to explain this to me. Adobe 1998 it is .
I shoot it RAW, so I'll fix it when importing. Have to try a few more tests today, to really see the difference.

My screen is a simple laptop LCD, which I've done some calibrating on, but it's not very good quality. The screen can only do 1024x768 and is not good for photos, but it's the only option I got at the moment. Getting a new 19" LCD screen for my stationary soon, but still some waiting to be done

I've shut of all auto colour-management on the printer driver, so hope to see a difference. About the grey-ish tint, I suspect the paper has to take some of the blame. It's not original Canon paper, but some Isotech Glossy 200g Inkjet paper. I printed on original Canon paper, and this had no such tint.

Just got home from a bit of shopping, and I picked up a pack of original Canon PhotoPaper.
Geir Andersen is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2007, 07:32   #5 (permalink)
Loves the place
 
Boofers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 40 miles south of St. Louis
Posts: 6,667
Boofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the roughBoofers is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

It's been awhile, printing was a top aim for me when I started out with goals in hand. I can say that all the advice is good. Than you need to run tests on your own hardware with a goal of matching what you see on your screen to what you see off your printer. This was my way of not putting out money for a screen calibrater. I have very bright screens and set to Adobe 1998 color white point.. I am very happy with my prints, but my settings are not always what I read about. I have Adobe 1998 preset for everything I own, then I leave color manage on. If I don't I can't print a good Black and White or color. I must have done something right along the way, there is alot of good information on printing from a seach of the web. Why not start out with the wider color gamit. I use a cannon for water color paper prints, and they look like 3-D, this printer the i9900 has 8 colors, one is a green ink cartrige, I used epson water color paper. I printed pictures for a group of colorful clowns awhile ago, color profiles for a printer paper can be a good thing if you need them.

Last edited by Boofers; 18-02-2007 at 07:42.
Boofers is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2007, 08:53   #6 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

I must admit until the last month I never bothered printing anything, so have stayed on sRGB. Now if I use a print firm that provides it's own printer profile, is there any harm applying this profile straight from sRGB
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2007, 11:41   #7 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Geir Andersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vestfold, Norway
Posts: 375
Geir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enoughGeir Andersen will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

I did some research yesterday, as to the cost of getting professional prints done. (For when I actually get some images worth printing .) Turns out it's rather cheap. Measured in cm (prices roughly converted to pound):
20x30 : ~£1
30x45 : ~£3
40x60 : ~£6
50x75 : ~£8
These are chemically printed for extra quality and longevity.
This was the cheapest store I found where I can actually go and talk to a clerk. I don't like to simply send the images online, and get them back in the mail. Like to have a chat with the person in the store.

Btw: It was the paper creating the grey tint on my prints. Did some tests with the Canon paper yesterday, and those came out just as on the screen. Guess it really is worth that little extra to get the canon paper.
Geir Andersen is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2007, 22:36   #8 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Dave Canon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 1,281
Dave Canon is just really nice
Dave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really niceDave Canon is just really nice
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Dave, if you use sRGB, you will have already limited the colour gamut. When you convert to the print firms profile, you will get a good conversion but it cannot replace the information that would have been in the wider Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. The differences are fairly subtle and would not affect your B&W images but stops you from getting the best from their colour printing process.

It would be a good experiment to produce an orginal in Adobe RGB (1998) then to produce a second sRGB version from that. Then to convert each of these to the printing firms profile and then compare the two prints to see how much difference there is in practice.
Dave Canon is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2007, 09:28   #9 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Thanks DC, will change over to Adobe RGB moving forward & will just have to remember to convert any web shots to sRGB
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2007, 09:44   #10 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Dave - I don't convert to sRGB before posting. That might mean I have to compress a bit more if the Adobe 1998 colour space has more information, but in the scheme of things, I'm not convinced it makes that much difference.

This is pure supposition on my part, but if that is not right, I'm sure someone who knows will enlighten us soon.
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2007, 09:53   #11 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabhand16 View Post
Dave - I don't convert to sRGB before posting. That might mean I have to compress a bit more if the Adobe 1998 colour space has more information, but in the scheme of things, I'm not convinced it makes that much difference.

This is pure supposition on my part, but if that is not right, I'm sure someone who knows will enlighten us soon.
If you leave your image on Adobe 1998 and Save for Web you will usually find the image goes darker as the colourspace is reduced. Then I will come along and suggest your image needs enlightenment!
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2007, 10:11   #12 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markulous View Post
If you leave your image on Adobe 1998 and Save for Web you will usually find the image goes darker as the colourspace is reduced. Then I will come along and suggest your image needs enlightenment!
LOL Mark! I don't do that either!

I just 'save as' into a folder that I use as a transit for Pixalo images. I usually get the image size and settings about right. I then check the file size by hovering the mouse over the image. If it is a little over, I go back to PS and re-save it with a tweak on the compression.

I have the transit folder, PS and my browser open simultaniously, and it is very quick to switch between them.
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 06:54   #13 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Easiest way to test is to have shot open in PS & on web at same time ...flip between them & you should notice a difference. I had this problem when I first started out & it was doing my head in why the shots looked great in PS, but differet once I uploaded.

I thought I read somewhere that if you "saved for web" it automatically converted colour space to sRGB as part of the save ?
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 07:09   #14 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Here is a test for you Graham. Shot on left is RGB in PS & then one to right is same shot saved for web (at 100% quality) ...see the difference ?



If I had converted shot to sRGB before saving, both shots would look identical (eg. same as one to left)

<Update> Just confirmed last sentence is correct by running the test
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 09:59   #15 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Just a little confused, Dave Are you saying that the LH image is Adobe 1998 that has become darker (RH image) due to being saved for web?
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 10:06   #16 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Perfect test, Dave!

It is like that, Graham - sometimes I even spot mine before uploading as the Save for Web image goes suddenly darker!
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 10:08   #17 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

OK, but as I said before, I don't 'save for web'. So my images will not suffer from being converted.
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 10:11   #18 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

But web won't display the full Adobe 1998 colour gamut, so in effect it IS converted. So it will display as Dave shows!
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 10:15   #19 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Right, I'm with you so far, but if that is the case, why is the LH image different if the web can't display it with this colour space?

Sorry if i'm being thick.
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 10:18   #20 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Ummmmm! Pass!

Edit: Not sure of answer but think that effectively fewer colours are displayed (so you'll miss out on some shades). Red is one of the "worst" - the flaaarrrr people complain bitterly about sRGB!

Last edited by Markulous; 20-02-2007 at 10:22. Reason: Added Edit
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 13:06   #21 (permalink)
Feet under the table
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 1,928
orangepeel is a glorious beacon of lightorangepeel is a glorious beacon of lightorangepeel is a glorious beacon of light
orangepeel is a glorious beacon of lightorangepeel is a glorious beacon of lightorangepeel is a glorious beacon of lightorangepeel is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

interesting thread.

Basic Color Management for Digital Imaging
orangepeel is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 14:33   #22 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

'Fraid I have no photos of a Triumph, but I can go better.

This saved for web



This saved in Adobe 1998

dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 17:38   #23 (permalink)
Loves the place
 
Rob Barron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Poole, Dorset
Posts: 7,227
Rob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to all
Rob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to allRob Barron is a name known to all

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Very useful thread this for sure. If you are unsure of seeing much difference, the easiest way to see it is to use the PS histogram. Take a photo in Adobe 1998 and save it as a normal top quality jpg. Now convert to sRGB (Edit>Convert to profile>Destination Space profile change to sRGB) and save with a different name.

Open the Adobe 1998 version and have the two side by side. You should see a little difference but look at the histogram while the Adobe 1998 pic is selected and then just click on the sRGB image while looking at the histogram. You will see it changing and you will notice that there is a shift at the dark end (left) which is why you are seeing it slightly darker.

So, for an image you want to show on the web, convert to sRGB and then make your adjustments to get it how you want it. When you now post it, you should find the image looks the same online as it does on your computer

Just a reminder, the easiest way to convert to a different colour gamut or profile is simply to make an Action that will do it with just one click.

Cheers for the helpful material in this thread,

Rob
__________________
Rob Barron

I love being a photographer: it's the only job where you can legally shoot people and cut their heads off
Rob Barron is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 18:02   #24 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Thanks for that, Rob. After I posted these images, I did what Dave suggested and switched between the PS image and the site. The PS looked a bit brighter than either of these two. I don't know if it is my imagination, but I thought of these two the Adobe 1998 had the edge.

Having said all that, I am a bit colour blind, so I'm on a loser from the off, altough I can see the difference in Dave's two images.

Can you answer my question which is if the web cannot display the full gamut of Adobe1998, why is there a difference between Dave's images? (you might need to read the whole thread to see why I ask)
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 18:14   #25 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Barron View Post
So, for an image you want to show on the web, convert to sRGB and then make your adjustments to get it how you want it.
A minor point but I do all adjustments to Adobe 1998 (best for print) before then converting to sRGB. I suppose that if you were only ever going to display on web then you could convert first, but even for web graphics I never do!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabhand16 View Post
Can you answer my question which is if the web cannot display the full gamut of Adobe1998, why is there a difference between Dave's images? (you might need to read the whole thread to see why I ask)
My understanding is that the shades are effectively compressed (imagine some shades removed) with a resulting movement to the darker end (to prevent clipping?)
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 18:17   #26 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,259
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markulous View Post
My understanding is that the shades are effectively compressed (imagine some shades removed) with a resulting movement to the darker end (to prevent clipping?)
Yes, but if the web cannot display the differences, why is there a difference in Dave's images? I'm sure I must be missing something here.......
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 18:23   #27 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Markulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peak District
Posts: 19,640
Markulous is a jewel in the rough
Markulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the roughMarkulous is a jewel in the rough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Say the (totally made up here) shades are coded 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 in Adobe and that the web cannot display 52, 53 or 54, so uses 51 which is darker? It's subtler than that - not so crude!
Markulous is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2007, 19:15   #28 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: sRGB or Adobe 1998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
I thought I read somewhere that if you "saved for web" it automatically converted colour space to sRGB as part of the save ?
Graham , I think this statement is untrue ....in other words if you save for web it does not convert to sRGB first ...... can anyone confirm either way.

So in my example the shots were screen grabbed from PS. Image on left was RGB, whilst image to right was same shot, saved for web & then re-opened, to allow you to see the comparison.

An easy way to see the difference is take a shot in PS & edit-> convert profile -> Adobe RGB . Now select "save for web" & when the preview screen comes up , look how the colours have changed. Cancel & go back to sRGB profile for shot. Now when you get preview to "save for web" you'll notice no difference in colour from original shot

Simple rule is ALWAYS ALWAYS ensure shots are converted to sRGB profile before saving a shot that you intend to show on Web
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adobe Updater P-E General Chat 4 03-06-2007 19:02
adobe lightroom yadlihp General photography questions and answers 16 07-10-2006 05:59
Adobe Photoshop 9.0.2 update for Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Windows Dave News 0 29-08-2006 19:02
Adobe announce CS2 Matty General photography questions and answers 5 04-04-2005 20:30


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58.


vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ReviewPost & PhotoPost vB3 Enhanced, Copyright 2003-2014 All Enthusiast, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Pixalo.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196