[sbtm]

Hi,

Don't know if this has been dicussed before or not. I did a quick search and didn't come up with anything useful.

Is there any difference in setting the camera to sRGB or Adobe RGB? It is on sRGB as we speak and I don't have any issues as far taking pictures and displaying them on my computer is concerned.

My problem has started when I got a new Canon ip4300 printer and all my prints have a red tint on them. Searched the net quite a bunch and someone out there suggested working in the Adobe RGB color space. Hence, my question.

Thanks.

[stepheno]

Welcome to the mystical world of colour management I am not a guru on this but can tell you that sRGB will reproduce colour better for PC and web display. Adobe RGB is better for professional printing. You will see a minimal difference when home printing but I would not expect you to have a colour cast with either colour setting. This suggests to me that your monitor and printer needs calibrating.

Have a look at this thread for monitors and this tutorial for printers. HTH.

[danpen]

SRGB is designed to display reasonably well on non colour managed systems, it has a relatively small gamut but is good for web images where you can expect the majority of your audience are not using colour manged applications or calibrated moitors. Therefore images for the web should be converted to SRGB (as the Save For Web and Devices function in PS does).

You perhaps won't see a substantial difference using other colour spaces but personally, on the odd occasion I do any real editing on an image, I prefer to work in 16-bit and use something with a larger gamut such as Prophoto RGB to preserve the colour detail and then convert at the last minute.

Non of that's likely to help, the important thing is to ensure that

1. The heads are clean and you've no misfiring heads - there should be a utility with the printer to check that.

2. You're using a colour profile suitable to the ink and paper you're using (is this problem with manufacturer inks and paper or 3rd party?)

3. You're only doing colour correction in the software of the printer driver - not both.

cheers

Dan

[silkstone]

If you shoot in RAW there is no colourspace attached and you can choose between sRGB, Adobe RGB (aRGB), ProPhoto and dozens of others when you process the RAW and convert to TIFF or JPEG. In other words, the RAW file is unaffected by the colourspace setting on the camera.

Whether you should use sRGB or aRGB generally is a hot topic. aRGB has a wider gamut which includes colours - especially intense cyans and magentas - which are lost in sRGB, but (and it's a big BUT ) these colours cannot be displayed on most monitors, nor on the web or in any application that is not colourspace aware. That means just about everything except photo editing software. The extra gamut may also not be usable by commercial printers.

The only real reason for using aRGB is if you have a good photo printer which can reproduce the additional colours, assuming of course that your photo actually contains these colours. If you do use aRGB, you must remember to convert images to sRGB for displaying on the web or in applications such as Word, etc, or the colours will not be accurate.

There are many other arguments too, and it's fair to say that many serious photographers prefer aRGB. If you want to keep everything simple, however, stick to sRGB.

[orangepeel]

Silky has it on the money, I just wanna add a bit...

Originally Posted by silkstone

The only real reason for using aRGB is if you have a good photo printer

Another reason for having other colour workspaces (AdobeRGB, ProPhoto RGB etc) is if you get your images professionally printed. For example, PhotoBox - Digital photo prints and gifts, free online photo albums & digital photo sharing have ICM profiles for their printers & paper so you can setup your Photoshop to display images on screen like it prints.

This same concept can also be extended with good quality printers @ home




p.s. The only other thing to do is calibrate your display - but that's a whole other kettle of fish!

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by sbtm

Don't know if this has been dicussed before or not.

Many times

Basically Adobe RGB is a bigger colour space than sRGB + can produce more accurate colours. BUT it all depends on the output method to be used :

• sRGB is closer (+ thus more suited) to monitor gamut + home printer gamut.
• Adobe RGB is more suited to professional printing, e.g. shots for magazines + the like, if accuracy of colours is crucial (e.g. commercial shots for a client where colour HAS to be right).

Therefore it's pointless using Adobe RGB for slideshows to be viewed on screen or web galleries etc., or for printing on an inkjet printer at home, because the output media simply cannot replicate the full colour space. For this reason, colours do tend to look rather flat if you use Adobe RGB for either of these output methods.

However, a lot of ppl swear by Adobe RGB, so it's a case of try it both ways for yourself + compare. If you don't see much of an improvement using Adobe RGB, then my advice would be to stick with sRGB.

Edit: I started typing this before orangepeel posted, but got sidetracked before I posted it Some of it's repeating what OP said. And others for that matter. I'm waffling now (tired) so

[silkstone]

Something else to throw into the pot is that aRGB uses the same range of numbers for each colour channel (R,G,B - 0-255 in 8-bit) but the actual colour gamut is greater. This means that there is a larger interval between each step, and that in turn leads to a greater risk of posterisation or 'blocking' if you stretch part of the range - for example, to boost shadows.

The upshot is that it is generally recommended to convert to 16-bit for second stage processing with aRGB, whereas you may get away with 8-bit in sRGB.

The gamut difference between the two is not quite as large as some people - especially Adobe, of course - would have us believe. If you really want the widest gamut you have to use ProPhoto RGB or something similar, but the colours that this contains are fairytale - they cannot be reproduced on any screen or printer.

As an advocate of simplicity, I'd suggest that if you are happy with the colours you see on your monitor, you are happy with sRGB because that is all your screen can reproduce. If you do use aRGB, bear in mind that what you get from your (wide gamut) printer may not look excatly like what you see on the screen, because the printer can reproduce colours that your screen cannot.

[sbtm]

WOWEEEEE! Great deal of information. Thanks a lot everyone.

Things are getting semi clear now... First, I know that I should stick to sRGB color space for all the good reasons mention up on top. Second, I know my printer isn't faulty cause I did a few test prints, and everything is clean and original. And third, I know my issue lies in the printers ICC profile.

I have noticed that if I use the profiles provided by Canon, then my pics have a lot of red tint. I have tried using other profiles such Red River (if anyone has heard of them!) and the red tint goes down a lot.

I also experimented with proof setup in CS2 and then printing, it has helped a lot. I just need to get the right combination of setup and ICC profiles to get the results from the printer...

Wish me luck!

[silkstone]

Good luck!

I guess you know that the printer ICC profile depends on the paper as well as the printer. If you're not using Canon paper, you may find a better profile on the paper manufacturer's website.

[sbtm]

Yea thanks for the tip silkstone. I've got Kodak paper and have checked their website for Canon printer profiles. They have got a few and guess what, my printer isn't one of them!

I got some 'other' kind of paper and they don't have a website altogether. Now am trying to get Canon paper and unfortunatly can't cause it drowned in the cyclone that hit us in June! They should be up in another month. Till then I'll be trying.

[M1ke A]

As a slight digression, what are people classing as a 'home' inkjet printer?

I have an Epson R1800 sitting on my desk here at home. All joking apart, are we calling anything under say £200 ($400) a home printer?

FWIW my cameras are on sRGB (the 1D gives funny file names with aRGB) and I use - Qimage to do my prints.

Not had any real issues with colour casts though I do on occasion over brighten a file to give it a little zap for print. Paper is afterall reflective.

[Richard Lynch]

"Adobe RGB is a bigger colour space than sRGB + can produce more accurate colours."

This is a common misconception, as it really depends on what you consider accurate. Here are some facts:

* sRGB and AdobeRGB both have the same number of colors
* AdobeRGB describes some colors that you can not display on a monitor and is intended to better cover the gammut of CMYK printing
* sRGB describes a 'normalized' color set that can be displayed by monitors

Both AdobeRGB and sRGB can work to fulfill your workflow needs, but sRGB, to me, is more reliable on screen AND for my printing needs. In fact, the manufacturers of the laser-light printers I prefer (they use photographic digital process where photographic paper is exposed using lasers and then run through chemical process) generally suggest using sRGB for the best results.

AdobeRGB has unspoken pitfalls. If you fail to properly tag your AdobeRGB image, you will likely get washout in print (as your printer will likely assume sRGB, not AdobeRGB), but the same goes for uploading images where not all uploading applications or web browsers are savvy handlers of AdobeRGB.

I explore this and more in courses I teach on editing with photoshop and color management.

As far as printing...I don't bother with a home printer. I send everything to a local shop via FTP, and pick it up when I am out. The printer they use costs somewhere in the range of $60-$80,000, and I won't be buying one for home really soon. They remain responsible for calibration and supplies, AND mistakes. And my cost per print is less than it would be owning my own printer (when arguing that, don't forget the cost of the printer itself, upgrades, maintenance, and the time you put in learning to use it, calibrating, cleaning, and taking up space in your home/office).

I hope that helps!

[dogdots]

I agree...I thought awhile back to purchasing a photo printer, but just couldn't justify the cost of the printer, paper and ink. So I just use my HP all-in-one for printing text and send out my photos to be printed to. For 15-19 cents I can't go wrong on a 4x6.

If the printing of my photo turns out crappy at the printers they just re-print it at no cost to me.

So my camera stays on sRGB and I never have to worry about changing anything or dealing with printer problems and ink costs which is like purchasing Gold.

Dogdots/Mary