Another important remark I'm missing in this video: when shooting in RAW it doesn't matter what setting is selected in your camera (sRGB or AdobeRGB). You record all possible data and choose the color space when exporting from Lightroom/Photoshop.
Thanks, Matt. Setting up my new Canon 6d and often wondered about color space settings. You helped clear things up...a bit. In the past I had used Adobe RGB on previous cameras but I would like to do some high-end print work and was not sure what was best. Should just ask the print shop, but I'm a recluse. Just received my Samyang 24mm tilt-shift today. Would like to shoot some architectural stuff around Salt Lake City as well as landscapes. Like your Hassy in the background. I have an RB 67 with 50 and 127mm lenses. Still works great.
@@mattgranger Just because I think its funny I likely would've had to watch 2 or 3 14min videos and not get a great explanation. As soon as I saw you had a video on this I knew it would explain perfectly! You are an inspiration to an aspiring amateur like myself. Thanks again!
Can i ask a question? if Adobe RGB uses the same amount of digits to express wider color range than sRGB could it posibly mean that Adobe RGB is actually less acurate?
***** Depends what colors are in your shot. I guess if your shot is low on greens and blues then probably sRGB and if not, then probably Adobe RGB. I have no data to back that though.
This is bad advice. Most people have a monitor that only supports sRGB. Anyone who's thought of editing colour photos on a monochrome monitor will understand very well that you cannot adjust colours you cannot see. I have a monitor that, about 8, maybe 10 years ago was a premium monitor, but I have no reason to suppose it supports anything other than sRGB. Certainly, if I go to any of the local retailers, that's exactly what I will get. Since I can't see those blue-greens I can't adjust them. It happens my printer does support Adobe RGB, but of course if I print sRGB to it using the Adobe RGB colour space, the colours I saw on my screen won't be replicated in my prints.
Must admit it is a tad distracting hearing someone pronounce familiar words in unfamiliar ways, but I think we can dismiss your word pronunciation because of the quality of information you are providing
It is actually more like "knee-con". Since Japanese uses a silibary with set sounds, there is no squiggle room for variations. ニコン ニ(ni)コ(ko) ン(n). But you are right, I don't give a crap. I just find it continually funny that Nikon fanboys fight over which incorrect pronunciation of a foreign name is the correct one.
+Matt Granger actually ur kind of right , beacouse this screen bleed and cloud in the dark and in the light, and cant set light lower that cd50/m2 additional 3 party can make it down to cd 16/m2 witch my older eizo can go dark down to 0.6 cd/m and without bleeding red green and cloud. now only 500Euro thoose who like a better screen buy eizo flexscan 2736wsf and get cd 0.2/m kiss kiss kiss, love it. but yeah colors are better on color edge, but its not woth the dark downside to me
Matt, Thanks for this informative series. I am trying to find my way through the Lightroom/Photoshop colorspace workflow. This sRGB vs Adobe RGB video was very helpful, but I need to know how to set up all the pieces in the workflow from the camera to Lightroom/Photoshop to the monitor and the printer to get the same interpretation of the color data at each step. Would you do a video on that? Thanks,
I normally don’t comment on 5yo posts... I don’t believe a word you say about adōb. If ya can’t learn how to say one of the most widely used products in the field, you can’t claim to be an expert.
Let's say I have a display that covers 99% of Adobe RGB and I edit my picture in Lightroom on that monitor, can I just export the file in sRGB and lightroom will change the color of the picture automatically so when displayed online ,it will look close to what I had in mind with the initial Adobe RGB process?
from what I know, yes... as long as you're converting AdobeRGB to sRGB lightroom or Photoshop will convert and determine the closest color representation to sRGB. to confirm that color representation you can switch your monitor mode from AdobeRGB to sRGB mode in monitor menu assuming that you have an AdobeRGB monitor, most AdobeRGB monitors have that options in their menu.
Please help me clear this up. What is the point of shooting Adobe RGB, working in lightroom/photoshop with the wider color gamut, and then converting back to sRGB for output? If the final output is anyways SRGB? And BTW, I know a lot of pro printing places that will only accept sRGB files. Also depends on the color gamut of the printer and the actual paper they use in any case. So are there any of them capable of print true Adobe RGB yet??
Pros capture in Adobe RGB open and edit in ProPhoto then covert to what ever colour space is required for the final image. It's not right that Adobe RGB is good for print. 99% of printers are calibrated for sRGB. If you have a Adobe RGB jpg and print it at Harvey Norman it will turn out wrong. (try it I have) If you have sRGB it will print out correctly. Only specialist print houses like the edge are set up to print Adobe RGB accurately. You must always covert to the required colour space too. When you covert colour spaces in photoshop your essentially saying. I want these exact colours in this converted colour space. There will be no difference in the look of the converted image.
Stewart Craig whilst I don't agree with characterising 'pros' as sharing any particular trait or procedure, but I don't know any professional who print at Harvey Norman...
Matt Granger Your audience are not Professional photographers and most of them will print at office works, Harvey Norman ect. So it's no point telling them Adobe RGB is better for printing without explaining. My knowledge comes from Deke McClelland who has forgot more about colour management than most will ever know. I know not all pro photographers use best practice. Hell, there is a guy that shoots weddings in Melbourne with an iPhone 3. He gets paid thousands and is in high demand tommi Apopisso is his name.
Matt Granger I can see Stewart Craig made a very accurate point about RGB and sRGB but it looks like you have a very big ego problem not like to be corrected, first of all if professional photographers do not use Harvey Norman then it also means they are not going to waste a breath on looking at your videos because as you said they are professionals and if your videos are only targeted for professional photographers then you can mention on your videos that non-pro photographers are not welcome to watch your videos because they like to print their photos at places like Harvey Norman.
Pro's shoot RAW. And then the colrospace set up in your camer is irrelevant, RAW captures all it can. This video is only relevant if you shoot JPEG only. The lab I send my files to, is a pro lab (you need an photographers VAT number to be able to order anything there, that defines pro for me). Well they told me themselves that they only accept sRGB. If you submit Adobe RGB to their site it gets converted to sRGB at the receiving end by their ordering software anyway. I kow for sure that some specific colors will not be rendered as well, particularly greenish blues (as you graph shows so well). but for most of the work (portraits in my case), it does not matter anyway. So in the end: - Either you're pro or serious amateur and shoot RAW: Camera colorspace does not matter. - Or you're beginner or JPEG shooter and the rest of your flow will not be very in line with anything else but sRGB so you mas as well stick to sRGB from the start. I now also have an Eizo 99% Adobe capable (the native goes beyond in some area's) display. When I review my earlier work entirely post processed on a cheapo Samsung sRGB monitor, it all looks perfect. So knowing how to post process with colorspaces awareness in mind even if you cannot see it also matters and you do *not need* an Eizo display either. But this paragraph is realy getting off topic.
My advice is that if you are new to colour management and uncertain as to what you are doing stick to sRGB. I am a mentor in colour at my CC and only have to sort out colour management problems for those that venture outside sRGB. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you are confident with your skills at colour management then Adobe RGB is a waste of time. You should use ProPhoto RGB. The important thing is what colours do your images contain and what outputs do you create. So web only output means that sRGB is the colourspace for you. If you print on a high gamut inkjet printer then it is very likely that your images go beyond Adobe RGB and into gamut that your printer will print that is outside Adobe RGB, therefore ProPhoto is the colourspace for you. Colours outside Adobe RGB and within an inkjet printer profile is especially true if you are fond of moving the sliders to the right in ACR! If you make a colour management mistake in ProPhoto it will be very obvious. Note if you are a Lightroom user your working space is a version of ProPhoto, so even Adobe doesn't use Adobe RGB. If you look at the mouse over advice in PS with respect to colourspace Adobe recommend ProPhoto for inkjet printing. (I belong to the death to Adobe RGB club, oh and work in sRGB for my photography but ProPhoto for colour experimentation)
I have three questions, I would appreciate if I could get a knowledgeable answer.Thank you very much. 1)if I shoot Raw in adobe RGB and edit the photo in Lightroom judging the colors in my screen based on a adobe RGB capture but then for purposes of showing the picture on line I export it as an sRGB, would the color tones change? would the picture look different to me and the receiver than it was in Lightroom? 2)How do I know if my screen of a mac laptop 2014,Sierra, as an example is capable of reading adobe RGB images. 3) Sometimes for a photo contest they ask to submit a photo in adobe RGB, but if I shot the photo in sRGB is there any way to turn it in adobe RGB in editing or exporting it in adobe RGB, does make any sense? Thank you
I tried sRGB and AdobeRGB for print and the latter is the only way to go when I want to have on paper what I have on my (calibrated) monitor. sRGB ever left me stranded and nearly insane.
Question, if your cintiq tablet can show 99% colors in srgb and 78% colors in adobe 1998, whats the point of using a color profile you cant see the best? I think having a color profile that match your monitor can be also of great use in reproducing same colors.
After 4:50 the reasons to use Adobe RGB or sRGB. I had learned from other TH-cam videos and websites that AdobeRGB was only for printing because nearly all displays show only sRGB and couldn't be changed to sRGB without color damage. Now I have learned that is easy to downscale Adobe RGB thought photoshop to sRGB and have better results. That's amazing Matt. 👍👍👍👍👍👍 Thank you very much. From now on I will change the settings of my Sony a7 to Adobe RGB. Some questions: Does the downscale of Adobe RGB in Photoshop to sRGB happens automatically when I save the photo to jpg? The size of Adobe RGB raw files is equal or greater to sRGB raw files?
Sorry for not understanding properly, but if both are limited to 256,256,256 then what does it mean when you say AdobeRBG can capture more different tones?
...and Intel was peed off that everyone was using gamma 1.8 'Apple RGB' on Macs! PS it's pronounced "A-Dobeee" as in the clay houses. Cheers David Myers in Sydney.
What if a laptop have this specifications? : 72% NTSC, 100% sRGB and 74% Adobe RGB I just want a good laptop for video and photo editing and I just find out this about color calibration and my mind is going to explode!
You can simply understand that 72% NTSC is equal to 100% sRBG. 74% Adobe RGB it's already pretty good. That's good enough for you just do some photo editing when you are not a pro.
this is driving me bonkers. so i see a monitor thats 8 bit, has 100% adobe rgb.. then another thats 12bit, more expensive, and has 99.5% adobe RGB... surely the 12 bit one is capable of showing more colours i.e. adobe rgb!
12-bit monitors don't really exist unless you can find some Dolby Vision monitors with 200% NTSC 1976 C.I.E. color gamut coverage, have a static contrast ratio of 4,096:1, a delta value well below 1, and an areal illumination density of 4,000 nits (4,000 candelas per square meter). There's also that question of an output device capable of outputting native 4:4:4 RGB 12-bit video signals, I don't think even Quadros support that, maybe an SGI workstation from the '90s or '00s will, however.
I always export in ProPhoto. Any other profile makes the jpegs have different colours than what I see the pictures as in Lightroom. Weird, but I take it for granted: it's either ProPhoto, or bad colours.
Does it make a difference when shooting RAW?? When I choose AdobeRGB in my Canon 600D, at least the file name is different. it's _mg_0001 instead of img_0001, which looks ugly. :D
If you archive all of your work, the benefit of a wider Colorspace becomes apparent. What if you DO want to print something sometime in the future? Who knows what Monitors, Printers, Phones will be capable of displaying. Maybe mainstream will advance to a better standard at some point, and as soon as you'd get used to it, all of your old sRGB photos would look more dull in comparison.
Great that you have addressed this as it is quite a big question but a bigger worm-whole than what you have touched on. There is a very big error in this video and that is the difference between sRGB (8bit = 255 steps) and Adobe RGB 1998 (10bit = 1024 steps). 10bit is over 1.07 billion colours and 8bit is 16.58 million colours. The gamut is expanded due to the extra ability for 1024 setps of gradient in each colour channel to produce finer colour detail, ie.: more colours. The issue in Photoshop on PC is that it just stretches the UI elements over a larger number of gradient steps per channel. One other big omission in this video is for the people who send photo's out of Photoshop need to export instead of save as and experiment with the 3 types of colour space conversion algorithms to choose from to get the same result as the original. "Save As" does no colour space conversion and will result in wrong colour only on your client's monitor if you are working in any bigger than sRGB colour space.
Thanks for you gratitude. Photoshop has changed the save as since I posted this. Jpeg now converts to sRGB as far as I can tell. It still doesn't save the sRGB profile tag into the file metadata though. If you decided to export as I suggest either convert colour profile or embed existing profile. I have had mismatch profile vs actual colour in the final Jpeg. You may consider saving as either Photoshop file or layered tiff and using Adobe Bridge export function to convert & resize and rename all selected to desired format. The main advantage is bridge embeds the colour profile info into the output file in this case Jpeg. If your workflow is Lightroom it too has an excellent export function. Hope this helps.
Just to be clear no Browser supports sRGB by default. Ony Firefox can support sRGB and only if you enable it the configuration. But, and this is a big but. If you don't have a profiled monitor it doesn't matter jack, whether your browser supports any colour space. And once more for effect. IF YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE IS THE WEB VIA A BROWSER. YOUR BEAUTIFUL PHOTO WILL LOOK DIFFERENT ON 99.9999% OF SCREENS, UNLESS THEY HAVE A PROFILED MONITOR.
Argh! Colour space black magic. 256x256x256=24BIT Colour. My camera is 12 or 14 bit (8000ish colours) Does this mean I get huge gaps in my colour space? I use colormonkey smile to calibrate my monitor but I have no idea what it can display. So 0,125,125 sRGB is a different blue/ green to Adobe. Why is my graphics card 32 bit which is loads of colours.. My head hurts. Is that blue/gold/black/white dress sRGB, Adobe RGB, proPhoto. Bee uv spectrum?? I got a head ache
That's because there's sadly some confusion when it comes to the term "x bit graphics". When we're talking about 24 bit or 32 bit graphics, the number means something else than when we're talking about 12 or 14 bit cameras. 24 bit graphics means in fact just 8 bits per color channel - so 256 possible values for red channel, 256 possible values for green channel and 256 possible values of blue channel, leaving you with 16.7 million of possible combinations. 32 bit graphics is actually exactly the same, once again you have just 8 bits per color channel and 16.7 million of combinations, BUT you also have additional 8 bits (24+8=32) for alpha channel. In other words, any of those 16.7 million colors can also have 256 levels of transparency. That's all the 32 bit graphics is - 24 bit graphics with transparency. Now when it comes to 12 or 14 bit cameras, that number no longer represents the same value as before. Here it is meant as that "per channel" number. So your 14 bit camera can (in theory, at least) record not 256, but 16384 possible values for red channel, 16384 possible values for green channel and 16384 possible values for blue channel. When comparing with 24 bit graphics using the same terminology, your camera actually uses 42 bit graphics. Now, as explained in the video, that RGB value is basically something like a map coordinate you use to identify the color you're currently working with. And since the area of the color space is fixed and has to be filled evenly by the RGB combinations you have available, it simply means that when using 14 bit (aka 42 bit) graphics, we have way more "coordinates" to work with, they are packed much closer together, allowing for much finer color resolution. After all, 8 bits per channel really isn't all that much, even if 16.7 million sounds like a lot. Try to work with some finer gradients and you'll soon find out it's really not, and you're quite likely to have to resort to tricks like dithering to hide the visible "steps" between the individual colors of the gradient, since the "color coordinates" are too wide apart. With 14 (42) bit color, this is not the issue. It's basically also the reason why we can do much more aggressive edits to our RAW photos, compared to JPEG (but it's a bit more complicated than that, there are more issues at play there). And, if you ask me, we should've left 24 bit color behind a long time ago. It simply doesn't offer enough colors to work with. But alas, since pretty much all graphics cards and monitors are limited to 24 bit color max, we're stuck with it (and most likely will be for quite some time yet).
Martin Fiala Also JPEG is 8bit per channel, so there is some heritage in the most widespread output format that will keep many of us stuck with that color resolution. And for all else, you are spot on, well explained!
Gerald Bonne I'd expect that would be remedied rather easily should higher color depth become the norm, coming up with some replacement file format shouldn't be that hard. Then again, it's also true we're still stuck with 256 color GIFs when it comes to animations, so maybe I'm just a bit too optimistic.
Thanks for this simple and to-the-point explanation of colour spaces. It answered all my questions about colour profiles on my computer monitors, not only for photo editing but for graphic design and printing as well.
Hey Matt and everyone in here. Great informative video, but I need some help and advice. Heres the story: I recently uploaded some edited images from my recent holiday to my Flickr account and I wanted to show the pictures to a friend on my iP 6 through the flickr app when I noticed that the colours was horribly wrong opposite to how they looked like on my Retina Macbook at the end of the processing. I shared the images with the people I travelled with and asked them if they saw the pictures the way I did, which they also did. They saw that the image colours and lighting varied on the different computers and devices they were using. If I compare these images on my mac and pc, they look very much the same, but my iP6 is still far away from correct, instead of warm looking photos, they were green´ish looking and very dark and cold. If I look at some other flickr´peoples photos, they look almost exactly the same on all my devices. Anyone else encountered this problem that can help? By the way- Both my screens haven't been calibrated, I'm out buying one tomorrow. Every help are very much appreciated. Thanks People
I liked your explanation, really simple But I almost cry when you talked of "255". The word "channel" isn't useful when talking about color space. Only when talking about color digital management and storage and display it has meaning. RGB uses three primary COLORS not channels that correlate with how the front end of the retina perceives color. And 256 (because 000 it's still a value) it's only true when talking of 8bit depth storage of information and that's because of 2^8 = 256. Why 2? because a bit can be two values 0 and 1.
Adobe RGB is terrible for photography, plain and simple. It over brightens highlights, destroys the gradients between highlights, and adds color that was never really there to begin with. The only benefit of Adobe RGB is it has less color noise in shadows when you convert to JPEG, which you might not see in the RAW file, but can see in a converted JPEG as colored blotches in shadows. But with a few passes of color noise reduction it can be gotten rid of. I learned this the hard way, because I was using SRGB on my camera, but Photoshop was automatically set to Adobe RGB. So whenever I edited my RAW files in Photoshop, it effectively altered how the image looked, drastically.
What exactly is the "Adobe Spaces Helper Application" for? Every time I do repair disk permissions on my OS X Tim Apple machine, I get this code snippet in my system I do not want and I do not need.
Well my laptop (which is my primary computer) screen covers 99% sRGB and only 64% Adobe RGB, plus I'm not a professional photographer/editor/etc. so given tge fact that most printers are calibrated for sRGB anyway, it's preeeeetty unlikely that whatever I create will ever be printed profesionally on a printer that is calibrated for Adobe RGB. So for now it's a no-brainer for me which one I should use. Cool video though, very nicely explained :)
I am facing a strange issue thought I would check here. There is an image i edited in photoshop on Mac, exported as sRgb , jpeg. Now when i download the same jpeg image on windows machine, the image shows perfect color in the photo viewer. But when I open the same image in photoshop/ lightroom or Capture one or Affinity I see a sepia tone to it. What should I change in my windows machine, so that I get consistent color across application. Just bought a new surface book 3, and this issue is making me nuts.
I know I'm late to the party, but for anyone who wants to jump on a 10bit (per channel) monitor (Eizo e.g.), make sure that your graphics card is able to do 10bit (per channel). Small hint: Most consumer graphic cards are not able to do that. That being said, does anyone know what graphic card Matt is using?
Need help! After editing color correction in Adobe LR5 when i convert into Adobe CS6 for further edit in CS Photoshop color burst out. Which mean when i edit in LR everything seems to be okay but when i convert or tried to edit in photoshop color messed up.
Absolutely no need to shoot in a higher colour space than your monitor can display if its only going to end up on the web. What is more important for editing (regardless of display or usage) is to use 16bit with raws files. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. Degree in photography + thousands of hours. Enjoy.
So, if I'll open RAW in AdobeRGB and edit it, and then convert it into sRGB I'll loose all the colors that extend over sRGB - am I right? So, there is no reason to use Adobe RGB if image will be converted to sRGB anyway, right? Cheers, thank you for video!
If that is the case when you say that if your only going to show online photos and not print use sRGB. Why do 96% of pro labs print in sRGB and not Adobe RGB.
This is why most AdobeRGB compatible monitors are 10 bit (true 10 bit or 8 bit simulating 10 bit) where each channel has 1024 points between minimum and maximum, that way the extra factor of 4 negates the Adobe RGB disadvantage of the larger gaps betweens tones
Dose colour space affect noise ?? and what must i user if i want to do milky way shoot at night ?? ( i mean which colour space is better) also a bit off topic by is 50 mm 1.8 a better lense to capture that ???
Hey ! Some photographers says that if u shoot in Raw ," it doesn't matter what colorspace you decided in camera settings , you can change it in LR or PS" it that true ?
Is it normal for an srgb file jpg to be slightly larger than an adobe rgb file jpg exported from the same raw file? My srgb files are always a bit larger
when I calibrate my monitor I need to save a ICC profile..so what happens if I use that ICC profile to edit ky pictures in photoshop? or do I need to edit in RGB89?
Great video Matt! I always wondered what is the best color space to use. I just changed my color space in my camera to Adobe RGB color space. I will shooting and editing my photos in Adobe RGB from now on. I would like to ask you Matt. What is the difference between Adobe RGB and profoto color space? Thank you Matt.
I hate all the incompatibility issues between these 2 colour spaces. There is always a color shift between them in windows, instagram, Photoshop, other apps etc. I'm going to shoot just sRGB and that's it.
Just a question, why do so many photographers use macintosh os (which can only display 8-bit color, or 256 shades of a key color) when windows has the same editing programs, but is able to use 10-bit output(1024 shades of a key color) ?
***** Eizo's can display that deep. zvxcvxcz Post processing is done in memory with an even larger working space than ProfotoRGB. The OS does not matter (at least for Lightroom/Photoshop/CapturOne). You can restrict Adobe's products at import of your images into lower spaces, by default it is lower. One has to be aware of how to properly setup Photoshop and Camera RAW to actually benefit from it.
@114128245733607537383 the reason it seems like everybody uses Mac is because most videos are either from usa or uk or australia. The moment you go to other parts of europe, south america, the whole of asia, you'll see a lot nore Windows setups and comparatively much less macs.
@114128245733607537383 10 bit is more common in video post production where high bits help with clean chroma keying and more room for exposure adjustments without visible banding but in photography it's not that important. also, the whole signal chain has to be 10 bit which adds a lot to the cost of the monitor and workstation graphics, so most people just avoid the unnecessary hassle.
I know this is an older video but grateful that you made it. I needed to remind myself what the difference between these two color profiles are and I knew you'd do an excellent job explaining the concepts. Thank you!
From my studies in color space at my Arts university, I have to mention that either you or my professor is wrong. As far as I know, It's best shoot to in AdobeRGB and edit in a bigger color space if you use Photoshop. Photoshop enables you to change the values of your color in any value, therefore you can extend your colors outside of the color space which your camera captured and get better, fine tonality if you do so. If you don't do it, you can loose tonality, because your colors essentially "hit" the border of your color space and blocking occurs.(blocking refers to "downsampling" at the border of the color space) If you then downsample to a smaller color space you will eventually loose some tonality, but the downsampling will affect your tones more evenly.
Shoot RAW and it will not matter. Internally Photoshop uses a prorietary working space that is much larger anyway. After that it is just a matter of choosing your export format for the lab. For print... Justy print your PSD (from RAW) directly from Photoshop for least loss.
There is indeed an option (accessible in the camera raw module) to set up the import space. But internally all the stuff done by Photoshop is in the "undocumented" space that is much larger to be able to handle all transformations with the less loss as possible. There is very little public knowledge about all of this. It is a shame because I see a lot of things showed to people on internet that make no sense as by default they have their setting configured to import their images in a lesser space (I think sRGB by default after a fresh installation, could be mistaken about this).
Cool vid...Thanks for the 2 the point explanation. My goal is to print, but the tricky part is that I do not want to print everything, but I do want the option. Now, I might just be being greedy. The Sony camera gives me the option to capture raw and jpeg. Not that I am newbie lazy photographer, but my logic is that there are some photos that I would want to spend time with developing/editing. There are other photos where I would want to do some minimum editing, but quickly be able to upload to fb. I said all of that to say....That it would be nice if I could save photos in both adobe and srgb just like I can for jpg and raw. I think ultimately as I get better at shooting, that I will shoot all raw and adobe and just output for the different purposes in lightroom. In either case, thanks for sharing your experience. Happy shooting....
You can just Set Your camera to sRGB and save in jpeg and raw as the colour space does only matter for jpegs. The raw image will have the maximum amount of colours anyway.
+Tatanan0 - Hi Tat, Thanks for the kind response. After some pain, I did finally end up just shooting raw 100% of the time. It turns out that I can switch to Adobe RGB in Lightroom when I get ready to do my print work.... Thanks again for your feedback.
Another important remark I'm missing in this video: when shooting in RAW it doesn't matter what setting is selected in your camera (sRGB or AdobeRGB). You record all possible data and choose the color space when exporting from Lightroom/Photoshop.
5:43 Nice way to sneak nudity on TH-cam.
loooooool
Thanks, Matt. Setting up my new Canon 6d and often wondered about color space settings. You helped clear things up...a bit. In the past I had used Adobe RGB on previous cameras but I would like to do some high-end print work and was not sure what was best. Should just ask the print shop, but I'm a recluse.
Just received my Samyang 24mm tilt-shift today. Would like to shoot some architectural stuff around Salt Lake City as well as landscapes.
Like your Hassy in the background. I have an RB 67 with 50 and 127mm lenses. Still works great.
Perfect explanation! I understand it and I only had to watch one video lol! Thanks Matt!
You’re welcome. Why ‘lol’?
@@mattgranger Just because I think its funny I likely would've had to watch 2 or 3 14min videos and not get a great explanation. As soon as I saw you had a video on this I knew it would explain perfectly! You are an inspiration to an aspiring amateur like myself. Thanks again!
Can i ask a question? if Adobe RGB uses the same amount of digits to express wider color range than sRGB could it posibly mean that Adobe RGB is actually less acurate?
***** For the portion of the gamut within both spaces, yes, it would mean that.
zvxcvxcz
And which part of gamut is actually closer to reality?
***** Depends what colors are in your shot. I guess if your shot is low on greens and blues then probably sRGB and if not, then probably Adobe RGB. I have no data to back that though.
Hmmm... Your website looks a lot like FroKnowsPhoto website.
Hey, I'm not accusing anybody here, I'm just pointing it out.
4:27 HE SAID IT BOYS
Nice catch! I tried to ignore it after the 99th time he said Adob'.
@@marquizzo WHAT ABOUT NTSC ?
This is bad advice.
Most people have a monitor that only supports sRGB. Anyone who's thought of editing colour photos on a monochrome monitor will understand very well that you cannot adjust colours you cannot see. I have a monitor that, about 8, maybe 10 years ago was a premium monitor, but I have no reason to suppose it supports anything other than sRGB. Certainly, if I go to any of the local retailers, that's exactly what I will get.
Since I can't see those blue-greens I can't adjust them.
It happens my printer does support Adobe RGB, but of course if I print sRGB to it using the Adobe RGB colour space, the colours I saw on my screen won't be replicated in my prints.
Nerd alert! Did you folks come for a pronunciation lesson, or a talk about color spaces?? TomAto - TomARto, N-ick-on - N-eye-kon... who gives a crap?
Must admit it is a tad distracting hearing someone pronounce familiar words in unfamiliar ways, but I think we can dismiss your word pronunciation because of the quality of information you are providing
It is actually more like "knee-con". Since Japanese uses a silibary with set sounds, there is no squiggle room for variations. ニコン ニ(ni)コ(ko) ン(n). But you are right, I don't give a crap. I just find it continually funny that Nikon fanboys fight over which incorrect pronunciation of a foreign name is the correct one.
+Matt Granger
actually ur kind of right , beacouse this screen bleed and cloud in the dark and in the light, and cant set light lower that cd50/m2 additional 3 party can make it down to cd 16/m2 witch my older eizo can go dark down to 0.6 cd/m and without bleeding red green and cloud. now only 500Euro thoose who like a better screen buy eizo flexscan 2736wsf and get cd 0.2/m kiss kiss kiss, love it. but yeah colors are better on color edge, but its not woth the dark downside to me
Amer-eye-can
He does have a weird accent and it's very nasal. He should blow his nose before making his videos
I can't stayed focused. Every time I hear "Ah-dobe" I want to stop this video.
TAKE A SHOT EVERY TIE HE SAYS THAT
Getting triggered when someone mispronounces a word. What a nice life you must live...
@@kratokat3431 I totally hate Adobe - its Apple but worse.
When he said "adohb" I spat at my screen, then cleaned it and switched to sRGB.
Matt,
Thanks for this informative series. I am trying to find my way through the Lightroom/Photoshop colorspace workflow. This sRGB vs Adobe RGB video was very helpful, but I need to know how to set up all the pieces in the workflow from the camera to Lightroom/Photoshop to the monitor and the printer to get the same interpretation of the color data at each step. Would you do a video on that?
Thanks,
I normally don’t comment on 5yo posts... I don’t believe a word you say about adōb. If ya can’t learn how to say one of the most widely used products in the field, you can’t claim to be an expert.
Adobi?!
What did they do to you, Matt, put Salt in your Tea? ;-)
Let's say I have a display that covers 99% of Adobe RGB and I edit my picture in Lightroom on that monitor, can I just export the file in sRGB and lightroom will change the color of the picture automatically so when displayed online ,it will look close to what I had in mind with the initial Adobe RGB process?
I ask myself the sam thing. Got an answer to that?
from what I know, yes... as long as you're converting AdobeRGB to sRGB lightroom or Photoshop will convert and determine the closest color representation to sRGB. to confirm that color representation you can switch your monitor mode from AdobeRGB to sRGB mode in monitor menu assuming that you have an AdobeRGB monitor, most AdobeRGB monitors have that options in their menu.
Please help me clear this up. What is the point of shooting Adobe RGB, working in lightroom/photoshop with the wider color gamut, and then converting back to sRGB for output? If the final output is anyways SRGB? And BTW, I know a lot of pro printing places that will only accept sRGB files. Also depends on the color gamut of the printer and the actual paper they use in any case. So are there any of them capable of print true Adobe RGB yet??
Pros capture in Adobe RGB open and edit in ProPhoto then covert to what ever colour space is required for the final image.
It's not right that Adobe RGB is good for print. 99% of printers are calibrated for sRGB. If you have a Adobe RGB jpg and print it at Harvey Norman it will turn out wrong. (try it I have) If you have sRGB it will print out correctly. Only specialist print houses like the edge are set up to print Adobe RGB accurately.
You must always covert to the required colour space too. When you covert colour spaces in photoshop your essentially saying. I want these exact colours in this converted colour space. There will be no difference in the look of the converted image.
Stewart Craig whilst I don't agree with characterising 'pros' as sharing any particular trait or procedure, but I don't know any professional who print at Harvey Norman...
Matt Granger Your audience are not Professional photographers and most of them will print at office works, Harvey Norman ect. So it's no point telling them Adobe RGB is better for printing without explaining. My knowledge comes from Deke McClelland who has forgot more about colour management than most will ever know. I know not all pro photographers use best practice. Hell, there is a guy that shoots weddings in Melbourne with an iPhone 3. He gets paid thousands and is in high demand tommi Apopisso is his name.
Matt Granger
I can see Stewart Craig made a very accurate point about RGB and sRGB but it looks like you have a very big ego problem not like to be corrected, first of all if professional photographers do not use Harvey Norman then it also means they are not going to waste a breath on looking at your videos because as you said they are professionals and if your videos are only targeted for professional photographers then you can mention on your videos that non-pro photographers are not welcome to watch your videos because they like to print their photos at places like Harvey Norman.
Pro's shoot RAW. And then the colrospace set up in your camer is irrelevant, RAW captures all it can. This video is only relevant if you shoot JPEG only.
The lab I send my files to, is a pro lab (you need an photographers VAT number to be able to order anything there, that defines pro for me). Well they told me themselves that they only accept sRGB. If you submit Adobe RGB to their site it gets converted to sRGB at the receiving end by their ordering software anyway.
I kow for sure that some specific colors will not be rendered as well, particularly greenish blues (as you graph shows so well). but for most of the work (portraits in my case), it does not matter anyway.
So in the end:
- Either you're pro or serious amateur and shoot RAW: Camera colorspace does not matter.
- Or you're beginner or JPEG shooter and the rest of your flow will not be very in line with anything else but sRGB so you mas as well stick to sRGB from the start.
I now also have an Eizo 99% Adobe capable (the native goes beyond in some area's) display. When I review my earlier work entirely post processed on a cheapo Samsung sRGB monitor, it all looks perfect. So knowing how to post process with colorspaces awareness in mind even if you cannot see it also matters and you do *not need* an Eizo display either. But this paragraph is realy getting off topic.
Gerald Bonne
you spoke like a true pro
My advice is that if you are new to colour management and uncertain as to what you are doing stick to sRGB. I am a mentor in colour at my CC and only have to sort out colour management problems for those that venture outside sRGB. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you are confident with your skills at colour management then Adobe RGB is a waste of time. You should use ProPhoto RGB. The important thing is what colours do your images contain and what outputs do you create. So web only output means that sRGB is the colourspace for you. If you print on a high gamut inkjet printer then it is very likely that your images go beyond Adobe RGB and into gamut that your printer will print that is outside Adobe RGB, therefore ProPhoto is the colourspace for you. Colours outside Adobe RGB and within an inkjet printer profile is especially true if you are fond of moving the sliders to the right in ACR! If you make a colour management mistake in ProPhoto it will be very obvious. Note if you are a Lightroom user your working space is a version of ProPhoto, so even Adobe doesn't use Adobe RGB. If you look at the mouse over advice in PS with respect to colourspace Adobe recommend ProPhoto for inkjet printing. (I belong to the death to Adobe RGB club, oh and work in sRGB for my photography but ProPhoto for colour experimentation)
This is 5-year-old evergreen content so good on Matt. But the "uh DOE Buh" was making me crazy.
I have three questions, I would appreciate if I could get a knowledgeable answer.Thank you very much.
1)if I shoot Raw in adobe RGB and edit the photo in Lightroom judging the colors in my screen based on a adobe RGB capture but then for purposes of showing the picture on line I export it as an sRGB, would the color tones change? would the picture look different to me and the receiver than it was in Lightroom?
2)How do I know if my screen of a mac laptop 2014,Sierra, as an example is capable of reading adobe RGB images.
3) Sometimes for a photo contest they ask to submit a photo in adobe RGB, but if I shot the photo in sRGB is there any way to turn it in adobe RGB in editing or exporting it in adobe RGB, does make any sense? Thank you
I tried sRGB and AdobeRGB for print and the latter is the only way to go when I want to have on paper what I have on my (calibrated) monitor.
sRGB ever left me stranded and nearly insane.
How to pronounce 'Adobe'
th-cam.com/video/npp6ZF1L5-E/w-d-xo.html
Question, if your cintiq tablet can show 99% colors in srgb and 78% colors in adobe 1998, whats the point of using a color profile you cant see the best? I think having a color profile that match your monitor can be also of great use in reproducing same colors.
You say Adobe funny! First person I have heard say it like that! (BTW, not having a go about it. Before some keyboard hero jumps on me....)
After 4:50 the reasons to use Adobe RGB or sRGB.
I had learned from other TH-cam videos and websites that AdobeRGB was only for printing because nearly all displays show only sRGB and couldn't be changed to sRGB without color damage.
Now I have learned that is easy to downscale Adobe RGB thought photoshop to sRGB and have better results.
That's amazing Matt. 👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thank you very much. From now on I will change the settings of my Sony a7 to Adobe RGB.
Some questions:
Does the downscale of Adobe RGB in Photoshop to sRGB happens automatically when I save the photo to jpg?
The size of Adobe RGB raw files is equal or greater to sRGB raw files?
I like how he answered your question.
Sorry for not understanding properly, but if both are limited to 256,256,256 then what does it mean when you say AdobeRBG can capture more different tones?
Best explanation i've heard for this..thanks!
Nowadays I keep it simple sRGB. The printing companies print sRGB pictures anyways. That's what the rest of the population uses.
...and Intel was peed off that everyone was using gamma 1.8 'Apple RGB' on Macs! PS it's pronounced "A-Dobeee" as in the clay houses. Cheers David Myers in Sydney.
What if a laptop have this specifications? : 72% NTSC, 100% sRGB and 74% Adobe RGB
I just want a good laptop for video and photo editing and I just find out this about color calibration and my mind is going to explode!
You can simply understand that 72% NTSC is equal to 100% sRBG. 74% Adobe RGB it's already pretty good. That's good enough for you just do some photo editing when you are not a pro.
So while color grading adobe rgb is required to deliver videos to Netflix kinda platforms right?
Hello, you talked for printing and photography but what about cinema? Should I have to use srgb or Adobe rgb? Thanks a lot
My monitor after calibration shows 97% of srgb, so no point in shooting adobe rgb if I don't even know what it looks like right?
this is driving me bonkers. so i see a monitor thats 8 bit, has 100% adobe rgb.. then another thats 12bit, more expensive, and has 99.5% adobe RGB... surely the 12 bit one is capable of showing more colours i.e. adobe rgb!
12-bit monitors don't really exist unless you can find some Dolby Vision monitors with 200% NTSC 1976 C.I.E. color gamut coverage, have a static contrast ratio of 4,096:1, a delta value well below 1, and an areal illumination density of 4,000 nits (4,000 candelas per square meter). There's also that question of an output device capable of outputting native 4:4:4 RGB 12-bit video signals, I don't think even Quadros support that, maybe an SGI workstation from the '90s or '00s will, however.
I always export in ProPhoto. Any other profile makes the jpegs have different colours than what I see the pictures as in Lightroom. Weird, but I take it for granted: it's either ProPhoto, or bad colours.
As per usual Mr Granger, another excellent video. Your videos always have the info in need to help make a decision in Photography.
Does it make a difference when shooting RAW?? When I choose AdobeRGB in my Canon 600D, at least the file name is different. it's _mg_0001 instead of img_0001, which looks ugly. :D
No it shouldn't since RAW stores the sensor data directly.
Jacob Jexmark That's what I expected. Thanks.
The weird name is a problem in the Canon Software. I had this as well.
Indeed it doesn't matter what color space you use when you are shooting RAW.
If you plan to ship for the web (not printing), Why capturing and editing with Adobe RGB? Is there any advantages?
If you archive all of your work, the benefit of a wider Colorspace becomes apparent.
What if you DO want to print something sometime in the future? Who knows what Monitors, Printers, Phones will be capable of displaying. Maybe mainstream will advance to a better standard at some point, and as soon as you'd get used to it, all of your old sRGB photos would look more dull in comparison.
Good overview of sRGB vs Adobe RGB. I want to add that the color space setting on your camera only matters if you're shooting jpeg instead of raw.
That's not right. Check your files and you will see that you camera saves each raw file with a specific color space.
xXshishamastaXx But you can replace them when shooting RAW.
Great that you have addressed this as it is quite a big question but a bigger worm-whole than what you have touched on.
There is a very big error in this video and that is the difference between sRGB (8bit = 255 steps) and Adobe RGB 1998 (10bit = 1024 steps). 10bit is over 1.07 billion colours and 8bit is 16.58 million colours. The gamut is expanded due to the extra ability for 1024 setps of gradient in each colour channel to produce finer colour detail, ie.: more colours. The issue in Photoshop on PC is that it just stretches the UI elements over a larger number of gradient steps per channel. One other big omission in this video is for the people who send photo's out of Photoshop need to export instead of save as and experiment with the 3 types of colour space conversion algorithms to choose from to get the same result as the original. "Save As" does no colour space conversion and will result in wrong colour only on your client's monitor if you are working in any bigger than sRGB colour space.
Thanks for writing that. Anyone, please read and remember this information. 🙏
Thanks for you gratitude.
Photoshop has changed the save as since I posted this. Jpeg now converts to sRGB as far as I can tell. It still doesn't save the sRGB profile tag into the file metadata though.
If you decided to export as I suggest either convert colour profile or embed existing profile. I have had mismatch profile vs actual colour in the final Jpeg.
You may consider saving as either Photoshop file or layered tiff and using Adobe Bridge export function to convert & resize and rename all selected to desired format. The main advantage is bridge embeds the colour profile info into the output file in this case Jpeg.
If your workflow is Lightroom it too has an excellent export function.
Hope this helps.
I did not know TH-cam allows nudity.
Dissapointing.
hi matt, does Benq gw 2283 come with calibrated or without calibrated ?
Who is here in 2020?
Just to be clear no Browser supports sRGB by default. Ony Firefox can support sRGB and only if you enable it the configuration. But, and this is a big but. If you don't have a profiled monitor it doesn't matter jack, whether your browser supports any colour space. And once more for effect. IF YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE IS THE WEB VIA A BROWSER. YOUR BEAUTIFUL PHOTO WILL LOOK DIFFERENT ON 99.9999% OF SCREENS, UNLESS THEY HAVE A PROFILED MONITOR.
You say Adobe in a very odd way.
Argh! Colour space black magic.
256x256x256=24BIT Colour.
My camera is 12 or 14 bit (8000ish colours)
Does this mean I get huge gaps in my colour space?
I use colormonkey smile to calibrate my monitor but I have no idea what it can display.
So 0,125,125 sRGB is a different blue/ green to Adobe.
Why is my graphics card 32 bit which is loads of colours..
My head hurts.
Is that blue/gold/black/white dress sRGB, Adobe RGB, proPhoto. Bee uv spectrum??
I got a head ache
That's because there's sadly some confusion when it comes to the term "x bit graphics".
When we're talking about 24 bit or 32 bit graphics, the number means something else than when we're talking about 12 or 14 bit cameras.
24 bit graphics means in fact just 8 bits per color channel - so 256 possible values for red channel, 256 possible values for green channel and 256 possible values of blue channel, leaving you with 16.7 million of possible combinations.
32 bit graphics is actually exactly the same, once again you have just 8 bits per color channel and 16.7 million of combinations, BUT you also have additional 8 bits (24+8=32) for alpha channel. In other words, any of those 16.7 million colors can also have 256 levels of transparency. That's all the 32 bit graphics is - 24 bit graphics with transparency.
Now when it comes to 12 or 14 bit cameras, that number no longer represents the same value as before. Here it is meant as that "per channel" number. So your 14 bit camera can (in theory, at least) record not 256, but 16384 possible values for red channel, 16384 possible values for green channel and 16384 possible values for blue channel. When comparing with 24 bit graphics using the same terminology, your camera actually uses 42 bit graphics.
Now, as explained in the video, that RGB value is basically something like a map coordinate you use to identify the color you're currently working with. And since the area of the color space is fixed and has to be filled evenly by the RGB combinations you have available, it simply means that when using 14 bit (aka 42 bit) graphics, we have way more "coordinates" to work with, they are packed much closer together, allowing for much finer color resolution. After all, 8 bits per channel really isn't all that much, even if 16.7 million sounds like a lot. Try to work with some finer gradients and you'll soon find out it's really not, and you're quite likely to have to resort to tricks like dithering to hide the visible "steps" between the individual colors of the gradient, since the "color coordinates" are too wide apart. With 14 (42) bit color, this is not the issue. It's basically also the reason why we can do much more aggressive edits to our RAW photos, compared to JPEG (but it's a bit more complicated than that, there are more issues at play there).
And, if you ask me, we should've left 24 bit color behind a long time ago. It simply doesn't offer enough colors to work with. But alas, since pretty much all graphics cards and monitors are limited to 24 bit color max, we're stuck with it (and most likely will be for quite some time yet).
Martin Fiala Also JPEG is 8bit per channel, so there is some heritage in the most widespread output format that will keep many of us stuck with that color resolution.
And for all else, you are spot on, well explained!
Gerald Bonne I'd expect that would be remedied rather easily should higher color depth become the norm, coming up with some replacement file format shouldn't be that hard. Then again, it's also true we're still stuck with 256 color GIFs when it comes to animations, so maybe I'm just a bit too optimistic.
Considering the flood of imagery on the net now, we will be seeing a lot of jpeg for at least a decade.
+Martin Fiala great reply
THANK YOU FOR 5:43
Lol
Yall i am SOOOO confused i know nothing about this. Im trying to enter a photography competition, i shoot 35mm photos how does this apply?
It feels like everyones speaking another language ugh
Thanks for this simple and to-the-point explanation of colour spaces. It answered all my questions about colour profiles on my computer monitors, not only for photo editing but for graphic design and printing as well.
Don’t pros capture in RAW ?
Hey Matt and everyone in here. Great informative video, but I need some help and advice. Heres the story: I recently uploaded some edited images from my recent holiday to my Flickr account and I wanted to show the pictures to a friend on my iP 6 through the flickr app when I noticed that the colours was horribly wrong opposite to how they looked like on my Retina Macbook at the end of the processing. I shared the images with the people I travelled with and asked them if they saw the pictures the way I did, which they also did. They saw that the image colours and lighting varied on the different computers and devices they were using. If I compare these images on my mac and pc, they look very much the same, but my iP6 is still far away from correct, instead of warm looking photos, they were green´ish looking and very dark and cold. If I look at some other flickr´peoples photos, they look almost exactly the same on all my devices. Anyone else encountered this problem that can help? By the way- Both my screens haven't been calibrated, I'm out buying one tomorrow. Every help are very much appreciated. Thanks People
I liked your explanation, really simple
But I almost cry when you talked of "255". The word "channel" isn't useful when talking about color space. Only when talking about color digital management and storage and display it has meaning. RGB uses three primary COLORS not channels that correlate with how the front end of the retina perceives color. And 256 (because 000 it's still a value) it's only true when talking of 8bit depth storage of information and that's because of 2^8 = 256. Why 2? because a bit can be two values 0 and 1.
Adobe RGB is terrible for photography, plain and simple. It over brightens highlights, destroys the gradients between highlights, and adds color that was never really there to begin with. The only benefit of Adobe RGB is it has less color noise in shadows when you convert to JPEG, which you might not see in the RAW file, but can see in a converted JPEG as colored blotches in shadows. But with a few passes of color noise reduction it can be gotten rid of. I learned this the hard way, because I was using SRGB on my camera, but Photoshop was automatically set to Adobe RGB. So whenever I edited my RAW files in Photoshop, it effectively altered how the image looked, drastically.
What exactly is the "Adobe Spaces Helper Application" for? Every time I do repair disk permissions on my OS X Tim Apple machine, I get this code snippet in my system I do not want and I do not need.
I bet your shirt is not that colour in reality....sony?
Well my laptop (which is my primary computer) screen covers 99% sRGB and only 64% Adobe RGB, plus I'm not a professional photographer/editor/etc. so given tge fact that most printers are calibrated for sRGB anyway, it's preeeeetty unlikely that whatever I create will ever be printed profesionally on a printer that is calibrated for Adobe RGB. So for now it's a no-brainer for me which one I should use. Cool video though, very nicely explained :)
I am facing a strange issue thought I would check here.
There is an image i edited in photoshop on Mac, exported as sRgb , jpeg.
Now when i download the same jpeg image on windows machine, the image shows perfect color in the photo viewer. But when I open the same image in photoshop/ lightroom or Capture one or Affinity I see a sepia tone to it.
What should I change in my windows machine, so that I get consistent color across application. Just bought a new surface book 3, and this issue is making me nuts.
Check out most camera printing places and they all nearly ask for srgb output. I don't think there are many print labs that use adobe RGB profiling.
I know I'm late to the party, but for anyone who wants to jump on a 10bit (per channel) monitor (Eizo e.g.), make sure that your graphics card is able to do 10bit (per channel). Small hint: Most consumer graphic cards are not able to do that. That being said, does anyone know what graphic card Matt is using?
Adoab
Need help! After editing color correction in Adobe LR5 when i convert into Adobe CS6 for further edit in CS Photoshop color burst out. Which mean when i edit in LR everything seems to be okay but when i convert or tried to edit in photoshop color messed up.
I find it hard to believe we are still using 8-bit monitors while cameras are using 12 to 14 bit.
Absolutely no need to shoot in a higher colour space than your monitor can display if its only going to end up on the web.
What is more important for editing (regardless of display or usage) is to use 16bit with raws files.
It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. Degree in photography + thousands of hours.
Enjoy.
Now lets talk about PRO RGB please...
So, if I'll open RAW in AdobeRGB and edit it, and then convert it into sRGB I'll loose all the colors that extend over sRGB - am I right? So, there is no reason to use Adobe RGB if image will be converted to sRGB anyway, right? Cheers, thank you for video!
If that is the case when you say that if your only going to show online photos and not print use sRGB. Why do 96% of pro labs print in sRGB and not Adobe RGB.
This is why most AdobeRGB compatible monitors are 10 bit (true 10 bit or 8 bit simulating 10 bit) where each channel has 1024 points between minimum and maximum, that way the extra factor of 4 negates the Adobe RGB disadvantage of the larger gaps betweens tones
Okay 5:45 caught me off guard!
Just shoot RAW which had no colour space then convert to whatever you need down the line (sRGB jpeg etc).
Dose colour space affect noise ?? and what must i user if i want to do milky way shoot at night ?? ( i mean which colour space is better) also a bit off topic by is 50 mm 1.8 a better lense to capture that ???
Hi Matt, regarding about a printer and AdobeRGB, do a printer that has 3 to 6 ink color can print AdobeRGB color range?
Hey ! Some photographers says that if u shoot in Raw ," it doesn't matter what colorspace you decided in camera settings , you can change it in LR or PS" it that true ?
Correction: 8 bits = 1 byte = (256) [0, 1, 2, 3, ... 253, 254, 255].
So do I understand it right: If I shoot RAW, then it still makes a difference if I shoot sRGB or Adobe RGB and I will lose information if I use sRGB?
Is it normal for an srgb file jpg to be slightly larger than an adobe rgb file jpg exported from the same raw file? My srgb files are always a bit larger
Only still photography.
72% NTSC/CIE1931 vs 99% sRGB vs 85% AdobeRGB
for graphic video work
when I calibrate my monitor I need to save a ICC profile..so what happens if I use that ICC profile to edit ky pictures in photoshop? or do I need to edit in RGB89?
What if you do not have a Adobe RGB display? Should one then just use S RGB?
Hi Guy What Color Space from sRGB and adobe RGB which one the best for Photoshop and Lightroom Use.
I've been using SRGB this whole time but been considering shooting in Adobe RGB
Matt, its pronounced "ah doe bee"! mmkay! :-)
Great video Matt! I always wondered what is the best color space to use. I just changed my color space in my camera to Adobe RGB color space. I will shooting and editing my photos in Adobe RGB from now on. I would like to ask you Matt. What is the difference between Adobe RGB and profoto color space? Thank you Matt.
dear matt, do i need to use all the focussing point when shooting bird in flight
So argb has more colors?
I hate all the incompatibility issues between these 2 colour spaces. There is always a color shift between them in windows, instagram, Photoshop, other apps etc. I'm going to shoot just sRGB and that's it.
You can always output srgb after editing.
SRGB OR ADOBE SRGB BETTER WEDDING SHOOT?
Adobe
DCI-P3 (10bit) and Rec. 2020 (12bit) is the future.
All i heard was rgb
Just a question, why do so many photographers use macintosh os (which can only display 8-bit color, or 256 shades of a key color) when windows has the same editing programs, but is able to use 10-bit output(1024 shades of a key color) ?
***** For output, yes, but it's very nice to have during processing.
***** Eizo's can display that deep.
zvxcvxcz Post processing is done in memory with an even larger working space than ProfotoRGB. The OS does not matter (at least for Lightroom/Photoshop/CapturOne). You can restrict Adobe's products at import of your images into lower spaces, by default it is lower. One has to be aware of how to properly setup Photoshop and Camera RAW to actually benefit from it.
Gerald Bonne I know, I was just saying when it would be useful.
@114128245733607537383 the reason it seems like everybody uses Mac is because most videos are either from usa or uk or australia. The moment you go to other parts of europe, south america, the whole of asia, you'll see a lot nore Windows setups and comparatively much less macs.
@114128245733607537383 10 bit is more common in video post production where high bits help with clean chroma keying and more room for exposure adjustments without visible banding but in photography it's not that important. also, the whole signal chain has to be 10 bit which adds a lot to the cost of the monitor and workstation graphics, so most people just avoid the unnecessary hassle.
I know this is an older video but grateful that you made it. I needed to remind myself what the difference between these two color profiles are and I knew you'd do an excellent job explaining the concepts. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Srgb was created by hp and Microsoft not by hp and intel
Saw that 😉😏😏
Do you need Quadro (or anything of the sort) to be able to drive a monitor in AdobeRGB ? (assuming the monitor is wide gamut of course)
'shoot in adobe or srgb' I mean, shoot in RAW bro.
They only apply to Jpegs
Adohb
use ACES
Adoab
Adoab
From my studies in color space at my Arts university, I have to mention that either you or my professor is wrong.
As far as I know, It's best shoot to in AdobeRGB and edit in a bigger color space if you use Photoshop.
Photoshop enables you to change the values of your color in any value, therefore you can extend your colors outside of the color space which your camera captured and get better, fine tonality if you do so.
If you don't do it, you can loose tonality, because your colors essentially "hit" the border of your color space and blocking occurs.(blocking refers to "downsampling" at the border of the color space)
If you then downsample to a smaller color space you will eventually loose some tonality, but the downsampling will affect your tones more evenly.
Shoot RAW and it will not matter. Internally Photoshop uses a prorietary working space that is much larger anyway. After that it is just a matter of choosing your export format for the lab. For print... Justy print your PSD (from RAW) directly from Photoshop for least loss.
There is indeed an option (accessible in the camera raw module) to set up the import space. But internally all the stuff done by Photoshop is in the "undocumented" space that is much larger to be able to handle all transformations with the less loss as possible.
There is very little public knowledge about all of this. It is a shame because I see a lot of things showed to people on internet that make no sense as by default they have their setting configured to import their images in a lesser space (I think sRGB by default after a fresh installation, could be mistaken about this).
Cool vid...Thanks for the 2 the point explanation. My goal is to print, but the tricky part is that I do not want to print everything, but I do want the option. Now, I might just be being greedy. The Sony camera gives me the option to capture raw and jpeg. Not that I am newbie lazy photographer, but my logic is that there are some photos that I would want to spend time with developing/editing. There are other photos where I would want to do some minimum editing, but quickly be able to upload to fb. I said all of that to say....That it would be nice if I could save photos in both adobe and srgb just like I can for jpg and raw. I think ultimately as I get better at shooting, that I will shoot all raw and adobe and just output for the different purposes in lightroom. In either case, thanks for sharing your experience. Happy shooting....
You can just Set Your camera to sRGB and save in jpeg and raw as the colour space does only matter for jpegs. The raw image will have the maximum amount of colours anyway.
+Tatanan0 - Hi Tat, Thanks for the kind response. After some pain, I did finally end up just shooting raw 100% of the time. It turns out that I can switch to Adobe RGB in Lightroom when I get ready to do my print work.... Thanks again for your feedback.