SRGB vs ADOBE RGB - Color Gamut

flipflip Posts: 144Member
In reading about this (including Rockwell and others who think the difference is much about nothing), I have been experimenting particularly with "intimate landscape" images where you find a large range of greens, using both color schemes. Interestingly, I find Adobe RGB more pleasing with better shadow details, larger range of green tones, and slightly higher contrast. Many pros who print use Adobe as their default as there is larger color gamut and perhaps more detail. SRGB is recommended for consistency of appearance when posting on-line. Using NX-D I have not found a way convert one to the other. Perhaps with other SW? There are options to modify specific color channels using the histogram and sliders. Other than changing color temperature and hue sliders, I am not expert enough to know how to manage color changes except through experimentation.

Whether the differences are apparent enough in large prints is yet to be seen.

Anyone with any experience with Adobe RGB?

Comments

  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,648Member
    Does your print house handle Adobe? All the one's I've seen are SRGB only.
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    I use commercial labs for large prints who can print with either choice.
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 305Member
    What kind of monitor do you have? Are you color-managing it? (That is, do you have a calibrated display profile assigned to it?)

    If you have one of the newer larger-gamut monitors, images encoded in AdobeRGB are going to look better, as that profile is closer in gamut to most of them. But, for that magic to carry over to others, you need to make sure the AdobeRGB profile is embedded in the image metadata. And that only works if 'others' are color-managing their displays. If not, you're subject to the difference between what you encoded and what they can display, and it won't look right to them if their display is sRGB. The current advice regarding sRGB isn't just for web display, it's for providing images to anyone who isn't color managing, and likely to just have a sRGB display.

    The whole color thing has been a mess for years, and not realized because most folk just had sRGB displays. The new HDR/high gamut displays are now exposing that mess...
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 305Member
    Regarding printing, most print tech isn't past sRGB in gamut. In any event, the good practice is to embed the profile in which the image is encoded, and a good print house will use that to convert it to their printer's gamut using their calibration profile. Using AdobeRGB for that is prudent, if they have a really good (that is, better-n-sRGB) printer.
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    GG, Thanks for your knowledge. I have a newer 27" HP (within 2 years) and correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think calibration is necessary.

    Both Commercial printers I use print from Chromira and a large format epson inkjet (40"). The latter provides more detail and color gamut, while the Chromira is a more traditional photo printer with projection of the image onto photo sensitive paper (usually Fuji Archival). The relative qualities are quite different, and my choice depends on the type of image and color range.

    I will make sure to follow your directives when I deliver my 14 bit Tif files converted via NX-D. I am not sure if the metadata is available with these files, but will check.

    Thanks for your insight.
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 305Member
    flip said:

    GG, Thanks for your knowledge. I have a newer 27" HP (within 2 years) and correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think calibration is necessary.

    If a viewing program is color-managed, what it does is to extract the embedded profile from the image file and use that data to transform the image from that colorspace to the display colorspace. For it to do that, it needs a profile file with the display colorspace information. "Calibration" in this use is a bit of a misnomer, as what's really pertinent is "characterization". The display profile contains the characteristics of the display necessary for the viewer program to do the image color transform.

    Looks like you have equipment that can accommodate the likes of AdobeRGB without transforming. Just keep in mind that us poor folk are still on sRGB-class hardware... :disappointed:
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    You are no less diminished for not having the latest and greatest. Knowledge is a far greater achievement than having the best of anything material (and no my nickname is not Faust).

    Thanks for your insight.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,648Member
    Let us know if you think it is worth the extra effort. I did get an Adobe RGB capable monitor just in case.
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    So just completed a two day, seven hour rather exhaustive shoot of massive amounts of condensed wild sunflowers on a flood plain with mostly willow and sycamore trees in various structural forms surrounding. Used specialized landscape techniques including MUP, Shutter Delay, AFS, ISO 50-64 and apertures in the F11-F16 range = tripod use throughout. Focused therefore on various compositions including now reddish Swamp St. Johnswort as part of the layout. Wide lenses in the 20-28mm range predominated. Careful use of hyperfocal focus points allowed experimentation with apertures of F11, mostly with the wider lenses.

    There was no wind during those days due to rainy-overcast light (i.e. little to no atmospheric turbulance). Though a bit of a hassle to switch from Adobe RGB to SRGB and back, I did many comparisons. The results, though at times very subtle, did support my earlier findings that there is just a bit more differentiation (and apparent acuity) and perhaps more detail, mostly in the greens, with Adobe. The yellows were similar, but the greens shined more with Adobe. The slight contrast difference I found in earlier shoots was not quite as apparent this time.

    In a side by side comparison, I found the Adobe RGB to be preferable, and again, for most, the difference would not be noticeable enough even in a print.

    I was very pleased with the numerous good images which resulted, and will be using Adobe RGB whenever greens predominate in a scene (which for me is quite often).
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,319Moderator
    Are you viewing these on a monitor flip, if so, which one?
    Always learning.
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    HP 27" All In One.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,319Moderator
    So where are you seeing the difference in colours - on your monitor or on prints?
    Always learning.
  • flipflip Posts: 144Member
    Monitor only at this point. I will have commercial prints made in December after I have accumulated new fall foliage images.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,319Moderator
    sRGB displays 100% on a monitor so massively superior gamuts may be lost. I don't get why you are seeing such a difference on your monitor, maybe one of our more knowledgeable members will comment on this thread.

    This may help:

    https://blog.breathingcolor.com/guide-to-digital-printing-part-2/
    Always learning.
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 305Member

    sRGB displays 100% on a monitor so massively superior gamuts may be lost. I don't get why you are seeing such a difference on your monitor, maybe one of our more knowledgeable members will comment on this thread.

    This may help:

    https://blog.breathingcolor.com/guide-to-digital-printing-part-2/

    There are a few different ways for software/firmware to make the colorspace conversion from camera to display space. Some ways only mess with the colors that aren't in the display gamut and leave the others alone, other ways mess with all of them. And, there are different algorithms to choose from in both ways... So, it's possible to see some subtle goodness viewing an AdobeRGB image on a sRGB display.

    You're probably seeing better color gradation and separation in the AdobeRGB files at the expense of some image brightness. On a sRGB display, amping up the brightness would probably push some of that color goodness off the screen, so to speak. That's the key thing, you can't make one rendition that looks good on all displays. You either need to color-manage (embed profiles in the image, calibrate everyone's display), or do like the movie folk do and cut different rendtions for each projector type.

    Used to be easy when we could more or less count on everyone having a sRGB-class display; nowadays, not so much...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,257Member
    edited October 1
    If you have a good monitor that displays a greater range than sRGB, and have a good colour profile it’s fully possible to see a difference. If you do, working with the larger colour space is possible to see. If you don’t have that, what you see verse what you print could be an issue. Without knowing what panel is in that 27” HP AIO it would be impossible to know.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,648Member
    Yes the better photo monitors have Adobe RGB compatibility.
Sign In or Register to comment.