Go Back   PhotographyCorner.com Forums > ohenry

Conversation Between ohenry and JonMack
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
  1. ohenry
    March 29th, 2010 05:29 PM

    There's nothing wrong with using AdobeRGB at all, but there is a tad bit of clipping that's outside of your monitors capablities. Processing with sRGB in 8 bit is like trying to put 27 crayons back into a box made for 24.

    If you're shooting RAW, there is no color space assigned until you process the file. I process my RAW files as 16 bit ProPhotoRGB files at 360dpi as my output option. That is how the file will be saved or the format when it is opened in the editing program (i.e. Photoshop). I stay in this format until I have completed all of my tonal edits (unless I have to change to use a specific profile that doesn't like 16 bit). After I've done all of my edits, but before I sharpen, I save my file with all of the layers as a master file (generally PSD or TIFF format). Then, using I'll use that master file to do the final output edits. If I'm going to print the image, I crop and/or resize to size, then sharpen, flatten image and print it. For color space and bit size, you need to refer to your printer. If they want 8 bit sRGB, convert it as such before saving the file. (If you're saving as .jpg format, you'll have to go to 8 bit, regardless of color space. I normally print my own prints and keep my format as ProPhoto 16bit, but many will tell you to convert to AdobeRGB 8bit. Works either way from my experience with my Epson, although 8 bit is faster somewhat. Bear in mind that your output will convert the color space to the printer profile anyway.

    If going to the web, I take the master image, resize, reduce dpi to 72 (although this is not an issue for the web, it's just habit), change to 8 bit sRGB, sharpen for web, and flatten the image and save as .jpg.

    Remember that when you shoot RAW, the camera settings for WB, color space, saturation, contrast, and sharpness are not factors (per se) and are all set in your RAW conversions software. If you're shooting JPG format, then you are limited to the color spaces your camera offers (although you can change that in software later). It really doesn't do much good to take an image that has a narrow color space (sRGB) and convert it to a wider space, although it may if you're doing some pretty major pixel bending...better to start with the wider space for editing and convert downward later. The problem with doing serious pixel bending in smaller color spaces, like sRGB, is that you greatly increase the likelihood of banding and posterization due to the limited color availability.

    Hope that helps and doesn't confuse the issue even more :) Feel free to ask for clarification on any point that isn't clear. I do tend to ramble when I write replies and sometimes I forget what I wrote :D

  2. JonMack
    March 29th, 2010 11:50 AM
    Hi Carl,

    You've mentioned Pro Photo several times as your choice of color profile. I'm using Adobe 98 primarily because it is my instructor(s) choice for project files. I know you've have recommended sRGB for posting on the web due to browser limitations.

    I've recently started using Pro Photo on some of my photos. Amazing the increase in color - sometimes way to much color. When do you suggest inserting P.P. into the process. It's almost as if they need to be used as the initial camera profile (which my camera doesn't offer as a choice) so that I can properly post process them in Camera RAW.

    Should I insert 1st thing after Camera RAW and then try and tone it down?

    Anyhow thanks for all you do on this site.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.