No. It depends on your preference.sgfriend said:Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?
Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
sgfriend said:Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?
Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
Learn from the NG PRO :thumbsup:idor said:erm... I always use aRGB mode 2... so my answer is no..... but then I do know some pple who change modes according to their preferance... but you dun have to....
Why not share your thoughts on sRGB I, aRGB I and sRGB III ?Zerstorer said:If you don't have a good idea of colour management, leave it at sRGB I.
espn said:Why not share your thoughts on sRGB I, aRGB I and sRGB III ?
I do find it helpful, but in what cases would aRGB be good? I'm still pretty stumped, I do know from aRGB -> sRGB you don't loes anything but it would not let you gain anything if you went vice-versa.Zerstorer said:For you certainly.
sRGB I and sRGB III are nikon's colour modes in standard sRGB colour space.
(sRGB I) is biased towards smoother rendition of skintones and has a reddish hint.
(sRGB III) is intended for landscapes and will give stronger yellows and greens.
(aRGB II) Puts the jpeg output in AdobeRGB mode and this colour mode intended to give an accurate colour reproduction. This requires you to have a proper colour managed workflow and knowledge of profile conversions between image and output spaces before you decide to work on it.
When in doubt, stick to sRGB I for at least you will get people looking right.
Hope you find it helpful.
All these colour modes only influence the jpeg output of the camera. The aRGB modes are tuned by nikon to give as accurate a colour rendition as possible for an out of camera jpeg.espn said:I do find it helpful, but in what cases would aRGB be good? I'm still pretty stumped, I do know from aRGB -> sRGB you don't loes anything but it would not let you gain anything if you went vice-versa.
It's quite the opposite.I've had an hour long lecture from Watcher on this but still it boggles my mind. Seems to me that aRGB is more for web representation than printing whereby sRGB is still much preferred.
Ok, I got this part right. So for printing, am I still being outdated that aRGB's gamut is still wider and impossible to achieve as compared to sRGB's gamut?Zerstorer said:All these colour modes only influence the jpeg output of the camera. The aRGB modes are tuned by nikon to give as accurate a colour rendition as possible for an out of camera jpeg.
aRGB is a larger colourspace than sRGB and thus remapping/compressing the values down to sRGB is possible and still have a perceptually similar result with some loss of information.
Doing it the other way, simply expands the colourspace without any data to fill in what is missing and thus, no benefit.
I see, I get your point now, I've been mixing them up all along. Been thinking that aRGB is the de-facto standard for web browsing.Zerstorer said:It's quite the opposite.
sRGB is the arbitrary web standard. Images will only look reasonably right on the web when in sRGB colourspace. This is because sRGB was originally intended for a web workflow where there is absolutely no colourmanagement. This still holds today as no PC browser has colourmanagement and only certain Mac versions of IE and Safari have colour management to properly identify colour profiles.
Putting aRGB images on the web will simply make them appear dull, desaturate, washed out when view on browsers or any software that has no colourmanagement.
I presume you're talking about commercial printers that would be capable of the CMYK and other colourspaces that are way over what aRGB/sRGB can do?Zerstorer said:Adobe RGB or any larger colourspace is useful only when you are editing images and printing them on an output device that has a gamut larger than sRGB. Adobe RGB is capable of representing more hues and colours and would thus allow the printer to fully maximize its capabilities.
However, there is a tradeoff between colourspace and tonal graduations. Else everyone would be working in ProPhoto or WideRGB.
sgfriend said:Do we always need to change the color mode i.e. Ia sRGB for portrait or IIIa sRGB for landscape?
Do we need to switch the monitor display to the same mode as the camera as well as the software?
Depends on what you are printing from. Frontiers are still more or less sRGB bound. Most of the better inkjets have exceeded sRGB in many areas and approximate adobeRGB.espn said:Ok, I got this part right. So for printing, am I still being outdated that aRGB's gamut is still wider and impossible to achieve as compared to sRGB's gamut?
That's the beauty of it. The algorithm will attempt to remap and blend the colours such that you will get a SIMILAR looking print even when you go from AdobeRGB to sRGB.If I'm to convert aRGB to sRGB, wouldn't that result in a loss of information that would require me to reprocess the images? I've been converting aRGB to sRGB but I don't significantly find a difference after conversion from Nikon View (select-> right click -> JPEG) and PS (convert to profile). Am I doing something wrong or is it my eyes ? I do see differences when I select a different mode of colours in Nikon Capture.
Michael said:If you shoot in RAW then you dont have to worry about it at all.....