sRGB or AdobeRGB and WB issues

[gooseberry]

he's not exactly wrong, he just has very different opinions when compared to most photographers.
afterall, he's a pro-JPG professional photographer.

Actually, I'm not referring to his opinions on the use of sRGB and aRGB. He makes a couple of factually incorrect statements in that article. For example

"Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file."

 

[bigbun]

Actually, I'm not referring to his opinions on the use of sRGB and aRGB. He makes a couple of factually incorrect statements in that article. For example

"Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file."

ah i see, anyway i'm still very blur abt the sRGB, aRGB thingie.
i just like the way this Ken guy portrays his views and experiences in a light-hearted way without too many technical jargons.

 

[gooseberry]

ah i see, anyway i'm still very blur abt the sRGB, aRGB thingie.
i just like the way this Ken guy portrays his views and experiences in a light-hearted way without too many technical jargons.

Yeah, some of his articles make for a fun light-hearted read, but some of what he says can be misleading or plain wrong.

 

[ExplorerZ]

But provided whatever viewer you used to view your images are Adobe RGB friendly rite? I've tried some viewing softwares and they can't "take" Adobe RGB.

It's so ironic. You shoot in Adobe RGB cos yr cam is capable of it. You adjust in Adobe RGB cos it gives you a wider gamut than sRGB and the colors are lovely. But when you showcase the images for others to see, you have to throw colors away by using sRGB!

The Win XP browser sux. It ruins all my Adobe RGB. Read from a similar discussion in CS that Win XP will not display Adobe RGB?

theres nothing we can do about that... we can't control everyone to use a browser that are colorspace aware... i think even firefox ain't... my picture looks so dull in the browser.

 

[soonwah]

The statement, "Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file." is not wrong if you interpret it as Adobe RGB has a wider range of colors but are represented only by a RGB triplets, each in the range of 0-255.

In both sRGB and aRGB, each color is represented by a triplet of R,G,B, each having a value of 0-255. Hence, the number of colors represented by the triplet in sRGB and aRGB are equal to 256x256x256. However, the actual lightest green in aRGB can be lighter than the lightest green in sRGB. Similarly for the darker green in aRGB to be darker than the darkest in sRGB. Thus, aRGB is trying to squeeze a bigger range of greens into the same 256 values that the G component in a pixel can represent. As a result, the tonal change from say a green value of 200 to 201 will be show a bigger jump visually in a aRGB colorspace than in a sRGB colorspace. With the bigger tonal changes for each discrete value change, aRGB will appear less smooth than sRGB for portions of image that has continuous tonal changes. Hence, it may appear duller.
For more understanding, you may want to read the article in Cambridge-in-color.

 

[theRBK]

The statement, "Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file." is not wrong if you interpret it as Adobe RGB has a wider range of colors but are represented only by a RGB triplets, each in the range of 0-255.

In both sRGB and aRGB, each color is represented by a triplet of R,G,B, each having a value of 0-255. Hence, the number of colors represented by the triplet in sRGB and aRGB are equal to 256x256x256. However, the actual lightest green in aRGB can be lighter than the lightest green in sRGB. Similarly for the darker green in aRGB to be darker than the darkest in sRGB. Thus, aRGB is trying to squeeze a bigger range of greens into the same 256 values that the G component in a pixel can represent. As a result, the tonal change from say a green value of 200 to 201 will be show a bigger jump visually in a aRGB colorspace than in a sRGB colorspace. With the bigger tonal changes for each discrete value change, aRGB will appear less smooth than sRGB for portions of image that has continuous tonal changes. Hence, it may appear duller.
For more understanding, you may want to read the article in Cambridge-in-color.

:thumbsup: if you can undertand it...

if not, the bottom line is, until printing technology improves, sRGB is gonna be the best bet if you don't want to get confused...inkjet printers cannot print the full extent of aRGB, period

 

[Ansel]

...inkjet printers cannot print the full extent of aRGB, period

You are right, if we are talking about 100%, but from what I heard, a good pro inkjet printer can reproduce pretty much the whole AdobeRGB gamut. That's the whole rationale of using AdobeRGB if one is to manage one's own printing process using a properly profiled pro Inkjet.

 

[gooseberry]

The statement, "Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file." is not wrong if you interpret it as Adobe RGB has a wider range of colors but are represented only by a RGB triplets, each in the range of 0-255.

In both sRGB and aRGB, each color is represented by a triplet of R,G,B, each having a value of 0-255. Hence, the number of colors represented by the triplet in sRGB and aRGB are equal to 256x256x256. However, the actual lightest green in aRGB can be lighter than the lightest green in sRGB. Similarly for the darker green in aRGB to be darker than the darkest in sRGB. Thus, aRGB is trying to squeeze a bigger range of greens into the same 256 values that the G component in a pixel can represent. As a result, the tonal change from say a green value of 200 to 201 will be show a bigger jump visually in a aRGB colorspace than in a sRGB colorspace. With the bigger tonal changes for each discrete value change, aRGB will appear less smooth than sRGB for portions of image that has continuous tonal changes. Hence, it may appear duller.
For more understanding, you may want to read the article in Cambridge-in-color.

Actually that statement - "Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file." - is incorrect. Files do not contain colours, files just contain numbers. It's up to the output device to translate those numbers into colours.

 

[theRBK]

You are right, if we are talking about 100%, but from what I heard, a good pro inkjet printer can reproduce pretty much the whole AdobeRGB gamut. That's the whole rationale of using AdobeRGB if one is to manage one's own printing process using a properly profiled pro Inkjet.

but that would mean not knowing if some colours would be reproduceable or not...and having the headache of correcting colours to make it not as obvious, which in and of itself is a skill...I don't think everyone wants such a headache...those who don't mind can go ahead...just giving general advice

and really, current printers can't even print all of sRGB...really

 

[soonwah]

Actually that statement - "Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file." - is incorrect. Files do not contain colours, files just contain numbers. It's up to the output device to translate those numbers into colours.

The color values in a file are just numbers but the embedded colorspace setting, e.g. aRGB, maps the numbers to absolute color values in a CIE colorspace, which defines all the colors that a normal human eye can see. The output device only gives correct colors if the embedded profile is honoured and the device is calibrated/profiled.