All correct. Bit depth is very important. The Z9 sensor produces a 14-bit RAW, which guarantees no banding.
Adobe 1998 vs. sRGB
- Thread starter JoelKlein
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
If you try to open a raw file in Photoshop it will open it in ACR automatically anyway. Because ACR is the raw converter. ACR will use the largest bit depth and color space, so nothing is gained by changing your workflow to starting in Photoshop.
A raw file has to go through a raw converter, either Lightroom, or ACR, or NX Studio, or DXO Photolab or whatever. But Photoshop can't open raw files directly because technically raw files are not image files until they are exported using the raw converter such as ACR, which will turn the raw into a an image file type photoshop can open, such as a tiff or PSD or jpeg.
Last edited:
Agree. The only thing I suggest is avoiding JPEG unless there are space and computing power limitations.
Sure, I only work with RAW. Z8/9 doesn't even save jpegs on the card
I'm referring to your workflow. When you save from ACR and before you edit in PS, save as PSD or RAW, not JPEG. When you output from PS, JPEG is fine.
Anthony
Active member
Yes, it is important to select Convert to Profile, not Assign Profile, as the latter will produce strange results.
When creating a jpeg from Photoshop, there is no need to invoke ACR, instead use File>Save a Copy and choose your options.
I prefer to use TIFF rather than PSDs, as TIFF is read and edited by far more programs.
I bet you meant to say save as PSD or Tiff. I think though that the OP is trying to skip Photoshop most of the time and go from ACR to the final Jpeg. In that case if no editing is going to be done in Photoshop then the jpeg could be exported from ACR. But yes if there is going to be editing in Photoshop then tiff or psd gives a lot more leeway for future editing.
Last edited:
Yes. Thanks
Hi Joel
Just for the sake of terminology:
Just for the sake of terminology:
- Raw files can be expressed in any available color space. Some images have differences at the edges of a color space. It does not matter what color space you select in the camera, but AdobeRGB 1998 is normally the best option.
- During NEF conversion from a RAW file into a file for editing, you need to choose a color space. Normally you would use the widest color space available as a working color space. The reason is because your edits might push you into the edges of the color space or outside a given color space. Having a larger color space gives you more flexibility without reaching gamut limitations while editing.
- When you finish editing, you can output in the color space desired. Many printers and print houses can have equipment that can print beyond AdobeRGB. If you give them an Adobe RGB file, they can print it with the best possible quality. But some print houses prefer the simplicity of sRGB which has a narrower gamut. They can convert it to sRGB for you - and normally would - but if there are issues such as banding from conversion, it's better that you are able to see the issue and address it as needed.
- sRGB is the narrowest choice for gamut. It's the primary choice for web use because many devices display far less than 100% of sRGB. Relatively few people outside design and photography can display a high level of AdobeRGB. For clients, sRGB is the best format.
- Every device has a color space - your monitor, your printer, your client's monitor, your client's printer, and any device used to view the image. They are all different. I have recently had monitors ranging from 70% of sRGB to 100% of AdobeRGB, printers exceeding 100% of AdobeRGB, and software that can use AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB as a working space.
- Banding is usually the result of out of gamut image data. Your computer, monitor or printer tries to force the image data into the available space. If necessary it shifts adjoining data into a nearby space.
- With a large resolution file, you may see banding or moire in some output sizes but not in the full sized file. The process of resizing an image forces compromises in a color space. Sometimes you see banding or moire in one size that disappears in a different size or with a different setting for the resize algorithm.
- I want a RAW file for my records along with the edits.
- I want a Raw file to print from Lightroom, but a TIFF, PSD, or PST for most print houses. Those are output formats and I would use the color space they recommend.
- I want a JPEG for output of regular (not fine art) work for print houses and for sharing with clients. JPEG files are almost always sRGB.
- As Elsa described, if I provide large files to a client, they are normally a specific output size - usually 4000 pixels on the long edge rather than full size. I also provide a copy for web use sized at 1200 pixels on the long edge. These files would always be provided as sRGB.
- For publication in print ads or magazines, you may need to provide CMYK rather than RGB. Most printers or designers can convert from AdobeRGB or sRGB to CMYK.
Space or computing power isn’t the issue.
I just set ACR and photoshop to Pro Photo RGB (I found until now it was 1998 8 bit..)
Replytoken
Well-known member
If you are only creating raw files in your camera, then it does not really matter what you set the camera's color space to as raw files are no affected by the color space setting in the camera.
--Ken
Thank you! You summed it.
Basically I’m left with 2 questions:
1) Can my BenQ (photographers edition, which is full Adobe 1998) support ProPhotoRGB
2) where do I set in ACR to convert to TIFF, PSD, or jpeg?
P.s.
So far I’m uploading to WHCC jpegs saves from ACR at maximum quality 12 in Adobe 1998.
1) Should I send TITF’s to WHCC?
2) does it make a difference if its for a photo print or a bigger Fine Art?
Replytoken
Well-known member
No monitor has that range of gamut. Programs like LR Classic are aware of when you are out of gamut and can identify the areas that are. I do not know about PS, but would suspect so.
--Ken
Scroll down to the "Save a camera raw image in another format" section.
ACR like Lightroom can't do anything to the original raw file. It just saves a recipe for the edits you've made, but leaves the original alone. It doesn't output a new image file like psd, tiff, jpeg until you do the steps in the help section linked above.
Last edited:
Hi Joel
Check with White House CC about what file format and gamut they prefer. Print houses often can supply profiles for their specific printers and papers. In general, a TIFF is a normal output for most print shops and contains more information than a JPEG. The difference between a TIFF and a JPEG is small, but for large prints or fine art a TIFF has an advantage.
JPEG files are smaller and have limited data. They are 8 bit files with sRGB color gamut. TIFF files can be produced as 16 bit files in AdobeRGB. But check with your print shop because they may be converting the file for printing or they may not need the larger file. It's usually better to have accuracy even if it means a smaller file and less information in the file. Some shops say they accept certain formats, but their workflow and equipment involve conversion to JPEG or some other similar modification. What they really mean is they will convert the file as needed so it is optimized and problems are avoided.
For my event work I just outsource production prints through MPix (my site is hosted by Zenfolio). My event clients are not willing to pay for fine art print quality, and regular production prints from a JPEG are good enough. I'm typically spending under a minute or so for editing, and I'm not looking for the ultimate quality. Speed and customer service is very important. But when I provide higher end prints for fine art, large portraits, or framed work, I use my Epson printer and control the entire process - including additional editing if needed to optimize for the output. I'll make as many test prints as are necessary to make sure the final client print is what I want. My printer (and all recent pro level Adobe printers) is able to print beyond 100% of AdobeRGB, and it can show up as slightly richer colors, better colors in subtle areas, and smoother transitions.
It's always possible you can have a print that shows larger differences based on gamut, bit depth, paper profiles, and printers used. For fine art work I always make test prints and
When I last used WHCC in 2022 (before I bought a printer) they accepted sRGB or Adobe 1998, no TIFF. They have ICC profiles for most of their papers available for download for use in soft proofing. They will tell you the printer they use if you need to get an ICC profile from the paper mfg.
I have their ICC for soft proofing.
For the past 3 years I was sending them jpegs 12 (highest quality) in Adobe 1998, we were very happy with it. It looked exactly as we wished, and it looked the same on our BenQ’s monitors.
One question that I didn’t seem to get an answer yet, when I save the RAW to Jpeg and select sRGB, would it ‘convert’ or simply ‘change’ the profile? I don’t see any prompts about converting. (Like we see in PS)
Basically we need 2 files taken from a RAW 16 bit in ProPhoto RGB workflow and save as jpegs:
1) Adobe 1998 8 bit, for WHCC prints
2) sRGB 8 bit digitals for the client.
Coming from 20+ years of Music Studio engineering, I have mixed and mastered many albums. My NLE was Pro Tools in 32bit floating point. For final release I would have to use a tool call dither to convert it down to 16 bit.
I believe the same is happening in the world of photography and color. But I don’t see a word about it in ACR or Photoshop when we do Save As.
Also, what’s the point of working with ProPhoto RGB if my BenQ’s cannot display it? I should be better setting the workflow to 1998
Your printer might have a broader color space than any monitor does, so you don't want to discard that data.
Replytoken
Well-known member
If quality is an objective, or is at least important, you generally want to start and stay in the largest color spaces possible when working with digital files. In general terms, larger color spaces allow you more room to work with the file in post processing, and will tolerate more adjustments without negatively impacting the quality of the image. The moment you move to a smaller color space or lesser bit depth, you are now working in a smaller environment for post processing and with less information (if you switch from 16-bit to 8-bit, for example). Adjustments can possibly be less refined since you are working in a smaller space with less data. Think of the difference between working with a 45MP file and a 12MP file, for a more simple example.
Yes, monitors do not generally have the ability to display beyond Adobe RGB or P3, but software does have the ability to tell you when you are out of gamut. Could you work in an all sRGB environment (files, display and color space) and produce good images? Sure, but it is not as easy, and you have less choices in post processing, so you really need to be spot on and not expect the subtleties that might be available when you have more data and a larger working environment. For a very crude analogy, working in sRGB may allow you to make a really good hamburger, but working in a larger space would allow you to create things like roast beef or a big juicy steak topped with something delicious. It gives you more options to to more things.
I think a deeper dive into color management might be helpful to many of the questions that you have asked in this thread. It is not easy stuff to dig through, but it is helpful to the craft.
Good luck,
--Ken
It's a working space. Even if you can't see it, it prevents midstream out of gamut clipping that can affect an image. Since your output is as a narrower gamut anyway, ProPhotoRGB is better for a working space and you can use the narrower AdobeRGB and sRGB when you are done making adjustments for the output. Also consider that what is out of gamut for one paper profile may not be out of gamut for all paper profiles and printers.
Good info here.
So, this is where my brain is stuck..
I’m working in ACR in Adobe 1998 I can SEE all changes I’m doing because the monitor supports Adobe 1998. then send a jpeg with embedded profile to WHCC and I get a beautiful print.
Vs.
I’m working in ACR in ProPhotoRGB, I ‘can’t see’ when I’m leaving the boundaries of adobe 1998 into ProPhotoRGB because the monitor would not display it. ACR would know the sunset highlight’s isn’t clipping in ProPhotoRGB, but the Monitor won’t show it.
In other words: what happens with the out of gamut information when saving a JPEG from a wider color range Adobe 1998, to a smaller sRGB? Would - for example, the lips on the face shift color?
So, this is where my brain is stuck..
I’m working in ACR in Adobe 1998 I can SEE all changes I’m doing because the monitor supports Adobe 1998. then send a jpeg with embedded profile to WHCC and I get a beautiful print.
Vs.
I’m working in ACR in ProPhotoRGB, I ‘can’t see’ when I’m leaving the boundaries of adobe 1998 into ProPhotoRGB because the monitor would not display it. ACR would know the sunset highlight’s isn’t clipping in ProPhotoRGB, but the Monitor won’t show it.
In other words: what happens with the out of gamut information when saving a JPEG from a wider color range Adobe 1998, to a smaller sRGB? Would - for example, the lips on the face shift color?
Replytoken
Well-known member
Good question. The program can tell the monitor to "paint" the out of gamut (OOG) areas so you can see them. LR Classic does this when you soft proof an image. You can soft proof the gamut or against an ICC paper profile if you have the profile. The purpose is to tell you what areas of the image are OOG in the destination space. And there are two primary ways that an OOG image gets squished into smaller space - perceptual or relative colormetric. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. This article may help explain the differences better than I can: https://www.redrivercatalog.com/profiles/which-rendering-intent-for-inkjet-printing.html .
--Ken
The raw file doesn't have a colorspace . It's only when you export/save from ACR that you decide what color space. There is no converting needed because the photo doesn't have a color space to begin with in ACR since it is not an image file. ACR uses a working colorspace to render the image on the screen which you see in thst little link at the bottom. If you click that link you get a dialog of choices. but only when you export/save to an image file type does that saved file get an actual colorspace. So you are fine. I was wrong apparently when I said ACR must use prophoto, I always do so I assumed.
As to the monitor question, some people do indeed work in 1998 for the reason you give, and they do fine. The advantage to using prophoto is that you have some hidden leeway for editing that might come into play. Make sure you have Photoshop set to 16 bit, I think the default is 8 bit. This is in the menu Image/Mode
Hi Winston, I have a question. I'm obviously not a paid professional but am wondering about the business. Is there a tier of selling images where the client also buys the raw data for unrestricted
reproduction? I am guessing that everything in life is for sale so it must be done but I guess was wondering more of how common the practice is and your last response makes it sound like you know the business really well. Thanks.