Adobe 1998 vs. sRGB

[Bob Hullinger]

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

Geez, I'm almost able to understand everything you said!! Sure can learn a lot using Adobe for a year or so It also makes using good advice like yours way more practical to use know what you are talking about. I export multiple files depending upon the situation.

I kind of use the shotgun approach to export because the reality is I am clueless and wanted to cover all the bases so here's what I export when I really like an image.

A regular internet JPG for sites with size limits in SRGB sharpened on high for screen viewing.

A Display P3 color space JPG also sharpen high for screen viewing.

An sRGB PNG for screen viewing.

An sRGB PNG sharpening for the paper I will be printing it on if I am going to print it.

A Prophoto RGB color space PNG copy.

Later on after deciding a use for each image I delete all but the PNG and the appropriate JPG. If I fall in love with an image I keep the DNG but it eats gigs of drive space really really fast.

Some of the redundancy is due to me still learning how to size images quickly for various sites creating more presets. I am getting better but need all the advice I can get from folks like you.

Can you tell me more about what happens when I create the DNG exports? Am I correct that the original raw file exists within the digital negative along with newer copies after exporting? Is there a setting to change what is included?

As you can tell I am not an Adobe pro yet.

For example, I took a 57MB raw file from NXStudio over to LRC and after minor processing and exporting in DNG to the archive directory the file is now 183 MB. I have more studying to do on digital negatives but it seems like I read it keeps the entire original NEF intact along with everything Studio and Adobe does to it.

One last question I am curious about is do you know if I keep editing the original import will the DNG progressively get larger as change data is recorded ?

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

[Nimi]

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.

In commercial photography, where a client or an agency hires us for a shoot (an advert for example), absolutely, more the norm. Built into the contract. Perpetual, unlimited, paid-up, exclusive license. Copyright remains with the photographer but assigned.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

In commercial photography, where a client or an agency hires us for a shoot (an advert for example), absolutely, more the norm. Built into the contract. Perpetual, unlimited, paid-up, exclusive license. Copyright remains with the photographer but assigned.

Thx Nimi.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

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.

Bob,

A RAW file never leaves my hands.

I had my studio for several years and I specialised in fine art nude photography. Shoots were commissioned by clients who kept the digital records.
I photographed very high profile clients, some from abroad - and contracts meant I had very limited - if any, use of the images, and if I did, it was for my own marketing purposes.
My job was to photograph the client, produce 10-15 images in 2 folders: 1 folder with high res prepared for print, and 1 folder containing the smaller "thumbnail" version which would be the size you use to put it on your phone, Ipad, PC.
I never gave the client unprocessed images. All images that went out were finished off and the contracts included that clients were not allowed to touch the photos to make any edits, crops etc.

The scientific work I did had absolutely no value to any one else. I didnt have to even edit those - high res prepared for print handed over, Raw images kept in the event they lost theirs. It happened. Often

I also photographed art for national Galleries and international artists. What was I going to do with that? Can't even print it to hang in my own house. Colour corrections were done by me then handed over.

Stuff I photographed for magazines had to be handed over in digital format. How do you not do that.
What you charge for a photo/shoot/print is what the public is prepared to pay. If you are Ansel Adams - you might charge more than little me. It's all relative. My studio shoots were ridiculously expensive - so I was remunerated properly. At some point I was probably the highest paid studio photographer in the country.

Wildlife - those are only sold in print. But that is also the part of my business that makes the least money and costs me the most to do.

 

[EricBowles]

Here's a good video from Nigel Danson covering color space and a number of other aspects of editing for print and working with both print houses and your own printer.

One idea to add with licensing is to limit the time period. I typically license images for a five year period. If the client wants to continue to use the image for an additional period, additional licensing costs for the extension are spelled out in the contract. This generally applies to websites and potentially print and marketing collateral. Note that we are not talking about maintaining an archive that includes a digital link to an article published 6 years ago - this is for a new use or using on an ongoing basis on a website or for marketing materials such as a new design of a marketing brochure.

 

[EricBowles]

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

ProPhotoRGB is the working space for Lightroom and Photoshop. It's the widest space normally available. Your monitor is an output view but not a final view for any purpose. It resembles but does not match your AdobeRGB or sRGB outputs for clients. All of these versions of color spaces are not precise - 99% of AdobeRGB may mean 99% overall but 105% of the blues, 98% of the greens, and 101% of the reds on one monitor but a different mix on another. At the end of the day you need to produce a test image.

Every now and then there is a problem with color gamut that needs to be addressed, but normally the amount of the image affected by the missing 1-2% of the color space is insignificant. It may only matter on certain papers or with certain outputs. If you compress the image into a smaller space rather than at the end for a specific output, your software has the least flexibility to fit the colors in the desired color space. Just because you can't see a problem at a mid-process step does not mean you will have a problem at the end. The biggest issue for you is converting to 8 bit color at the end.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

Bob,

A RAW file never leaves my hands.

I had my studio for several years and I specialised in fine art nude photography. Shoots were commissioned by clients who kept the digital records.
I photographed very high profile clients, some from abroad - and contracts meant I had very limited - if any, use of the images, and if I did, it was for my own marketing purposes.
My job was to photograph the client, produce 10-15 images in 2 folders: 1 folder with high res prepared for print, and 1 folder containing the smaller "thumbnail" version which would be the size you use to put it on your phone, Ipad, PC.
I never gave the client unprocessed images. All images that went out were finished off and the contracts included that clients were not allowed to touch the photos to make any edits, crops etc.

The scientific work I did had absolutely no value to any one else. I didnt have to even edit those - high res prepared for print handed over, Raw images kept in the event they lost theirs. It happened. Often

I also photographed art for national Galleries and international artists. What was I going to do with that? Can't even print it to hang in my own house. Colour corrections were done by me then handed over.

Stuff I photographed for magazines had to be handed over in digital format. How do you not do that.
What you charge for a photo/shoot/print is what the public is prepared to pay. If you are Ansel Adams - you might charge more than little me. It's all relative. My studio shoots were ridiculously expensive - so I was remunerated properly. At some point I was probably the highest paid studio photographer in the country.

Wildlife - those are only sold in print. But that is also the part of my business that makes the least money and costs me the most to do.

Great information. You've had an interesting career for sure. Thank you. It seems that in 2023 anyone hoping to reach the level of success that you have achieved is in for a serious challenge. The real competitive element it seems in the photography market now isn't technical ability. Cameras that auto expose and release the shutter while the photographer is away having lunch, cover a lot of the technical challenges. The words it seems are most ignored, at least in online forums, is originality and style. The artistic ability to compose images that look interesting is what I think separates successful talented pros, such as yourself and many, many others here, from the pack of others that want to be just like you except by using algorithms instead of hard work, study and most of all putting in the time that you did actually using the gear to master the craft. Well done. Once again thanks for a great response.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

ProPhotoRGB is the working space for Lightroom and Photoshop. It's the widest space normally available. Your monitor is an output view but not a final view for any purpose. It resembles but does not match your AdobeRGB or sRGB outputs for clients. All of these versions of color spaces are not precise - 99% of AdobeRGB may mean 99% overall but 105% of the blues, 98% of the greens, and 101% of the reds on one monitor but a different mix on another. At the end of the day you need to produce a test image.

Every now and then there is a problem with color gamut that needs to be addressed, but normally the amount of the image affected by the missing 1-2% of the color space is insignificant. It may only matter on certain papers or with certain outputs. If you compress the image into a smaller space rather than at the end for a specific output, your software has the least flexibility to fit the colors in the desired color space. Just because you can't see a problem at a mid-process step does not mean you will have a problem at the end. The biggest issue for you is converting to 8 bit color at the end.

Not trying to step on Erics toes but here's a graphic representation and brief laymans explanation of the relationship of the various color spaces he mentioned from the Viewsonic website. https://www.viewsonic.com/library/photography/color-management-guide/ Hope it helps.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

My Quick Answer:

• WORK: in your favorite high gamut space (AdobeRGB)
• DELIVER DIGITAL: Convert (not just save) to sRGB and save as PNG, making sure to click the box to embed the ICC profile. Alternative, save to JPG if that's what they need, but do convert to sRGB first.

Chris

 

[Replytoken]

My Quick Answer:

• WORK: in your favorite high gamut space (AdobeRGB)
• DELIVER DIGITAL: Convert (not just save) to sRGB and save as PNG, making sure to click the box to embed the ICC profile. Alternative, save to JPG if that's what they need, but do convert to sRGB first.

Chris

If you work in LR Classic with raw files, convert (or assign color space on Export) and save are all wrapped up in the Export process.

And on a related note (which may have been said above, but bears repeating), keep your files and work flow in the highest bit-rate for as long as possible. So, for example, shoot 14-bit raw and only change to an 8-bit file format at the very end of your processing as needed.

--Ken

 

[JoelKlein]

My Quick Answer:

• WORK: in your favorite high gamut space (AdobeRGB)
• DELIVER DIGITAL: Convert (not just save) to sRGB and save as PNG, making sure to click the box to embed the ICC profile. Alternative, save to JPG if that's what they need, but do convert to sRGB first.

Chris

Okay,
I changed Adobe Bridge ACR, LRC, and Photoshop to ProPhoto. 16 bit.
Our Z8/9 is set to RAW only.

‘Convert’ is the magic check box I cannot find!
I searched in:
Output from Bridge (workflow)
ACR
LRC
And photoshop save as.

Let’s say in the above outputs when I’m “selecting” jpg sRGB it’s actually CONVERTING and dithering down to 8 bit.

How can I know for sure?
And which type of conversion does it use? Relative? Perceptional? Etc.
If I want to change the type of conversion, does updating photoshop color conversion settings effect ALL Adobe including Bridge, ACR and LRC?

 

[bleirer]

Okay,
I changed Adobe Bridge ACR, LRC, and Photoshop to ProPhoto. 16 bit.
Our Z8/9 is set to RAW only.

‘Convert’ is the magic check box I cannot find!
I searched in:
Output from Bridge (workflow)
ACR
LRC
And photoshop save as.

Let’s say in the above outputs when I’m “selecting” jpg sRGB it’s actually CONVERTING and dithering down to 8 bit.

How can I know for sure?
And which type of conversion does it use? Relative? Perceptional? Etc.
If I want to change the type of conversion, does updating photoshop color conversion settings effect ALL Adobe including Bridge, ACR and LRC?

In Photoshop it's Edit/Convert to Profile

In ACR check this out:

https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/camera-raw-color-spaces.html

So if you are going to open in Photoshop then in ACR you find the link at the bottom of the image that tells the colorspace of the current rendering, click that for a dialog of choices for converting. If saving directly from ACR, then there is a save options dialog box that you get when you click Save Image from the menu.

 

[JoelKlein]

In Photoshop it's Edit/Convert to Profile

In ACR check this out:

https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/camera-raw-color-spaces.html

I think I got it now. Its using the word CHANGE not CONVERT. Because Camera RAW doesn’t have a color space.

Lets say I changed within Camera RAW to a smaller space sRGB, I’m NOT throwing away all other colors that is out of the sRGB space, the info is still there, So it’s possible to change to a higher color space ProPhoto. Its all when it’s ‘saved’ that is when its throwing away all the other color information, and impossible to bring back to the new saved document.

But its not mentioning anything about 16 bit to 8 bit dithering.

C/p
When you open an image in Camera Raw, the color space of the rendered image appears in a link at the bottom-center of the Camera Raw window. When you click this link, the Workflow Options dialog box opens, and this dialog box is where you change the color space of the image, as well as the color space of the Photoshop document that displays when you click the Open button in Camera Raw.

If you select Save Image instead of opening the image into Photoshop, the Save Options dialog box allows you to change the color space rendered in the output image.

Camera Raw ignores the EXIF color space that is assigned in the camera.

 

[PhilcTx]

Lets say I changed within Camera RAW to a smaller space sRGB, I’m NOT throwing away all other colors that is out of the sRGB space, the info is still there, S

If you're referring to shooting in RAW - I believe when shooting RAW a camera's Color Space setting either sRGB or Adobe1998 is irrelevant and has no effect on the RAW file.

 

[bleirer]

I think I got it now. Its using the word CHANGE not CONVERT. Because Camera RAW doesn’t have a color space.

Lets say I changed within Camera RAW to a smaller space sRGB, I’m NOT throwing away all other colors that is out of the sRGB space, the info is still there, So it’s possible to change to a higher color space ProPhoto. Its all when it’s ‘saved’ that is when its throwing away all the other color information, and impossible to bring back to the new saved document.

But its not mentioning anything about 16 bit to 8 bit dithering.

C/p
When you open an image in Camera Raw, the color space of the rendered image appears in a link at the bottom-center of the Camera Raw window. When you click this link, the Workflow Options dialog box opens, and this dialog box is where you change the color space of the image, as well as the color space of the Photoshop document that displays when you click the Open button in Camera Raw.

If you select Save Image instead of opening the image into Photoshop, the Save Options dialog box allows you to change the color space rendered in the output image.

Camera Raw ignores the EXIF color space that is assigned in the camera.

When you click that link at the bottom of ACR there is a bit depth drop down in the dialog that pops up. If in Photoshop the bit depth can be checked or changed in the menu Image/mode. Also your color management settings can be found under Edit/color settings to tell Photoshop what to do with mismatches if any.

 

[EricBowles]

I think I got it now. Its using the word CHANGE not CONVERT. Because Camera RAW doesn’t have a color space.

Lets say I changed within Camera RAW to a smaller space sRGB, I’m NOT throwing away all other colors that is out of the sRGB space, the info is still there, So it’s possible to change to a higher color space ProPhoto. Its all when it’s ‘saved’ that is when its throwing away all the other color information, and impossible to bring back to the new saved document.

But its not mentioning anything about 16 bit to 8 bit dithering.

C/p
When you open an image in Camera Raw, the color space of the rendered image appears in a link at the bottom-center of the Camera Raw window. When you click this link, the Workflow Options dialog box opens, and this dialog box is where you change the color space of the image, as well as the color space of the Photoshop document that displays when you click the Open button in Camera Raw.

If you select Save Image instead of opening the image into Photoshop, the Save Options dialog box allows you to change the color space rendered in the output image.

Camera Raw ignores the EXIF color space that is assigned in the camera.

In Lightroom when you Export you simply select the file type and color space you want from the drop down.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

If the results from walmart are that different then keep an example of each around to show them during the shoot. Use it as a way to sell them prints that you prepare, or order from a trusted printer. Righty now walmart is taking a tiny piece of your profit while lowering your customers opinion of your work. That's a lose, lose scenario.

Very well stated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bleirer]

In Lightroom when you Export you simply select the file type and color space you want from the drop down.

View attachment 69388

A JPEG is always 8 bit, but if you save a tiff it does give you a choice of bit depth. Some of the print shops I use, for example Bay Photo will take a tiff but they want it 8 bit. Don't know why.

 

[JoelKlein]

You guys left us with no choice but to start using LRC… For exporting…
We can import all customers choices that goes to print and digitals which includes RAW & PSD files. I created templates for Adobe 1998 and sRGB, using Batch processing, its prompting to fill in the name of the client in for both files, and wolla, it creates 2 folders named appropriately.
Eazy pizzzy.

Working backwards, I’m trying to see if we can edit the RAW’s in LRC, But its so uncomfortable compared to Bridge and ACR.

Bridge has nice spacing between thumbnails, exif data below the thumbnails, all nicely UX layout.
ACR has nicely spaced adjustment sliders, easy to read and clear UX.
Vs. LRC which is tiny, hard to see sliders, squished thumbnails, with exif data overrunning the thumbnails. The info below the histogram is tiny. Its a pain to edit with it. The interface is horrible.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Bridge has nice spacing between thumbnails, exif data below the thumbnails, all nicely UX layout.
ACR has nicely spaced adjustment sliders, easy to read and clear UX.
Vs. LRC which is tiny, hard to see sliders, squished thumbnails, with exif data overrunning the thumbnails. The info below the histogram is tiny. Its a pain to edit with it. The interface is horrible.

Preferences-Interface-font size. Restart lightroom.

 

[JoelKlein]

Preferences-Interface-font size. Restart lightroom.

Yup. It’s getting bigger but not more roomy. Sliders are still hard to read.
But thank you anyway. Looks like Adobe wants to push its cloud based Lightroom. That get updated with a much cleaner interface

 

[bleirer]

You g

Yup. It’s getting bigger but not more roomy. Sliders are still hard to read.
But thank you anyway. Looks like Adobe wants to push its cloud based Lightroom. That get updated with a much cleaner interface

You get used to it. There is a lot of customization possible. For example which exif is displayed with the image and what order it is displayed.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I think I got it now. Its using the word CHANGE not CONVERT. Because Camera RAW doesn’t have a color space.

Lets say I changed within Camera RAW to a smaller space sRGB, I’m NOT throwing away all other colors that is out of the sRGB space, the info is still there, So it’s possible to change to a higher color space ProPhoto. Its all when it’s ‘saved’ that is when its throwing away all the other color information, and impossible to bring back to the new saved document.

But its not mentioning anything about 16 bit to 8 bit dithering.

C/p
When you open an image in Camera Raw, the color space of the rendered image appears in a link at the bottom-center of the Camera Raw window. When you click this link, the Workflow Options dialog box opens, and this dialog box is where you change the color space of the image, as well as the color space of the Photoshop document that displays when you click the Open button in Camera Raw.

If you select Save Image instead of opening the image into Photoshop, the Save Options dialog box allows you to change the color space rendered in the output image.

Camera Raw ignores the EXIF color space that is assigned in the camera.

I am posting this ahead of the text becasue I know it is a confusing issue:

This is where I learned what I typed to get me started. It was pretty simple after watching it.

I use "Copy to DNG" when I bring my NEF files to LRC. It converts them during the copy buy the only time I visibly see the word convert is when it finishes and a banner that says "X number of files have been converted to DNG". Same as when I bring them over to be converted to TIF (or whatever you choose). Conversion is a part of the porocess but I have never had to tell Adobe to do it independant of importing the files regardless of formats. I know it's confusing because I amstill confused alot of the time but here's a brief description of what I do now whern transering NEF to LR. It won't mater is it's LR or LRC. I connect to LRC. I select the memory card with my files (a pc directory with NEF files in it works too as a path to your raws). I then use the LR IMPORT button, select Copy as DNG from the right hand side of the top of the screen. All the selcted files are then moved to LR and converted to DNG. You can watch the progress bars on the upper left of the screen and it will show labels for what is happening when they are being copied, converted, etc.

One thing to note is that when you use the Copy as DNG there are dialog boxes that appear on the right hand side or the creen (at least on my screen) where you select things such as do you want the original NEF deleted or incorporated into the DNG along with all the side cares. DNG does not need sidecars becasue it enbeds them. NEF reqi=uires the side cars so if you save to DNG and save the raw within it the DNG file is massively large which defeats the purpose of using DNG.

One option you have in the preferences is to use lossy compression when creating the DNG. If you use lossy compression all of your original NEF will not remain intact.

 

[bleirer]

The way i see it a raw file is mostly a record of the numerical value of each monochrome pixel. One pixel recording x value for red, the next door neighbor x value for green, etc. So it can't have a colorspace because it's monochrome. Nothing to convert.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

Yup. It’s getting bigger but not more roomy. Sliders are still hard to read.
But thank you anyway. Looks like Adobe wants to push its cloud based Lightroom. That get updated with a much cleaner interface

I spent the weekend learning along with you. Here's a nice video. David Marx and Focus Photo School have tons of these videos and they can be viewed to take you through LR in a classroom format.