Author Topic: Just wondering what color space you shoot in? (Read 5301 times)

noodle · « **on:** October 12, 2012, 19:34 »

Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2012, 20:28 »

I shoot RAW, so the answer is neither

I use Lightroom 4 to create Adobe RGB 16 bit Photoshop images for processing. Only once have I run into major and visible problems when converting to sRGB for upload - with some deep turquoise seas from tropical beaches in Aruba. sRGB mangled those - you can see some diagrams that show clearly why those colors are an issue here

I optimize for getting the best result, not the fastest. Photojournalism shooters would probably care more about speed. I don't agree that with a well exposed shot you have any difference in the two color spaces that would amount to "way more time in post"

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2012, 00:24 »

Your Pro friend is way out. Saving time is of no importance here. Quality is what counts, shoot raw, Adobe RGB, some people even go to the extent of Profoto colorspace.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2012, 00:28 »

raw to prophoto for processing and then sRGB for jpg uploading

Poncke · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:38 »

My whole workflow is sRGB

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:39 »

Usually raw straight to sRGB. Sometimes I just do sRGB jpegs. I usually use aRGB from raw and jpegs for alamy, as that seems to be the preferred option for their buyers.

I don't think it makes a lot of difference. aRGB might be better for printing but I've never had a problem printing sRGB and the colours look much better on some sites.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2012, 03:17 »

most of the time, jpeg / sRBG colour space: time IS a concern when shooting for stock

sometimes, raw for more interesting shots or when the weather is really bad (I do mainly travel / architectural photography so I have little control over existing lighting)

humannet · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2012, 03:19 »

I shoot in RAW and edit and upload in sRGB

OM · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2012, 16:34 »

Old article on ProPhoto colour:

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/85/January%202005%20-%20ProPhoto%20or%20ConPhoto

Ed · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2012, 19:37 »

Shoot RAW, convert to sRGB. sRGB looks best on the computer screen (and has much more color vibrancy to buyers who are shopping for images).

noodle · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2012, 19:59 »

thank you all ...
i've never heard of the prophoto space, but I will do some research on that
appreciate all your feedbacks

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2012, 20:13 »

The Adobe gamut is larger but I think the limitations of today's monitors and printers mean the image's color space rarely if ever makes a meaningful difference. It might if you're using a high-end printing process and there are particular colors important to the image.

People who shoot big buck weddings might have something interesting to say here. These are the customers who would hold a piece of material from a bridesmaid's dress next to a printed photo and say that it doesn't match

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2012, 20:38 »

Quote from: noodle on October 12, 2012, 19:34

Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2012, 00:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2012, 20:38

Quote from: noodle on October 12, 2012, 19:34
Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.

. nice one! suppose old Ansel used Greyscale GGB.

JPSDK · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2012, 00:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2012, 20:38

Quote from: noodle on October 12, 2012, 19:34
Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.

I agree on that. I shoot jpg + sRGB, because thats what I sell. And why should I waste time on converting files.
However, I do sometimes use RAW, when the subject of the picture is more important than the quality, like it would be with photojournalistic documentaries.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2012, 03:27 »

raw these days does not take time. The raw converter and tools save time. If you shoot in a studio jgp sRGB is fine. For travel,sports and wildlife raw and a wider space as a starting point is a godsend. Likewise weddings, it is not controlled raw and a wide space give la
latitude.

rimglow · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2012, 09:29 »

Shoot Raw and convert to sRBG for the web.
I've posted this link before. Pretty much answers the question.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/srgbforwww.html

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2012, 20:38

Quote from: noodle on October 12, 2012, 19:34
Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.

+1 sRGB

noodle · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2012, 20:38

Quote from: noodle on October 12, 2012, 19:34
Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB

However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...

Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.

Thanks for your inputs

I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.

Ansel Adams wasn't stuck in the corner of his closet when he was shooting his great images, so I think I'll go with that...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Just wondering what color space you shoot in? (Read 5301 times)

noodle

Jo Ann Snover

ClaridgeJ

markrhiggins

Poncke

sharpshot

microstockphoto.co.uk

humannet

OM

Ed

noodle

stockastic

gostwyck

ClaridgeJ

JPSDK

markrhiggins

rimglow

RacePhoto

noodle

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors