Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

[nickt]

The bottom looks slightly lighter overall to me on the laptop. Its a tiny amount, like .1ev
I think I prefer the top but its so close. Both are identical on the tablet. I saved them to the computer and opened with windows photo viewer. Identical and I would say both compare to the top photo. I opened in LR and again identical and perfect.

 

[Texas]

"If you post an Adobe RGB picture online, it will automatically be converted to sRGB. "
If true, looking at comparisons in this thread probably does not mean anything.

https://digital-photography-school.com/adobe-rgb-versus-srgb-color-space/

 

[hark]

The bottom looks slightly lighter overall to me on the laptop. Its a tiny amount, like .1ev
I think I prefer the top but its so close. Both are identical on the tablet. I saved them to the computer and opened with windows photo viewer. Identical and I would say both compare to the top photo. I opened in LR and again identical and perfect.

You're right. The bottom looks a tad lighter to me, too, now that I look for it.

This doesn't have anything to do with the Color Profile, but this is the method I used to batch process all of the PSD files to sRGB jpegs. Instead of creating an action within Photoshop, I used the Image Processor in Bridge that then sent the files to PCC for conversion and saving as sRGB jpegs.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/processing-batch-files.html

 

[Blade Canyon]

"If you post an Adobe RGB picture online, it will automatically be converted to sRGB. "

While that may be true for certain platforms (like Facebook or the Nikonites board software), I'm not sure that every website or photo host does that. And if they do, the whole point about saving your pic in sRGB is for that very reason, otherwise AdobeRGB gets washed out in the conversion process.

But I just looked at the Flickr album I posted earlier on an older Samsung tablet, and the sRGB is much more vibrant, so there must be some difference in the two color profiles, yet the pics in this thread look identical on the same tablet.

 

[Texas]

It is not the website that does the sRGB conversion, browsers do it.

Web browser color management guide

 

[hark]

Here is another comparison. The first image was done as Adobe RGB. The second is sRGB. I have an entire folder of car show photos that will require converting. I did batch processing one time for resizing but haven't ever done it to change my color profile. 126 images is a lot, and I don't want to mess this up.

View attachment 299548

View attachment 299549

I am having a huge problem with clipping blacks in the leaves after I convert the file from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I am sharing a Dropbox link to the original unedited NEF in hopes someone might be able to explain how to keep the colors saturated in sRGB while not clipping the blacks. The original NEF is underexposed while the leaves in my edited files above are too light.

Any comments and/or suggestions on how to resolve clipping the blacks will be greatly appreciated. I have an entire folder to edit so I need to figure this out. :shame: To the naked eye, the colors were very saturated and lighter than they appear in the NEF but darker than they appear in my edited jpegs.

A huge part of the issue is caused by clipping in the color saturation. But even when I dial back the saturation, it doesn't stop it...and only makes the image look blah.

@Horoscope Fish any help will be appreciated. You've run into this same problem. I just haven't been able to figure out how to resolve it. There is little to no clipping in my edited file when saved as Adobe RGB. But no matter whether I convert to sRGB at the beginning of editing or at the end, the leaves are filled with clipped blacks. Please remember this file is shot in camera as Adobe RGB.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fi21b4fwvvep4lv/_DSC7685.NEF?dl=0

 

[Blade Canyon]

I'm actually surprised with that. The bottom one *should* be the more vibrant of the two if there is any difference in color. Hmm....

Just to make sure I wasn't imagining it, I used the Snipping Tool to do a screen grab, then loaded that in PS to move the two docks closer together. As you can see, the top one is the more vibrant (the deck wood is warmer, the greenish cast on the concrete pilings is greener) but maybe that is a function of your JPEG processor turning out the bottom one a shade lighter.




ETA: Now that it's been uploaded and re-displayed through this website, the difference is not so noticeable as it is on the original screen grab.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I am having a huge problem with clipping blacks in the leaves after I convert the file from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I am sharing a Dropbox link to the original unedited NEF in hopes someone might be able to explain how to keep the colors saturated in sRGB while not clipping the blacks. The original NEF is underexposed while the leaves in my edited files above are too light.

Any comments and/or suggestions on how to resolve clipping the blacks will be greatly appreciated. I have an entire folder to edit so I need to figure this out. :shame: To the naked eye, the colors were very saturated and lighter than they appear in the NEF but darker than they appear in my edited jpegs.

A huge part of the issue is caused by clipping in the color saturation. But even when I dial back the saturation, it doesn't stop it...and only makes the image look blah.

@Horoscope Fish any help will be appreciated. You've run into this same problem. I just haven't been able to figure out how to resolve it. There is little to no clipping in my edited file when saved as Adobe RGB. But no matter whether I convert to sRGB at the beginning of editing or at the end, the leaves are filled with clipped blacks. Please remember this file is shot in camera as Adobe RGB.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fi21b4fwvvep4lv/_DSC7685.NEF?dl=0

Hi Hark...

I've downloaded your raw file and I'm looking at in ACR right now. One thing I notice is that your raw file opened in 8-bit mode. Is there some reason you're NOT working in 16-bit mode when processing raw files? Up to you of course but I thought I'd ask.

Okay, so if the issue is the clipping of the Shadows (and all that clipping is in the Blue channel, by the way) try using the "Camera Flat" profile and changing the White Balance to "Daylight". Once I did that there was a decent amount of headroom on the left edge of the histogram. I was able to play around with the sliders a bit (I added some Exposure and Saturation), still without clipping the Shadows. I then added a little vignetting (because I think it needs some). Using the option "Paint Overlay" option in the Vignetting menu killed those specular highlights which you may see as a good, or a bad thing. Using the "Hightlight Priority" option leaves the specular highlights... Well, specular. Please don't interpret anything I've done as trying to tell you how to process your shot, I'm just trying to show there's some room to play without blowing out the Shadows after using the Camera Flat and Daylight white-balance adjustments.

After playing around a bit I exported the raw to PhotoShop and converted my workspace to sRGB... Still no clipping:

Hope this helps!
......

....................
........

 

[hark]

Hi Hark...

I've downloaded your raw file and I'm looking at in ACR right now. One thing I notice is that your raw file opened in 8-bit mode. Is there some reason you're NOT working in 16-bit mode when processing raw files? Up to you of course but I thought I'd ask.

Okay, so if the issue is the clipping of the Shadows (and all that clipping is in the Blue channel, by the way) try using the "Camera Flat" profile and changing the White Balance to "Daylight". Once I did that there was a decent amount of headroom on the left edge of the histogram. I was able to play around with the sliders a bit (I added some Exposure and Saturation), still without clipping the Shadows. I then added a little vignetting (because I think it needs some). Using the option "Paint Overlay" option in the Vignetting menu killed those specular highlights which you may see as a good, or a bad thing. Using the "Hightlight Priority" option leaves the specular highlights... Well, specular. Please don't interpret anything I've done as trying to tell you how to process your shot, I'm just trying to show there's some room to play without blowing out the Shadows after using the Camera Flat and Daylight white-balance adjustments.

After playing around a bit I exported the raw to PhotoShop and converted my workspace to sRGB... Still no clipping:

Hope this helps!
......
View attachment 299769..........View attachment 299770..........View attachment 299771
........

Thanks, Paul. I will look more into the info you posted and play around with it when I have time. I don't know why my file is opening as 8-bit for you. It opens at 16-bit on my Windows 7 laptop. Is there a camera setting I need to change? I thought my D750 was set for 14-bit NEF.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Thanks, Paul. I will look more into the info you posted and play around with it when I have time. I don't know why my file is opening as 8-bit for you. It opens at 16-bit on my Windows 7 laptop. Is there a camera setting I need to change? I thought my D750 was set for 14-bit NEF.

Well here's a shot of ACR and the Workflow Options link is showing your raw file opened as an 8-bit, aRGB file on my end. Camera Raw uses 8-bit mode by default. I updated my ACR to use 16-bit mode by default, though... Unless a recent update maybe screwed that up (?!). Ugh... Now I'm going to have to double-check things on my end. LOL... It never ends!
......

......
.....
Maybe something got lost in the download, but I'd suggest you click on the Workflow Options link and make sure you're defaulting to 16-bit:
......

 

[hark]

Well here's a shot of ACR and the Workflow Options link is showing your raw file opened as an 8-bit, aRGB file on my end. Camera Raw uses 8-bit mode by default. I updated my ACR to use 16-bit mode by default, though... Unless a recent update maybe screwed that up (?!). Ugh... Now I'm going to have to double-check things on my end. LOL... It never ends!
......
View attachment 299772
......
.....
Maybe something got lost in the download, but I'd suggest you click on the Workflow Options link and make sure you're defaulting to 16-bit:
......
View attachment 299773

Mine seems to open as either Adobe RGB 16-bit or sRGB 16-bit. It depends which one I used last and will open as that. And PCC is also set to 16-bit, too.

Thanks for your help. When I have time, I will definitely try out your previous suggestions. The lady who asked me to take the car show photos asked if she can use this last car image. The man who owns the car wanted some photos with trees. It wasn't part of the car show although his car was in the show. He and I both agreed she can use the image. She is going to create a book for the participants to buy if they wish. She wants to use this car/leaf photo as a cover for the book--and have it wrap around from the front cover to the back. She said she'll flip the image so the car is facing the correct direction. Thanks again, Paul.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Mine seems to open as either Adobe RGB 16-bit or sRGB 16-bit. It depends which one I used last and will open as that. And PCC is also set to 16-bit, too.

Okay, cool... Probably just something in the transfer from Dropbox.

Thanks for your help. When I have time, I will definitely try out your previous suggestions. The lady who asked me to take the car show photos asked if she can use this last car image. The man who owns the car wanted some photos with trees. It wasn't part of the car show although his car was in the show. He and I both agreed she can use the image. She is going to create a book for the participants to buy if they wish. She wants to use this car/leaf photo as a cover for the book--and have it wrap around from the front cover to the back. She said she'll flip the image so the car is facing the correct direction. Thanks again, Paul.

You're more than welcome.

 

[hark]

I copied the NEF multiple times and did many edits but kept clipping my blues. When I did it Paul's way, it was fine except for the lack of contrast. But no matter how I tried to add contrast, my blues clipped.

So I deleted everything--after all, it was getting confusing having so many files! :shame: Then I went to ACR and converted the file to sRGB right away. One of the problems I encountered was clipping blues after doing the aRGB to sRGB conversion at the end.

Once converted to sRGB, I toggled through all the ACR profiles. The one I chose was Adobe Landscape. This one along with Camera Flat that @Horoscope Fish mentioned were the only two that didn't clip the blues. Initially I chose Daylight as my White Balance but dialed it back slightly.

Then I did the majority of my editing in ACR before heading to PCC. The only thing I did in PCC was to remove the long scratch on the asphalt. This is my edit that has no clipping. How does it look to everyone? There might not be as much of a red color cast overall, but I tried to keep the leaves darker than they were in the original edit. I shot over 60 photos that day...most of them in this location and hope to give the car owners around 15-20. Before I attempt editing any others, I want to be sure this one looks okay. Then I can use it as my reference.

ORIGINAL EDIT from a few days ago:

NEW EDIT without clipping:

 

[hark]

This first image is from my second slot which is set to jpeg. It's Adobe RGB simply resized for the forum. No editing done. There is clipping of both the whites and blacks.

And this is the image converted to sRGB and edited mostly in ACR. I had to lower the red luminance to stop the whites from clipping in the tree. There was also some black clipping in the tree that I eliminated by using an adjustment brush.

 

[hark]

Here is a slightly different question. I uploaded the following image to Facebook then saved it to my iPhone. When viewing the image on my phone (even when looking at it via Facebook), the colors look lackluster; however, on my PC the colors are somewhat vibrant. So then I sent the saved iPhone image to my PC for comparison. The colors look almost identical to the original--of course the resolution is different due to FB and iPhone compression. Does anyone else see differences in colors when using your cell phones? This isn't the first time I've seen it. Unfortunately neither image below looks the way it looks on my phone.

Photo saved to iPhone from Facebook:

Original PC shot resized for the forum:

 

[nickt]

I see a difference in my phone pictures and computer. Opposite to your problem. My facebook pics look too vibrant on my cell phone and tablet. I have to be careful on things like sunsets, birds and bugs where I push the colors a bit. What looks good on my monitor looks like I went way too far on the handheld devices. Both are Samsung. I don't have anything Apple to compare. They still look over saturated if I just email them to my devices and eliminate FB. I chalked it up to Samsung making everything look more vibrant. I found this when I was reading, maybe useful:
Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices (and how to fix them) - Analog Senses

 

[hark]

I see a difference in my phone pictures and computer. Opposite to your problem. My facebook pics look too vibrant on my cell phone and tablet. I have to be careful on things like sunsets, birds and bugs where I push the colors a bit. What looks good on my monitor looks like I went way too far on the handheld devices. Both are Samsung. I don't have anything Apple to compare. They still look over saturated if I just email them to my devices and eliminate FB. I chalked it up to Samsung making everything look more vibrant. I found this when I was reading, maybe useful:
Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices (and how to fix them) - Analog Senses

It's an interesting article, Nick, but it says iPhones are set to display sRGB, not Adobe RGB. Since I was having problems previously, I still shoot in Adobe RGB but edit everything as sRGB. So my images should look the same on my iPhone as they do on my PC since all my jpegs are now sRGB.

 

[nickt]

This color stuff is tough. Sometimes I miss the days of just dropping the roll of film in the mail and waiting. At most I'd have to think about kodak vs fuji.

 

[hark]

This color stuff is tough. Sometimes I miss the days of just dropping the roll of film in the mail and waiting. At most I'd have to think about kodak vs fuji.

Same here! Kodak was my preference with the exception of Velvia (slide). When Kodak stopped making a lot of its film, that's when I started with Fuji. I used to mail to Clark Color Laboratories until they messed up 2 different orders. Both orders were the only times I sent highly unusual subjects. For one, my family went to Penn's Landing for a boat ride. I shot an entire roll of ships with colorful flags. Then another time my mother and I went to see many stone bridges as well as covered bridges in northern Pennsylvania. Both times Clark's mailed me a few really bad images of someone's family. All they offered was their own roll of film and a voucher for free processing. Didn't even get a refund.

A couple of the local store labs (CVS and Target) used Fuji for processing. The colors were very different than when I used Kodak processing. Even when I used Kodak film, the Fuji processed prints were more green while Kodak were more blue. So even back then, there were differences with color film processing.

Days of old are long gone. I'd agonize over what images to take. It would take a while just to finish up one roll of 36 images because I didn't want to waste my money on taking just anything. There were even times I'd drop off a roll of film that wasn't finished since the local stores charged by the number of actual prints.

Now we live in a society of instant gratification! Learning can be accomplished faster with digital technology. Results are immediate and free in the sense there isn't any cost for film or processing. But I'm glad I learned photography during the dark ages. It forced me to think about what I was doing because I didn't want to pay for lousy images. :encouragement:

 

[nickt]

Great memories! A couple of times Clark sent me negatives chopped through the middle of a frame and corresponding useless prints. They were cheap though. I used to save all the envelopes with the best prices on them. York too.