# Adobe Color Space?



## d200_4me (Jan 15, 2008)

I decided to switch to Adobe color space instead of sRGB in-camera (shooting RAW, Nikon NEF).  Is it just me or do the photos REALLY liven up in Lightroom when it sees you're using Adobe color space?  It sure does seem that way to me but I haven't tested it.  I never use Adobe color space, but SHOULD I if I plan on using Lightroom as my main program to convert the NEFs?  And I assume once I export, export to the common sRGB for compatibility on the web, etc?

Pardon me if these are dumb questions.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jan 15, 2008)

It's not a dumb question, but the color space selection in-camera has no meaningful effect if you're shooting raw.

For exports destined for the web, yes, it's got to be sRGB.


----------



## d200_4me (Jan 15, 2008)

I know you can change the setting after the fact when shooting raw, but I was just curious if you did leave it set to adobe color space, does Lightroom take advantage of that in any way.

I did a quick test - not very scientific, but I shoot the same subject with both adobe and sRGB (in-camera setting), using a white balance card in the scene to get the white balance good and then checked them out in Lightroom as raw files.  I swear the adobe color space shot left as is looks slightly better than the sRGB color mode III.  I even exported both shots to sRGB JPGs and the adobe color space shot still looks slightly better.

Am I crazy or is there something to this?


----------



## DonRicklin (Jan 15, 2008)

Raw has no Color space, and no LR does not read and use what is set in the Camera.

Don


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jan 15, 2008)

d2''4me said:


> Am I crazy or is there something to this?


If those are the only choices, then you're crazy.


----------



## d200_4me (Jan 15, 2008)

With Nikon Capture NX, I can go into the raw file and tell it to use Adobe RGB or sRGB and you can watch the image change real-time. So that's what I mean by does LR read that the camera had Adobe RGB set when the photo was taken. I do realize raw is just raw and you can change the color space afterwards. But again, Nikon Capture for example lets you change the "in-camera" setting afterwards (before saving or "exporting" to JPG) to Adobe RGB, sRGB color mode I or sRGB color mode III. Know what I mean? So I was just wondering if LR took advantage of the Adobe RGB color space since LR is after all an Adobe product. 

Never mind


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Jan 15, 2008)

d2''4me said:


> With Nikon Capture NX, I can go into the raw file and tell it to use Adobe RGB or sRGB and you can watch the image change real-time. So that's what I mean by does LR read that the camera had Adobe RGB set when the photo was taken. I do realize raw is just raw and you can change the color space afterwards. But again, Nikon Capture for example lets you change the "in-camera" setting afterwards (before saving or "exporting" to JPG) to Adobe RGB, sRGB color mode I or sRGB color mode III. Know what I mean? So I was just wondering if LR took advantage of the Adobe RGB color space since LR is after all an Adobe product.
> 
> Never mind


Lightroom uses a version of prophotoRGB (called melissa) as it's internal space. This is wider again than aRGB and is used, I believe, as it is more suited to 16 bit files and probably the 32 bit and 64 bit applications.
Nikon is the only one that can use the in camera settings the same as other manufacturers do I understand.


----------



## Mick Seymour (Jan 16, 2008)

d2''4me said:


> I did a quick test - not very scientific



For a controlled test, try to take exactly the same photo using both settings.

Mount the camera on a tripod and set exposure manually so that it doesn't change between shots. Set WB to suit the scene (not to Auto). Take two shots, one in Adobe RGB and the other in sRGB.

Import both into Lightroom with no develop presets applied and compare them in survey view.

If they do look different, check that Lightroom hasn't calculated a different WB temperature and tint setting for them as this should be the only variable. It shouldn't if they are taken in exactly the same conditions. If it has, firstly adjust WB to be the same on each photo and see if they now look the same. Secondly, run the test again to see if Lightroom consistently sets WB one way or the other for the different in camera colour spaces. Again, it should not happen but....


----------



## d200_4me (Jan 16, 2008)

I'll try to setup a more controlled test when I have time.  The more I think about this though, I'm wondering if there may be no real difference if you end up exporting the photos as sRGB anyway.  I suppose if I were wanting prints using Adobe RGB, I could be sure to find a printer that accepts Adobe RGB files but to make life simple and so I don't have to remember the Adobe RGB vs. sRGB stuff when printing, it's just easier for me to stick with sRGB for anything I may print or stick on the web.

I think my big question all along has been - now that I know more about the subject - if you're exporting to sRGB anyway, is there even a reason to use Adobr RGB in camera when shooting raw?  When the export to sRGB takes place, are you gaining anything having shot the photo in Adobe RGB?  I know Nikon Capture can then change the "as captured" color space after the fact so you can see what the 2 different color spaces look like on the screen...but so far I've not seen any way for Lightroom to do that.  You can of course EXPORT the file to sRGB, Adobe RGB and ProPhoto...but I can't see a way to change it while editing the photo in LR to see what the differences look like before exporting.  If there's no way to change it like you can in Capture (while editing, before exporting/saving as different color space)...then I guess there's no point in using anything other than sRGB from start to finish if I'm going to export as sRGB anyway.  Confusing subject, I know


----------



## Bruce J (Jan 16, 2008)

d2''4me said:


> I think my big question all along has been - now that I know more about the subject - if you're exporting to sRGB anyway, is there even a reason to use Adobr RGB in camera when shooting raw?  When the export to sRGB takes place, are you gaining anything having shot the photo in Adobe RGB?  I know Nikon Capture can then change the "as captured" color space after the fact so you can see what the 2 different color spaces look like on the screen...but so far I've not seen any way for Lightroom to do that.  You can of course EXPORT the file to sRGB, Adobe RGB and ProPhoto...but I can't see a way to change it while editing the photo in LR to see what the differences look like before exporting.  If there's no way to change it like you can in Capture (while editing, before exporting/saving as different color space)...then I guess there's no point in using anything other than sRGB from start to finish if I'm going to export as sRGB anyway.  Confusing subject, I know



D2,

The raw image is the raw image is the raw image.  It's encoded in the raw file as the data come off the sensor.  All of the camera settings that change the look of a jpeg image from the camera are merely metadata.  In camera changes to the color, contrast, sharpness, etc. have no impact on the raw data.  If you shoot raw, they are only hints to the raw processor.  If the raw processor chooses to use the hints for its initial view of the image (Capture NX), then they will appear to affect the raw image, but all that's really happening is that the raw processor is using some of the metadata to adjust its default settings.  If the raw processor chooses to ignore the metadata (LR), then you will not see any changes in the initial image view, no matter what changes you make in camera.  

With a raw workflow, it's all about what you are able to do after the image is in the processor, not what the initial view looks like.  Using LR, your raw image is translated directly to a large color space (Melissa) for internal processing.  This preserves all of your options for future use of the image: cram it into sRGB for web use, print it directly from LR, export it in a large color space for external printing, etc.  With that workflow, your in camera color space setting is ignored.  Hope that helps a bit,


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jan 16, 2008)

If you're shooting raw, _it doesn't matter_ what you set the colorspace to in the camera.  It just sets some metadata in the raw file, which Lightroom will ignore.

(In some cameras it may also make a subtle change to the filename, and may affect the embedded JPEG thumbnail/preview generated by the camera for display on the camera's LCD display.)


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 16, 2008)

d2''4me said:


> I'll try to setup a more controlled test when I have time. The more I think about this though, I'm wondering if there may be no real difference if you end up exporting the photos as sRGB anyway. I suppose if I were wanting prints using Adobe RGB, I could be sure to find a printer that accepts Adobe RGB files but to make life simple and so I don't have to remember the Adobe RGB vs. sRGB stuff when printing, it's just easier for me to stick with sRGB for anything I may print or stick on the web.
> 
> I think my big question all along has been - now that I know more about the subject - if you're exporting to sRGB anyway, is there even a reason to use Adobr RGB in camera when shooting raw? When the export to sRGB takes place, are you gaining anything having shot the photo in Adobe RGB? I know Nikon Capture can then change the "as captured" color space after the fact so you can see what the 2 different color spaces look like on the screen...but so far I've not seen any way for Lightroom to do that. You can of course EXPORT the file to sRGB, Adobe RGB and ProPhoto...but I can't see a way to change it while editing the photo in LR to see what the differences look like before exporting. If there's no way to change it like you can in Capture (while editing, before exporting/saving as different color space)...then I guess there's no point in using anything other than sRGB from start to finish if I'm going to export as sRGB anyway. Confusing subject, I know


 
You are touching on a lot of topics in this post, more than I can respond to in a short amount of space.  Yes, you can go sRGB all the way.  It is the common denominator.  But, you lose future potential once you hit sRGB.  Its true that not everything related to digital images can take advantage of large gamut color spaces (hence sRGB is a common denominator), but technology is constantly changing, and it is very possible that more devices (e.g. monitors and printers) will be able to take advantage of the increased (and visible) color gamut.  So, if you think that you might want to take advantage of what the future may offer, you may want to keep a copy of your photos in RAW or DNG so you do not loose what you initially caputred.  Once its gone, its gone.

I do not have time to touch on what happens when you move from one color space to another (both positive and negative), so perhaps somebody else may want to chime in.

--Ken


----------



## d200_4me (Jan 16, 2008)

Ok...to keep the reply simple, I'll just say thanks to everyone that replied - especially the last few replies.  I got it now


----------



## Yzerguy (Feb 18, 2008)

I was going to start a new topic on this but found this thread on a search & decided to bump it as it's fairly relevant to my topic and a few of you will likely remember it.

I am shooting RAW more and more as I get comfortable with LR, so it appears the choice of Adobe vs. sRGB color spaces (in-camera) is getting to be a moot point, which is what I was researching.

Something that just occured to me: how would the in-camera color space choice (adobe or sRGB) affect how histograms are rendered in-camera, if at all?  I mean, considering RAW files aren't affected by color space in-camera, if the camera renders a jpeg preview on the camera display, are we evaluating the exposure of jpeg or the RAW file when looking at in-camera histograms versus what we would see in LR?

I hope that makes some kind of sense...

Cheers, Sean


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 18, 2008)

You are quite right Sean, it will affect the in-camera histogram which is rendered based on the preview jpeg (and is also therefore affected by picture styles, contrast settings etc).  

In reality, it won't make a huge difference, but you'll notice the reds may appear blown earlier when set to sRGB than AdobeRGB, so you'll get the most helpful histogram from the largest colour space available.

To get a clearer idea of the difference, open a file in ACR and look at the histogram - and watch it change as you try different colour spaces.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Feb 18, 2008)

Yes, the in-camera color space setting is used to render the embedded JPEG preview.  The embedded preview is displayed on the back of the camera, and is used to calculate the histogram.


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 18, 2008)

*Some very good points in this thread*

I think another question that anyone should ask them self when considering which color space to use in their workflow is, "Why do I want to use this colorspace?" Is it because it the latest and greatest and I just want to stay current? Is it because my printers response curve is able to handle the wider gamut? (not likely unless you spent as much on your printer as your camera) After you define what your needs are, then you should be able to determine your color space requirements. 

Most people share their photos through the web and never even get their shots to print. In that case, unless you have an image tag associated w/ the image *and* are using an ICC compliant browser, such as Safari or FF3 Beta. It doesn't matter what your color space is. Because you have NO CONTROL over what the viewer sees. And even if you ARE using one of those browsers, if your gallery is flash generated, Flash doesn't work in a ICC color compliant environment. So to say this again: If your viewer uses ANY browser besides the two above mentioned. Their browser does not understand a color profile if it is attached. So even if you user the best color space on the planet. It won't mean anything since their browser will render the data the best way it sees fit (which is non ICC compliant).

If your shooting RAW as your supposed to (IMO). Determining color space is is a non issue since you have all the tonal information in it's raw format. If you choose to change your color managed workflow from sRGB to Adobe sRGB or even to ProPhoto. Just change your color space workfolw and re-output for consumption. The noticeable difference to the human eye will be almost unnoticeable unless your a color geek and make a living off it. 

With that being said, unless you want to spend an excruciating amount time studying a rather dull topic (unless color space management is your thing). I'd subscribe to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) philosophy. That term is not intended to offend, it's merely just saying that unless you have a valid reason for changing color spaces. Why change it to something that could possibly make your life so much more confusing. And please learn from my past mistakes. It can be very painful.

The only reason I know half the things I know is I decided to go ProPhoto w/o really understanding what I was doing. Then I was blindsided by the truth that (and bad colors) that I didn't need a "better" color space. All I needed was a simple color managed workflow. An added benefit of this is if something goes South in my workflow. There are unlimited resources to help me figure out my problems.

You also want to know what bit depth you want to work in even before you determine what color space  you work in.

Just my .'5


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 18, 2008)

SloYerRoll said:


> I think another question that anyone should ask them self when considering which color space to use in their workflow is, "Why do I want to use this colorspace?"


Very legitimate question everyone should ask themselves.
And HERE are some enlightnening answers that may help.


----------



## Yzerguy (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks for the replies everyone, you've answered a question or two...  which leads to more questions (naturally!).

From Jon:



> ...when considering which color space to use in their workflow is, "Why do I want to use this colorspace?"... Is it because it the latest and greatest and I just want to stay current?...



For now almost all of my workflow output will be for the web, although I do want people (myself included) to have the option to print down the road as the mood strikes.  Prints would likely come from a lab and would not be done by myself or any friends/family/clients themselves (speaks to sRGB).  That will likely change in time to wanting to print myself, but not anytime soon, I have a lot more learning to do.

As for why I was wanting to (consider) using Adobe in-camera, quite frankly I saw it there on the camera and thought "I'm using Adobe software in my workflow, so should I be using this color space when shooting RAW?" and then came across this thread.

From Victoria:



> In reality, it won't make a huge difference, but you'll notice the reds may appear blown earlier when set to sRGB than AdobeRGB, so you'll get the most helpful histogram from the largest colour space available.



That makes sense to me, thanks Victoria.  It would seem I'm better off shooting in Adobe in-camera instead of sRGB (remembering that I'll have to convert back to sRGB on export rather than rely on profiles) to get a better idea of exposure in the field.

That said, given most of my work will be for the web and will therefore be exported as sRGB, I'm wondering if I'm maybe better off leaving my camera set to sRGB to evaluate exposure?  

I realize that the histogram on the camera will have little bearing on what the final output will be after I edit the RAW files -- I guessing what I may be missing is the connection between what I see in LR (and/or PS) histograms and what I may be clipping once exported under sRGB (jpeg), apologies if my questions (logic?) have/has some holes.  I also realize that histograms aren't the be-all-end-all and that there's quite a few other technical factors to consider, not to mention personal taste and/or subjective factors as well.

I'm afraid I know just enough at this point to ask some pertinent questions, but don't know enough to keep myself from making some basic mistakes.

I start a 6 week night course on PS next week -- while it's not a LR course (there aren't any in my area), I'm also using PS and I'm hoping I'll learn a few of the broader concepts that will let me understand not only LR and PS and how they are related, but also post processing and more about photography in general as well.

Back to Jon:



> You also want to know what bit depth you want to work in even before you determine what color space you work in.



Yes, I'm vaguely aware of bit depth, but don't know enough to speak to it, yet (maybe later tonight!  ).  I'm doing my best to research all of this in a methodical manner, but at some point I decided I better just jump in and start mucking about a bit with real examples.  With more 'net research, a course, some books and practical examples and experience, I'll get there, and then (try to) help others.

From Denis:



> Very legitimate question everyone should ask themselves.
> And HERE are some enlightnening answers that may help.



I understood some of that Denis, thanks for the link.

Something that is concerning me now is remembering to think about how to achieve the best possible shot when I'm actually taking the photo, instead of thinking about how I'll adjust it after the fact.  I think there's a balance between the two that we're all continually striving for, but for now I appear to be focusing on learning more about this new computer, new software, and how they figure into my workflow, given that I've recently decided it's a good thing to be working in RAW.

Cheers, Sean


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 19, 2008)

Sean, you're grasping the idea really well!

I would still be inclined to set the camera to AdobeRGB, even though you'll later be outputting to sRGB, as you'll likely be editing the file in LR before output anyway.  There's not a definitive answer, and if you pick the other, it's not going to be the end of the world.  Unless you're pushing the ends of the spectrum, it's not going to be a huge difference.  It'll give you a slightly more accurate idea of what the file actually contains.  

When you're later processing in LR, just remember not to push the reds to clip, as if they're showing as clipping on LR's histogram, they will almost definitely clip when output to sRGB.  You'll get a feel for it in time, but opening a few test files in ACR and trying the different colour spaces will give you a good idea of how far you can push an sRGB file.


----------



## Yzerguy (Feb 20, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> You'll get a feel for it in time, but opening a few test files in ACR and trying the different colour spaces will give you a good idea of how far you can push an sRGB file.



Thanks again Victoria,

I realize you mentioned this same thing earlier in the thread, but I didn't wrap my head around it until just now -- I'd explain why it didn't take until now, but I'd put everyone to sleep.

I'll work with the Adobe color space for awhile and do as you've suggested with ACR, see how it all works together.

Cheers, Sean


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 20, 2008)

No worries Sean, I didn't realise I'd already said it!!


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Lightroom uses a version of prophotoRGB (called melissa) as it's internal space.


Hey Victoria, great comments and everything is spot on. 

I just wanted to let you know there's a common misconception that Lr uses a version of the ProPhoto color space. There is only one ProPhoto color space. Anything with a different response curve is not ProPhoto and most likely a non documented color space. 
The color space that Lr uses is an Adobe proprietary color space (code name Melissa:cheesy has a gamut is very close to ProPhoto, hence it's being associated w/ ProPhoto.

This post isn't intended as a correction. Just to inform:cheesy:

All the best,


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

Sean, this post isn't intended to add confusion to your questions. It's just to clear up a recommendation I don't feel is best for  your workflow. 





Victoria Bampton said:


> I would still be inclined to set the camera to AdobeRGB, even though you'll later be outputting to sRGB,


Hey V,

I'm a bit confused why you'd direct someone to purposefully use two separate color spaces. 

_If your not shooting RAW (which I don't recommend in the first place, since Lr treats RAW images like jpegs (from the UI perspective) and only provides more editing latitude).

_ If you know how to manage color spaces you can do this without running into any problems. Later down the road if Sean decides to change his workflow and creates undesired results. Using two color spaces will just convolute the problem and make it more difficult for him to troubleshoot ir get help. Most likely he'll be directed to just switch over to a 1 color space workflow. 

While I know more than enough to be dangerous on this subject. I'm by no means an absolute authority. I'm open to hear why you'd recommend this.


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

Yzerguy said:


> Yes, I'm vaguely aware of bit depth, but don't know enough to speak to it, yet (maybe later tonight!  ).  I'm doing my best to research all of this in a methodical manner, but at some point I decided I better just jump in and start mucking about a bit with real examples.  With more 'net research, a course, some books and practical examples and experience, I'll get there, and then (try to) help others.


This article should clear up any questions you have about the different bit depths:
http://staging.digitalphotopro.com/tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html


----------



## d200_4me (Jan 15, 2008)

I decided to switch to Adobe color space instead of sRGB in-camera (shooting RAW, Nikon NEF).  Is it just me or do the photos REALLY liven up in Lightroom when it sees you're using Adobe color space?  It sure does seem that way to me but I haven't tested it.  I never use Adobe color space, but SHOULD I if I plan on using Lightroom as my main program to convert the NEFs?  And I assume once I export, export to the common sRGB for compatibility on the web, etc?

Pardon me if these are dumb questions.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 20, 2008)

SloYerRoll said:


> Hey V,I'm a bit confused why you'd direct someone to purposefully use two separate color spaces.



Sean was asking about the differences that the colour space had on the histogram, and the AdobeRGB setting will give a histogram closer to the raw file's histogram he'll see in LR.  Sean's rapidly getting a good understanding of the differences in colour spaces, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it.  So you're quite right, for anyone who doesn't understand it, stick to a single colour space.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 20, 2008)

SloYerRoll said:


> _If your not shooting RAW (which I don't recommend in the first place, since Lr treats RAW images like jpegs (from the UI perspective) and only provides more editing latitude)._


 
You had this statement in Italics. Is it a quote that you have pulled, or are you emphasizing this point? If its the latter, then I am a bit confused by it because in an earlier post you stated, 





> If your shooting RAW as your supposed to (IMO). Determining color space is is a non issue since you have all the tonal information in it's raw format.


 Am I misunderstanding something?

--Ken


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

Replytoken said:


> Am I misunderstanding something?


Hey Ken, 

I only put that in italics since I was emphasizing the point. I tried putting it in a quote, then it looked like I was quoting something that wasn't a quote.. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense, but I'll be happy to clear up anything I made confusing:



> If your not shooting RAW (which I don't recommend in the first place, since Lr treats RAW images like jpegs (from the UI perspective) and only provides more editing latitude).


I'm saying that you should shoot RAW.


> If your shooting RAW as your supposed to (IMO). Determining color space is is a non issue since you have all the tonal information in it's raw format.


I'm saying that you should shoot RAW.

These comments are only intended to emphasizes that you should shoot RAW so  you only have to worry about color management from pp to consumption. This just removes the worry about camera settings.  Since the OP wanted to know about color management from camera to consumption. I posted the rest of my comments.

Does this make sense or am I making this more confusing?


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 20, 2008)

Hi Jon,

It was the double negative that threw me!  Yes, what you have said is consistent and makes sense.  Sorry for the confusion.

--Ken


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

Replytoken;85'' said:
			
		

> Hi Jon,
> 
> It was the double negative that threw me!  Yes, what you have said is consistent and makes sense.  Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> --Ken


No worries.:cheesy: As you can see my grammar vastly outweighs my lighting and  color space knowledge

If it wasn't for spell check, you guys would have migraines after reading my posts. Actually, I probably wouldn't be a presence in any forum if spell check didn't exist..


----------



## DonRicklin (Feb 20, 2008)

SloYerRoll;85'5 said:
			
		

> No worries.:cheesy: As you can see my grammar vastly outweighs my lighting and  color space knowledge
> 
> If it wasn't for spell check, you guys would have migraines after reading my posts. Actually, I probably wouldn't be a presence in any forum if spell check didn't exist..


You should see my bosses writing. Dyslexic to the Max! Can't even use spellcheck, wouldn't know which spelling to use. Has a Ph.D. though!  Memos from him can be a challenge to read! BUT HE GETS PAID A LOT more than I do!

:shock:

Don


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 20, 2008)

DonRicklin;85'7 said:
			
		

> You should see my bosses writing. Dyslexic to the Max! Can't even use spellcheck, wouldn't know which spelling to use. Has a Ph.D. though!  Memos from him can be a challenge to read! BUT HE GETS PAID A LOT more than I do!
> 
> :shock:
> 
> Don


It's a shame I'm self employed.. The only person I can ask for a raise is me.


----------



## Yzerguy (Feb 21, 2008)

Woah, leave you guys alone for a day and all heck breaks loose :lol:

Seriously, thanks Victoria, Jon and Ken, I've learned some more.

It appears that some of my comments have added fuel to debate (confusion?) between Victoria's and Jon's comments.  To summarize and clarify where my (newb) position is between both of them:

The spirit of my original question was:  given I'm shooting mostly RAW (which renders the decision of which color space to use in-camera a non-decision), what bearing does my choice of color space (in-camera) have when I'm evaluating exposure via histograms (again, in camera).

Victoria provided observations that using the Adobe space in-camera would render slightly more accurate histograms that  would also more closely match what I would see in LR.

That said, I did start moving the conversation a bit from camera to PP, specifically:



> ...I'm better off shooting in Adobe in-camera instead of sRGB (remembering that I'll have to convert back to sRGB on export rather than rely on profiles) to get a better idea of exposure in the field.
> 
> That said, given most of my work will be for the web and will therefore be exported as sRGB, I'm wondering if I'm maybe better off leaving my camera set to sRGB to evaluate exposure?
> 
> I realize that the histogram on the camera will have little bearing on what the final output will be after I edit the RAW files -- I guessing what I may be missing is the connection between what I see in LR (and/or PS) histograms and what I may be clipping once exported under sRGB (jpeg), apologies if my questions (logic?) have/has some holes. I also realize that histograms aren't the be-all-end-all and that there's quite a few other technical factors to consider, not to mention personal taste and/or subjective factors as well.



I think this is what Jon picked up on when commenting that I may be better off sticking with one color space, likely sRGB, given that I'm still new to most of this -- in that context (I believe) your points are very valid Jon.  

Victoria, thanks for the vote of confidence, I do have a better grip on all of this and in theory should be okay working in two different spaces...  more so after I take your suggestion to look at a file in ACR with different spaces to learn how to find the limits between the two.

In the name of (more) clarity, here's the "but":

I like the idea of shooting RAW in the Adobe color space for evaluative purposes....  Okay, so now I have some shots on my camera that I'm happy with (exposure, composition, focus, etc etc)

Now I move my raw files into LR and edit away.  RAW lets us change all manner of things and the original in-camera histogram really doesn't amount to much anyway now, except for the whole notion that I think learning to take better photographs should start when shooting the photo and then tweak later -- and FWIW, I'm not going to suggest that notion is an argument to shoot JPEGs instead of RAW files.

More fuel:  So I've edited my files in LR (or PS, or NX and back to LR) and I'm ready to export to sRGB.  

BUT! From Jon's observation, when in LR I'm working in a space named "Melissa", which is neither Adobe 1998 nor sRGB but is close to ProPhoto.  I understand that.

So...  if I'm working in color space "Melissa" for edits, does it just all come down to experience on how to evaluate the working histogram so that the resulting sRGB JPEG (after export) isn't clipped anywhere?  Am I missing something basic??  Would evaluating histograms of RAW files in-camera shot in sRGB help avoid issues after you import into "Melissa" and export back to sRGB???

Hmm.

I may be way off base here, but right now, I'd love to have an option to view a histogram of a JPEG file (or any other format) that would result after export that changes the color space (which is always going to be the case with RAW files in LR) -- but only I'd like to be able to see it before I export.  

I suspect that experience is the answer here again, so as mentioned earlier, I think I'm better off to stop thinking so much and keep mucking till I get there.

Jon thanks for the link on bit depths...  I know more but as always have more questions, I'll save those for another thread later on down the road.

Cheers, Sean


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 21, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Sean was asking about the differences that the colour space had on the histogram, and the AdobeRGB setting will give a histogram closer to the raw file's histogram he'll see in LR.  Sean's rapidly getting a good understanding of the differences in colour spaces, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it.  So you're quite right, for anyone who doesn't understand it, stick to a single colour space.


I didn't read the blurb about using the color space for histo purposes. Sounds like a pretty good idea. I never considered this 

To answer Seans question about color spaces sRGB Adobe, Melissa & whatever wacky name they come up with...
In summary, as long as you are transferring images from one defined color space to another. You won't see any issues. 

It's when you go from a non managed color workspace to a managed workspace is when you run into a majority of problems. 

So, You will be able to import your RAW images, and output them as sRGB, aRGB or whatever you want  w/ no worries as long as you have at least a rudimentary understanding of color spaces. (which you already do!){now THAT'S a run on sentence!}

Something I'll warn you about at this point is to try and KISS. If you don't need something in your workflow. Don't do it just because some "pro" is jumping up and down about it. 

The only other thing I'd recommend is using hardware such as EyeOne, Spyder or Huey to give you a fighting chance at WSYSIG. 

Best,


----------



## Yzerguy (Feb 22, 2008)

SloYerRoll said:


> The only other thing I'd recommend is using hardware such as EyeOne, Spyder or Huey to give you a fighting chance at WSYSIG.



I1D2 will be ordered shortly!  Thx for help.

Cheers, Sean


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 23, 2008)

For those still trying to get their heads round histograms, this article just cam through on my RSS and gives a fair amount of detail.  http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2''7/12/what-is-a-histogram-and-how-do.html


----------

