If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Great explanation, but I come to a different conclusion. Since nearly everyone who views my photos on a phone/tablet/laptop/desktop will see them in P3, I prefer to edit on a monitor that shows me what they see. So that's either a P3 monitor, like the Apple Studio Display (lots of cheap options, too), or a monitor that covers both P3 & AdobeRGB like the latest BenQs, or LG Oled, or XDRs. I find viewing photos on AdobeRGB-only monitors sort-of pointless, since saturated REFLECTED greens in prints will look different anyway, & I won't really know if they need adjusting until I print. Plus, those greens will of course print exactly the same whether you're using an AdobeRGB or P3 monitor. Again, the PROJECTED light version of AdobeRGB-only will be seen by NO ONE ELSE, except by folks who have an AdobeRGB-only display. Not many people. & AdobeRGB-only monitors are hamstrung so you won't see the nice reds in P3 ... but everyone on Instagram, Flickr, etc will. So ... yeah, I don't get why folks think AdobeRGB-only monitors are a good thing, in the context of a P3-dominated world. Unless you're ONLY printing & the photos you're working on will never be seen on other people's devices. But I can't imagine you'd want that outside of an industrial environment. Apologies for the all-caps, I feel like I've got to put out a fire.
This is such a great take on this subject! Thank you! I work with Eizo, BenQ and Apple Studio Displays and my head is spinning every time I think about this topic. My experience is that when working on my Eizo ColorEdge CG279X monitor I feel safe sending the images to print for magazines or boards (I work as a retoucher), but the same images are also going online on Instagram and it could've looked better. When I flip the scenario and use my Apple Studio Display, I've experienced that the prints look way off, especially in the red area. But it looks correct on Instagram on Apple devices. Finally, I feel like the Apple Studio Display hides a lot of blacks and highlights. When swapping an image from the Studio Display to the Eizo, the Eizo reveals information in the blacks that the Studio Display does not show. This is critical.
@@kiffaaaa do you have the issues w/shadows on the Studio Display even after calibration? I see about the same amount of shadow detail compared to my BenQ.
Hi @RaphaelMatto I tthought sRGB is actually the most used color range on displays nowadays or even browsers like Chrome or Firefox. So wouldn't it make more sense to export photos on sRGB for monitors and AdobeRGB in case of printing?
@javier.elias good question, my comments were abt display color space, not exported file colorspace. No, most displays that exist these days (phones, tablets, laptops) are P3, not sRGB. No, printer color spaces do not match AdobeRGB exactly, printers should be profiled with a ColorChecker and that profile should be used for printing. No, all browsers support P3 these days, as well as some surprising color spaces, like ProPhoto.
I’ve been thinking about this too. I have my entire workflow on adobergb including the monitor. I’ve printed exactly 3 photos in the last two years but spent countless hours trying to get images I sent to clients to look on their phone like they do on my monitor 🤦♂️ I should be flipping the workflow like you’re saying
We have to be careful, I think, in referring to the "number" of colors in a color space, and saying that one space has "more" colors than another. The number of available colors is a function of the bit depth. If the colors are digitized with 8 bits, there are 2^8 colors available for each of the three colors (R, G, and B). This number is the same for all color spaces, since it is a function of the sensor and the digitizing process. So all color spaces have the same number of colors. It's just that they are spread across a different range of colors. This implies that although the "larger" space has colors that the "smaller" space doesn't, so too does the "smaller" space have colors that the "larger" one doesn't.
Todd - thanks for this clear explanation. I think there are other reasons the broader industry has gone for P3 - you have to consider costs. I can confidently predict there will never be a ProPhoto display because two of it's primaries are not real colors. They only exist in the mathematics of color space theory. The P3 red is very nearly monochromatic, which means it must be produced by something other than filtered-LCD technology. Adobe has a more saturated green primary - but that requires some advanced technology as well. (Why don't we have 100% Adobe RGB monitors?) If produce for screens only - P3 is the right choice. (That is, except for the annoying fact that social media source material is sRGB.) For quality photographic prints, who uses CMYK? We have printers with ~10 inks (not three primaries). The fact that Adobe RGB covers CMYK doesn't answer the most important question, which is, why would Adobe RGB be preferable for editing photos for Epson of Cannon photographic ink-jet printers?
Concise and clear as always, Todd. I'd like to know more about your workflow, i.e., when done with post, what final formats you keep off to the side...a master TIF or DNG in Adobe RBG and a copy in sRGB for web, etc? Do you process 2 copies, that is, one for each (switch your monitor to Adobe RBG, edit, and save, then switch your monitor to sRBG and edit again to ensure monitor renderings and the sRBG version is as good?)
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
even if I mostly don't utilise the whole color space available, I am still going with Adobe RGB (better having more cubic inches under the hood, then needed) :D
I have never had luck with shooting and working with Adobe RGB unfortunately, while the gamut is great, converting back to sRGB for other platforms / social media creates too many issues with reproduction, desaturation and gradients vs just printing
Your Epson photographic printer (its inks - and some Canon or HP printers maybe too) may have a colour space larger even than Adobe RGB. If you want to use this, then that is a challenge in the edit phase, but it is not impossible ... Note that choice of paper impacts colour space.
Thanks for the information. Great video as always. By the way, you have changed the editing your videos recently, no blacks, like no contrast. I don't know, personally I prefer 2 month ago 🙂
As James Taylor sang, “deep greens and blues are the colors I choose”. I always edit in Adobe RGB, but I’m surprised at the number of labs that ask for sRGB files. And yes, I’m old! 😀
All the experts espouse the benefits of AdobeRGB, however most photo print services I use (eg, MPIX, Millers) require files to be sent in sRGB. Also, I’ve experimented with my own printer and there’s hardly a difference.
Does it matter? If you shoot "raw only" stills, then you can forget White Balance in camera because whatever the number, your raw image data stay the same. The WB number ends up in the meta data and if you raw process in Adobe Camera Raw (the Develop tab in Lightroom Classic) then the WB number is used for its on screen rendition. I set my camera to WB=Cloudy full time and it works well. The camera does not need to apply AI to figure out the number when you set Auto-WB. It just stores the cloudy WB and tint numbers in the meta data. Then the essential question is if, and if yes where and how, a camera does things differently, in raw, when you change the colour space setting. If the raw data are not changed then it is the same story as with WB. I suggested my camera brand to hide parts of the menu structure that are not applicable depending on settings. So, if I shoot raw only and colour space does not impact my raw file, then why do I see the menu option? The catch here is that the camera has an electronic viewfinder and rear display for which in camera raw processing happens. And as soon as you shoot movie, there is a notion of raw processing too, more or less, depending on the format.
Impeccable explanation, and very helpful. Also, my English is not very good, but I understood everything you said perfectly. So now I am a new subscriber and I think I will have a marathon with your videos over the weekend. Greetings from Peru.
Of course you want to edit in Adobe color or another equivalent color space. And then export down to sRGB so that everyone can see the same image. I would certainly not edit in sRGB
Not really. If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
As Todd explaned, Adobe RGB is a good fit for CMYK printing on a press, but…4-ink press CMYK is not the only way to print. If you are a photographer who owns one of those pro Epson or Canon 10-ink or 12-ink printers, and you print on fine art glossy paper, a number of colors out on the edge of that ink/paper color space do exceed Adobe RGB. The next size color gamut is ProPhoto RGB, so they use that. Sure, you can’t print all of ProPhoto RGB, but that isn't the point. The point is that with ProPhoto RGB, you can preserve image colors that are printable on better-than-CMYK printers and which are outside of Adobe RGB. Another reason is that if an original digital capture or film frame contains colors outside of Adobe RGB, some want to be able to preserve those colors for a future where they can afford a better printer, or if future printers or displays can reproduce color spaces larger than Adobe RGB. Again, the only standard option you can step up to past Adobe RGB is ProPhoto RGB. Yes, there are some rather obscure color spaces out there between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB and you could use one of those instead. But you'd have to manually download, install, and embed its profile, because they are not commonly used and their profiles don’t come with the OSs. And some of them have other practical limitations such as not being perceptually uniform.
Thank you, Now I understand sRGB, Adobe RGB and all that... But how do i know what display of my TV is - panasonic oled. Or photoframe - Aura... As this is where I will be viewing my photos... Does it all really matter? The reason why i started exploring the subject is because I am looking for a new laptop, which I want to use for storing, viewing and light processing of photos for personal use... Have Fuji xs10 camera (not sure if that matters… however I want to start using it to the full potential) I didn't know I will open pandora box lol I am still no wiser in what to buy...
Great video! So informative! The issue I have with this video, however, is that it doesnt explain the problems that arise with viewing AdobeRGB edited photos on an sRGB screen. What I realized, back when I still edited in AdRGB was that it looked great. But as soon as I opened the image in the browser (which back then did not support AdRGB, or on a different device, images always looked over saturated. Especially the reds. But prints looked good. So what I am touching on here is: should we edit in sRGB nowadays as most people consume our photos on a screen rather than on print? And should we always have to do two different edits of each photo? In lightroom, I nowadays edit in sRGB but export the same edit in both in sRGB and in AdRGB. Is that useless/stupid?
ProPhoto RGB is the biggest color space. LR uses it until export to preserve all the color within the raw file even though some your monitor won’t be able to display.
@@chrispeden979 That's true in general, but don't forget about well known LAB. Some editing procedures are better to be performed in this particular widest color space.
Yes, it is a mistery why he did not even mention it, nor explains about it hereafter . Use it, as long as working-master file as possible. That simple.
I process all my RAW files to 16 bit Prophoto RGB tif files. I then continue with 16 bit Prophoto for secondary edits. I work my way to 16 bit Adobe RGB for all print and then to 8 bit sRGB for digital and web display. This process preserves original image data as much as possible for the future.
@@_Name_ so few people talk about using LAB anymore. I use it quite a bit with images for dry toner print that have malformed color conversions. A great tool.
great topic and great answer . but in my experience you could miss a spot in your thought there are some photographer use sRGB profile in their camera when shooting only JPEG and they are satisfied either them or the client when they hold a print or just claim it digitally to use only on display , i mean about this because i got a JPEG file of large weeding photography they twic nothing on colors but only play with color temperature using kelvin depend on the scene , N.B the printer is fujiflim DE-100 the setting is portrait mod 0 CMKY and only modify the density +1 or -1 its depend sometimes more me including my self i really enjoy the feel of color of those print
Thanks for this explanation. I just realized that on my camera I set color space sRGB. So with AdobeRGB (second option available) probably I can get better result.
Curious you focused on colors that P3 does not cover but aRGB does... but what about the other part, the part of colors that P3 colors but not aRGB, care you comment?
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Great summary. Question: I purchased a MacBook Air 15 with the P3 color gamut on the display. There was an optional software display setting that allowed me to select Adobe RGB as the color gamut. Is my Mac Book Air 15 display really changed from factory DCI-P3 to Adobe RGB now? This question challenges Apple support. How can I tell?
Great video, thanks. If I'm a digital artist and have a 100% sRGB monitor ... shoould I still work in Adobe RGB colour space even if I can't see the actual color range? Or should my space me sRGB?
Thanks for the excellent explanation. I remain a bit confused, though. My older (2017) iMac has a long list of "color profiles under "Displays" in its :settings - including Adobe RGB, Prophoto, and SRGB. If I select "Prophoto" in the iMac settings am I not seeing "Prophoto" in the display? Similarly, if I select "Adobe RGB" in iMac settings am I not seeing Adobe RGB in the display - and likewise with SRGB? NOTE: I am printing on an Epson P900 - so my goal is to edit on screen in a color space matching the best color space I can use for the P900.
The "best" answer is simple, if you dont print or display for professional use, ie; getting paid, it simply does not matter, use sRGB. If you are getting paid, ie; a pro, then you should already know what you need.. For the everyday photographer - sRGB. Everyone else - Pro-Photo RGB. See simple😊
Does sRGB impact photos that are printed for a physical album? Trying to decide on a few monitors where one offers 95% Adobe RGB vs another that does not.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
One thing that could have been adressed more is what those numbers on Monitors mean, such as 120% sRGB, 95% DCPI-P3. The thing is many provide percentages that vary completely, such as 95% DCI-P3 but only 99% sRGB, this makes no sense to me since they're all related and therefore constrained?
Mr. Dominey, what if we're using the Dehancer plugin, which requires working in sRGB? Do we convert after editing in Dehancer to Adobe RGB for printing?
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
So i have two questions in my mind, which rgb is supported by social media secondly, while shooting in our camera we get two options adobe or s RGB does is make any impact on raw files?
Thanks for make this great video ! Very well explained, I have a question ima an artist ,. I have good pictures(photos taken of my art) and I need to send them to a client so he can print it ,.. do I need to buy an adobe rgb monitor to display them on it and fine tuning them or a good calibrated srgb would be enough since im not going to print them ? In other words it is still usable /worth to use adobe rgb to tweak the images if Im not going to ptint ? Thanks
Ah, sorry. This was a follow up to my BenQ SW272U review so I didn’t think to mention it. That monitors supports Adobe RGB. There are a handful of others (check B&H and filter by color spaces), but BenQ is one of the most popular.
Hi Todd, thanks once again for this fantastic video! y question is: is it necessary or does it make any difference setting the color space to AdobeRGB in the camera too if you're working with AdobeRGB set in the monitor?
Colour space is such a confusing topic! Until recently my editing settings were AdobeRGB but i think when saving an image to jpeg the editing software was set to save as srgb. Recently though I've started to save images as webp and I suspect that there was no setting to save as srgb. My first few images saved as webp looked dark and lacking colours once uploaded to Instagram. After some searching on Google I made some changes so that I'm editing within srgb from the outset. Am I missing out doing so? Should I edit in AdobeRGB and if so how can I save images as webp that will look right once uploaded to social media. Finally I always though working in AdobeRGB throughout was for those printing their images at home. Most professional labs I know seem to state they want images in srgb so I was confused to hear you say labs are used to receiving images in AdobeRGB.
I am watching this video on a screen that is at best an sRGB device, using software (Firefox) that probably operates in sRGB (though I don't know this for sure). How is it, then, that when the color space diagram is shown, I see colors that are outside sRGB?
Thanks, I have a problem, I have a Samsung and can't edit my pictures in Photoshop on my computer. Is there a way to change this on the pictures I have taken?
Todd are you still using a BenQ monitor? If so what color profile are you viewing in when editing photos? I recently purchased a PD3220U and have been using it in M-Book color mode which has a much richer contrast than S-RGB or P3. I figure if most of my work is viewed on devices then probably half or more are using Apple products so.....
Doesn't matter if you shoot raw. If you're shooting in jpeg only, or JPEG + RAW, your camera will give you a choice of color space for the JPEGs. I'd recommend using AdobeRGB there. But again, if you're shooting RAW only, then you don't need to worry about any of the color space settings in your camera, they won't have any effect.
Thanks Todd! I also use Adobe1998, camera, monitor and Photoshop (raw) because I always did for 20 years, but I'm always freaked out by how different (bad) images look in windows file explorer? is this what others see? also, more of my work is now used on web rather than print. does web convert to SRGB? so should i be using SRGB all the way though? would this give more consistency between what I see in PS and others see on their devices.
ok, so p3 is an intermediate quality between adobe rgb and s rgb. Is there a situation where choosing s rgb over p3 would still be beneficial ? To make the fullest out of dci-p3, should I shoot photos in Adobe Rgb, with my camera rather than S Rgb ?
The answer seems to be obvious, I guess. sRGB color space is still more suitable for web although some web-browsers support Adobe RGB color profile embedded into a file. So any color space is the choice for any particular task or way of publishing the file, if You will.
The answer depends on where you think your image will be seen. In a way, it's the fundamental question behind Todd's video, but he doesn't really address it directly. When you choose to export to Adobe RGB, P3, or sRGB, you are in a way choosing the language that a screen or printer will use to translate the data (the ones and zeroes) of your image on your hard drive into the data (the ones and zeroes) that will produce pixels on the screen (or print) for the viewer to see. Any given screen or printer understands certain languages with more or less perfection. If a screen's specifications says that it covers 99% of the sRGB spectrum, that means that the screen can understand the "sRGB language" with 99% accuracy. So when you export your image from Lightroom using the sRGB profile (or "language"), the screen will understand 99% of the intention and reproduce it on the screen with 99% accuracy. So what happens when your screen doesn't "speak" the Adobe RGB profile and you send it an image in Adobe RGB? Screens are usually manufactured in a way that tells them to translate (display) an image using sRGB if they receive it in a language they don't understand. In other words, they can understand a little of the Adobe RGB message, enough to do their best guess in sRGB, but it's going to be a bad translation. It will translate something, but a some of the fine meaning (the subtle color differences) will be lost, compressed, or muddied. In this case, your screen doesn't have the "language" to understand what Adobe RGB is saying, but it knows it has to translate *something*, so it uses its native language. So your question is better understood as, "Is there a situation where choosing [a color space that almost every screen can accurately translate] over [a color space that most - but not all - screens can accurately translate] would still be beneficial?" One answer could be that you're unsure if many people will be seeing an Adobe RGB color space image on screens that cannot translate (display) Adobe RGB images. If that happens, most people will be seeing the "badly translated" version of your image, meaning the converted sRGB version. Some people will have the good screens (the screens that can fully understand the Adobe RGB language) and your image will look its best. But if you think that most people don't have screens that can translate Adobe RGB or P3, then you would choose sRGB. You would be intentionally limiting the colors in your photo by choosing sRGB this way, but you have to remember - this is crucial - that the screen you're going to see the image on can't display those advanced colors anyway. So what are you really losing by choosing sRGB? There is, in fact, a benefit to still editing in Adobe RGB (or P3 or ProPhoto RGB) even if you're planning on exporting in sRGB. But that's a slightly different topic. The key is to first understand where your image is going to be seen (screen or print) and work backwards from there.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Guys please what can I do My pictures look warm on Lightroom and photoshop but when I export on my phone it looks nice but it looks a bit cold. What can I do? My Colour format is RGB My Colour space is SDR
Just make ProPhoto or Rec2020 one of the standards, why are these people so bad - the whole point is to have best possible colors, and not be limited by the past. My monitor's Native settings looks to have larger gamut than AdobeRGB - does it mean it uses some custom one?
This image of the Macaw on Apple's presentation in sRBG is extremely fake, it looks like a print on newspaper paper. But, the thing is, working on a wide color space doesn't mean you are going to have all the colors available in that space. Regular people don't print photos anymore. I think this fall more on the fine art side from my perspective. Even for designers and illustrators is really hard to use extremely saturated colors.
I've always been told to use the largest color space possible when editing and to take the "losses" (in moving from color spaces) at the end of the worldflow or as close to it as possible. Obviously sending files from say Lightroom (which uses Melissa which I think is a variant of ProPhoto RGB but still larger than Adobe RGB) to a third party plug-in, sometimes it has to be reduced to ADobe RGB, so I've started to wonder if I should just use that as a default, and then when exporting, export to sRGB and for print purposes use either Adobe RGB or sRGB depending on what the print lab suggests. Most modern prints though, will support sRGB and can you get good prints from such printers, so I don't think using Adobe RGB is as big of a deal as it used to be or if you're not using lab color for example or doing commercial publications (which may still want things in Adobe RGB). And if you're working on scree/web-only content (photos that will only be posted to the web with no real intention of printing) then by all means I would use sRGB (you sort of have to for web-based images). But I'm still a bit old fashioned and prefer to use Adobe RGB (and have my cameras set to use this color space as well) as I said, I like to have the flexibility of changing to a smaller color space as needed, and not be forced into a smaller color space (ADobe RGB is plenty as very few displays -- if any -- can actually render the full ProPhoto RGB spectrum, or P3 for that matter; but many can do 90%+ of Adobe RGB and even more can cover all or most of sRGB. Long story short, I don't think it's as a big of a concern as it used to be, unless you are perhaps doing things that require the utmost highest level of color accuracy and are printing, then there may be some benefits from using ADobe RGB (or a larger color space).
Sorry I only red you in diagomal. I Think you got it right (if) : use always prophoto as working masterfile. (Lightroom offer printpreview-copies that can help...)
Thank Todd for putting together some really concise information that’s relevant, but easy to digest. Also: you have a fantastic narrator’s voice. ;)
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
One of the best explainations I have ever seen on this subject!
Great explanation, but I come to a different conclusion. Since nearly everyone who views my photos on a phone/tablet/laptop/desktop will see them in P3, I prefer to edit on a monitor that shows me what they see. So that's either a P3 monitor, like the Apple Studio Display (lots of cheap options, too), or a monitor that covers both P3 & AdobeRGB like the latest BenQs, or LG Oled, or XDRs. I find viewing photos on AdobeRGB-only monitors sort-of pointless, since saturated REFLECTED greens in prints will look different anyway, & I won't really know if they need adjusting until I print. Plus, those greens will of course print exactly the same whether you're using an AdobeRGB or P3 monitor. Again, the PROJECTED light version of AdobeRGB-only will be seen by NO ONE ELSE, except by folks who have an AdobeRGB-only display. Not many people. & AdobeRGB-only monitors are hamstrung so you won't see the nice reds in P3 ... but everyone on Instagram, Flickr, etc will. So ... yeah, I don't get why folks think AdobeRGB-only monitors are a good thing, in the context of a P3-dominated world. Unless you're ONLY printing & the photos you're working on will never be seen on other people's devices. But I can't imagine you'd want that outside of an industrial environment. Apologies for the all-caps, I feel like I've got to put out a fire.
This is such a great take on this subject! Thank you! I work with Eizo, BenQ and Apple Studio Displays and my head is spinning every time I think about this topic. My experience is that when working on my Eizo ColorEdge CG279X monitor I feel safe sending the images to print for magazines or boards (I work as a retoucher), but the same images are also going online on Instagram and it could've looked better.
When I flip the scenario and use my Apple Studio Display, I've experienced that the prints look way off, especially in the red area. But it looks correct on Instagram on Apple devices.
Finally, I feel like the Apple Studio Display hides a lot of blacks and highlights. When swapping an image from the Studio Display to the Eizo, the Eizo reveals information in the blacks that the Studio Display does not show. This is critical.
@@kiffaaaa do you have the issues w/shadows on the Studio Display even after calibration? I see about the same amount of shadow detail compared to my BenQ.
Hi @RaphaelMatto I tthought sRGB is actually the most used color range on displays nowadays or even browsers like Chrome or Firefox. So wouldn't it make more sense to export photos on sRGB for monitors and AdobeRGB in case of printing?
@javier.elias good question, my comments were abt display color space, not exported file colorspace. No, most displays that exist these days (phones, tablets, laptops) are P3, not sRGB. No, printer color spaces do not match AdobeRGB exactly, printers should be profiled with a ColorChecker and that profile should be used for printing. No, all browsers support P3 these days, as well as some surprising color spaces, like ProPhoto.
I’ve been thinking about this too. I have my entire workflow on adobergb including the monitor. I’ve printed exactly 3 photos in the last two years but spent countless hours trying to get images I sent to clients to look on their phone like they do on my monitor 🤦♂️ I should be flipping the workflow like you’re saying
We have to be careful, I think, in referring to the "number" of colors in a color space, and saying that one space has "more" colors than another. The number of available colors is a function of the bit depth. If the colors are digitized with 8 bits, there are 2^8 colors available for each of the three colors (R, G, and B). This number is the same for all color spaces, since it is a function of the sensor and the digitizing process. So all color spaces have the same number of colors. It's just that they are spread across a different range of colors.
This implies that although the "larger" space has colors that the "smaller" space doesn't, so too does the "smaller" space have colors that the "larger" one doesn't.
Finally understand color spaces thanks to this clear and concise video! Thanks, Todd!
THanks Todd for explaining the color space issues so simply and clearly. Always enjoy your content and knowledge sharing.
Todd - thanks for this clear explanation. I think there are other reasons the broader industry has gone for P3 - you have to consider costs. I can confidently predict there will never be a ProPhoto display because two of it's primaries are not real colors. They only exist in the mathematics of color space theory. The P3 red is very nearly monochromatic, which means it must be produced by something other than filtered-LCD technology. Adobe has a more saturated green primary - but that requires some advanced technology as well. (Why don't we have 100% Adobe RGB monitors?)
If produce for screens only - P3 is the right choice. (That is, except for the annoying fact that social media source material is sRGB.)
For quality photographic prints, who uses CMYK? We have printers with ~10 inks (not three primaries). The fact that Adobe RGB covers CMYK doesn't answer the most important question, which is, why would Adobe RGB be preferable for editing photos for Epson of Cannon photographic ink-jet printers?
I round trip in prophoto and output in adobergb. I believe that’s the best way of maintaining integrity…
Concise and clear as always, Todd. I'd like to know more about your workflow, i.e., when done with post, what final formats you keep off to the side...a master TIF or DNG in Adobe RBG and a copy in sRGB for web, etc? Do you process 2 copies, that is, one for each (switch your monitor to Adobe RBG, edit, and save, then switch your monitor to sRBG and edit again to ensure monitor renderings and the sRBG version is as good?)
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Yes it was simple, I learned something today. Thank you.
even if I mostly don't utilise the whole color space available, I am still going with Adobe RGB (better having more cubic inches under the hood, then needed) :D
Use prophoto 'instead".
Very very intuitive and helpful, thank you!!
Macbook pro is the only thing I use...camera setting Adobe RGB...camera GFX..ahhh 16 bit colour and lightroom. Adobe right 😮...it works
I have never had luck with shooting and working with Adobe RGB unfortunately, while the gamut is great, converting back to sRGB for other platforms / social media creates too many issues with reproduction, desaturation and gradients vs just printing
Your Epson photographic printer (its inks - and some Canon or HP printers maybe too) may have a colour space larger even than Adobe RGB. If you want to use this, then that is a challenge in the edit phase, but it is not impossible ...
Note that choice of paper impacts colour space.
Great video, just the information I needed!
Thanks for the information. Great video as always. By the way, you have changed the editing your videos recently, no blacks, like no contrast. I don't know, personally I prefer 2 month ago 🙂
As James Taylor sang, “deep greens and blues are the colors I choose”. I always edit in Adobe RGB, but I’m surprised at the number of labs that ask for sRGB files. And yes, I’m old! 😀
All the experts espouse the benefits of AdobeRGB, however most photo print services I use (eg, MPIX, Millers) require files to be sent in sRGB. Also, I’ve experimented with my own printer and there’s hardly a difference.
Does it matter? If you shoot "raw only" stills, then you can forget White Balance in camera because whatever the number, your raw image data stay the same. The WB number ends up in the meta data and if you raw process in Adobe Camera Raw (the Develop tab in Lightroom Classic) then the WB number is used for its on screen rendition. I set my camera to WB=Cloudy full time and it works well.
The camera does not need to apply AI to figure out the number when you set Auto-WB. It just stores the cloudy WB and tint numbers in the meta data.
Then the essential question is if, and if yes where and how, a camera does things differently, in raw, when you change the colour space setting. If the raw data are not changed then it is the same story as with WB.
I suggested my camera brand to hide parts of the menu structure that are not applicable depending on settings. So, if I shoot raw only and colour space does not impact my raw file, then why do I see the menu option?
The catch here is that the camera has an electronic viewfinder and rear display for which in camera raw processing happens. And as soon as you shoot movie, there is a notion of raw processing too, more or less, depending on the format.
Impeccable explanation, and very helpful. Also, my English is not very good, but I understood everything you said perfectly. So now I am a new subscriber and I think I will have a marathon with your videos over the weekend. Greetings from Peru.
Of course you want to edit in Adobe color or another equivalent color space. And then export down to sRGB so that everyone can see the same image. I would certainly not edit in sRGB
Great explanation sir..
this is really helpful, packed of info & straight to the point. thanks Todd
Not really.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Lightroom uses prophoto color space until you choose a different type when exporting, or am I very wrong here ?
This is correct
Yepp.
Why do so many photographers use prophoto RGB if you can't print that gamut?
As Todd explaned, Adobe RGB is a good fit for CMYK printing on a press, but…4-ink press CMYK is not the only way to print. If you are a photographer who owns one of those pro Epson or Canon 10-ink or 12-ink printers, and you print on fine art glossy paper, a number of colors out on the edge of that ink/paper color space do exceed Adobe RGB. The next size color gamut is ProPhoto RGB, so they use that. Sure, you can’t print all of ProPhoto RGB, but that isn't the point. The point is that with ProPhoto RGB, you can preserve image colors that are printable on better-than-CMYK printers and which are outside of Adobe RGB.
Another reason is that if an original digital capture or film frame contains colors outside of Adobe RGB, some want to be able to preserve those colors for a future where they can afford a better printer, or if future printers or displays can reproduce color spaces larger than Adobe RGB. Again, the only standard option you can step up to past Adobe RGB is ProPhoto RGB.
Yes, there are some rather obscure color spaces out there between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB and you could use one of those instead. But you'd have to manually download, install, and embed its profile, because they are not commonly used and their profiles don’t come with the OSs. And some of them have other practical limitations such as not being perceptually uniform.
Thank you, Now I understand sRGB, Adobe RGB and all that... But how do i know what display of my TV is - panasonic oled. Or photoframe - Aura... As this is where I will be viewing my photos... Does it all really matter?
The reason why i started exploring the subject is because I am looking for a new laptop, which I want to use for storing, viewing and light processing of photos for personal use... Have Fuji xs10 camera (not sure if that matters… however I want to start using it to the full potential) I didn't know I will open pandora box lol
I am still no wiser in what to buy...
Great video! So informative! The issue I have with this video, however, is that it doesnt explain the problems that arise with viewing AdobeRGB edited photos on an sRGB screen.
What I realized, back when I still edited in AdRGB was that it looked great. But as soon as I opened the image in the browser (which back then did not support AdRGB, or on a different device, images always looked over saturated. Especially the reds. But prints looked good.
So what I am touching on here is: should we edit in sRGB nowadays as most people consume our photos on a screen rather than on print? And should we always have to do two different edits of each photo?
In lightroom, I nowadays edit in sRGB but export the same edit in both in sRGB and in AdRGB. Is that useless/stupid?
Hi Todd: Thanks for creating and sharing this video. I was wondering where does ProPhoto RGB enter into the discussion? Regards, Keith
ProPhoto RGB is the biggest color space. LR uses it until export to preserve all the color within the raw file even though some your monitor won’t be able to display.
@@chrispeden979 That's true in general, but don't forget about well known LAB. Some editing procedures are better to be performed in this particular widest color space.
Yes, it is a mistery why he did not even mention it, nor explains about it hereafter .
Use it, as long as working-master file as possible. That simple.
I process all my RAW files to 16 bit Prophoto RGB tif files. I then continue with 16 bit Prophoto for secondary edits. I work my way to 16 bit Adobe RGB for all print and then to 8 bit sRGB for digital and web display. This process preserves original image data as much as possible for the future.
@@_Name_ so few people talk about using LAB anymore. I use it quite a bit with images for dry toner print that have malformed color conversions. A great tool.
I was just thinking about this, as I was starting a new editing session
In order for the larger color spaces to function within the same number of bits they have to “spread” the colors out. This can result in banding
Thank you! 😁
Thanks Todd, most helpful.
We do have Rec2020 monitors now which is even bigger than Adobe RGB and P3 combined
Nice one. Delving into the confusing world of buying a new monitor and this is helpful thanks
Good informative video Todd.
Great explanation Todd, thanks!
great topic and great answer . but in my experience you could miss a spot in your thought there are some photographer use sRGB profile in their camera when shooting only JPEG and they are satisfied either them or the client when they hold a print or just claim it digitally to use only on display , i mean about this because i got a JPEG file of large weeding photography they twic nothing on colors but only play with color temperature using kelvin depend on the scene , N.B the printer is fujiflim DE-100 the setting is portrait mod 0 CMKY and only modify the density +1 or -1 its depend sometimes more me including my self i really enjoy the feel of color of those print
Thanks Tood 💐
Good short explanation.
Thanks for this explanation. I just realized that on my camera I set color space sRGB. So with AdobeRGB (second option available) probably I can get better result.
if you make photos in RAW then it doest matter what color profile you use in the camera body
@@iefie thanks
Thank you for sharing 💡💡
Another great video! Question - When you pass an image off to a printers, do you export it as AdobeRGB also?
Curious you focused on colors that P3 does not cover but aRGB does... but what about the other part, the part of colors that P3 colors but not aRGB, care you comment?
For print production most agencies i work for demand ECI RGB V2 for the pictures…
Amazing explanation! Thank you!
Very interesting video. I definitely learned something. Thanks.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Whitewall actually works with sRGB not adobergb sadly.
Thank you...
Great explanation. Thank you.
Great summary. Question: I purchased a MacBook Air 15 with the P3 color gamut on the display. There was an optional software display setting that allowed me to select Adobe RGB as the color gamut. Is my Mac Book Air 15 display really changed from factory DCI-P3 to Adobe RGB now? This question challenges Apple support. How can I tell?
Great video, thanks. If I'm a digital artist and have a 100% sRGB monitor ... shoould I still work in Adobe RGB colour space even if I can't see the actual color range? Or should my space me sRGB?
Thanks for the excellent explanation. I remain a bit confused, though. My older (2017) iMac has a long list of "color profiles under "Displays" in its :settings - including Adobe RGB, Prophoto, and SRGB. If I select "Prophoto" in the iMac settings am I not seeing "Prophoto" in the display? Similarly, if I select "Adobe RGB" in iMac settings am I not seeing Adobe RGB in the display - and likewise with SRGB? NOTE: I am printing on an Epson P900 - so my goal is to edit on screen in a color space matching the best color space I can use for the P900.
The doubt that wasn't solved 😅👉 whats the profile color of WEB? sRGB?
The "best" answer is simple, if you dont print or display for professional use, ie; getting paid, it simply does not matter, use sRGB.
If you are getting paid, ie; a pro, then you should already know what you need..
For the everyday photographer - sRGB.
Everyone else - Pro-Photo RGB.
See simple😊
Does sRGB impact photos that are printed for a physical album? Trying to decide on a few monitors where one offers 95% Adobe RGB vs another that does not.
Very well done, indeed. Thanks!
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Thanks!
One thing that could have been adressed more is what those numbers on Monitors mean, such as 120% sRGB, 95% DCPI-P3. The thing is many provide percentages that vary completely, such as 95% DCI-P3 but only 99% sRGB, this makes no sense to me since they're all related and therefore constrained?
Mr. Dominey, what if we're using the Dehancer plugin, which requires working in sRGB? Do we convert after editing in Dehancer to Adobe RGB for printing?
Great video. Thank you.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Great, thank you very much!
So i have two questions in my mind, which rgb is supported by social media secondly, while shooting in our camera we get two options adobe or s RGB does is make any impact on raw files?
1. sRGB
2. It doesnt matter if u shooting raw
Thanks for make this great video ! Very well explained, I have a question ima an artist ,. I have good pictures(photos taken of my art) and I need to send them to a client so he can print it ,.. do I need to buy an adobe rgb monitor to display them on it and fine tuning them or a good calibrated srgb would be enough since im not going to print them ? In other words it is still usable /worth to use adobe rgb to tweak the images if Im not going to ptint ? Thanks
With one prerequisute though, the monitor needs to be good enough in order to produce full ARGB in front of everyone editing the photo.
Hi! In term of editing and exporting from adobe lightroom, should I choose adobe RGB or Srgb on the color space option?
Thanks a lot but, you didn't tell us any monitor that support Adobe RGB? besides what about contrast ration and brightness?
Ah, sorry. This was a follow up to my BenQ SW272U review so I didn’t think to mention it. That monitors supports Adobe RGB. There are a handful of others (check B&H and filter by color spaces), but BenQ is one of the most popular.
@@dominey Many thanks for the reply, it was very helpful to check B&H.
Actually thinking of benq sw240 but it's 2k is that ok as photography most of the time
What's about the Rec 2020?
Hi Todd, thanks once again for this fantastic video! y question is: is it necessary or does it make any difference setting the color space to AdobeRGB in the camera too if you're working with AdobeRGB set in the monitor?
nope
Colour space is such a confusing topic! Until recently my editing settings were AdobeRGB but i think when saving an image to jpeg the editing software was set to save as srgb.
Recently though I've started to save images as webp and I suspect that there was no setting to save as srgb. My first few images saved as webp looked dark and lacking colours once uploaded to Instagram.
After some searching on Google I made some changes so that I'm editing within srgb from the outset.
Am I missing out doing so? Should I edit in AdobeRGB and if so how can I save images as webp that will look right once uploaded to social media.
Finally I always though working in AdobeRGB throughout was for those printing their images at home. Most professional labs I know seem to state they want images in srgb so I was confused to hear you say labs are used to receiving images in AdobeRGB.
I am watching this video on a screen that is at best an sRGB device, using software (Firefox) that probably operates in sRGB (though I don't know this for sure). How is it, then, that when the color space diagram is shown, I see colors that are outside sRGB?
Thanks, I have a problem, I have a Samsung and can't edit my pictures in Photoshop on my computer. Is there a way to change this on the pictures I have taken?
Not sure what you mean by “this”. You mean the color profile? If so, PS can change images from one space to another, yes.
Todd are you still using a BenQ monitor? If so what color profile are you viewing in when editing photos? I recently purchased a PD3220U and have been using it in M-Book color mode which has a much richer contrast than S-RGB or P3. I figure if most of my work is viewed on devices then probably half or more are using Apple products so.....
Apple is not as popular as you think
Should we set our camera to shoot in ARGB or sRGB?
Doesn't matter if you shoot raw. If you're shooting in jpeg only, or JPEG + RAW, your camera will give you a choice of color space for the JPEGs. I'd recommend using AdobeRGB there. But again, if you're shooting RAW only, then you don't need to worry about any of the color space settings in your camera, they won't have any effect.
great tip thank you@@kiffaaaa
@@kiffaaaa This is not true. There is a difference in the RAW files. Plenty of videos out there showing it. The Adobe RBG RAWs have more data.
Thanks Todd!
I also use Adobe1998, camera, monitor and Photoshop (raw) because I always did for 20 years, but I'm always freaked out by how different (bad) images look in windows file explorer? is this what others see? also, more of my work is now used on web rather than print. does web convert to SRGB? so should i be using SRGB all the way though? would this give more consistency between what I see in PS and others see on their devices.
edit in adobe rgb and convert to srgb.
ok, so p3 is an intermediate quality between adobe rgb and s rgb. Is there a situation where choosing s rgb over p3 would still be beneficial ? To make the fullest out of dci-p3, should I shoot photos in Adobe Rgb, with my camera rather than S Rgb ?
The answer seems to be obvious, I guess. sRGB color space is still more suitable for web although some web-browsers support Adobe RGB color profile embedded into a file.
So any color space is the choice for any particular task or way of publishing the file, if You will.
The answer depends on where you think your image will be seen. In a way, it's the fundamental question behind Todd's video, but he doesn't really address it directly.
When you choose to export to Adobe RGB, P3, or sRGB, you are in a way choosing the language that a screen or printer will use to translate the data (the ones and zeroes) of your image on your hard drive into the data (the ones and zeroes) that will produce pixels on the screen (or print) for the viewer to see. Any given screen or printer understands certain languages with more or less perfection. If a screen's specifications says that it covers 99% of the sRGB spectrum, that means that the screen can understand the "sRGB language" with 99% accuracy. So when you export your image from Lightroom using the sRGB profile (or "language"), the screen will understand 99% of the intention and reproduce it on the screen with 99% accuracy.
So what happens when your screen doesn't "speak" the Adobe RGB profile and you send it an image in Adobe RGB? Screens are usually manufactured in a way that tells them to translate (display) an image using sRGB if they receive it in a language they don't understand. In other words, they can understand a little of the Adobe RGB message, enough to do their best guess in sRGB, but it's going to be a bad translation. It will translate something, but a some of the fine meaning (the subtle color differences) will be lost, compressed, or muddied. In this case, your screen doesn't have the "language" to understand what Adobe RGB is saying, but it knows it has to translate *something*, so it uses its native language.
So your question is better understood as, "Is there a situation where choosing [a color space that almost every screen can accurately translate] over [a color space that most - but not all - screens can accurately translate] would still be beneficial?" One answer could be that you're unsure if many people will be seeing an Adobe RGB color space image on screens that cannot translate (display) Adobe RGB images. If that happens, most people will be seeing the "badly translated" version of your image, meaning the converted sRGB version. Some people will have the good screens (the screens that can fully understand the Adobe RGB language) and your image will look its best. But if you think that most people don't have screens that can translate Adobe RGB or P3, then you would choose sRGB.
You would be intentionally limiting the colors in your photo by choosing sRGB this way, but you have to remember - this is crucial - that the screen you're going to see the image on can't display those advanced colors anyway. So what are you really losing by choosing sRGB? There is, in fact, a benefit to still editing in Adobe RGB (or P3 or ProPhoto RGB) even if you're planning on exporting in sRGB. But that's a slightly different topic. The key is to first understand where your image is going to be seen (screen or print) and work backwards from there.
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
great video ! good talker . again downside that aka log-ish blacks
ProPhoto enters the room, lightrooms default colorspace... Weird right?
what about rec2020
If it holds true that working all along with the widest colorspace Prophoto in order to have files with most possible flexibility and least degradation during editing, then why miss the opportunity to say it here ?
Stoltenberg Trail
Guys please what can I do
My pictures look warm on Lightroom and photoshop but when I export on my phone it looks nice but it looks a bit cold.
What can I do?
My Colour format is RGB
My Colour space is SDR
Color format/space has nothing to do with it, its all about calibration
@@jermygod okay thank you
Do I wrong? I am using my calibrated monitor using hardware calibration. I definitely try to use AdobeRGB?
ProPhoto is supposed to have an even wider gamut than Adobe RGB.
How does an Adobe RGB file display on a screen that hasn't such a wide colour range?
Approximation. Conversion near the same way, the software like Photoshop does.
Depends on the gamut mapping/clipping used...
I think I was getting mixed up -- I had heard if you convert an image to CMYK it won't display properly on regular monitors
Just make ProPhoto or Rec2020 one of the standards, why are these people so bad - the whole point is to have best possible colors, and not be limited by the past. My monitor's Native settings looks to have larger gamut than AdobeRGB - does it mean it uses some custom one?
This image of the Macaw on Apple's presentation in sRBG is extremely fake, it looks like a print on newspaper paper. But, the thing is, working on a wide color space doesn't mean you are going to have all the colors available in that space. Regular people don't print photos anymore. I think this fall more on the fine art side from my perspective. Even for designers and illustrators is really hard to use extremely saturated colors.
I've always been told to use the largest color space possible when editing and to take the "losses" (in moving from color spaces) at the end of the worldflow or as close to it as possible. Obviously sending files from say Lightroom (which uses Melissa which I think is a variant of ProPhoto RGB but still larger than Adobe RGB) to a third party plug-in, sometimes it has to be reduced to ADobe RGB, so I've started to wonder if I should just use that as a default, and then when exporting, export to sRGB and for print purposes use either Adobe RGB or sRGB depending on what the print lab suggests. Most modern prints though, will support sRGB and can you get good prints from such printers, so I don't think using Adobe RGB is as big of a deal as it used to be or if you're not using lab color for example or doing commercial publications (which may still want things in Adobe RGB). And if you're working on scree/web-only content (photos that will only be posted to the web with no real intention of printing) then by all means I would use sRGB (you sort of have to for web-based images). But I'm still a bit old fashioned and prefer to use Adobe RGB (and have my cameras set to use this color space as well) as I said, I like to have the flexibility of changing to a smaller color space as needed, and not be forced into a smaller color space (ADobe RGB is plenty as very few displays -- if any -- can actually render the full ProPhoto RGB spectrum, or P3 for that matter; but many can do 90%+ of Adobe RGB and even more can cover all or most of sRGB. Long story short, I don't think it's as a big of a concern as it used to be, unless you are perhaps doing things that require the utmost highest level of color accuracy and are printing, then there may be some benefits from using ADobe RGB (or a larger color space).
Sorry I only red you in diagomal. I Think you got it right (if) : use always prophoto as working masterfile.
(Lightroom offer printpreview-copies that can help...)
Didn't mention Pro RGB.
And what about time code 07:26? Did you watch the whole video?
7:21
You don't even mention 8bit or 16bit? ala "banding" problems
No
For editing there is a rule: the more the better.
Not always buddy
@@marysia9679 Always. You can downgrade later (for the specific usage).
That's why the color profile which is an analogue of ProPhoto RBG is used in Lightroom by default to render RAWs.
Don’t like this low contrast desaturated look of your video, especially on my 77 inch HDR tv - it looks lifeless! 💀
Really? I thought it looked cinematic and nice...very smooth skin too,