Even after so many years it's I think the best explanation of color spaces. Of course technology might have changed over the years (maybe not, I don't know) so we might have more options. But still the basics never change. Great video. Thanks.
@threedeeguy23043 жыл бұрын
Excellent lecture on color profiles. The 3 dimensional model and the clear, concise explanation are invaluable !
@iamsiddhantsahu7 жыл бұрын
This is only video which recommends to stay in sRGB color space. But the most important key point said in this video is that "The closer you stay to the range that you will be working(printing) in, the less expansion or contraction the profiling will have to do and if you stay closer to the original color it's easier to match the colors"
@nickfedyk9 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU! I appreciate you taking the time to explain color mgmt so thoroughly! Please dont stop :)
@fiddelinpaul4 жыл бұрын
The best and clearest explanation of this somewhat confusing subject I have ever seen in my 60 years in photography. Thank you.
@cg9612 Жыл бұрын
That says a lot. Thanks for the input.
@ragnarocking8 жыл бұрын
Very good breakdown and explanation. I'm in the market for a new monitor and have come across so many advertising 99%+ Adobe RGB. Being the type to go for the more "future-proof" technology, I almost pulled the trigger on one of them (for considerably more money) thinking that AdobeRGB was going to be the new norm tomorrow. I'm glad I did my due diligence and sought out a better explanation of these color spaces and found your video. Thanks!
@russkai19 жыл бұрын
Thankyou so much for taking time to do a clear and well explained video on a topic that every photographer has to understand just to start at the right place. It annoys me that if i search on google most websites say stay clear of sRGB, but as soon as go on KZbin all people say sRGB all the way unless you have the capacity to do otherwise from photo to output.
@PauloRibeiro979710 жыл бұрын
A video tutorial just amazing. The best I've ever seen and truly undeniable. Your teaching, 3D graphics and and your easy to explain, transmit security and veracity of what was shown.
@bazzie859 жыл бұрын
glad I stumbled upon this video. Like many of the others have already said, most people on the internet advocate using aRGB. But your explanation was clear, scientific and logical.
@e-knockpower78085 жыл бұрын
I rarely bother to comment on tutorial videos but this is absolutely exquisite exposition. The best explanation of the colour space conundrum I've ever seen. The only way the video could be improved is if you discussed screen displays in a bit more detail (e.g. the [lack of] prevalence of monitor support for anything significantly outside sRGB). aRGB monitors are still preferable in certain edge cases where one knows that they will be reproducing a lot of content using a superset of sRGB but I suspect that even in 2019, my 100% sRGB space monitor will be more than adequate for my non-professional usage. aRGB monitors don't seem to justify their massive extra markup for even most professional designers and photographers. If you have any thoughts on that matter, I'd love to hear them. Thanks again for the wonderful video!
10 жыл бұрын
Great video! After watching it I decided to stay in sRGB, because it seems to be working best for me (I neither have a calibrated screen nor a printer that could handle AdobeRGB). Thank you very much for your explanations!
@ProfessorPflaume9 жыл бұрын
Great! The best theoretical comparision and explanation of color spaces I've seen so far. Helps a lot! Thanks!
@627R6 жыл бұрын
3 people are rude. Thank you so much you are a very good teacher you gave the most thorough information there is anywhere i have found on the web. Thank you again sir and god bless..
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
That's a great analysis. Answers a lot of my questions.
@GalaxyArtMedia9 жыл бұрын
very nice tutorial
@wildernesswordsmith3 жыл бұрын
I actually liked my prints in sRGB (just a touch duller) rather than Adobe RGB (always more red and blue tint), but the technical manual I use says to use Adobe RGB. Guess what - I am changing to sRGB. Thank you. Great tutorial.
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
But are you using Adobe RGB in your camera and editing tool workspace and a calibrated monitor and soft proofing for the paper to be printed on, with a aRGB capable printer? Not doubting your expertise or skills, just hoping you didn't miss anything.
@danlang1881 Жыл бұрын
It's a concept so hard to grasp for me as a photography enthusiat, this video really helped.
@dennisj.varadesr98165 жыл бұрын
The only color I've ever gotten with sRGB is dull and boring, might be reproducible but a little extra clean colors in unexpected places can make your photos pop. Especially when comparing your prints to some else's prints using sRGB. sRGB is definitely consistent with muddy boring colors. I like the cleaner warmer and brighter colors that you can achieve with Adobe RGB even if they are not 100% natural.
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
If you are getting muddy / boring colors, this is definitely not caused by sRGB, but by your specific workflow assuming AdobeRGB and then treating your images as such, whilst they are not AdobeRGB; don't blame sRGB for that.
@ariman697010 жыл бұрын
Designers and Printers have no liason in industry .... that is the main issue .... your video's are very good
@joes.83517 жыл бұрын
Yes! I am here to try and understand why they blame me for the print not matching lol.
@joaogarcia65004 жыл бұрын
Great video to understand color profiles! Congratulations.
@MarkoNara6 жыл бұрын
best explanation in the entire internet... GJ!
@DBRMatrix9 жыл бұрын
This video is excellent. I think pc monitor manufacturers have exploited public ignorance on colour space to sell more IPS panels..
@jport66556 жыл бұрын
Top notch teaching
@naturereporter27194 жыл бұрын
Thank you. It was really easy to follow and fun to learn.
@ArguelloFlores9 жыл бұрын
Thank you for posting this video. Very informative, and now I understand why my prints are a bit different.
@oceanpulse84996 жыл бұрын
best described video on color space. Not very entertaining but my questions answered. Saved it to review at another time.
@wernertschan320 Жыл бұрын
Most Monitors do not cover Adobe RGB but sRGB. Therefore - if you work in Adobe RGB on one of these Monitors you can't see what you are doing as the color range is limited by the monitor. I recommend my students s-RGB always.
@dance2jam2 жыл бұрын
Thank you all this time later (10 years) for attempting to break this down for a new photographer. So, I'm not sure if you are still here answering questions, but I'm going to ask anyway. I understand that sRGB is the smallest "balloon" and Adobe RGB is a bigger "balloon" and Pro photo is the biggest "balloon" and that the space between a specific digital number (i.e. 255 of one color if far from it's "equivalent" value in another color space. It appears that the bigger the balloon, the more potential for obtaining certain saturated colors. I also understand from your video "what's the point" if your output device can not reproduce it. Now, my question: I'm not sure what fills (if anything) the balloon (i.e.just more distance between color representation?). Now, the killer question: If in 2022, the default for most output devices (WEB, TV) is sRGB (I don't know if it is), why do cameras still offer Adobe RGB as a color space offering (and some people recommend it). Is there any advantage between editing a photo taken in a high end camera in Adobe Raw to Lightroom or Photoshop using an Adobe RGB calibrated monitor, and then output the file as TIFF (for printing) or JPG for presentation (web, TV) vs. just doing the same in sRGB? Is Adobe RGB just all smoke and mirrors in the real world if your output device (i.e. printer/internet) doesn't support it? Any advantage at all or is there more color shift as you compress the image (which is what I think you are alluding to here).
@boudewijnkrijger3462 жыл бұрын
Eventhough ten years old, this video is still valid. There are some new developments, like Apple now using Display P3 as a colorspace on some devices. To not disrupt behavior, it is downwards compatible with good old sRGB, but offers support for colors outside the sRGB range, which the latests iOS and Mac displays are capable of. Unless you control the workflow, so for instance you use a profiled printer yourself or a cailbrated monitor with greater than sRGB range, sRGB will still give you the most consistent and predictable colors. When the output device on which the photo is shown/printed does support more than sRGB, and the subject contains colors outside sRGB, you can then obtain these colors by using AdobeRGB. On most printers, you will have a hard time spotting the difference between a properly managed AdobeRGB print and sRGB print. In fact, I would say that in more than 90% of the cases you would not be able to distinguish the two. But for the other 10%, provided you have profiled your printer and your printer-ink-media combination supports a larger gamut than sRGB, if can make sense to use AdobeRGB. To complicate things, this is only true when you use relative or absolute rendering intent (see my video on rendering intent). If you use Perceptual, all colors will be scaled from source to destination profile, so for instance the reddest red in your sRGB photo will be scaled to the reddest red of your printer (profile). But the downside of Perceptual is that all colors are scaled to the output balloon. The larger the gamut of the profile you use, the larger the step between two subsequent RGB color values is, which is where 16 bit ( or more than 8 bit) can become useful. By having more bits, the step size is reduced, just like it would be when using sRGB instead of AdobeRGB. Pro Photo still is a color space you should only use if you are certain AdobeRGB will not have enough gamut to contain the colors in the photo. In all the software I create, sRGB is still the default as it is still the thing that shows the same colors on most output devices. Compare AdobeRGB to having a 5760 dpi option in the latest Epson printers; theoretically it's 4 times sharper than 1440 dpi (or 16 if you consider both x and y axis) but in practice, it's almost impossible, to spot the difference. But to a consumer, 5760dpi sounds much better. Or how an 8K TV sounds a lot sharper than HD, whilst many sources are only HD and hardly any 8K, so effectively you're seeing exactly the same in 95% of the cases. It's funny how nothing has fundamentally changed; better specs in marketing communication still convince the consumer.
@dance2jam2 жыл бұрын
@@boudewijnkrijger346 Thank you so much for the time and effort spent helping my initial foray on this topic. Most of it made sense to me, but I did get a bit lost in the center. I will certainly watch your video on "rendering intent" and will likely chime in as I learn a bit more - and narrow my questions a bit. I am trying to build an understanding from the ground up on this, and my journey has just begun, but in 12 hours I already feel a bit more educated and dangerous. I get the consumer hype vs. reality issues. It's hard for the average consumer to understand the nuances, and advertising sure exploits that (i.e. gluten free, Omega 3-6-9-12, 8K). I don't have the time or energy to explore anything in depth except that which is important for my understanding of what I'm doing. I appreciate you dissecting this issue the way you did, and I look forward to having a better discussion when I'm more educated! Thank you again!
@vicwahbyphotography48667 жыл бұрын
I also enjoyed this video. But, I'm left with this question: If my iMac (late 2015) doesn't show all of Adobe sRGB color space, and my printer uses Adobe RGB, how is that handled? I suspect I will only get sRGB colors. If, conversely, I convert my RAW file to Adobe sRGB, and even though I can't see the full gamut on my iMac, am I better off with this workflow? I can't imagine the colors would be worse than sRGB, since I'm allowing more gradations, even though I can't preview them on-screen.
@garyrowe588 жыл бұрын
great info regarding not sending redundant info to output devices, wonder if current printers are closer to managing AdobeRGB than they were when you made this.
@ColorPlazaTV7 жыл бұрын
Hi Gary, It was a busy last quarter, so I only now noticed your comment; printer gamut is not increasing much anymore, mainly because there is a limit to what pigments can do in inks. That said, manufacturers always claim their new inks have a wider gamut, and often provide you a chart without any details to "prove" it. It is more likely that inks change because manufactures want to protect their business; without inks, no more printers would be developed; Both Epson, Canon and HP would not be able to produce printers without the ink business. Ink costs are only a few dimes per liter, and is sold for hundreds of Euro's/dollars; that's a margin they only have on ink. Printers would be much more expensive if the manufacturers would want to make money on the printers themselves.
@boudewijnkrijger3467 жыл бұрын
Printers are not capable of producing full AdobeRGB. Not even 12 color high end printers. But on the right media, some can produce colors outside of sRGB.
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
@@boudewijnkrijger346 So, the best of printers and papers are closer to sRGB you would say? There's no use going the aRGB way, you suggest?
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV That's so sick of them. I mean, have some margin but 100s of times!
@boudewijnkrijger3462 жыл бұрын
@@danlightened I won't say there is never a reason to use AdobeRGB, but sRGB will give you good results in 99% of the time. Using sRGB will mostly only reduce issues, not the gamut.
@kevinarchambault33494 жыл бұрын
Absolutely true when printing to stay close to a colour gamut matching your output device Of course different ball game if you produce Web based or Video output since Monitor and TV screen technology just keeps getting better always improving and capable of reproducing larger colour gamut’s as of course same goes for Camera technology I would of course always save a copy of original document with higher gamut colorspace just in case
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
If you are certain your audience will be viewing the content on a device with a larger gamut, then you can make use of a larger gamut. It's true that the color gamut of displays is increasing. Your camera shoots in raw, and a profile is applied when processing raw, and when you do process them, you should keep the targeted output device in mind.
@kksrinivas249 ай бұрын
Very good explanation of color profiles. Thanks!!. A question - Do all display or printers faithfully reproduce sRGB (if they support it ). Are the colors consistent between sRGB monitor and sRGB printer output ?
@ColorPlazaTV9 ай бұрын
Most Printer drivers take sRGB as a starting point. How well the colors match depends on the printer profiles used in combination with the paper. In general it’s hardest to get bad results using sRGB
@harrymultimedia3 жыл бұрын
mmmm very interesting and informative
@lfergie85 жыл бұрын
Thank you ! Your videos are helpful!
@danrazART7 жыл бұрын
Hi there, nice video. The best of its kind. But, people are getting wrong idea here that sRgb monitors are better than Adobe RGB supported monitors. This video is referring to PRINT as final output medium so if you only want to watch better pictures on monitor then ADOBE RGB spectrum supported screen is the thing. For example, i am an oil and acrylic painter and when i try to paint digitally i don't see the colors i want on screen. Specially greens like Viridian and such. Another example; a video on my laptop looks pale and bleached compared to same video viewed on my sony HDTV. While greens are still far from perfect on that. So i get better visual experience on better gamut and value capable screen. Please do not get the idea that "why shoot video in Uhd while most people will be seeing it on smartphone screen." do you get my point? If u are printing few photos, no need Adobe rgb. But you just want to watch your thousands of photos and videos in best visual experience possible than get the best screen possible that can do that for you.
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
I get your point. As long as your work is for your viewing pleasure, that's fine. But the web supports sRGB only or so I hear. And as he mentioned, papers don't have the wider gamut of adobe RGB either. So, he's anybody else gonna view that?
@OlegKorsak5 жыл бұрын
is it possible to calibrate monitor so it would show only colors from a paper profile (that exist in adobergb/srgb)?
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
Hi Oleg, what you are referring to is a simulation profile. Some software, like photoshop, is capable of simulating a profile like a newspaper print. That requires the monitor to be profiled and a profile of the newspaper press - ink - paper combination. So yes, it is possible, but not by creating a monitor only.
@wots366 жыл бұрын
Very useful. Thanks!
@michaelb22113 жыл бұрын
So if one wants to work on screen mostly - pdf colorings that could be printed but are becoming rarely so nowadays, would Adobe RGB be the most sensible? Does it really just depend on what the range of colors in the image is? If it were never to be printed but stored in PDFs, photo pro?
@ColorPlazaTV3 жыл бұрын
It depends on the colors used and the display they are viewed on. If the PDF contains Spot colors, they could very well be outside of sRGB range. If the display used is a fairly standard one, its color range will not exceed sRGB. If an image is never printed, using a wider gamut than sRGB is perfectly fine, but realize that not all displays can show all these colors. To add to the confusion, Apple is now adapting to the P3 profile, which far exceeds sRGB. So on a new iPad Pro, you can see colors that never were visible on an older iOS device. One thing is certain; if you don't know on which display the image will be viewed/printed, sRGB will often be safest.
@niravraval82095 жыл бұрын
Great video! Thanks! Very informative. Just one question though, when you recommend not carrying world map while driving, why do you carry map of the universe? Do you use pro-photo profile for working on the photos you print as well?
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
I usually don't use a universe map; I personally never use ProPhoto, as it is so much larger than anything I can display or print, it makes little sense to use it. For generic photo's I use sRGB, for specific ones I might use AdobeRGB.
@niravraval82095 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV Got it! Thanks!
@mercurial3824 жыл бұрын
Top man! Thanks.
@jimdailey10183 жыл бұрын
When you talk printing, does it make much difference between traditional paper and digital (inkjet) printing?
@ColorPlazaTV3 жыл бұрын
Not so much the print technique, but the quality of the supplies matters; on a newspaper you will never see anything outside sRGB, nor on plain paper inkjet. But on a high quality offset print, or a 12 color photo paper inkjet you can print colors outside sRGB. But these would be uncommon colors, so not skin tones or the average photo.
@jimdailey10183 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV thanks
@lfergie85 жыл бұрын
I'm learning about print out put and colors. Your video is so helpful. When printing on 8.5"x11.5" what would you use sRGB or RBG? How can you calculate the paper and its size to the color output? Thanks
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
Hi Lisa, Assuming you are asking sRGB or AdobeRGB, I would say that unless your printer driver has a specific option for AdobeRGB, you are likely to get better matching colors when using sRGB. As resolution, It's not very useful to exceed 240 dpi on your print size, even when your printer can print a higher resolution, as you are likely to not get a better print from a resolution higher than 240 dpi. The minimum resolution for 8.5" x 11.5" I would use, would be 150 dpi, but on that relatively small size I'd prefer to use 240 dpi. Hope that helps.
@Rick-dq2rw9 жыл бұрын
thank you very much
@dpuk01594 жыл бұрын
Hi. Thank you such an information and clear guide. I now understand the rationale for working in sRGB if printing. However, if the image is not just intended for printing and is it be also viewed on a monitor, would it better to save the image in a larger colour space (AdobeRGB for instance) and allow Photoshop (or whatever other application is being used) to set the colour profile according to the target medium being printed on (such as the colour profiles created or supplied for a particular paper)?
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
DPUK 01 When you know the user will be able to use a larger colorspace and your image exceeds sRGB colorspace, only then it has advantages to use AdobeRGB. If you’re not certain, many problems can be avoided by using sRGB and you will never get complaints that an image is “dull” because you stored it with sRGB.
@dpuk01594 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV Thank you very much for your explanation. Based on what you say, I will experiment with staying in the sRGB colour space for everyday work. I do have the raw files to go back to if I need to work in a wider gamut.
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
@@dpuk0159 That's a sensible approach; in case the extra color gamut can be used for a specific purpose and is there in your particular image, you can always take advantage of it.
@esm33239 жыл бұрын
very helpful, thx
@donmacqueen5 жыл бұрын
One thing that puzzles me. I'm viewing this video on a monitor that, per an online review, covers only 66% of sRGB. Yet the video shows me colors that are outside of sRGB. What's happening; how can this be? (even if the monitor covered 100% of sRGB, it wouldn't cover all of AdobeRGB or ProRGB, both of which are presented in the video as showing colors outside sRGB.) (not that I expect a reply after all this time...but thanks even so)
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
If your monitor truly only shows 66% of sRGB, I suggest you get a new one, as the sRGB standard was made to be the average of what a monitor in the late 90's could show. When colors outside the accurate range of a monitor are shown on a poor monitor, you will simply see the color it can show. This color is likely to be less saturated than it should show if the monitor would have a larger gamut. Even though Manufactures sometimes claim they can show full range sRGB and even 99% of AdobeRGB, no monitor technically can do this, as both sRGB and AdobeRGB translate the RGB value 0,0,0 (no red, no green, no blue) to LAB 0,0,0 and no monitor can show an L value (Luminance) of 0, as that is basically absolute black, and I yet have to see a monitor that is a black hole ;-)
@lolerie3 жыл бұрын
It does not. This video uses BT.709 primaries. Now if you were to watch it on modern tablet it will have fake DCI-P3 gamut. But it is just what I said: fake. Vivid mode, lol. Even more modern devices do have Natural mode that is 100% of sRGB and will show DCI-P3 /Prophoto correctly by color managing to display icc profile. bt.2020 too and BT.2100.
@tonitonlos4 жыл бұрын
so why then don't choose the largest CMYK color space - with the highest possible printable total inc coverage? Basically right was the video shows - but this is just related to printing - image data bases in companies for example used are for different outputs - so it would no be recommended to store the data in the smallest RGB colourspace. There is still the possibility of soft proofing to see in advance what the output would look like - if you have the right equipment and knowledge. And there are hardcopy outputs which use RGB values as a source - like Dye transfer or others using RGB lasers as an exposure unit.
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
You only use CMYK colorspace just before printing to a device that is CMYK driven, so basically not any printer, but a press. CMYK colorspaces are usually device specific and never ever intended to use for image retouching. You can use soft proofing using the CMYK profile for your press. There are "standardized" CMYK profiles, but those are never perfect, as a conversion from that profile to the actual output device is still going to be needed. If you are driving CMYK devices (so not your average printer, as those are all driven in RGB and converted to the printers 4-12 inks by the driver) only then you use CMYK profiles.
@PierreLouisVuillemin6 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot
@marcelahinnant98096 жыл бұрын
I understand that I should export my pictures in sRGB to be printed. When I create a slideshow and I will be watching it on my TV, I should export them in AdobeRGB. Am I right? It means my color space in my camera should be set for AdobeRGB. Am I right?
@sonywink21826 жыл бұрын
Marcela Hinnant - Yes, that is kind of right... but You can set your camera to sRGB, Adobe RGB or to RAW. sRGB and Adobe RGB is for JPG and your camera will spice up your photos for you. If you set your camera to RAW (kind of like Pro Photo) you get ALL information from the sensor to work with in your computer to spice up your photos the way you like.
@danlightened2 жыл бұрын
Your TV/monitor too should support Adobe RGB. They're expensive and not very common.
@RichardoftheSixties6 жыл бұрын
For images intended for website use only, would AdobeRGB make sense then??
@ColorPlazaTV6 жыл бұрын
In most cases not, because the majority of the devices out there are not capable of displaying anything outside the gamut of sRGB. Recent phones can, but those are also equipped with all kinds of corrections for blue light, and in most cases aren't the most stable in color.
@juanreyes52225 жыл бұрын
Interesting!! So adobe RGB just ain’t advisable to use for printing images,that’s good to know. Thanks!!
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
Well, not entirely: you can use AdobeRGB just fine if you know your workflow can cope with it. So if your monitor can show most of AdobeRGB's gamut, and your printer can cope with AdobeRGB as a source profile, you can print colors outside the sRGB gamut. But that will be less than 5% of all photo's on which you might see a difference when compared to sRGB side by side. So basically, there is nothing wrong with sRGB and using a profile with a larger gamut can lead to issues if you don't control the workflow from start to finish.
@juanreyes52225 жыл бұрын
ColorPlaza TV I see,thank you for explaining it further. I just purchased an used late 2015 iMac with the 27 inch 5k display and I looked in the screen/display settings and it does have the AdobeRgb option,I switched back & forth between the A.rgb and srgb and the adobe colors do look much better. I did more research after I read your reply and you’re right,I do could print in adobe rgb but apparently most pro labs only print on srgb so it depends which lab or printer I choose to print. I work mostly with Raw files so I suppose it doesn’t matter till I convert them to jpegs to post on my media websites or save for printing on later date. It’s puzzling why would most labs only print on srgb when AdobeRgb has more color range which I imagine,make better prints. I have a question a bit off topic,how do you go about checking if your colors are calibrated correctly? I know there’s tools you can buy online but I was wondering if there’s a way to check if your computer is color calibrated without paying $150 for a device.
@kolias336 жыл бұрын
Excelent! and there goes... my probably silly question to you.....I have benn asking myself this. Why if my monitor only works on sRGB I can "see" the Prophoto in that same monitor? :-P
@ColorPlazaTV6 жыл бұрын
TPerera : there are precisely zero monitors that can show the full pro photo gamut. Even the ones that claim they can show AdobeRGB gamut should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if you do have a monitor that can show colors outside sRGB, what is the point if others cannot? There is plenty of gamut in sRGB and anyone telling you you need pro photo is not well informed. AdobeRGB is the only valid alternative if you have very specific images with colors outside sRGB
@kolias336 жыл бұрын
Thanks for clarifying my doubts. i do really appreciate your help. Truly, your vidS have been of great help to me...and so well explain!!!
@elmafudd97032 жыл бұрын
This was correct for a decade ago, now most pro printers can print outside the Adobe RGB range on a good paper.
@ColorPlazaTV2 жыл бұрын
I have several printers less than one year old, and even the 12 color printer does not exceed AdobeRGB color gamut, not even on the most glossy paper there is can the entire AdobeRGB gamut printed. In fact, many printers internally map from sRGB to the available inks by default. Sure, you can print a color that is outside sRGB, but 99% of the colors fit inside sRGB.
@elmafudd97032 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV Did I sound like a nob. I am a bit on the scale and did not mean to. I was not criticising the vid. This is not me being confrontational just factual. I have no intention to be an internet troll. It may be just terminology and different definition on words. All RGB colour spaces have the same number of Hue's (colours) its the breadth of saturated tints shades and tones that changes in the larger colour gamut volumes. As most know Pro photo has more saturated hue and volume esp. in blue/ultraviolet etc it does not have more colour. I know you know this its just semantics but it can be very confusing to many. The Printers that I refer to are very expensive they are pro printers in the best business. They cost half a million I do not refer to the good to very good printers that many may have at home or in a small business. Even if they do cost thousands and are new and are called pro printers. I also stated that they can print colours outside RGB not that they can print the entire spectrum of colours of RGB (its all semantics so dont worry).sRGB has 100% of the colours as explained above R255 G0 B0 is 100% saturation is identified the same in all colour spaces. Pro photo is mapped with the same numbers. The difference between Hue and saturation can be confusing to many. It does not mean Pro Photo has more colours. Red is red no matter how much tint or shade is added. Colour (hue) profiles or ICC profiles contain the mapping information of a colour space. and colour (hue) spaces are two very different things. Colour (hue) space is a colour (hue) gamut from the electromagnetic spectrum remember that all colour (hue) spaces have the same number of colours (hue) they just have less or more saturated tints shades and tones. Not to be contradictory or inflammatory but sRGB is a small colour volume and most saturated tints shades and tones fit outside of it. A Printer of pro companies can and should take files in Adobe RGB. sRGB is becoming legacy and with internet browsers now recognising colour profile sRGB even for the net is becoming legacy. Anyways it all depends on the subject. A white cat in the snow will be just fine in sRGB as would an over case day at the beach, but a busy market in India with vibrant saturated colours will not fit in an sRGB gamut. Its all very complicate as you well know and almost impossible to explain with out righting a book. Thank you for your time and your videos. I do have to say that it is my humble opinion that your statement, 99% of the colours fit inside sRGB is confusing to many. That is not a criticism and I wish you well. Live long and prosper.
@boudewijnkrijger3462 жыл бұрын
@@elmafudd9703 Feedback is always welcome. You're absolutely correct that not more hues are available in any other color space than sRGB, just more saturated versions. Pro Photo to me is a fairly useless colorspace as its gamut exceeds every device you can view or print on. Saying Pro Photo is best is like saying a map of the universe is best. That's not the case if you're trying to find your way around town; then a city map (sRGB) is much more useful. I'd like to know which printers you are referring to that far exceed printers like the Canon Pro 1000 with its 12 inks. I have not seen them, but would love to know which ones you are referring to. You are correct that some vibrant colors can exceed the gamut of sRGB, but the ability of the human eye to distinguish one saturated color from an even more saturated color is limited. The gamut of AdobeRGB exceeds that of many monitors and printers, so you will be using colors that possibly cannot be accurately shown or printed. So only if you know very well what you're doing in terms of color management and have the proper gear for it, it makes sense to use AdobeRGB. I stick to my guns when I say that >90% of the images do not exceed that of the average screen, which is what sRGB gamut reflects.
@xeroidianworld75035 жыл бұрын
Pure Black 2.0... that would rate rgb 0.0.0 right?
@LionOfTheWood5 жыл бұрын
yes, but i think I understand what he means. You need some ambient light to see pure printed black on paper with your eyes, make sense ?
@SalwanJBinni7 жыл бұрын
thanks so much for the stuff. just would you please explain the difference between 12 bit and 14 bit options in digital cameras? and how does that affect RAW files. your feedback is truly appreciated.
@ColorPlazaTV7 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting question; advantage of more bits in Raw files. In a way, this is comparable to the size of a colorspace; the more bits, the better, as more steps can be defined in between, making for smoother gradations. Imagine having only 1 bit; then a pixel is on or off, and colors are limited to 8; RGB,CMY, Black & White. More bits do not give you more better colors, but allow for more shades. The human eye is pretty bad at seeing the difference between two colors that are almost the same color, unless that color is grey (along the L axis of the LAB model) in other words; for very low saturated colors. Saturated color may just as well be defined using less bits, as the human eye is incapable of seeing the difference between two 14 bits (or 12 bits for that matter) colors. Like sRGB suffices in 95% of the images, so does 8 bit for 95% of the images. The only advantage of using more bits is that it allows for more accurate calculations when you are still editing the picture; compare it to a calculator having more decimals; the more it has, the more accurate it becomes. That said there is no disadvantage to using more bits, other then that files increase in size. So if you have more bits available; use them. When you want to store the final images they can be saved with less bits, even 8 bit for most images. The images on which you will most likely see advantages of more bits are those with color gradations using colors that are close; te more bits you have, the less banding you will get. I might do a video on bits to explain this topic a bit more comprehensive.
@toonrme19684 жыл бұрын
its down the your printer and its colour gamut, IE many inkjets can exceed sRGB and some very close to Adobe 1998, in this case why restrict the colour gamut by using a smaller colour space. Photographers retouch in PROPHOTO (camera raw) then save as adobe or srgb depending on final print.
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
Only very few printers will come close to AdobeRGB range and then only on high gloss media, and ProPhoto should only be used by those that understand what they are doing; It's like giving a map of the galaxy to someone looking to navigate from Paris to Rome; maybe not impossible, but not the best way to do it. 99% of all pictures do not even exceed sRGB color space, so you are not "restricting" yourself when you use it. The only reason some photographers use ProPhoto is that they think it is for Professionals. I personally think ProPhoto is pretty much useless, also for editing, as it can make a small change in RGB values have a huge consequence in color. If you cannot see the colors you're using (Which is often the case when using ProPhoto), the chances of you making the right corrections are slim.
@toonrme19684 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV you will find many epson pro inkjets come very close to adobe rgb as do canons ipf range, prophoto is better as you eliminate the chances off too many errors plus srgb is too restrictive in green and cyan ranges of cmyk and many cmyk colour standards are wider than srgb . Yes if youre producing something of a more restricted gamut i agree but many colour standards are above srgb
@life_xplorers10 жыл бұрын
If you only have an sRGB map and walk on Adobe RGB color space, a very uncreative cloud will send you straight into 100% pure black.
@awandererTJ4 жыл бұрын
You should be aware that this is a very old video. And there is some progress going on in printers, printer inks, papers, monitors, software... The other thing is, colors are percepted not like straight values of a color dot next to another color dot. Colors are relative, colors mix, colors play. If you print for yourself it would make perfect sense to try and see what you are getting in rel life from Adobe RGB, sRGB and CMYK, and then decide. I would not be surprised if you'd get visibly more punch and smoothness in print from an Adobe RGB file than from an sRGB. I'm not convinced by the numbers at all. ProPhoto is obviously an overkill though... for the time being.
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
Nothing has fundamentally changed in digital color, so everything in this video is as valid as it was when it was made. If you are suggesting people try using CMYK at home, you clearly need some additional education, as no digital printers at home function on a CMYK basis. More "smoothness" when using AdobeRGB is equally an indication you don't fully grasp what it means when the same number of bits suddenly address a larger gamut; that can never result in increased smoothness. ProPhoto will forever be an overkill, as it will never practical. It's like a map of the galaxy to travel the world; useless.
@awandererTJ4 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV Thanks for the heads up. Sure I'm not an expert in your field, but what I've learned well in my life is, don't trust experts too much. Security experts will tell you your account is safe, ecologists will tell you CO2 is killing the planet, doctors will tell you herbal medicine is bogus, biologists will tell you you're a monkey fully described by your DNA, physicists will sell you relativity, big bang and dark matter... etc. etc. With all due respect I cannot totally exclude a digital print expert might be a bit indoctrinated by the industry. Models and numbers are one thing and actual perception is another. So, my call for personal hands-on experience still stands too. It doesn't hurt to try and see for yourself.
@ColorPlazaTV4 жыл бұрын
@@awandererTJ I fully agree it never hurts to get hands-on experience. My video is based on over 25 years of professionally using in alphabetic order Calcomp, Canon, ColorSpan, Epson, HP and LaserMaster printers ranging from cheap A4 printers to 64" production beasts. No manufacturer is sponsoring me, so I always try to be objective.
@awandererTJ4 жыл бұрын
@@ColorPlazaTV Never meant to question _your_ expertise. (I do question the very institute of expertise though.) And your video is actually very good. It is clear, reasonable, well pronounced. Yet I as a photographer with my particular printer, my inks, my papers, my pictures, my software, my monitor, my camera, my lenses, my guts, I still feel better in Adobe RGB color space all across the workflow than in sRGB. I don't suggest it for others and I might fail a blind test. And I don't publish to the Web. It's just me. Otherwise, especially if someone is looking for a straight fail-proof solution, you are right on the spot.
@vitolino94 жыл бұрын
@@awandererTJ I think he recommended using sRGB for the last step, exporting for printing. But in the edit pipeline it's better to have more bits and room for changing exposure and applying effects. And only before exporting changing to sRGB to get an actual idea of what will the printed paper be capable of showing. What's important is his explanation for such recommendation.
@marcelahinnant98095 жыл бұрын
I shoot Raw that means that I should not care what color space is my camera set in. Right?
@ColorPlazaTV5 жыл бұрын
That is correct; only when you process your Raw files you will be using an ICC profile. Raw files contain all data captured by your camera and can be processed to a colorspace of your own choice.