Which color space should I use? [LOCKED]

[austinmdiamond]

[This thread has been locked by a moderator. Please start a new thread if you have a question about color spaces / profiles.]

I am creating illustrations for both web and print. I want the colors to be as bright and vivid as possible—I tend to go for the neons, like lime green, hot pink, highlighter yellow! On the web, I want them to stay as bright and vivid as possible. For print, the same!

Which is the best color space/profile to use? There are so many options and I have read conflicting information.

Thank you!

[Derek Cross]

RGB and CMYK colour modes have different gamuts – you need to decide if you want to match the RGB to CMYK or decide to have different looks for each output.

You can't reproduce certain colours, such as bright green and orange, in CMYK. 

sRGB is probably the best space for both outputs, though there are some colour management contributors on this forum who may offer more informed information.

[D Fosse]

Wrong question and wrong assumption. The color space does not "determine" color in the sense you seem to think. You're not getting any more vivid colors than the output conditions allow, and you need to use a color space that represents the actual output.

What you should do is keep master files in a large color space that will keep all the color information. Then you save out copies for different output conditions, in the appropriate color space for that output.

For web, as Derek says, that's normally sRGB.

[TheDigitalDog]

From raw, use the widest gamut color space you can (in Adobe raw converters, that's ProPhoto RGB). Work as long as possible, and make your prints. For the web, resize as is necessary, convert to sRGB.

Get the 'best' of both worlds.

[austinmdiamond]

What is e-SRGB? Do you recommend that or sRGB IEC 61966-2.1 when I am creating my document?

Digitaldog, you say start in ProPhoto RGB? See why this is confusing? 😛

Should I be choosing "embed color profile" when I save them?

[TheDigitalDog]

See:

The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:

This three-part, 32-minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print. 

Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affect final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or oversaturated colors due to user error. 

Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.

Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB. [/i]

High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Low Resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&feature=youtu.be

[Derek Cross]

sRGB is Standard RGB

Digital Dog is an international expert on colour management, but I suggest, to keep things simple as a beginner, you keep to sRGB and explore the other spaces when you become more knowledgable.

[D Fosse]

sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is the one you want. That's the one listed among the standard profiles in Photoshop.

Stay as far away from e-sRGB as you possibly can - that's an old and outdated specification and a strange creature that will most likely damage your files permanently.

It seems to me there are two kinds of people in the world: those who swear by ProPhoto until a certain place freezes over, and those who think the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages. Apparently there's no one in the middle. I'm in the latter category. Take your pick - but what is certain is that ProPhoto is extremely dangerous in the hands of inexperienced users. If you don't know exactly what you're doing, you're going to get into trouble.

So my advice is - stick with sRGB until you know why you would want to use something else.

Always, always, always embed the profile.

[TheDigitalDog]

I suppose Adobe (and those working from raw) are those who swear by ProPhoto RGB 😉:

[D Fosse]

Yes, and I've said for years that this is misleading and incorrect. Furthermore, ProPhoto is an extremely bad choice for default from any point of view. Defaults are supposed to be safe choices for beginners. ProPhoto is not a safe choice for a beginner - it's a stick of dynamite. People who want/need ProPhoto will know perfectly well where to find it, they don't need to be hand-held to find it.

Why don't I like ProPhoto? It's too big. It's very insensitive to subtle adjustments. It's so compressed in the shadows that finding and correcting color casts is very difficult.

Out of gamut and gamut clipping is ultimately much harder to control with ProPhoto. Sometimes you get extremely saturated colors out of ACR/Lightroom, which are mostly processing artifacts, and it's much more efficient and much easier to control early on, in ACR/Lr, before it goes to Photoshop.

As I've said so many times here, good color is not about maximum saturation. It's about color relationships.

And all this is just to say that I have good reasons for not using ProPhoto. I just don't like it, to me it feels cumbersome and awkward to work with. It's not that I don't "know better".

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject. End of digression, back to the original question 😉

[TheDigitalDog]

We (Adobe and I) disagree. And that's fine.

I've done my own testing to print output and see a difference. Others are free to clip colors they can capture and output. 

[jane-e]

---

@TheDigitalDog wrote:

Others are free to clip colors 

---

I'm not following your train of thought. Andrew. Who are you saying is free to clip colors and why would anyone want to do that?

Jane

[TheDigitalDog]

---

@jane-e wrote:

---

@TheDigitalDog wrote:

Others are free to clip colors 

---

I'm not following your train of thought. Andrew. Who are you saying is free to clip colors and why would anyone want to do that?

Jane

---

Those users that process raw and don't follow Adobe's advice for rendering color space:

More examples from no less than three images here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/lightroom-and-photoshop-histograms-an...

[D Fosse]

Who are you saying is free to clip colors and why would anyone want to do that?

By @jane-e

I think we can just let this one go, Jane. He very specifically means me.

Apparently I'm a non-conformist with no respect for authority 😄 I live very well with that.

[jane-e]

He can't mean you, @D Fosse . You're a professional photographer and expert in color management. You don't clip colors. 

Jane

[TheDigitalDog]

---

@jane-e wrote:

He can't mean you, @D Fosse . You're a professional photographer and expert in color management. You don't clip colors. 

Jane

---

Maybe he's a JPEG shooter. I'm referring again to raw processing. As is Adobe.

As I wrote, I've never seen his photos.

[jane-e]

---

@TheDigitalDog wrote:

Maybe he's a JPEG shooter. I'm referring again to raw processing.

---

Why would you say that Andrew? Is this yet another dig at @D Fosse ? From what I can see you've been trying to discredit his expertise throughout this entire thread.

A discussion about the pros and cons of ProPhoto vs. Adobe RGB amongst experts is interesting in and of itself. It can do without the insulting comments you've been making.

My opinion only,

Jane

[TheDigitalDog]

I answered both of your questions Jane.

Further, I don't know as I've stated, I said "maybe".

I'll ask you one question: is it impossible he's a JPEG shooter?

I have no evidence and have stated multiple times I have no idea about his photography, but perhaps you do.

No “dig”. A possibility. And if so, the possibilities of color gamut clipping.

[TheDigitalDog]

---

@D Fosse wrote:

Who are you saying is free to clip colors and why would anyone want to do that?

By @jane-e

I think we can just let this one go, Jane. He very specifically means me.

Apparently I'm a non-conformist with no respect for authority 😄 I live very well with that.

---

 I provided Jane the answer to her question which covers far more Adobe users than just you sir. The Adobe user base under discussion revolves outside of your workflow consideration of rendering color space options and the above statement is another unfortunate assumption and multiple generalizations you've expressed here. 

"Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong."- Albert Einstein

[davescm]

I also see your comments as disrespectful to someone that you do not know. You know fine well, from this and other discussions, that Dag uses a raw workflow.

Healthy debate is a good thing, but this thread has degenerated beyond that  It's time to end this one now.

Dave

[TheDigitalDog]

---

@davescm wrote:

I also see your comments as disrespectful to someone that you do not know. You know fine well, from this and other discussions, that Dag uses a raw workflow.

---

I not only don't know he only shoots raw, but I also have no idea who Dag actually is. I can find no information here about Dag. If you wish to supply outside references, fine. 

You are correct, this is someone that I do not know. As I've stated multiple times, I've never seen his photography, nor have any idea how he produces his photography. And the vast majority of my comments on ProPhoto RGB, backed up by Adobe and color scientists are not solely directed at one person! You are welcome to assume this (like another) despite my writings otherwise, multiple times. 

Meanwhile, there are claims about ProPhoto RGB that have no data to back them up (and colorimetric data to show otherwise😞

"ProPhoto is so large that at least half of it is taken up by colors that can’t be reproduced anywhere else, not even in theory".

I await colorimetric evidence of this opinion. 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

[jane-e]

---

@TheDigitalDog wrote:

---

I can find no information here about Dag.

---

Your comments throughout this thread do seem like digs, Andrew, and they also come across as attacks on another ACP. In my humble opinion, they are borderline close to breaking forum guidelines. This conversation could have been a very interesting civil discourse with two very divergent views.

I mean this respectfully, Andrew. You have a lot of good ideas and you share them freely. You may not realize how it comes across when you make disparaging remarks to or about those who disagree with you.

Your link behind "here" goes to your own website, Andrew, which may be why it doesn't list Dag's many posts. 😊 http://digitaldog.net/files/NoTransparency.jpg

Best, 

Jane

[TheDigitalDog]

---

@jane-e wrote:

---

@TheDigitalDog wrote:

---

I can find no information here about Dag.

---

Your link behind "here" goes to your own website, Andrew, which may be why it doesn't list Dag's many posts. 😊 http://digitaldog.net/files/NoTransparency.jpg

---

The screen capture yes, and the lack of info here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/11575802

I can find no information there about “Dag” either. I do not know who “Dag” is.

Too bad this has gone so off topic from color Working Spaces and what Adobe and many others advise on “which should I use” and (factually) why/when. 

[D Fosse]

I'm grateful for the support, but I think this has gone far enough. Can someone lock this thread so we can all move on?

[jane-e]

@D Fosse 

Good idea. I can and shall lock it.

~ Jane