Assuming the most common thing the images will be displayed on is digital, I would say sRGB, and if she prints it will be somewhere cheap that creates nice popping colors from SRGB...
That was my thinking, that if you don't know where the images will be printed and especially if in "any lab off the street", sRGB would be a safer bet.
I disagree. I would provide her with a jpeg/sRGB for web use and a TIFF/Adobe RGB for printed materials. Don't assume that she's going to make prints off a cheap home printer. This is your work being seen also. Make certain that it has the opportunity to be seen at its best.
You can get great prints done in sRGB. Many labs didn't start excepting aRGB until fairly recent. When they go and post the images on the web they need to be in sRGB.
Why give them in TIFF Just makes for larger file sizes and there is no benefit. It actually hurts the model. The model might need to know how to convert from TIFF to jpeg to send them to the lab.
Labs can print TIFFs just as easily as they could a jpeg. No need to convert because labs are very comfortable with large files. The bottom line is that the sRGB has less information, color-wise, and why would you choose to print a file with less info to represent your work?
Don’t trouble your models with color management. The wider color spaces are for you or maybe a skilled intermediate user (like a pro-lab), but not suitable for your end user. The advantages, if any, are subtle to begin with. I would convert the files to sRGB. Adobe RGB is for your own archive and can be used when you have to provide files for specific needs to a person who request such files and can handle these.
Same it true for TIFF vs JPG. Why trouble your model with large TIFF files. High quality JPG files are practically identical.
Deezie wrote:
Labs can print TIFFs just as easily as they could a jpeg. No need to convert because labs are very comfortable with large files. The bottom line is that the sRGB has less information, color-wise, and why would you choose to print a file with less info to represent your work?
When I have a choice in my printer then I use the Adobe RGB profile because the color gamut is a little broader than the sRGB.
But in many cases you may be giving the digital files to someone and they will be having them printed at any number of places, where the sRGB profile may be more in tune with their printers. Nothing looks worse than an Adobe RGB profiled image printed in the wrong color profile .. the skin tones in particular look like death. So in those cases I will convert to sRGB and know I'm covering more printing options that with other profiles.
Professional printing labs are increasingly asking for JPEG files at 10 or 11 quality.
My workflow is Adobe RGB from capture to output when I know the lab, and when I don't know the lab I'll batch convert to sRGB JPEG as the last step.
Deezie wrote:
The bottom line is that the sRGB has less information, color-wise, and why would you choose to print a file with less info to represent your work?
This is a misconception. The amount of information (the number of bits you have) does not vary based on color space. The range of colors may be greater using Adobe RGB, but you "stretch" the same number of bits over a greater range.
If the photo really needs all those extra colors, then by all means use aRGB, but otherwise sRGB is a better bet.
nathanlake wrote: This is a misconception. The amount of information (the number of bits you have) does not vary based on color space. The range of colors may be greater using Adobe RGB, but you "stretch" the same number of bits over a greater range.
If the photo really needs all those extra colors, then by all means use aRGB, but otherwise sRGB is a better bet.
For many of us, those extra colors are not something that we wish to eliminate. It has not been my experience that the average photographer knows which colors extend beyond sRGB. Do they know if the dark greens in their landscape portrait are better served using aRGB? Or what about the magentas and yellows - will they have more punch in aRGB or will sRGB get it done?
If you're thinking about working at a commercial level you better get into the practice of working in a manner that takes little risks where color is concerned. For my company, files we send to print are always CMYK, so we don't dabble too much in aRGB except for initial proofs that we send along to clients. I tend to use vibrant, splashy colors in my work and when I do give files to talent, I make certain it's on my terms and representative of my vision. I am much more discriminating of my work than my clients will ever be, which is why clients trust me. In my opinion, the web is the only place suitable for sRGB.
Deezie wrote:
For many of us, those extra colors are not something that we wish to eliminate. It has not been my experience that the average photographer knows which colors extend beyond sRGB. Do they know if the dark greens in their landscape portrait are better served using aRGB? Or what about the magentas and yellows - will they have more punch in aRGB or will sRGB get it done?
If you're thinking about working at a commercial level you better get into the practice of working in a manner that takes little risks where color is concerned. For my company, files we send to print are always CMYK, so we don't dabble too much in aRGB except for initial proofs that we send along to clients. I tend to use vibrant, splashy colors in my work and when I do give files to talent, I make certain it's on my terms and representative of my vision. I am much more discriminating of my work than my clients will ever be, which is why clients trust me. In my opinion, the web is the only place suitable for sRGB. ...Show more →
The example of the greens is the perfect one to make my point. For the most part, the only advantage that Adobe RGB has over sRGB is in the greens and a very slight advantage in blues. If you are shooting portraits or other images that involve little or no green, the advantage goes to sRGB due to having the same number of graduations but within a slightly smaller space.
nathanlake wrote: The example of the greens is the perfect one to make my point. For the most part, the only advantage that Adobe RGB has over sRGB is in the greens and a very slight advantage in blues.
So out of the three channels that comprise RGB (red, green and blue), you admit that aRGB is superior in two of the three channels, yes? Since the latest home printers have expanded ink sets you can print colors beyond sRGB, so it can benefit those who work in aRGB. It is fairly well-known that many online printers and portrait labs prefer sRGB because it serves the lowest common denominator, which are people who are not terribly picky about the output of their photos. Most lab printers work within the narrow gamut of SRGB, so if the information falls outside the narrow gamut of sRGB then it doesn't get printed. You can get very good prints using sRGB, in addition to its superior performance on the web, but you're going to get amazing prints on aRGB. And if your printing offset, then RGB isn't even an option.
Personally, I'm not an advocate of taking the path of least resistance to success. In fact, I've never met a successful photographer who got there because it was convenient and easier.
Deezie wrote:
So out of the three channels that comprise RGB (red, green and blue), you admit that aRGB is superior in two of the three channels, yes?
I think perhaps you maybe misread his reply as he didn't 'admit' that:
aRGB is superior for *some* types of images and *inferior* for others.
If you have a wide gamut (ie a wider range of greens), then you have fewer colours inside the middle of that gamut, pretty much by definition
So, if your image has lots of green, then you're going to benefit from the wider gamut of greens (assuming your output device can support it). But if it is mainly composed of colours from the centre of the gamut, you're better off with a narrower gamut as it gives you more colours that you will actually use.
I believed this Adobe RGB vs sRGB discussion was already discussed to death many years ago.
The TS asked a simple question (and I already answered it earlier), what to give to the model?
Btw, to add something useful, the ideal color space doesn’t exist. It’s always a compromise and highly dependent on the image (color) contents. A good photographer should recognize problem colors and with the end usage in mind make the decision what color space to use. An unnecessary large color space can give problems, especially when you try to edit delicate colors. Sometimes it’s better to sacrifice very saturated colors if you can keep the delicate transitions. When I do portraiture, I choose sRGB for 50% of the images, Adobe RGB for 40% and Prophoto RGB for 10%. The model always gets sRGB - JPG files. A professional should protect their work, that doesn’t mean giving the files with the most data (16-bit prophoto RGB TIFF files), but the files that gives the least amount of problems. Misinterpretation of the right color space gives much poorer output compared to the subtle differences between Adobe RGB and sRGB.
Just makes for larger file sizes and there is no benefit. It actually hurts the model. The model might need to know how to convert from TIFF to jpeg to send them to the lab.