I shoot raw images only.

If the color space is set to sRGB in my camera, do I have the option of converting it into aRGB - or visa versa - without image degradation?

Or am I limited to the color space as I have it set in my camera?


(I am currently debating betewen two monitors - one is wide gamut (NEC 2690) and the other is non-wide gamut (NEC 2490).

Thanks

You have the option. RAW files essentially have no color space. The in-camera color space setting is really just a flag on the file, and only the Canon conversion software recognizes it as a default starting point, but even there it can be changed. Other RAW converters (at least as far as I am aware) ignore it entirely. It does of course affect any jpg's the camera produces.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

If you go for a wide gamut monitor make sure you are using fully color aware software - like Firefox 3 with this enabled.

What does Firefox have to do with post processing, colorspace, and RAW images? Nill is correct RAW files are, well, RAW. You will have to indicate in your PP software of choice which color space you wish to use. Personally I use Adobe RGB and only convert to sRGB when necessary to export. Many will tell you that sRGB is fine for most applications and they may be correct. When shooting JPEG images I have my cameras setup for Adobe RGB. Just a personal preference.

I suspect Paul has in mind that if you are preparing images for web viewing on a wide gamut monitor, you might not get a very good representation on that monitor of what the images will look like to the typical viewer using an sRGB monitor. Interesting question whether using a color managed browser will avoid that issue. I'm not sure it will.

I think some of the wide gamut monitors have an sRGB mode that you can switch to for this sort of viewing, but I don't know how accurate that is. The more I think about it, the more I tend to conclude that if you're preparing images primarily for web viewing, you're probably better off without a wide gamut monitor. I also have a notion that the advantages of wide gamut monitors are probably largely theoretical in any event for most of us who are not doing extremely color critical work.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Steve Ickes wrote:
What does Firefox have to do with post processing, colorspace, and RAW images? Nill is correct RAW files are, well, RAW. You will have to indicate in your PP software of choice which color space you wish to use. Personally I use Adobe RGB and only convert to sRGB when necessary to export. Many will tell you that sRGB is fine for most applications and they may be correct. When shooting JPEG images I have my cameras setup for Adobe RGB. Just a personal preference.

Nothing - nor did I say it did. I was commenting on his choice between a wide gamut and non wide gamut monitor and pointing out (to be helpful!) that the use of a wide gamut monitor can cause other problems unless they are considered.

My humble apologies if you feel this is not appropriate.

Nill Toulme wrote:
I suspect Paul has in mind that if you are preparing images for web viewing on a wide gamut monitor, you might not get a very good representation on that monitor of what the images will look like to the typical viewer using an sRGB monitor. Interesting question whether using a color managed browser will avoid that issue. I'm not sure it will.

I think some of the wide gamut monitors have an sRGB mode that you can switch to for this sort of viewing, but I don't know how accurate that is. The more I think about it, the more I tend to conclude that if you're preparing images primarily for web viewing, you're probably better off without a wide gamut monitor. I also have a notion that the advantages of wide gamut monitors are probably largely theoretical in any event for most of us who are not doing extremely color critical work.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I replied before I saw this

I got a Dell 2408 and had terrible problems viewing Miranda on it before switching tio Firefox 3. Safari was OK where there was an aRGB profile but the many images without a profile (grrr! ) looked bad even on that. All is more or less normal with Firefox 3

Nill Toulme wrote:
I suspect Paul has in mind that if you are preparing images for web viewing on a wide gamut monitor, you might not get a very good representation on that monitor of what the images will look like to the typical viewer using an sRGB monitor. Interesting question whether using a color managed browser will avoid that issue. I'm not sure it will.

I think some of the wide gamut monitors have an sRGB mode that you can switch to for this sort of viewing, but I don't know how accurate that is. The more I think about it, the more I tend to conclude that if you're preparing images primarily for web viewing, you're probably better off without a wide gamut monitor. I also have a notion that the advantages of wide gamut monitors are probably largely theoretical in any event for most of us who are not doing extremely color critical work.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

If I get a non wide gamut monitor, must I work in sRGB color space? What will happen if I use aRGB and use a non wide gamut monitor?

mgkaplan wrote:
If I get a non wide gamut monitor, must I work in sRGB color space? What will happen if I use aRGB and use a non wide gamut monitor?

It will work fine. That's what most of us have been doing for years and continue to do.

I think I saw somewhere recently that noted color expert Karl Lang continues to recommend against extended gamut monitors for most users, but don't hold me to that.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net