Not sure whether these are questions or comments, so I'll hedge my bet
here and put this in the form of statements of belief about Picasa and
color space. My hope is that more experienced photographers and
Picasa users can confirm or correct these impressions:
1. A number of posts here and elsewhere talk about Picasa "converting"
to sRGB images with colorspaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB. I
don't believe that this is accurate. My understanding (and again I
may be wrong) is that Picasa doesn't convert color space, which would
be helpful, rather it treats every file as if the color space is sRGB
and either chokes on embedded ICC profiles other than sRGB or ignores
them. The result is that if you try to view, say, an Adobe RGB file in
Picasa, either the image will not display at all or, worse, it will
display the file interpreted as if it were an sRGB file. The result of
the latter is that the images are not true. (The typical appearance of
an Adobe RGB file interpreted as if it were sRGB is washed out and
desaturated, something I learned first hand with scanned files, about
which more below.)
This should not be much of an issue for a Picasa user who shoots JPEGs
on a point-and-shoot, as every point-and-shoot I know of shoots in
sRGB at least by default. (Adobe RGB color space has a larger gaumut
of colors, i.e., more gradual change across the spectrum, as compared
to sRGB, but for a point-and-shoot camera at least, this advantage is
too small to justify changing the default.) A DSLR may beneficially
use Adobe RGB, but to tease out those advantages, software more
powerful than Picasa is likely necessary and so if one is using a DSLR
as a point-and-shoot better to shoot JPEGs in sRGB, probably the
default anyway, and Picassa will handle this very well.
A trap for the unwary neophyte (such as me) is in scanning. Even a
novice may want to convert negatives or slides to digital images;
there are reasonably priced scanners that can do this very well. And
we may have no great ambition to turn these images into art, trying
instead, e.g., to get our point-and-shoot film-camera negatives to
look as good as our point-and-shoot digital photos. (Actually, it's
easy to make the film images significantly better; whatever the state
of art at the high end of photography, cheap film cameras with decent
film easily outperform cheap digital characters, in tone and dynamic
range at least.) The problem is that at least some scanner software
(the three-year-old version of Silverfast Ai that I use, e.g.)
defaults to Adobe RGB and embeds that profile into the scans. Unless
this is corrected (as I mention above) the results are terrible images
either in Picasa or in any other sRGB based software, such as almost
any web-based display, as few browsers support color management. So
the moral of the story is that until you need more powerful software
than Picasa, follow Picasa's lead and use only sRGB. (Hard to go wrong
here; sRGB has the smallest gamut among the color spaces, and so it is
like type O blood, the universal donor, as it can be read accurately
by any software regardless of the default color space the software
uses.)
2. Some posts here and elsewhere talk about RAW files that embed the
Adobe RGB color space, and these posts blame Picasa for failing to
recognize this fact . Although I'm not sure, I don't think that this
is correct as I don't think embedded color space is a relevant concept
for RAW files. At least as it was explained to me recently, for any
converter, such as Picasa, to interpret RAW images the software needs
a decoder that is specific to the RAW file being read, and these codes
are different for every camera. (This is why there is a delay between
the release of a new camera and the ability of converters to support
the camera. The engineers, whether at Adobe or Google, need time to
decode and write new code; this would not be the case if RAW files
came in standard profiles such Adobe RGB or sRGB.) It is only once you
convert a RAW file to a standard format such as JPEG that a standard
color space is used, and my understanding is that whenever Picasa
turns a RAW file into a JPEG it embeds the sRGB profile (or at least
uses that profile). So if you are having problems with RAW files in
Picasa, it's not a color space issue, but an issue of how Picasa is
interpreting (or failing to interpret) the file.
Hope this is right. If it is, hope it helps someone; if it isn't, I
would welcome being corrected.
1. I think you've got this one right... I don't believe Picasa
supports the extended Adobe RGB stuff at all... See:
http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=20902&query=ado... where they talk about how to recover from having "made the
mistake" (my quotes :-) of using the Adobe RGB setting on photos you
may have taken. I leave my camera set on the "normal" RGB setting
and don't mess with the extended Adobe setting.
2. I think you have that one right, too. Raws have no colorspace...
The colorspace is decided when the JPEG is created. If the camera
isn't isn't creating JPEGs, the camera's setting for RGB vs. Adobe RGB
doesn't matter. And Picasa creates JPEGs using the "normal" RGB
colorspace, not the Adobe RGB.
> Not sure whether these are questions or comments, so I'll hedge my bet
> here and put this in the form of statements of belief about Picasa and
> color space. My hope is that more experienced photographers and
> Picasa users can confirm or correct these impressions:
> 1. A number of posts here and elsewhere talk about Picasa "converting"
> to sRGB images with colorspaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB. I
> don't believe that this is accurate. My understanding (and again I
> may be wrong) is that Picasa doesn't convert color space, which would
> be helpful, rather it treats every file as if the color space is sRGB
> and either chokes on embedded ICC profiles other than sRGB or ignores
> them. The result is that if you try to view, say, an Adobe RGB file in
> Picasa, either the image will not display at all or, worse, it will
> display the file interpreted as if it were an sRGB file. The result of
> the latter is that the images are not true. (The typical appearance of
> an Adobe RGB file interpreted as if it were sRGB is washed out and
> desaturated, something I learned first hand with scanned files, about
> which more below.)
> This should not be much of an issue for a Picasa user who shoots JPEGs
> on a point-and-shoot, as every point-and-shoot I know of shoots in
> sRGB at least by default. (Adobe RGB color space has a larger gaumut
> of colors, i.e., more gradual change across the spectrum, as compared
> to sRGB, but for a point-and-shoot camera at least, this advantage is
> too small to justify changing the default.) A DSLR may beneficially
> use Adobe RGB, but to tease out those advantages, software more
> powerful than Picasa is likely necessary and so if one is using a DSLR
> as a point-and-shoot better to shoot JPEGs in sRGB, probably the
> default anyway, and Picassa will handle this very well.
> A trap for the unwary neophyte (such as me) is in scanning. Even a
> novice may want to convert negatives or slides to digital images;
> there are reasonably priced scanners that can do this very well. And
> we may have no great ambition to turn these images into art, trying
> instead, e.g., to get our point-and-shoot film-camera negatives to
> look as good as our point-and-shoot digital photos. (Actually, it's
> easy to make the film images significantly better; whatever the state
> of art at the high end of photography, cheap film cameras with decent
> film easily outperform cheap digital characters, in tone and dynamic
> range at least.) The problem is that at least some scanner software
> (the three-year-old version of Silverfast Ai that I use, e.g.)
> defaults to Adobe RGB and embeds that profile into the scans. Unless
> this is corrected (as I mention above) the results are terrible images
> either in Picasa or in any other sRGB based software, such as almost
> any web-based display, as few browsers support color management. So
> the moral of the story is that until you need more powerful software
> than Picasa, follow Picasa's lead and use only sRGB. (Hard to go wrong
> here; sRGB has the smallest gamut among the color spaces, and so it is
> like type O blood, the universal donor, as it can be read accurately
> by any software regardless of the default color space the software
> uses.)
> 2. Some posts here and elsewhere talk about RAW files that embed the
> Adobe RGB color space, and these posts blame Picasa for failing to
> recognize this fact . Although I'm not sure, I don't think that this
> is correct as I don't think embedded color space is a relevant concept
> for RAW files. At least as it was explained to me recently, for any
> converter, such as Picasa, to interpret RAW images the software needs
> a decoder that is specific to the RAW file being read, and these codes
> are different for every camera. (This is why there is a delay between
> the release of a new camera and the ability of converters to support
> the camera. The engineers, whether at Adobe or Google, need time to
> decode and write new code; this would not be the case if RAW files
> came in standard profiles such Adobe RGB or sRGB.) It is only once you
> convert a RAW file to a standard format such as JPEG that a standard
> color space is used, and my understanding is that whenever Picasa
> turns a RAW file into a JPEG it embeds the sRGB profile (or at least
> uses that profile). So if you are having problems with RAW files in
> Picasa, it's not a color space issue, but an issue of how Picasa is
> interpreting (or failing to interpret) the file.
> Hope this is right. If it is, hope it helps someone; if it isn't, I
> would welcome being corrected.
Hmmm, This really does make sense and hopefully will help me out when
I change the settings in my DSLR. I don't have problems with pictures
upon editing when they are from my cheapo (as I call it) FujiFilm
which I bought from the tv network! They look great upon editing.
Often without editing. Photos from the Olympus E1 DSLR always came out
well until lately and the changes I made were from JPEG (I set it
there only temporarily) to RAW. I also changed from AW to JPEG for
now. I wanted to mention for novices like me that sRGB is known as the
standardized color space for Windows thus many printers and scanners
use it. I believe my photo printer and scanner can be changed. Adobe
RGB is the standardized color space for Adobe Photoshop and other
software. I think I recently changed my color space settings, too. I
know one thing, I need to make sure that my color space is the same on
the camera and printer. And now I need to make sure Picas has the same
settings (sRGB) in order to achieve consistent output from my camera,
photo editer and printer. I think saying it this way may help folks
like myself.
Now, there seems to be no choice in Picasa, we need to use sRGB. So
must users check to insure that their camera and printers are set to
this as well? I thikn it may be why my photos have suffered in quality
lately. Does everyone know that this needs to be done? I'm sorryI
spelled your name wrong and the post went before I could change it but
Lobalobo said this already. Point and shoot cameras probably offer no
problem; mine doesn't. Those of us with Digital SLRs may be
experiencing some quality issues due to this topic> I have seen some
posts on this already. I will let you know how I make out for sure!
Thank you guys for the great info.
Cher (BIRDWISE)
> 1. I think you've got this one right... I don't believe Picasa
> supports the extended Adobe RGB stuff at all... See:http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=20902&query=ado...
> where they talk about how to recover from having "made the
> mistake" (my quotes :-) of using the Adobe RGB setting on photos you
> may have taken. I leave my camera set on the "normal" RGB setting
> and don't mess with the extended Adobe setting.
> 2. I think you have that one right, too. Raws have no colorspace...
> The colorspace is decided when the JPEG is created. If the camera
> isn't isn't creating JPEGs, the camera's setting for RGB vs. Adobe RGB
> doesn't matter. And Picasa creates JPEGs using the "normal" RGB
> colorspace, not the Adobe RGB.
> Don
> On Jan 12, 2:32 pm, Lobalobo wrote:
> > Not sure whether these are questions or comments, so I'll hedge my bet
> > here and put this in the form of statements of belief about Picasa and
> > color space. My hope is that more experienced photographers and
> > Picasa users can confirm or correct these impressions:
> > 1. A number of posts here and elsewhere talk about Picasa "converting"
> > to sRGB images with colorspaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB. I
> > don't believe that this is accurate. My understanding (and again I
> > may be wrong) is that Picasa doesn't convert color space, which would
> > be helpful, rather it treats every file as if the color space is sRGB
> > and either chokes on embedded ICC profiles other than sRGB or ignores
> > them. The result is that if you try to view, say, an Adobe RGB file in
> > Picasa, either the image will not display at all or, worse, it will
> > display the file interpreted as if it were an sRGB file. The result of
> > the latter is that the images are not true. (The typical appearance of
> > an Adobe RGB file interpreted as if it were sRGB is washed out and
> > desaturated, something I learned first hand with scanned files, about
> > which more below.)
> > This should not be much of an issue for a Picasa user who shoots JPEGs
> > on a point-and-shoot, as every point-and-shoot I know of shoots in
> > sRGB at least by default. (Adobe RGB color space has a larger gaumut
> > of colors, i.e., more gradual change across the spectrum, as compared
> > to sRGB, but for a point-and-shoot camera at least, this advantage is
> > too small to justify changing the default.) A DSLR may beneficially
> > use Adobe RGB, but to tease out those advantages, software more
> > powerful than Picasa is likely necessary and so if one is using a DSLR
> > as a point-and-shoot better to shoot JPEGs in sRGB, probably the
> > default anyway, and Picassa will handle this very well.
> > A trap for the unwary neophyte (such as me) is in scanning. Even a
> > novice may want to convert negatives or slides to digital images;
> > there are reasonably priced scanners that can do this very well. And
> > we may have no great ambition to turn these images into art, trying
> > instead, e.g., to get our point-and-shoot film-camera negatives to
> > look as good as our point-and-shoot digital photos. (Actually, it's
> > easy to make the film images significantly better; whatever the state
> > of art at the high end of photography, cheap film cameras with decent
> > film easily outperform cheap digital characters, in tone and dynamic
> > range at least.) The problem is that at least some scanner software
> > (the three-year-old version of Silverfast Ai that I use, e.g.)
> > defaults to Adobe RGB and embeds that profile into the scans. Unless
> > this is corrected (as I mention above) the results are terrible images
> > either in Picasa or in any other sRGB based software, such as almost
> > any web-based display, as few browsers support color management. So
> > the moral of the story is that until you need more powerful software
> > than Picasa, follow Picasa's lead and use only sRGB. (Hard to go wrong
> > here; sRGB has the smallest gamut among the color spaces, and so it is
> > like type O blood, the universal donor, as it can be read accurately
> > by any software regardless of the default color space the software
> > uses.)
> > 2. Some posts here and elsewhere talk about RAW files that embed the
> > Adobe RGB color space, and these posts blame Picasa for failing to
> > recognize this fact . Although I'm not sure, I don't think that this
> > is correct as I don't think embedded color space is a relevant concept
> > for RAW files. At least as it was explained to me recently, for any
> > converter, such as Picasa, to interpret RAW images the software needs
> > a decoder that is specific to the RAW file being read, and these codes
> > are different for every camera. (This is why there is a delay between
> > the release of a new camera and the ability of converters to support
> > the camera. The engineers, whether at Adobe or Google, need time to
> > decode and write new code; this would not be the case if RAW files
> > came in standard profiles such Adobe RGB or sRGB.) It is only once you
> > convert a RAW file to a standard format such as JPEG that a standard
> > color space is used, and my understanding is that whenever Picasa
> > turns a RAW file into a JPEG it embeds the sRGB profile (or at least
> > uses that profile). So if you are having problems with RAW files in
> > Picasa, it's not a color space issue, but an issue of how Picasa is
> > interpreting (or failing to interpret) the file.
> > Hope this is right. If it is, hope it helps someone; if it isn't, I
> > would welcome being corrected.- Hide quoted text -
Inasmuch as Don thinks I have been right to this point (thanks, Don)
I'll risk going further and respond to birdwize. As I understand
things, it's not that important that every piece of your process uses
the same default color space so long as you never attempt to go from
Adobe RGB (or some other wide-gamut color space) to sRGB without
properly converting the file. So, e.g., imagine that your camera
records it's JPEGS in sRGB while your processing software, say
Photoshop, and your printer both default to Adobe RGB. I don't think
that this will be a problem. If the JPEG has an sRGB profile embedded
and photoshop is set to recognize embedded ICC profiles, there will be
a conversion, but even if there is not embedded profile in the JPEG,
because sRGB has a narrow gamut, even if Photoshop assumes that it has
an Adobe RGB file the colors should turn out ok. (I'm not certain of
this, as one might assume logically that a file with sRGB codes that
is read as Adobe RGB codes will not produce proper results, just as it
does not vice versa, but I've read in several places that the problem
is only in one direction, where a wide-gamut file is interpreted as a
narrow gamut one, and not vice versa; again, I'd welcome correction
here.)As for RAW, remember that RAW files are just that, RAW. If you
don't process them (sharpen, e.g. or adjust white balance) and if your
converter does not include the right defaults, you may not get good
results even if a very good image was captured and even if your
converter is capable of giving you good results. I think Picasa,
e.g., is a more capable RAW converter than some give it credit for,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it requires more manual adjustment than
others. (Wouldn't know for sure as I've only used Picasa for RAW
conversion so far.) There is also the possibility that the RAW
converter you are using, Picasa, e.g., just isn't the right one for
the camera you're using. Nikon RAW shooters, e.g., insist on Capture
NX even over Lightroom or ACR because they don't think the Adobe
products can give them the best results even though they are almost
limitlessly sophisticated programs. It may be that Picasa is not a
great RAW converter, settings aside, for the the files you are using.
(I'm using a Fuji bridge camera that shoots RAW, one of the last to do
it, just to learn RAW processing and so Picasa is fine for me; when I
step up to a DSLR, I will also step up to Lightroom as well as the
converter from the manufacturer of the camera, likely Fuji.) On Jan
12, 6:39 pm, birdwize wrote:> Hmmm, This really does make sense and
hopefully will help me out when> I change the settings in my DSLR. I
don't have problems with pictures> upon editing when they are from my
cheapo (as I call it) FujiFilm> which I bought from the tv network!
They look great upon editing.> Often without editing. Photos from the
Olympus E1 DSLR always came out> well until lately and the changes I
made were from JPEG (I set it> there only temporarily) to RAW. I also
changed from AW to JPEG for> now. I wanted to mention for novices like
me that sRGB is known as the> standardized color space for Windows
thus many printers and scanners> use it. I believe my photo printer
and scanner can be changed. Adobe> RGB is the standardized color space
for Adobe Photoshop and other> software. I think I recently changed my
color space settings, too. I> know one thing, I need to make sure that
my color space is the same on> the camera and printer. And now I need
to make sure Picas has the same> settings (sRGB) in order to achieve
consistent output from my camera,> photo editer and printer. I think
saying it this way may help folks> like myself.> Now, there seems to
be no choice in Picasa, we need to use sRGB. So> must users check to
insure that their camera and printers are set to> this as well? I
thikn it may be why my photos have suffered in quality> lately. Does
everyone know that this needs to be done? I'm sorryI> spelled your
name wrong and the post went before I could change it but> Lobalobo
said this already. Point and shoot cameras probably offer no> problem;
mine doesn't. Those of us with Digital SLRs may be> experiencing some
quality issues due to this topic> I have seen some> posts on this
already. I will let you know how I make out for sure!> Thank you guys
for the great info.> Cher (BIRDWISE)> > On Jan 12, 6:16 pm, Don Lind
wrote:> > > > > 1. I think you've got this one right... I don't
believe Picasa> > supports the extended Adobe RGB stuff at all...
See:http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py? answer=20902&query=ado...> > where they talk about how to recover from
having "made the> > mistake" (my quotes :-) of using the Adobe RGB
setting on photos you> > may have taken. I leave my camera set on
the "normal" RGB setting> > and don't mess with the extended Adobe
setting.> > > 2. I think you have that one right, too. Raws have no
colorspace...> > The colorspace is decided when the JPEG is created.
If the camera> > isn't isn't creating JPEGs, the camera's setting for
RGB vs. Adobe RGB> > doesn't matter. And Picasa creates JPEGs using
the "normal" RGB> > colorspace, not the Adobe RGB.> > > Don> > > On
Jan 12, 2:32 pm, Lobalobo wrote:> > > > Not sure whether these are
questions or comments, so I'll hedge my bet> > > here and put this in
the form of statements of belief about Picasa and> > > color space.
My hope is that more experienced photographers and> > > Picasa users
can confirm or correct these impressions:> > > > 1. A number of posts
here and elsewhere talk about Picasa "converting"> > > to sRGB images
with colorspaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB. I> > > don't
believe that this is accurate. My understanding (and again I> > > may
be wrong) is that Picasa doesn't convert color space, which would> > >
be helpful, rather it treats every file as if the color space is sRGB>
> > and either chokes on embedded ICC profiles other than sRGB or
ignores> > > them. The result is that if you try to view, say, an
Adobe RGB file in> > > Picasa, either the image will not display at
all or, worse, it will> > > display the file interpreted as if it were
an sRGB file. The result of> > > the latter is that the images are not
true. (The typical appearance of> > > an Adobe RGB file interpreted as
if it were sRGB is washed out and> > > desaturated, something I
learned first hand with scanned files, about> > > which more below.)>
> > > This should not be much of an issue for a Picasa user who shoots
JPEGs> > > on a point-and-shoot, as every point-and-shoot I know of
shoots in> > > sRGB at least by default. (Adobe RGB color space has a
larger gaumut> > > of colors, i.e., more gradual change across the
spectrum, as compared> > > to sRGB, but for a point-and-shoot camera
at least, this advantage is> > > too small to justify changing the
default.) A DSLR may beneficially> > > use Adobe RGB, but to tease out
those advantages, software more> > > powerful than Picasa is likely
necessary and so if one is using a DSLR> > > as a point-and-shoot
better to shoot JPEGs in sRGB, probably the> > > default anyway, and
Picassa will handle this very well.> > > > A trap for the unwary
neophyte (such as me) is in scanning. Even a> > > novice may want to
convert negatives or slides to digital images;> > > there are
reasonably priced scanners that can do this very well. And> > > we may
have no great ambition to turn these images into art, trying> > >
instead, e.g., to get our point-and-shoot film-camera negatives to> >
> look as good as our point-and-shoot digital photos. (Actually, it's>
> > easy to make the film images significantly better; whatever the
state> > > of art at the high end of photography, cheap film cameras
with decent> > > film easily outperform cheap digital characters, in
tone and dynamic> > > range at least.) The problem is that at least
some scanner software> > > (the three-year-old version of Silverfast
Ai that I use, e.g.)> > > defaults to Adobe RGB and embeds that
profile into the scans. Unless> > > this is corrected (as I mention
above) the results are terrible images> > > either in Picasa or in any
other sRGB based software, such as almost> > > any web-based display,
as few browsers support color management. So> > > the moral of the
story is that until you need more powerful software> > > than Picasa,
follow Picasa's lead and use only sRGB. (Hard to go wrong> > > here;
sRGB has the smallest gamut among the color spaces, and so it is> > >
like type O blood, the universal donor, as it can be read accurately>
> > by any software regardless of the default color space the
software> > > uses.)> > > > 2. Some posts here and elsewhere talk
about RAW files that embed the> > > Adobe RGB color space, and these
posts blame Picasa for failing to> > > recognize this fact . Although
I'm not sure, I don't think that this> > > is correct as I don't think
embedded color space is a relevant concept> > > for RAW files. At
least as it was explained to me recently, for any> > > converter, such
as Picasa, to interpret RAW images the software needs> > > a decoder
that is specific to the RAW file being read, and these codes> > > are
different for every camera. (This is why there is a delay between> > >
the release of a new camera and the ability of converters to support>
> > the camera. The engineers, whether at Adobe or Google, need time
to> > > decode and write new code; this would not be the case if RAW
files> > > came in standard profiles such Adobe RGB or sRGB.) It is
only once you> > > convert a RAW file to a standard format such as
JPEG that a standard> > > color space is used, and my understanding is
that whenever Picasa> > > turns a RAW file into a JPEG it embeds the
sRGB profile (or at least> > > uses that profile). So if you are
having problems with RAW files in>
...
Sooo much to learn... I was off reading on this color space stuff...
interesting...
What I came away with was that it turns out that for most stuff, the
plain old sRGB is what you want. Apparently almost all "print
providers" (e.g., Costco, Wal*Mart, etc) expect sRGB JPEGS. And, it
sounded like if you give them Adobe RGB, you'll either get yucky
prints or they'll convert it before you print... so whatever you
*thought* you were gaining with the expanded gamut, you lose anyway
when you print.
And, it was pointed out that both sRGB and Adobe RGB both have the
same *number* of colors (they're both 8-bit RGB)... Adobe RGB just
spreads them out a little more when it maps the colors. So that
means that Adobe RGB can display a slightly larger *range* of colors,
but the standard RGB has more subtle differences in the colors that it
has - so sRGB can represent a more smooth transition when color
changes are subtle.
And, in general, if you shoot raw (as opposed to raw + JPEG), your
camera's setting for colorspace doesn't really matter.
> Hmmm, This really does make sense and hopefully will help me out when
> I change the settings in my DSLR. I don't have problems with pictures
> upon editing when they are from my cheapo (as I call it) FujiFilm
> which I bought from the tv network! They look great upon editing.
> Often without editing. Photos from the Olympus E1 DSLR always came out
> well until lately and the changes I made were from JPEG (I set it
> there only temporarily) to RAW. I also changed from AW to JPEG for
> now. I wanted to mention for novices like me that sRGB is known as the
> standardized color space for Windows thus many printers and scanners
> use it. I believe my photo printer and scanner can be changed. Adobe
> RGB is the standardized color space for Adobe Photoshop and other
> software. I think I recently changed my color space settings, too. I
> know one thing, I need to make sure that my color space is the same on
> the camera and printer. And now I need to make sure Picas has the same
> settings (sRGB) in order to achieve consistent output from my camera,
> photo editer and printer. I think saying it this way may help folks
> like myself.
> Now, there seems to be no choice in Picasa, we need to use sRGB. So
> must users check to insure that their camera and printers are set to
> this as well? I thikn it may be why my photos have suffered in quality
> lately. Does everyone know that this needs to be done? I'm sorryI
> spelled your name wrong and the post went before I could change it but
> Lobalobo said this already. Point and shoot cameras probably offer no
> problem; mine doesn't. Those of us with Digital SLRs may be
> experiencing some quality issues due to this topic> I have seen some
> posts on this already. I will let you know how I make out for sure!
> Thank you guys for the great info.
> Cher (BIRDWISE)
> On Jan 12, 6:16 pm, Don Lind wrote:
> > 1. I think you've got this one right... I don't believe Picasa
> > supports the extended Adobe RGB stuff at all... See:http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=20902&query=ado...
> > where they talk about how to recover from having "made the
> > mistake" (my quotes :-) of using the Adobe RGB setting on photos you
> > may have taken. I leave my camera set on the "normal" RGB setting
> > and don't mess with the extended Adobe setting.
> > 2. I think you have that one right, too. Raws have no colorspace...
> > The colorspace is decided when the JPEG is created. If the camera
> > isn't isn't creating JPEGs, the camera's setting for RGB vs. Adobe RGB
> > doesn't matter. And Picasa creates JPEGs using the "normal" RGB
> > colorspace, not the Adobe RGB.
> > Don
> > On Jan 12, 2:32 pm, Lobalobo wrote:
> > > Not sure whether these are questions or comments, so I'll hedge my bet
> > > here and put this in the form of statements of belief about Picasa and
> > > color space. My hope is that more experienced photographers and
> > > Picasa users can confirm or correct these impressions:
> > > 1. A number of posts here and elsewhere talk about Picasa "converting"
> > > to sRGB images with colorspaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB. I
> > > don't believe that this is accurate. My understanding (and again I
> > > may be wrong) is that Picasa doesn't convert color space, which would
> > > be helpful, rather it treats every file as if the color space is sRGB
> > > and either chokes on embedded ICC profiles other than sRGB or ignores
> > > them. The result is that if you try to view, say, an Adobe RGB file in
> > > Picasa, either the image will not display at all or, worse, it will
> > > display the file interpreted as if it were an sRGB file. The result of
> > > the latter is that the images are not true. (The typical appearance of
> > > an Adobe RGB file interpreted as if it were sRGB is washed out and
> > > desaturated, something I learned first hand with scanned files, about
> > > which more below.)
> > > This should not be much of an issue for a Picasa user who shoots JPEGs
> > > on a point-and-shoot, as every point-and-shoot I know of shoots in
> > > sRGB at least by default. (Adobe RGB color space has a larger gaumut
> > > of colors, i.e., more gradual change across the spectrum, as compared
> > > to sRGB, but for a point-and-shoot camera at least, this advantage is
> > > too small to justify changing the default.) A DSLR may beneficially
> > > use Adobe RGB, but to tease out those advantages, software more
> > > powerful than Picasa is likely necessary and so if one is using a DSLR
> > > as a point-and-shoot better to shoot JPEGs in sRGB, probably the
> > > default anyway, and Picassa will handle this very well.
> > > A trap for the unwary neophyte (such as me) is in scanning. Even a
> > > novice may want to convert negatives or slides to digital images;
> > > there are reasonably priced scanners that can do this very well. And
> > > we may have no great ambition to turn these images into art, trying
> > > instead, e.g., to get our point-and-shoot film-camera negatives to
> > > look as good as our point-and-shoot digital photos. (Actually, it's
> > > easy to make the film images significantly better; whatever the state
> > > of art at the high end of photography, cheap film cameras with decent
> > > film easily outperform cheap digital characters, in tone and dynamic
> > > range at least.) The problem is that at least some scanner software
> > > (the three-year-old version of Silverfast Ai that I use, e.g.)
> > > defaults to Adobe RGB and embeds that profile into the scans. Unless
> > > this is corrected (as I mention above) the results are terrible images
> > > either in Picasa or in any other sRGB based software, such as almost
> > > any web-based display, as few browsers support color management. So
> > > the moral of the story is that until you need more powerful software
> > > than Picasa, follow Picasa's lead and use only sRGB. (Hard to go wrong
> > > here; sRGB has the smallest gamut among the color spaces, and so it is
> > > like type O blood, the universal donor, as it can be read accurately
> > > by any software regardless of the default color space the software
> > > uses.)
> > > 2. Some posts here and elsewhere talk about RAW files that embed the
> > > Adobe RGB color space, and these posts blame Picasa for failing to
> > > recognize this fact . Although I'm not sure, I don't think that this
> > > is correct as I don't think embedded color space is a relevant concept
> > > for RAW files. At least as it was explained to me recently, for any
> > > converter, such as Picasa, to interpret RAW images the software needs
> > > a decoder that is specific to the RAW file being read, and these codes
> > > are different for every camera. (This is why there is a delay between
> > > the release of a new camera and the ability of converters to support
> > > the camera. The engineers, whether at Adobe or Google, need time to
> > > decode and write new code; this would not be the case if RAW files
> > > came in standard profiles such Adobe RGB or sRGB.) It is only once you
> > > convert a RAW file to a standard format such as JPEG that a standard
> > > color space is used, and my understanding is that whenever Picasa
> > > turns a RAW file into a JPEG it embeds the sRGB profile (or at least
> > > uses that profile). So if you are having problems with RAW files in
> > > Picasa, it's not a color space issue, but an issue of how Picasa is
> > > interpreting (or failing to interpret) the file.
> > > Hope this is right. If it is, hope it helps someone; if it isn't, I
> > > would welcome being corrected.- Hide quoted text -
One last comment from me and I'll sign off for a while, leaving this
thread to others. On reread there are two things I'm confident I got
WRONG above. First, as I mention (correctly, I think), Adobe RGB has a
wider gamut than sRGB. But this is accomplished by increasing the
differences between adjacent colors; above I think I say this
backwards. Second, I mentioned above that I had read nothing would go
wrong if you processed an sRGB file as if it were an Adobe RGB file,
that the problem occurs just vice versa. I also said this made no
sense to me. I know am more confident that it makes no sense. The
colors would, I think, be off if software or a device treated an Adobe
RGB file as if it were sRGB, but I believe this seldom happens because
all software and devices are *capable* of handling sRGB and so as long
as they know what they are dealing with things look fine. The reason
the problem is greater in the other direction, I believe, is that some
software or devices, Picasa, e.g., is incapable of handling Adobe RGB
and so things can go wrong.
Well guys, originally I intended to make different comments than
these. G I decided to check my DSLR settings as stated. It is on RGB
not srgb. Initially I had the settings all compatible (not knowing it
might not be necessary or make any difference). The more I read the
moer I read. In the back of my mind though I kept thinking I wanted my
printer cpompatible completely, with the camera and to obtain the best
prints possible. So here is what I have done and intend to do.
I set the camera to RAW-JPEG, also lowered the compresion and
increased the pixel count in order to insure more clarity. I set the
movement sensor or whatever it is called to on since I know my hands
shake. In short I'm doing everything I can to insure the best quality
prints I can. I had almost forgotten that my goal is to obtain the
best prints possible. I had chagned some settings in order to achieve
various affects but for right now this is where I will remain, and
will make sure that I don't compress the photos when manually filing
them in Picasa. I expect to obatin sharper photos. I have tripods but
never use them, knowlingly a mistake but also a time consuming and I
am not shooting portraits.
I didn't read anaything about it but believe I have in the past and
Adobe RGB is supposed to have more color choices; I'm stating it that
way out of lack of a better explanation and you guys have explained it
already, but let's say that it is preferable over sRGB. I know I;ve
read this more than several times. Maybe that's why so many printers
and peripherals use it as the default.
Whether or not these printers etc would change according to what
settings we have used on our cameras, to me is still hazy, and I kind
of doubt it; why else would they recommend using these settings for
optimal output? Who knows, I should know better than th take any mfgs
word for anything by now!
So, you are probably right. I'm not gonna test it, but am goign to do
what I have stated. I'll be able to see if images in RAW differ from
those JPEGs because I will be shooting in both. I know I will use up
alot of space this way and maybe that is why Picasa does not ideally
like to accept RAW images...to conserve spacve and thus offer to more
people? Makes sense. But I'm gonna try this and will let you know how
things turn out. I hope this tells me something!
Thakn you guys for some very iontereseting and enlightening comments
and info, once again!! Cher (BIRDWISE)
Jan12, 11:38 pm, Lobalobo wrote:
> One last comment from me and I'll sign off for a while, leaving this
> thread to others. On reread there are two things I'm confident I got
> WRONG above. First, as I mention (correctly, I think), Adobe RGB has a
> wider gamut than sRGB. But this is accomplished by increasing the
> differences between adjacent colors; above I think I say this
> backwards. Second, I mentioned above that I had read nothing would go
> wrong if you processed an sRGB file as if it were an Adobe RGB file,
> that the problem occurs just vice versa. I also said this made no
> sense to me. I know am more confident that it makes no sense. The
> colors would, I think, be off if software or a device treated an Adobe
> RGB file as if it were sRGB, but I believe this seldom happens because
> all software and devices are *capable* of handling sRGB and so as long
> as they know what they are dealing with things look fine. The reason
> the problem is greater in the other direction, I believe, is that some
> software or devices, Picasa, e.g., is incapable of handling Adobe RGB
> and so things can go wrong.
People... I'm sure this would be quite interesting to read, but can
you PLEASE separate things into paragraphs? Its very exhausting to
read one enourmous block of text that spans over more than one screen
page... and I'm using a 21" TFT here! :-)
Birdwize talks again about the advantages of Adobe RGB. True enough,
in principle, using the right software and hardware, but Picasa does
not fil that bill. Though a typo in my self-correction above may have
made things worse (I was clearest with my original post, I think), I'm
pretty sure there is consensus here that you should not try and
process an Adobe RGB JPEG in Picasa. The results will not be good as
Picasa doesn't know how to read Adobe RGB files. For a more detailed
analysis look at my first post, which is largely correct I believe
(even if explained badly color gamut, something I won't try to correct
yet again, as I'm sure I've outlived my welcome on this particular
topic.)
> People... I'm sure this would be quite interesting to read, but can
> you PLEASE separate things into paragraphs? Its very exhausting to
> read one enourmous block of text that spans over more than one screen
> page... and I'm using a 21" TFT here! :-)
OK You're right, I got confused, but now I have it straight. I'm
back to where I was before if that makes any sense. If not, I am
setting the DSLR to JPEG at high pixel rate and low compression in the
AM. G Where I should have left it. G
But I must be sure that my photoprinter and my software are
compatible for optimal results at least according to the mfgs. I
really don;t want to have to change printer settings when I change
software photo editing programs and usually don't. I thikn about it
when they aer installed and that is it and I don't want to have to
futz with the settings or I will end up with a job really messed up
due to incompatibilities at my own hand.
What makes this or would make it a real pain in the butt is that I
have multiple printers as well as multiple photo editing programs>
Maybe I will learn to use the more complicated ones and then figure
out which are best for what. That is my goal. See you in class! G
After I changed back to a 52 mm macro lens and adjusted those
settings last night all the photos with only one or two exceptions,
came out entirely blurred. Back to the drawing board.
I attempted to work in my RAW image editor last evening after
posting here however my images do not show up in it. There is nothing
like Picasa which allows you to import or export etc. Picasa makes it
very difficult for me to delve into these other software programs; it
becomes totally frustrating after a few minutes. Maybe I am not meant
to be a professional. :(
> Birdwize talks again about the advantages of Adobe RGB. True enough,
> in principle, using the right software and hardware, but Picasa does
> not fil that bill. Though a typo in my self-correction above may have
> made things worse (I was clearest with my original post, I think), I'm
> pretty sure there is consensus here that you should not try and
> process an Adobe RGB JPEG in Picasa. The results will not be good as
> Picasa doesn't know how to read Adobe RGB files. For a more detailed
> analysis look at my first post, which is largely correct I believe
> (even if explained badly color gamut, something I won't try to correct
> yet again, as I'm sure I've outlived my welcome on this particular
> topic.)
> On Jan 13, 9:37 am, AlexanderK wrote:
> > People... I'm sure this would be quite interesting to read, but can
> > you PLEASE separate things into paragraphs? Its very exhausting to
> > read one enourmous block of text that spans over more than one screen
> > page... and I'm using a 21" TFT here! :-)- Hide quoted text -
Although I haven't tried it yet myself, the best way to print your own
images is to use software, such as Photoshop, that manages color and
to turn off your printer's color management features. Photo software
that manages color is harder to use than Picasa, of course, but that's
the price you pay for control. As noted (too much) above, Picasa
treats every image as sRGB, which is usually just fine as so does
virtually every web browser and commercial print/album maker, at least
by default. If you want to print on your own using Picasa, because
Picasa (as far as I know) will not manage the printer's color space,
you have to set your printer either to default to sRGB or to recognize
an sRGB file when it sees one (as I believe, but don't know, at least
some printers do if color management is set to automatic). Hope that
helps (and hope it's right).
if you're really into printing photos with your own photo printer and
things, the first thing you should do if you haven't done so already
is to get a calibration device for your computer monitor. Whatever you
do, no matter if its fixing color or exposure, it is COMPLETELY in
vain without a calibrated display.
Please believe me... I've been there. :-)
Also, working with raw files successfully will require a couple of
attempts. I felt the same way like you do - Picasa was so dead simply
to use, good results too, and I just couldn't cope with the raw
converters out there... I gave it another try some months later and
was more successful then. Just hang on and don't give up now. Its
worth the trouble! At least from my POV. :-)
Monitor calibration is potentially important whether printing on your
own or sending to a service to print. But I emphasize "potentially."
My (limited) experience is that for point-and-shoot digital cameras or
quickly scanning negatives on default settings there is hardly a
noticeable difference between what you will get with a calibrated
monitor and using the monitor's default setting. The reason for this,
I believe, is that point-and-shoot digitals and quick scans of
negatives are so far off inherently, so random in what they produce,
that you are thrilled simply, e.g., to get skin that looks more human
than reptile; it's not about nuance, and the difference between a
calibrated monitor and one with decent default settings will go
unnoticed. (Do this test, which I've done: start with an original
image and adjust color, say in Picasa, on an uncalibrated desktop
monitor and save the file; then do the same thing on an uncalibrated
laptop monitor, again getting to the place where you think you'll like
the color, again saving the file; then print both files on the same
printer; you may notice some difference between the two images, but if
it will be small.) If you were taking photos on a professional
quality DSLR for a portrait studio or a landscape exhibition, or
scanning high-quality positive transparencies where you wanted the
digital image to match the slide, then I a calibrated monitor would be
absolutely necessary, but then so would software other than Picasa.On
Jan 14, 3:16 pm, AlexanderK wrote:> Hi Cher,> > if you're really into
printing photos with your own photo printer and> things, the first
thing you should do if you haven't done so already> is to get a
calibration device for your computer monitor. Whatever you> do, no
matter if its fixing color or exposure, it is COMPLETELY in> vain
without a calibrated display.> > Please believe me... I've been
there. :-)> > Also, working with raw files successfully will require a
couple of> attempts. I felt the same way like you do - Picasa was so
dead simply> to use, good results too, and I just couldn't cope with
the raw> converters out there... I gave it another try some months
later and> was more successful then. Just hang on and don't give up
now. Its> worth the trouble! At least from my POV. :-)> > Alexander.
There's no room for interpretation. Any color space has a fixed white
point at a certain temperature, and if your display is set to a
different white point, all further adjustments will be wrong. You can
call it "taste" if you like your pictures with a blue or yellow
toning, but its not accurate.
There's always a starting point, and thats the camera. If you're using
sRGB (and most cameras do, even the P&S models), the white point is at
6500K - thats what the camera uses. So thats what you must set your
monitor to, or all white balance tweaking is simply off. The auto
white balance function of most cameras is surprisingly accurate, but
you don't see it if your monitor isn't set to 6500K.
The other important setting is gamma, and which you should use depends
on the workflow. If your print service of choice is working with a
gamma of 2.2 and your monitor is set to a gamma of 1.8 (those two
beings the de-facto standards that exist), all your printouts will be
too dark.
Anyone who wants more than random results and is interested in more
than just snapshot photography should calibrate the display. As long
as monitors are shipping with factory defaults of 9300K and people
leave it at that setting because office documents and websites look
better with that colder setting, photos will look wrong, its as simple
as that...
|
