Camera Color Space Settings

[HowardG]

Until recently I had only been shooting in RAW and only processing in the Adobe RGB color space so I set my camera color space to Adobe RGB (the camera gives you the choice of sRGB or Adobe RGB) and forgot about it.  I have been doing two new things that leads me to a question....1)I have been doing some RAW + JPEG shooting and 2) have begun bringing images from Lightroom to PS in the ProPhoto RGB color space for processing.  

Because of this I just wanted to check and make sure that I was correct about the camera color space setting.  I presume that this choice of Adobe RGB or sRGB applies only to the JPEG and doesn't effect the RAW file in any way since that is imported as direct data from the sensor and only assigned a color space after importing into LIghtroom....is that correct?  If I am only using the JPGs for web use and not planning to do image processing on them it would then, I would think, be best to change my setting to sRGB......I just wanted to make absolutely sure that this setting would not limit the color space destination of the RAW file in any way.  I assume the same is true of any contrast or sharpness etc settings that I change...that they only effect the JPEG as well....correct?

Howard

[Paul Sumi]

The color space you set in the camera only affects the JPG, not the RAW.  Ditto any contrast, sharpness, etc, camera settings (some camera companies can use "photo style" settings to process the RAW, however).

If you're only using the JPG for the Web or for prints from Walmart or other big box photofinisher, then use sRGB.  If you are printing from an in-camera JPG on an inkjet at home, then use the aRGB camera setting.

Paul

[Eyeball]

I agree with everything Paul said but just to take the subject a step further:

Besides affecting the image if you are shooting Jpeg, the in-camera settings for colorspace, contrast, and so on can also impact the image used by the camera for displaying on the LCD and for displaying the histogram.  This is usually true even if you are shooting raw.  You may want to take this into consideration so that your LCD image and histogram match more-or-less what you want to see in your raw developer later.

For example, if you have your in-camera contrast turned up or are using sRGB, the histogram may indicate clipping when your raw file actually still has some headroom available.

It's not a life-or-death point but I thought you might find it interesting.

[HowardG]

I agree with everything Paul said but just to take the subject a step further:

Besides affecting the image if you are shooting Jpeg, the in-camera settings for colorspace, contrast, and so on can also impact the image used by the camera for displaying on the LCD and for displaying the histogram.  This is usually true even if you are shooting raw.  You may want to take this into consideration so that your LCD image and histogram match more-or-less what you want to see in your raw developer later.

For example, if you have your in-camera contrast turned up or are using sRGB, the histogram may indicate clipping when your raw file actually still has some headroom available.

It's not a life-or-death point but I thought you might find it interesting.

Thanks for the responses.  That is an interesting point and perhaps a good reason not to set the space as sRGB nor turn up the contrast etc as my main goal is to have good RAW files in case I want to make prints.  Though these adjustments would likely give the RAW file more 'headroom' as you indicate, it would also get me to alter the exposure to reduce the clipping on the histogram that is not 'real' and thereby, perhaps, not allow me to get an optimal 'to the right' exposure based on the histogram data.

This is an interesting issue and I wonder how large an effect it would cause.  I guess I will leave aRGB and 'bland' jpeg settings for the moment based on this discussion.  Anyone have any further input into the issue?

[mouse]

Though these adjustments would likely give the RAW file more 'headroom' as you indicate, it would also get me to alter the exposure to reduce the clipping on the histogram that is not 'real' and thereby, perhaps, not allow me to get an optimal 'to the right' exposure based on the histogram data.

This is an interesting issue and I wonder how large an effect it would cause.  I guess I will leave aRGB and 'bland' jpeg settings for the moment based on this discussion.  Anyone have any further input into the issue?

Some have gone to great lengths to make the histogram more representative of what the raw file captures.  Google "UniWB"

[PeterAit]

Thanks for the responses.  That is an interesting point and perhaps a good reason not to set the space as sRGB nor turn up the contrast etc as my main goal is to have good RAW files in case I want to make prints.  Though these adjustments would likely give the RAW file more 'headroom' as you indicate, it would also get me to alter the exposure to reduce the clipping on the histogram that is not 'real' and thereby, perhaps, not allow me to get an optimal 'to the right' exposure based on the histogram data.

This is an interesting issue and I wonder how large an effect it would cause.  I guess I will leave aRGB and 'bland' jpeg settings for the moment based on this discussion.  Anyone have any further input into the issue?

I am wondering why you would shoot RAW + JPEG when it is so easy to export JPEGs for the web from LightRoom.


Peter

[digitaldog]

Some have gone to great lengths to make the histogram more representative of what the raw file captures.  Google "UniWB"

Not going to happen if you were to see what a linear encoded histogram looks like.

The histogram on the back of the camera, for those shooting Raw is basically a big fat lie (useless).

[keithrsmith]

Not going to happen if you were to see what a linear encoded histogram looks like.

The histogram on the back of the camera, for those shooting Raw is basically a big fat lie (useless).

In that case could I ask what the histogram is actually showing, and how should we interpret it?  
Or do I go back to my exposure meter....

Keith

[tho_mas]

In that case could I ask what the histogram is actually showing, and how should we interpret it?

the histogram reflects the shot as corrected by the internal software (internal camera "profile", tonal curve and whatever is adjusted). Opening the RAW file in the software of the manufacturer the histogram should match (assumed that the metadata contains all camera adjustments and the software is able to read it). First if you open the RAW in a thridparty RAW processor you'll have different historgrams as the encoding is different, the camera "profile", the standard settings...
MFDBs (at leat Phase One) show the histogram of the linear RAW as they just do a rudimentary internal process to show the capture on the LCD but without any adjustments (might be different with the new Sinar as it is able to do internal processing).