Adobe RGB to sRGB

[Gatorboy]

I have started to think I'd like to shoot in AdobeRGB rather than sRGB but when I generate my HTML galleries, the images of course look flat and lifeless on the PC screen.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a way while generating the thumbnails and standard images to convert them to sRGB so that they look good when I put them online?

[Chris Breeze]

Yes the HTML generator can convert the images to sRGB. To enable this go to BBPro's preferences and click on the HTML Generation tab. Then select "Convert images with embedded color profiles to sRGB".

[Gatorboy]

Well, I tried that and the generated image looks the same whether that option is selected or not ... flat.

I'm using BBPro v1.3.2

[Chris Breeze]

Please check the source image contains an embedded color profile. Also check that "Re-use" existing images is not set in the HTML dialog otherwise it will re-use images from a previous run and they won't be regenerated using the new settings.

[Gatorboy]

I know about the "re-use" option, but I guess I assumed that an image shot with a Canon 20D using AdobeRGB would contain that profile. I'm not home now to check, but I know Photoshop knows it's AdobeRGB when I open the original image.

I'll try opening the "generated" file with Photoshop and see what it thinks.

[Chris Breeze]

Most cameras (including Canon) don't store a color profile in images. What they do is set the EXIF colorspace flag. According to the EXIF 2.2 spec 1 indicates sRGB, 0xFFFF means uncalibrated and other values are reserved.

[Gatorboy]

So, I guess I'm out of luck in creating a gallery from any images shot in AdobeRGB. I don't want to display "flat looking" images to potential customers. I guess I'll just keep shooting in sRGB.

Thanks.

[iain williams]

I am in the same situation. I shoot Adobe 1998 colour space but want to display my images on the web as sRGB. The only way I have found to do this is to do a batch convert running an action in CS2, then use BBP to generate the web page. Iain

[Ferdinand in Paris]

If you know for a fact that these images are in Adobe RGB, can't you guys just use BreezeBrowser to embed the profile in the images before you create your web galleries? "Tools | Embed colour profile in JPGs".

I am assuming you are shooting JPGs. If you're shooting RAW, the answer may be different, and perhaps also for TIF, since BB does not embed a profile in TIF images AFAIK.

In addition, if you use Downloader Pro, you can embed a profile at download time. You must nominate a profile for each camera, which would not be a problem if you always shoot in Adobe RGB. DLP does not read the EXIF colour space tag and then embed this profile, AFAIK. I don't understand why it can't do this, unless I am misunderstanding something.

F_P

[Gatorboy]

I'm bringing this back up. No matter what I try, an image captured in AdobeRGB remains in AdobeRGB after generating proofs.

I have tried different things with DL Pro, as well as Generating Proofs. The proofed image will still be flat and of course in AdobeRGB.

If anyone using a Canon camera is able to shoot in AdobeRGB and get proofs converted to sRGB, please let me know the secret.

[Ferdinand in Paris]

I don't recall having a problem. What are you shooting in, and what are you using as the source images for your gallery? CRW, TIFF or JPG?

I shoot Nikon now, but I used to shoot Canon CRW on a camera that did not have an Adobe RGB option. I would convert the CRW to TIFF in the aRGB space, edit it in PS. Sometimes I would proof to JPG in the aRGB space and create galleries and sometimes I would do it direct from the TIFF in aRGB space. In the html generator I would specify sRGB as the target space. It didn't seem that hard.

I still proof a lot in BB, despite its limitation to work on one directory at a time (because I like its HQ sharpening). I often do profile conversions from aRGB to sRGB when proofing, and it seems to work fine for me. If you're doing something like this, and things still look flat on the screen, something else in your colour management chain must be to blame.

F_P

[Chris Breeze]

The source image needs to have the Adobe RGB color profile embedded in it in order for proofs to be able to convert the colorspace to sRGB. I've just double checked that it works in BBPro v1.5.2.3 and it is definitely working correctly on my system. If everything is setup correctly the proofs progress dialog will display "Converting colorspace..." before saving the image.

I tested this by taking two shots, one in sRGB and one in Adobe RGB, added the appropriate color profiles, converted the Adobe RGB shot to sRGB using proofs and then compared it with the sRGB shot and the colors were very similar.

[Gatorboy]

I don't recall having a problem. What are you shooting in, and what are you using as the source images for your gallery? CRW, TIFF or JPG?

I'm shooting JPG

[Gatorboy]

If everything is setup correctly the proofs progress dialog will display "Converting colorspace..." before saving the image.

I have under Output Settings: Colorspace conversion selected with the sRGB Color Space.icm file -- and I never see the converting colorspace text being written while Proofs are running. I also have the Embed profile in output image selected and in the selection dropdown is Rendering intent: Perceptual.

The resized image is still in AdobeRGB. I don't know what else to try.

[Chris Breeze]

The only thing I can think of is there is something wrong with the color profile in the source image. Does the image properties window in BBPro show the profile as "Color profile: Adobe RGB (1998)"? Does the image display correctly in BBPro if you enable color management with a suitable monitor profile?

Please try embedding the AdobeRGB 1998 profile in the source JPEG using BBPro and then run proofs again.

[Ferdinand in Paris]

I hope this isn't teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, but how do you know what image has what profile embedded?

With many camera it's not enough to shoot in Adobe RGB profile. As Chris said, you have to embed the profile in the source image. In my workflow described above, this embedding happens when I convert the CRW to TIFF. In yours, as Chris said in one of his posts, the camera won't necessarily have done it - you must. (This is not true for my new Nikon D200, which does embed a profile, but I think it is for at least some Canons.)

Right click on one of your source JPGs in BB and look at its properties - does it say "Color space: AdobeRGB"? If it doesn't, then the colour space isn't embedded, and so profile conversion won't occur when you proof or generate web pages. You can likewise check what profile is embedded in your converted images, rather than just relying on the screen.

You can embed the profile in your source images in one of two ways. Downloader Pro can be configured to do it automatically when you download the images, or you can embed a colour profile using BB ("Tools | Embed colour profile in JPGs ...")

If on the other hand BB does already report in the source image properties that the image is "Color space: AdobeRGB", and you're not getting the correct conversion, then I give up. I guess it is possible that BB may report this information in image properties based soley on the EXIF tag and not the embedded profile, but I thought that it wasn't supposed to happen.

If you're still having problems, I would try embedding Adobe RGB manually, then proofing or generating html, and see what happens.

It's not supposed to be this hard.

F_P

[Gatorboy]

You can embed the profile in your source images in one of two ways. Downloader Pro can be configured to do it automatically when you download the images, or you can embed a colour profile using BB ("Tools | Embed colour profile in JPGs ...")

If you're still having problems, I would try embedding Adobe RGB manually, then proofing or generating html, and see what happens.

It's not supposed to be this hard.

F_P

I realize it shouldn't be this hard. I have DL Pro setup to automatically detect and embed a color profile -- but I don't believe that is working as I think it should. I will try three experments when I get home tonight - setup DL Pro to embed an AdobeRGB exclusively; Embed Color profile using BB Pro and manually embed the profile with Photoshop. I will then run proofs on these 3 images and see what happens.

I verify that it's not working when I open up my file with Photoshop (which I currently have as it's default workspace as sRBG) and it brings up a dialog box stating the image is AdobeRGB and how do I wish to proceed.

I will update with my findings later today.

[janrif]

If anyone using a Canon camera is able to shoot in AdobeRGB and get proofs converted to sRGB, please let me know the secret.
I shoot RAW, RGB. Don't know if you have PS but if you do, why not keep your RGB all the way thru & automate convert to sRGB & create your html in PS? Does that make sense for your needs?

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA
skype janrif

[Nill Toulme]

Does the HTML generator require an embedded profile in the source image in order to produce sRGB jpg's? I'm confused...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Gatorboy]

I want to shoot in AdobeRGB to have the larger gamut of color when I prepare images for printing.

I want the proofs (that are placed online for viewing/purchasing) to be created in sRGB so the colors look good for the web.

I want to shoot JPG, not RAW

[Gatorboy]

SUCCESS!

The key was getting the color profile embedded. The directory where my sRGB color profile was located did not contain the AdobeRGB profile. I could be wrong, but when Downloader Pro ran and I had it setup for Auto Detect, I think the fact that the profile was not in that directory was the problem.

It is now working properly. After DL Pro runs the file has the AdobeRGB color profile and when I run proofs, it properly converts it to sRGB.

Thanks to all for all your help.

[Ferdinand in Paris]

Does the HTML generator require an embedded profile in the source image in order to produce sRGB jpg's? I'm confused...

Nill
~~


If the source image is already sRGB .... no. No conversion is required and therefore no embedded profile is needed.

If however the source image is in another colour space ... then yes. To do a conversion, the source profile must be embedded in the source image. The EXIF colour space is not sufficient, that is, while it might be reliable in some cameras, it is not in all.

To Gatorboy - Congratulations! It had to be something like that. To track down these sorts of things, you have to be thorough and assume nothing.

F_P

[Nill Toulme]

Dave, where is that setting in DL Pro? I don't see it, but then I'm still on v1.7.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Gatorboy]

It's in one of the plug-in settings.

[Chris Breeze]

Dave, where is that setting in DL Pro? I don't see it, but then I'm still on v1.7.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

The JPEG auto profile plug-in in Downloader Pro v1.9 has the option to embed the sRGB or AdobeRGB color profile using info from the shooting data. Earlier versions of the plug-in only allowed a fixed profile for each camera.

[Nill Toulme]

Chris I'm really confused about this embedded profile thing. I can understand (sort of, I think) why a source jpg needs to have an colorspace embedded in order for proofs to convert to sRGB and embed that profile. I can't for the life of me see, however, why a RAW file would need an embedded profile for this to work. But that indeed seems to be the case, at least with my BB Pro v1.3.2.

Is that so? And if so, why?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Ferdinand in Paris]

The reason I asked Gatorboy whether he was shooting in JPG or RAW was because I have no idea how proofing and HTML generation works for RAW source files, since I never do it. I suspect that it will depend on the program, and IMHO a well-behaved program should know what space was used, and do the conversion correctly. In any case, I don't think you can "embed" a colour profile in a RAW file in the same way you can in a JPG or TIF, can you? So if you are looking to generate html pages straight from RAW, the software will need to be able to recognise the shooting colour space.

F_P

[Nill Toulme]

...So if you are looking to generate html pages straight from RAW, the software will need to be able to recognise the shooting colour space.

That's the part I don't understand — what "shooting colour space?" RAW is RAW — it doesn't have a color space. Does it?

I don't generate my web galleries from the RAW files, but I do sometimes have occasion to want to generate proofs from them, and I want those proofs to be in sRGB for web viewing.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[janrif]

The JPEG auto profile plug-in in Downloader Pro v1.9 has the option to embed the sRGB or AdobeRGB color profile using info from the shooting data. Earlier versions of the plug-in only allowed a fixed profile for each camera.
Chris, drag/drop my JPEGs (converted down from TIFF/RAW w AdobeRGB profile does not add profile to the dialogue. What am I missing? TIA

[Evo2Me]

Nill, not in and of themselves but they still get tagged as whatever your camera offers you (look at Nikon's D2-series (incl. D200). Although there are ways to view a RAW image as raw - essentially reading of the hex values in the file - we usually get to see an interpretation of it, which has to be done on some ground.

On another note, I always wonder why people see kind of world-shattering differences between sRGB-tagged images on a good monitor and AdobeRGB images. Yes, usually there are differences but I've yet to see an example which is in AdobeRGB but does not look good on my Eizo TFTs . I've never seen an overall colour mute as is often said to be the result of using "such a wide colour space".

Since I use ProPhoto RGB I do see differences, and they [i]are enormous!

[Nill Toulme]

The differences can be pretty significant for some images — enough to make the difference sometimes between "Ah!" and "Eh..."

As to your point on tagging RAWs — doing so doesn't really *do* anything to the image, does it? It's not as if the image was "captured" in Adobe RGB or anything else. Tagging a RAW file with sharpening or contrast or saturation parameters doesn't do anything to the file, it's just a way of telling the RAW conversion program where to start — an instruction that many RAW converters such as C1 (and I think ACR) ignore entirely anyway.

Similarly, it seems to me that tagging a RAW file with any given color space is simply a way of telling the converter what color space you're most likely to want it to convert to — but that doesn't mean you won't change your mind. And when what you're doing is converting from RAW to produce sRGB proofs, you're converting *to* sRGB (or at least you want to be), but it's not like you're converting *from* Adobe RGB or any other color space — you're simply converting from RAW.

I know I must be missing something here, but I don't know what it is.

Further thought after re-reading your message: Yes, all those parameters *do* affect the embedded jpg file that I think most viewers (and the camera) use to let us preview the image, but they *don't* affect the RAW file itself. So if we were producing proofs from those embedded jpg's, yes it would make sense that the program should know what color space it's starting from. But (in my case at least) we're not — we're converting the RAW files and producing the proofs directly from that conversion.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Evo2Me]

[A]ll those parameters *do* affect the embedded jpg file [...] but they *don't* affect the RAW file itself.

Correct. The RGB numbers in the RAW file, however, have to be standardised or they wouldn't mean anything. That is the main problem with the RGB model [worse with CMYK, BTW]: The numbers are not absolute but relative. Thus they have no meaning at all - unless they are set into context, a colour space.

Since I somehow lost the way in this thread [my mistake] I cannot say if it will or must have any bearing on the original problem. Considering that RAW files are greyscale with a linear [non-logarithmic] curve you are surely happy your proofs come out within a certain colour space. This, at least, makes sense.

As long as you are not making proper proofs - which can only be done with the printing machine set in and on the actual paper used for final output - but only selection sheets everything is alright.

[Ferdinand in Paris]

As to your point on tagging RAWs — doing so doesn't really *do* anything to the image, does it? It's not as if the image was "captured" in Adobe RGB or anything else.

Having thought about this some more, yes, you are absolutely right. And having looked at how BB behaves when you proof or generate html images straight from RAW, I don't profess to know what BB does in terms of derived image colour space.

Whatever it is, as far as I can tell, it can't be controlled. HTML generation doen't offer conversion options, but presumably it produces sRGB images. Proofing will do a conversion, but as the source RAW file has no embedded profile, as you observe, its "profile conversion" is not strictly applicable to RAW images. Ideally what you would like to be able to do is to access the RAW conversion settings, but you can't in proofing or html generation.

I usually edit my most of RAW images one way or another, and will produce either JPG or TIF master images which I can use for HTML & proofing, thereby avoiding this conundrum.

F_P