Color Space in Camera: Does it matter?

[Joerg Rockenberger]

I presume it doesn't matter what color space is set in the camera if one converts from Raw to tiff/jpg as only then the color space is assigned. I guess it only matters as far as how the image is displayed on the LCD of the camera.

Is that correct?

Thanks, JR

[Tell Dickinson]

Thats exactly how I understand it John :) It does matter if you are shooting JPG though as the camera will assign the chosen colour space in its setup.

Tell

[Robert Amoruso]

Tell got it exactly right John. Thanks Tell.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Guys, to expand this slightly, are any IN CAMERA SETTINGS - other than the image of course ;) - transferred along with the the image when you shoot in RAW? For example, even though you can easily change WB in PP, when you first open a RAW image in your conversion program will you see the image with the chosen WB or is their a "neutral" WB that is applied when you transfer and you only see th chosen WB in the LCD? Thanks, Jay

[Aidan Briggs]

Jay, As I understand it, you see your chosen WB setting in the conversion program when you open the file.

[Fabs Forns]

John, also, a smaller color space as sRGB in your camera will give you extra protection of the whites because you will bet blinkies sooner.

[David Thomasson]

Hi Guys, to expand this slightly, are any IN CAMERA SETTINGS - other than the image of course ;) - transferred along with the the image when you shoot in RAW? For example, even though you can easily change WB in PP, when you first open a RAW image in your conversion program will you see the image with the chosen WB or is their a "neutral" WB that is applied when you transfer and you only see th chosen WB in the LCD? Thanks, Jay

It depends on the camera and the converter. Example: If you shoot Canon and use DPP, that converter will recognize and apply camera settings (they accompany
the raw file as tags). If you open the same Canon raw file in Adobe Camera Raw, it will not recognize the camera settings but will apply standard settings
generated by ACR. As you know, ACR also has a bunch of camera profiles that yield a variety of results.

In any case, the raw file contains all the juice captured by the camera and can be squeezed out in the raw converter.

[Roger Clark]

In most cameras, the raw files contain the digitized raw data from the sensor and the parameters you set are simply tags in the raw file, but the raw data are not modified. The one setting that does change the values in the raw file is ISO. ISO changes the gain of the signal that gets digitized. In the future, I predict cameras will be made with 16-bit converters and then we may see the end of analog gain (ISO) and then we can choose ISO in post processing along with all the other parameters! I hope we see this in the 1D4.

Some cameras do modify the raw data from the sensor. For example, long exposures in Nikon cameras do a noise reduction step that runs a median filter on the raw data. Side effects for astronomers: some faint stars get deleted as noise. Most Nikon models also clip the lows whereas other makers preserve an electronic offset that you can keep or subtract in the raw conversion. Keeping it can help detail in the deepest shadows.

Roger

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Thank you all for chiming in and for confirming my basic understanding.

And Fabs, glad for your comment as it leads to my next question.

Shooting RAW the general advice is to shoot to the right as much as possible in contrast to shooting JPG. Now, the in-camera image display/histogram is as far as I know derived from the embedded jpg which is generated using the in-camera settings for color space, white balance and picture style.

What is the best combination for the latter to make sure to capture the best picture quality and/or the most information?

Thanks in advance. JR

[Jay Gould]

Hi,

In the printing thread http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=43338, Kerry said the following:


Julian, it is not recommended to use sRGB in either the camera or your workflow. This color space has a limited gamut and is generally reserved for web publication. You will get better results by shooting in Adobe RGB (at least) and using that for your printing setup. Would suggest only converting to sRGB for web content.Fabs' position is that


John, also, a smaller color space as sRGB in your camera will give you extra protection of the whites because you will bet blinkies sooner.What in camera color space are you using, and why have you chosen that color space?

While Adobe RGB is a wider gamut, Ken Rockwell makes a pretty convincing argument for always using sRGB: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

Thanks,

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Jay,

for the moment I decided to KISS. Keep it Simple, Stupid. And I mean of course myself with "Stupid". Hence, I keep everything in sRGB until I have a better understanding of color management.

I don't print and do only web-display at the moment. So, I am not sure what benefits I'd gain from using AdobeRGB in postprocessing or in the camera itself. Fab's argument to use sRGB in camera to get earlier highlight warnings is of course interesting. But the consequence would be that you wouldn't shoot as much to the right as you perhaps could in Adobe RGB. Theoretically that should lead to more noise in the shadows. No clue if it matters in reality.

Best, JR

[Jim Neiger]

John, also, a smaller color space as sRGB in your camera will give you extra protection of the whites because you will bet blinkies sooner.


Conversely, the wider color space will allow you to see the whites that are available in the RAW file a little more acurately and my help you expose to the right a little tighter without going over. The setting that has the most effect on evaluating exposure is contrast.

[Jay Gould]

Conversely, the wider color space will allow you to see the whites that are available in the RAW file a little more acurately and my help you expose to the right a little tighter without going over. The setting that has the most effect on evaluating exposure is contrast.

Jim, do you boost in camera contrast to increase contrast in the camera LCD?

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Jay, have you seen this thread?

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40274

JR

[Jim Neiger]

Jim, do you boost in camera contrast to increase contrast in the camera LCD?

As I mentioned in the thread John linked, it's just the opposite. I lower the contrast.

[Fabs Forns]

Conversely, the wider color space will allow you to see the whites that are available in the RAW file a little more acurately and my help you expose to the right a little tighter without going over. The setting that has the most effect on evaluating exposure is contrast.

I do not think the LCD will be able to display the whole gamut of whites available.

[Jim Buescher]

On a related note, what about in-camera sharpness? I usually have it set high enough in-camera to check focus but back it off before converting, then do all sharpening after all other PP steps. Should I not use in-camera sharpening or if I do is it OK to keep the setting when I convert then add sharpness as needed?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

On a related note, what about in-camera sharpness? I usually have it set high enough in-camera to check focus but back it off before converting, then do all sharpening after all other PP steps. Should I not use in-camera sharpening or if I do is it OK to keep the setting when I convert then add sharpness as needed?

As long as you use RAW the in-camera sharpening setting has no impact since this is only for the embedded jpg. I have it at high, too, in order to be able to see in the field whether an image is sharp.

[Charles Glatzer]

Hey Jim,

Thanks for the mention (greatly appreciated)... on lowering the in-camera contrast to better represent what the chip is actually capable of recording. And, I agree with setting the camera to Adobe RGB for the same reason.

Many people are unnecessarily under-exposing images for fear of seeing the "BLINKIES". Being able to better judge in the field how far I can push the headroom in-camera provides an overall advantage when trying to make the most of the image in post-production. BTW- at times slightly clipping the highlights is "ok" if the image contains a higher degree of lower tonal values. And, the same is true for blacks...it is not taboo to have pure blacks within an image. With fleeting nature subjects multiple exposure blending/HDR is not a realistic option, as it is when shooting landscapes. I do not know where this "no clipping whatsoever" started, but Rob Sheppard of OP and I just had the same conversation while I was hosting the NANPA Road Show, MN last week. We agreed, that in an ideal world keeping the data between the edges of the histogram would be preferred, but not at the sacrifice of the greater tonal values present within the overall image. We both stated to HAVE NEVER HAD AN IMAGE DECLINED by any magazine for small areas of clipped detail...providing the image presented looked great overall, with visual impact. Moreover, LR2 usually shows more headroom is available even when exposing as per the in-camera settings above (gamma difference). If you really want to see the entire highlight detail captured OPEN THE IMAGE AS LINEAR CONVERSION in Breeze Browser (you will be amazed). Capture One also does a good job although it does not illustrate a real linear conversion.

Best,

Chas