It is CS4 or me ? sRGB from D80 frowned upon

T
Posted By
Ticonderoga
Nov 20, 2008
Views
1258
Replies
20
Status
Closed
I am evaluating CS4 downloaded from Adobe and have met a problem.

I am using .NEF files made with a Nikon D80. The camera is set to sRGB.

If I open this file with CS3, ARC (4.6) will open stating at the bottom of the screen (rightly) that the image is indeed sRGB.

Opening it in CS4 will open ARC (5.1) and at the bottom of the screen the image is tagged as AdobeRGB, which is wrong.

Not only, but opening the image in Bridge CS4 the small pane with the color space shows a different opinion and says that the image is untagged.

This is pretty annoying. Anybody else have met this problem or know something about it I don’t ?

-T

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

JM
John McWilliams
Nov 20, 2008
Ticonderoga wrote:
I am evaluating CS4 downloaded from Adobe and have met a problem.
I am using .NEF files made with a Nikon D80. The camera is set to sRGB.
If I open this file with CS3, ARC (4.6) will open stating at the bottom of the screen (rightly) that the image is indeed sRGB.

Opening it in CS4 will open ARC (5.1) and at the bottom of the screen the image is tagged as AdobeRGB, which is wrong.

Not only, but opening the image in Bridge CS4 the small pane with the color space shows a different opinion and says that the image is untagged.
This is pretty annoying. Anybody else have met this problem or know something about it I don’t ?

RAW files have no embedded color space, nor do camera settings dictate the space for itl that’s applied to the camera generated JPEGs if any.

Check prefs in PS.


john mcwilliams
J
Joel
Nov 21, 2008
Ticonderoga wrote:

I am evaluating CS4 downloaded from Adobe and have met a problem.
I am using .NEF files made with a Nikon D80. The camera is set to sRGB.
If I open this file with CS3, ARC (4.6) will open stating at the bottom of the screen (rightly) that the image is indeed sRGB.

Opening it in CS4 will open ARC (5.1) and at the bottom of the screen the image is tagged as AdobeRGB, which is wrong.

Not only, but opening the image in Bridge CS4 the small pane with the color space shows a different opinion and says that the image is untagged.
This is pretty annoying. Anybody else have met this problem or know something about it I don’t ?

It sounds like CS4 isn’t for you. For most of Photoshop users, we pay for it so we have our choice to set to whatever colorspace we wish.

If your Nikon sets to sRGB then it’s fine right there as you have the option to set to whatever you wish, and sRGB is your choice

Now, we are talking about Photoshop which ain’t Nikon, Photoshop is a photo retoucher and if you want to set to sRGB then tell it to use sRGB, else like many of us we use aRGB so we tell it to use aRGB.

-T
B
bmoag
Nov 21, 2008
I do not mean to be rude but the problem is not CS4 it is you. You probably do not have the color management settings properly set so that images retain the color space with which they were made. Jpegs made in-camera are effectively sRGB, or often have a smaller gamut, depending on the camera’s electronics and Jpeg algorithm regardless of settings.
If CS4 color management settings are correct the color space should be unchanged or you should set them so your are prompted about whether you want to convert to a preferred color space like Adobe RGB.
RAW files have no intrinsic color space other than the gamut of the camera sensor and electronics. Most are 12 bit but newer cameras are sending out 14 bit image data.
There are multiple arguments, mostly I think wrong, about whether processing an image made in a smaller color space, like sRGB, in a larger color space, like Adobe RBG (or processing 8 and 12 bit originals in 16 bits) yields a technically superior image. If your final goal is a print, where you are restricted to the 8bit (or less) gamut of your printer and its immutable driver algorithms it is up to you to decide how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Likewise if you own a Mac and are thrilled about sending 16 bit info to your 8 bit printer in CS4 you may have to inject some realism into your thinking, something that seems difficult for Macaholics.
N
nomail
Nov 21, 2008
Ticonderoga wrote:

I am evaluating CS4 downloaded from Adobe and have met a problem.
I am using .NEF files made with a Nikon D80. The camera is set to sRGB.
If I open this file with CS3, ARC (4.6) will open stating at the bottom of the screen (rightly) that the image is indeed sRGB.

Opening it in CS4 will open ARC (5.1) and at the bottom of the screen the image is tagged as AdobeRGB, which is wrong.

Not only, but opening the image in Bridge CS4 the small pane with the color space shows a different opinion and says that the image is untagged.
This is pretty annoying. Anybody else have met this problem or know something about it I don’t ?

You need to learn something about Photoshop (CS3 or CS4). The color space of RAW images is set upon conversion, so in ACR. The camera settings are irrelevant for RAW, they are only for shooting JPEGs. In your case, the fact that you set sRGB in the camera and also in ACR 4.6 is purely a coincidence.

What you see at the bottom is not only the information, it’s also the link to the ACR preferences. Click on that, and you can change the color space to sRGB if that is what you want to use.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
K
KatWoman
Nov 21, 2008
"Joel" wrote in message
Ticonderoga wrote:

I am evaluating CS4 downloaded from Adobe and have met a problem.
I am using .NEF files made with a Nikon D80. The camera is set to sRGB.
If I open this file with CS3, ARC (4.6) will open stating at the bottom of
the screen (rightly) that the image is indeed sRGB.

Opening it in CS4 will open ARC (5.1) and at the bottom of the screen the image is tagged as AdobeRGB, which is wrong.

Not only, but opening the image in Bridge CS4 the small pane with the color space shows a different opinion and says that the image is untagged.

This is pretty annoying. Anybody else have met this problem or know something about it I don’t ?

It sounds like CS4 isn’t for you. For most of Photoshop users, we pay for it so we have our choice to set to whatever colorspace we wish.
If your Nikon sets to sRGB then it’s fine right there as you have the option to set to whatever you wish, and sRGB is your choice
Now, we are talking about Photoshop which ain’t Nikon, Photoshop is a photo retoucher and if you want to set to sRGB then tell it to use sRGB, else like many of us we use aRGB so we tell it to use aRGB.

-T

100% wrong answer from JOEL grumpy gramps
once again

he also thinks all jobs are retouch only with masks
I advise not listening to any advice he gives EVER

in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick copy of a file for web
D
Dave
Nov 22, 2008
in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick copy of a file for web

With reference to your last sentence, I am using a 9MP camera. (Fuji Finepix S9600)
The default in ACR Preferences is 3488 by 2616 (9.1 MP) with alternatives of reducing it to 1.4 MP or enlarging it up to 28.3 MP – 6144 by 4608 (28.3MP)+.
Of course I do not question reducing the sizes but how come do I have the options of enlarging sizes 300%? What would the quality (difference) be if I would make use of it?
Is it worth a try?
J
Jurgen
Nov 22, 2008
Dave wrote:
in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick copy of a file for web

With reference to your last sentence, I am using a 9MP camera. (Fuji Finepix S9600)
The default in ACR Preferences is 3488 by 2616 (9.1 MP) with alternatives of reducing it to 1.4 MP or enlarging it up to 28.3 MP – 6144 by 4608 (28.3MP)+.
Of course I do not question reducing the sizes but how come do I have the options of enlarging sizes 300%? What would the quality (difference) be if I would make use of it?
Is it worth a try?

Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.
D
Dave
Nov 22, 2008
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:11:10 +1000, Jurgen
wrote:

Dave wrote:
in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick copy of a file for web

With reference to your last sentence, I am using a 9MP camera. (Fuji Finepix S9600)
The default in ACR Preferences is 3488 by 2616 (9.1 MP) with alternatives of reducing it to 1.4 MP or enlarging it up to 28.3 MP – 6144 by 4608 (28.3MP)+.
Of course I do not question reducing the sizes but how come do I have the options of enlarging sizes 300%? What would the quality (difference) be if I would make use of it?
Is it worth a try?

Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.

Thanks for the info, Jurgen. I used Genuine Fractals time(s) ago but *if there’s so little differences, this is the way to go. Only now as Johan as KatWoman pointed to the preferences, I had a look at it and the question came to mind.
Another reason thus for shooting RAW is for the sake of enlargements.
J
Jurgen
Nov 22, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:11:10 +1000, Jurgen
wrote:

Dave wrote:
in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick copy of a file for web
With reference to your last sentence, I am using a 9MP camera. (Fuji Finepix S9600)
The default in ACR Preferences is 3488 by 2616 (9.1 MP) with alternatives of reducing it to 1.4 MP or enlarging it up to 28.3 MP – 6144 by 4608 (28.3MP)+.
Of course I do not question reducing the sizes but how come do I have the options of enlarging sizes 300%? What would the quality (difference) be if I would make use of it?
Is it worth a try?

Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.

Thanks for the info, Jurgen. I used Genuine Fractals time(s) ago but *if there’s so little differences, this is the way to go. Only now as Johan as KatWoman pointed to the preferences, I had a look at it and the question came to mind.
Another reason thus for shooting RAW is for the sake of enlargements.

Dave, shooting in RAW mode gets rid of the artefacts from camera generated jpeg images. To get your head around the issues of whether or not to use RAW. The use of your output needs to be assessed.

I use Fujifilm s5 cameras in jpeg mode as my camera of choice at events and for 60% of wedding work. They produce reasonably clean jpegs with artefacts that don’t show up until you go seriously big with your prints. I never shoot anything larger than prints for a 12"x16" album with them.

When I take mission critical shots (portraits) I use a Nikon D300 – an almost identical camera with a single rather than a dual sensor in it. I wouldn’t dream of shooting anything with a D300 that wasn’t shot RAW because I almost always need to expand the dynamic range of that camera in post processing. The s5s do it via a dual sensors but at the price of using interpolation to get the advertised image resolution.

After seeing how good double sized images are from the camera, I tried it with ACR and found the D300 produced crisper 20 megapixel images than the 10 megapixel ones from the Fuji.

I imagine one day a camera will be developed with the dynamic range of the dual sensor Fuji and the image quality of the D300. Don’t let my pedantic assessment as a perfectionist cloud your judgement. If I can’t make a life size portrait from an image, I’m not happy with it!
K
KatWoman
Nov 22, 2008
"Jurgen" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:11:10 +1000, Jurgen
wrote:

Dave wrote:
in the ARC converter dialog at bottom it shows a color space as Johan answered correctly
you can change to your color space of choice in there

if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to
default to that every time

there is a handy option there to change sizes as well, good for saving quick
copy of a file for web
With reference to your last sentence, I am using a 9MP camera. (Fuji Finepix S9600)
The default in ACR Preferences is 3488 by 2616 (9.1 MP) with alternatives of reducing it to 1.4 MP or enlarging it up to 28.3 MP – 6144 by 4608 (28.3MP)+.
Of course I do not question reducing the sizes but how come do I have the options of enlarging sizes 300%? What would the quality (difference) be if I would make use of it?
Is it worth a try?

Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.

Thanks for the info, Jurgen. I used Genuine Fractals time(s) ago but *if there’s so little differences, this is the way to go. Only now as Johan as KatWoman pointed to the preferences, I had a look at it and the question came to mind.
Another reason thus for shooting RAW is for the sake of enlargements.

Dave, shooting in RAW mode gets rid of the artefacts from camera generated jpeg images. To get your head around the issues of whether or not to use RAW. The use of your output needs to be assessed.

I use Fujifilm s5 cameras in jpeg mode as my camera of choice at events and for 60% of wedding work. They produce reasonably clean jpegs with artefacts that don’t show up until you go seriously big with your prints. I never shoot anything larger than prints for a 12"x16" album with them.
When I take mission critical shots (portraits) I use a Nikon D300 – an almost identical camera with a single rather than a dual sensor in it. I wouldn’t dream of shooting anything with a D300 that wasn’t shot RAW because I almost always need to expand the dynamic range of that camera in post processing. The s5s do it via a dual sensors but at the price of using interpolation to get the advertised image resolution.
After seeing how good double sized images are from the camera, I tried it with ACR and found the D300 produced crisper 20 megapixel images than the 10 megapixel ones from the Fuji.

I imagine one day a camera will be developed with the dynamic range of the dual sensor Fuji and the image quality of the D300. Don’t let my pedantic assessment as a perfectionist cloud your judgement. If I can’t make a life size portrait from an image, I’m not happy with it!

the situation did not come up for me Dave but it is good to know one more advantage to RAW ACR processing

now you taught me
I learned a lot from NG participation over the time we spent

I have had an image enlarged by Genuine Fractals to make a large portrait print
but the image was made to a graphic not exactly a photo anymore so as for detail clarity grain I could not say how much it was helpful
D
Dave
Nov 22, 2008
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:25:17 +1000, Jurgen
wrote:

Dave, shooting in RAW mode gets rid of the artefacts from camera generated jpeg images. To get your head around the issues of whether or not to use RAW. The use of your output needs to be assessed.

Totally agree Jurgen. RAW is what I shoot when I want to save it as Tiff or when upsizing is needed. Upsizing which up to now, was done in Tiff.

This discussion had me browsing the Internet and I came to a link which will be found very interesting not only by you, but also by every serious photographer in this NG.

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.3bbd164e.59b678a3/9
T
Ticonderoga
Nov 22, 2008
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:32:40 -0500, "KatWoman" wrote:

|
|if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to |default to that every time

Thank you
J
Joel
Nov 23, 2008
Jurgen wrote:

<snip>
Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.

If you have known and tried the Enlargement feature of CS2 or newer then you may find it works quite well. I only use it on low-rez I download from internet to use as DVD Label, and I have never use Genuine Fractals to be able to tell the difference, but I read the built-in has some advantage/disadvantage comparing to Genuine Fractals. And to me, if someone has to spend time to compare the small differences then I guess they are pretty close to each other.

And from few articles and samples I read, the Photoshop’s built-in feature is even better than Genuine Fractals.
D
Dave
Nov 23, 2008
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:46:16 -0600, Joel wrote:

Jurgen wrote:

<snip>
Not just worth a try Dave, it is used very regularly by those who make prints from RAW files and now (since ACR began supporting JPEG) from most files.

Pedantic people who use a 10x loupe to view their prints might find Genuine Fractals a little better at enlargements but for the rest of us, doubling the size of an image during development with ACR is no big deal and quite workable.

If you have known and tried the Enlargement feature of CS2 or newer then you may find it works quite well. I only use it on low-rez I download from internet to use as DVD Label, and I have never use Genuine Fractals to be able to tell the difference, but I read the built-in has some advantage/disadvantage comparing to Genuine Fractals. And to me, if someone has to spend time to compare the small differences then I guess they are pretty close to each other.

And from few articles and samples I read, the Photoshop’s built-in feature is even better than Genuine Fractals.

Very true, Joel. The difference seem to be minimal.
The truth in what you are saying get displayed here.
This is not a comparison with Genuine Fractals but the comparison is between Photoshops facility and RAW’s facility. According to Matt Kloskowski, there is no difference at all.
Some people do the editing before the enlargement
and others do it afterwards. Some do sharpening before
and others say it must be done afterwards. And like Jurgen said, a 10X loupe is needed to notice the difference.

Upsizing Your Photos
Last updated Aug 8, 2008.

There’s lots of different ways to take an existing image and make it larger. Some say that it’s best to do it in Photoshop using Image Size. Others say it’s best to do it on the raw file in Adobe Camera Raw. In this week’s video, we’re going to take a look at the two and compare the differences of resizing side by side.

Upsizing Your Photos: Video Tutorial

http://www.peachpit.com/content/images/irf_guide_photoshop_a rguelles/elementLinks/Resizing.mov
R
Rob
Nov 23, 2008
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:46:16 -0600, Joel wrote:

You may want to have a look at this video on raw

http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1007
K
KatWoman
Nov 23, 2008
"Ticonderoga" wrote in message
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:32:40 -0500, "KatWoman" wrote:

|
|if you shot srgb and want to keep srgb choose it and it will continue to |default to that every time

Thank you

glad to help
J
Joel
Nov 23, 2008
Rob wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:46:16 -0600, Joel wrote:

You may want to have a look at this video on raw

http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1007

That’s pretty much the general basic commands of what most RAW converters do. And I don’t go through all the showing off teaching style process but few basic adjusting, then send to Photoshop to finish the job.

And I am more familar with ARC than LightRoom which I like little less than ARC cuz of the slow displaying comparing to ARC.
D
Dave
Nov 24, 2008
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:51:42 -0500, "KatWoman"

the situation did not come up for me Dave but it is good to know one more advantage to RAW ACR processing

now you taught me
I taught you!? What a compliment:-)

I learned a lot from NG participation over the time we spent
Exactly so KatWoman, NG participation can be wonderful uplifting. I have learned more from this NG than anywhere else.
Often the atmosphere in news groups get a gaussian blur but afterwards it get smart sharpened again.
I have had an image enlarged by Genuine Fractals to make a large portrait print
but the image was made to a graphic not exactly a photo anymore so as for detail clarity grain I could not say how much it was helpful

This keep on being a question which way to go. Yesterday I have seen two videos done by Matt Kloskowski, proving there is absolute no difference between enlarging in ACR or by using Photoshop’s enlargement facility. His workflow is ‘while you are in ACR, do it there. If not, do it in Photoshop.
D
Dave
Nov 24, 2008
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:50:30 +1100, Rob wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:46:16 -0600, Joel wrote:

You may want to have a look at this video on raw

http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1007

Thanks Rob. Busy buffering it.
J
Jurgen
Nov 25, 2008
Dave wrote:

This keep on being a question which way to go. Yesterday I have seen two videos done by Matt Kloskowski, proving there is absolute no difference between enlarging in ACR or by using Photoshop’s enlargement facility. His workflow is ‘while you are in ACR, do it there. If not, do it in Photoshop.

I used to think Genuine Fractals was the "ONLY", fantastic enlargement medium. I used to enlarge D60 Canon and later 10D images to poster size prints with it.

As Photoshop evolved and developed neater components, GF got disappointingly little development and eventually fell behind the program it needed for what it did.

There is a double edged penalty in following the advise of some PS gurus to make enlargements. For starters doing the enlargement in ACR results in a monster file that is power hungry to edit.

It would be good if you could edit a small file and save the intermediate work as a DNG file then open it in ACR to enlarge it but ACR won’t open a 32 bit tiff!

I guess this is what keeps Adobe in cash. New versions that have much wanted features while not having others! God luv ’em!

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections