sRGB vs. Adobe (1998) RGB

JP
Posted By
john_prebis
Jan 3, 2009
Views
2298
Replies
60
Status
Closed
This is likely a basic question for all the pros out there, but here it is: In Scott Kelby’s The Photoshop CS Book (2003), it says on p. 116: "Photoshops’ default color space (sRGB…) is arguably the worst possible color space for professional photographers." He says this color space is designed for Web designers and mimics a cheap PC monitor from years ago.

He recommends changing the default setting to Adobe RGB (1998), saying "This is probably the most popular RGB setting for photographers because it reproduces such a wide gamut of colors and it’s ideal if your photos will wind up in print."

Then comes the instruction book for the Canon 5D Mark II, which recommends sRGB because Adobe RGB "is mainly used for commercial printing and other industrial uses. This setting is not recommended if you do not know about image processing, Adobe RGB, and Design rule for Camera File System 2.0 (Exif 2.21). The image will look very subdued in the sRGB personal computer environment and with printers not compatible with Design rule for Camera File System 2.0. Post-processing of the image with software will therefore be required."

So– Is there a ‘best’ setting for a non-pro who wants the ‘best’ possible prints? Should the camera and CS4 have the same settings, either sRGB or Adobe (1998)? Does this have anything to do with the price of eggs in China?

Thank you for your help. John

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

JF
john_findley
Jan 3, 2009
Not strictly a pro, but I take and print a lot of digital photos and scanned slides. I have used Adobe (1998) exclusively and never had any problem with accurate color reproduction.
I always heard sRGB was for Windows monitors and the web.
P
pfigen
Jan 3, 2009
There’s no one best color space to use for your digtial photos. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

There is a lot of information out there explaining the finer points of choosing color spaces, but my basic rule is that the less you know right now about them, the more likely you should be using sRGB and less likely that you might use wider gamut spaces. You will run into fewer problems across the board with this approach. As you learn more, you will begin to understand when larger spaces might have an advantage and when they just won’t make any difference.

A lot also depends on what type of prints you are going to make and where you are going to make them.

You don’t say if you’re shooting raw files with your Canon. If you’re not, then you should. The raw file contains all the data the sensor records and you can decide on the color space when you process that raw file into a tiff. The beauty of that raw file is that you can re-process it any number of times into different color space and compare the respective output.
R
Ram
Jan 3, 2009
My two cents:

If you shoot raw, the color space you set in the camera is irrelevant.

If you’re having your prints done for you in a run of the mill commercial lab, ask them if they can even work with Adobe RGB or wider gamuts. If they respond in the negative, stick to sRGB as your working space.

If you have access to a pro lab that knows what they are doing and can handle any source profile, or if you’re printing your images yourself on a high-end inkjet printer, consider reading up in color management very intensively until you are up to par in color management so you can safely ProPhoto RGB. You won’t get there by reading Kelby, ever, but you can then read works by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney.

On the other hand, if you’re NOT shooting raw, then it probably doesn’t matter to you.
NK
Neil_Keller
Jan 3, 2009
John,

You don’t say if you’re shooting raw files with your Canon. If you’re not, then you should.

I agree with that statement and with Ramón’s follow-up. Raw format is full, non-destructive image information.

I currently print almost everything Adobe RGB — although I’m now experimenting with wider gamut printing on my Epson R2400. Be aware the rRGB is a smaller color gamut than Adobe RGB and you may not realize the full potential of your printer if that is how you print.

Neil
GB
g_ballard
Jan 3, 2009
Photoshops’ default color space (sRGB…) is arguably the worst possible
color space for professional photographers…

[I] would strongly argue that statement otherwise

the "argument" of course would rest on the definition of PROFESSIONAL

my definition of professional would be someone who at least understands his or her own work flow, including not setting up people downstream the opportunity to screw up the color, for example:

like posting AdobeRGB (aRGB) on the internet, or delivering aRGB to any un-managed application or work flow

the fact that Adobe RGB causes so many "professionals" to output unprofessional results on their monitors, the monitors of others, and their printers, the printers of others is my "argument"

it takes very little time and effort to understand the nature of sRGB and AdobeRGB and greatly minimize the potential for screwing up the color

certainly work in AdobeRGB if you understand it (I do) — but Adobe RGB is one of the worst color spaces to work in if you don’t understand it

sRGB is a much safer bet…
JS
Jeff_Schewe
Jan 4, 2009
The ‘s’ of sRGB has many, many meanings…it actuality, it means "standard" RGB as it related to Windows (MSFT was the one who helped foster this "standard" and was the required default color space for any 3rd party that wanted to put Windows Compatible on their software boxes). It also has the moniker of being "Satanic RGB" because of this association with MSFT. Unfortunately, the camera maker industry took this to mean that cameras should also have a default color space of sRGB and as a result, many printers and photo labs followed suit.

I call it "stupid" RGB because if you don’t know what you are doing, sRGB is really the simplest because all of the other stupid companies (like camera and printer makers) have swallowed the MSFT Kool-Aid.

All cameras and many printers can indeed contain or use color that is outside of the gamut of sRGB. As a result, it is really a sub-optimal color space to use if you are doing anything other than posting image on the web. All cameras (that I’m aware of) can certainly capture colors outside the gamut of sRGB and if you shoot raw, using sRGB is a waste of your camera’s color capability.

The "best" color space to use is the one YOU’VE tested on YOUR images and you KNOW for a fact it’s optimal for what YOU do. For me, that happens to be ProPhoto RGB…but for goodness sake, don’t pick PP RGB simply because I (and many others) use it…
JP
john_prebis
Jan 4, 2009
Sorry I left out an important point: I shoot only raw. Printer is an Epson R2400. Am now using CS3, but will upgrade to CS4 so I don’t need to use the DNG converter (the 5D M2 requires plug-in 5.2), which to me is time-consuming and just another possible way to degrade a file.

Ramon: Thank you for pointing out that the camera setting–sRGB or aRGB–doesn’t matter if shooting raw. I was thinking that, to avoid potential conflicts, the camera and PS setting should match. Canon seems to be making a statement by making sRGB the default–as does PS.

Also, thank you for the references. Jeff Schewe has already provided thoughtful advice.

G. Ballard: It’s good to know that with minimal effort I can understand the differences between s- and aRGB. That seems important for the long haul.

Jeff Schewe: You note that "if you shoot raw, using sRGB is a waste of your camera’s color capability." So– even if I am not yet up to speed on aRGB should I shoot in that mode, anyway? Or, not yet knowing all the ramifications of aRGB, am I likely to screw things up? And where can I find your book? (Editor: please ignore this question if it is improper for this forum.)

Again, thank you all for your very useful advice and commentary. John
JS
Jeff_Schewe
Jan 4, 2009
So– even if I am not yet up to speed on aRGB should I shoot in that mode, anyway?

You bet…at least then you’ll be able to go back to the originals and re-render using a proper large color space (course, it’s more work for ya).

And where can I find your book?

Pretty much anywhere that computer books are sold…Real World Camera Raw for Photoshop CS4 is the current shipping edition.
R
Ram
Jan 4, 2009
So– even if I am not yet up to speed on aRGB should I shoot in that mode, anyway?

I’ll try again, just this once: if you’re shooting RAW, it doesn’t matter.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 4, 2009
If i had the money, I would immediately get a 16mp camera, shoot RAW, convert to ProPhoto 16 bit, get a wide gamut monitor and an Epson 3800. And then wait for CS5. Oh wait , I’ll need better paper than Staples copy.

sRGB only exists because Microsoft has or had monopoly power and their vision was that everyone would do Microsift driven computer work on their TV screen.

Well said, Jeff.
R
Ram
Jan 4, 2009
Well said, Jeff.

Yup! And he left out the most common meaning for the s in sRGB, sh¡t.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 5, 2009
I just don’t understand why everyone just rolls over for the lowest common denominator. There should be constant pressure for the best possible color in the widest possible gamut. You would think that the people who sell things would want their stuff to look real.

Then again reality isn’t that gorgeous most of the time.

I know, I know, there’s a whole economy built around crap. But that economy has been destroyed by the idiots who run everything.
P
pfigen
Jan 5, 2009
The fact of the matter is, is that sRGB is more than enough for most purposes. People here are screaming as if your print is going to suck if it comes from sRGB. Just isn’t so. Chances are most people could barely tell the difference, and only on certain papers on certain printers and on specific images. As soon as you start printing on some watercolor fine art paper, as so many, including myself love to do (800 prints to do this week), it just doesn’t matter.

There are legitimate uses for wider gamut color spaces, but unless you understand them, it’s far safer to stay in sRGB.

Lundy – when I get a chance, maybe after this huge print order, I’ll make you a set from three different color spaces and send ’em to you. You’ll be surprised.
R
Ram
Jan 5, 2009
…for most purposes…

Which makes whatever comes before or after utterly meaningless. 😀
L
Lundberg02
Jan 5, 2009
Actually , I won’t be surprised. The book I mentioned in a thread I started and finished because there was absolutely no response, "Digital Color Management" by Homann, published by Springer, shows numerous examples of how little it matters what color space or gamma correction is used.
It’s no exaggeration to say that you have mastered the art and I would welcome such examples. One only has to look at Stuart Davis and Mondrian, Charles Sheeler and Robert Indiana to see that simple palettes and forms sell.
The purist in me and my smattering of science would like to see the ability to represent be as close to real world as technologically possible even if unnecessary or undesirable in most instances of commerce. Which reminds me of the Jon Jost film "All The Vermeers In New York".
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jan 5, 2009
I just don’t understand why everyone just rolls over for the lowest common denominator. There should be constant pressure for the best possible color in the widest possible gamut. You would think that the people who sell things would want their stuff to look real.

I know, I know, there’s a whole economy built around crap. But that economy has been destroyed by the idiots who run everything.

Well what do you f-ing know -some light has reached the end of the tunnel. I wonder when the rest shall wake up? My guess is never….
GB
g_ballard
Jan 5, 2009
I saw a ‘professional’ site the other day in Safari and the color looked so unbalanced in their branding photos (the ones on the top of every page) I dragged out one of their jpegs and opened it in Photoshop.

The genius was using tagged "LCD COLOR" (a 1.8 monitor profile).

Their horrible color leads me to assume either their production crew is colorblind, incompetent or they are using a very bad monitor profile (or they are working for an idiot).

+++++++

sRGB may be the "lowest denominator" but it is hard to argue against putting anything else on the web right now (tagged or untagged) or feeding it to unmanaged applications, users.
P
progress
Jan 5, 2009
I just don’t understand why everyone just rolls over for the lowest common denominator.

The answer is in your question. Because it’s the lowest common denominator, it’s the space that most people can connect to, so it grows. The problem comes because many common devices struggle to even display sRGB… it’s all very well everyone knocking one out over their super wide screens or prints, but it means sweet fa when it gets blown all over US TV or thrown around the globe with a profile that falls off along the way to the 50 target outputs.

sRGB, because even someone as apparently stupid as Paris Hilton knows what works in the real world.

I Wonder what space her ‘work’ was shot in?
GB
g_ballard
Jan 6, 2009
stupid as

Wats wrong with Paris?

Next you are going to start beating up on Jerry Springer?

Maybe they play to a dumb and dumber audience, but I would hardly call either one stupid unless you mean stupid like a fox (and Paris certainly looks like a fox)…
R
Ram
Jan 6, 2009
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." —American journalist and social critic H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
NK
Neil_Keller
Jan 6, 2009
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Don’t I know it, every time I turn on the TV. I can’t believe how many people watch all the lame, embarrassingly bad, low-budget/high profit/make-an-ass-of-yourself reality TV; the unimaginative, unfunny, canned-laughter sit-coms; and idiots allowing themselves to publicly splash their clueless private lives on more court TV programs than one can imagine.

Today’s broadcast TV = lowest common denominator. It’s a symptom of our times and in all aspects of life.

Neil
NK
Neil_Keller
Jan 6, 2009
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Don’t I know it, every time I turn on the TV. I can’t believe how many people watch all the lame, embarrassingly bad, low-budget/high profit/make-an-ass-of-yourself reality TV; the unimaginative, unfunny, canned-laughter sit-coms; and idiots allowing themselves to publicly splash their clueless private lives on more court TV programs than one can imagine. And the news reporters who haven’t a clue about what they’re reading on the TelePrompter.

Today’s broadcast TV = lowest common denominator. It’s a symptom of our times and in all aspects of life.

Neil
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 6, 2009
Perfectly encapsulated, Neil — and the reason that I turn the TV on for probably less than an hour per month!
L
LarryGR
Jan 6, 2009
Same here Ann, I’m not sure what reality TV means.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 6, 2009
Lit majors and most advertising copy people are familiar with "Mimesis" by Auerbach. It’s all about representation. Representation is abstraction for the most part, and I guess you could say that the sRGB and print spaces are useful abstractions
R
Ram
Jan 6, 2009
🙂
B
Buko
Jan 6, 2009
I’m not sure what reality TV means.

programing without paying writers who can write actual TV shows. Saves money, just like shipping jobs to China, so the CEOs can collect a bigger pay check without actually doing anything.
T
T._Schmidt
Jan 6, 2009
So what exactly is wrong with always using Adobe RGB? I mean what exactly is the "danger" when you don’t know much about it? You just turn it on and that’s it. As long a you don’t make huge adjustments sRGB is ok but I’ve tried out some pictures I had to do at work, where big changes were made and I remember Adobe RGB turned out better when going to CMYK later. Also most cameras I used (although I don’t claim to understand anything about cameras or photography) offered Adobe RGB for TIFFs.

Isn’t it kind of pointless to go from Camera Raw to sRGB and keep working on the file? Of course you could also use JPEG as the standard working format and again in many cases you won’t see a difference but what’s the benefit except for smaller file sizes which don’t mean much anymore except for the web.

Anyone using ProPhoto RGB as a standard, as recommended in the best selling Color Management book, that I still haven’t had time to read?

Thanks.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 6, 2009
Why would anyone want to use anything but websafe GIF with their Nikon D700x?
B
Buko
Jan 6, 2009
I use Adobe RGB and only convert to sRGB for web stuff.

Adobe RGB does convert to CMYK better. at least for me.
GB
g_ballard
Jan 6, 2009
what exactly is wrong with always using Adobe RGB?

On a Mac, untagged RGB and unmanaged RGB get the default monitor profile Assumed/Assigned/Applied

To see this in Photoshop, DOWNLOAD the aRGB Photodisc PDI target image here <http://www.gballard.net/dl/PDI_TargetFolderONLY.zip>

Open in Photoshop (use embedded profile) verify it is the Adobe RGB file and you didn’t unknowingly change its profile

Then Image> View Proof SetUp: Monitor RGB

This move simulates in essence what happens when you strip an embedded sRGB profile and Assign your default monitor profile (it will considerably lighten, desaturate, wash out (unless you are running a wide gamut monitor)

that is the exact problem in a nutshell
R
Ram
Jan 6, 2009

T. Schmidt,

Anyone using ProPhoto RGB as a standard…

I’ve been on a straight ProPhoto RGB workflow since Bruce Fraser pointed it out to me years ago.

I print on my Epson 2200, recently testing it even in 16 bits, and sometimes use a local lab or an online-lab. I never deal with CMYK, and only generate an occasional low-res sRGB JPEG to illustrate a post with a screen shot or some such menial use. I don’t deal with the web.

You do have to be aware of the pitfalls involved in working with such a large gamut and use Gamut Warning to determine if and how out-of-gamut colors need to be pulled back into gamut (or not).

If you watch the Jeff Schewe—Michael Reichmann videos (available for about $40 from the Luminous Landscape), you’ll get to see and hear Jeff saying that "ProPhoto RGB is the only workspace real men ever use". 😉
R
Ram
Jan 6, 2009
Needless to say, ProPhoto RGB in a non-color-managed workflow is a disaster.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Jan 7, 2009
AFAIK color in a non-color-managed workflow is a disaster. 🙂
T
T._Schmidt
Jan 7, 2009
Exactly, Allen, that’s what I thought too. But seriously, 97% of the time I get an untagged image it’s sRGB anway and it’s untagged because of someone who doesn’t know anything about color spaces and will usually use sRGB, so I assign sRGB and it looks better (happens all of the time).
I think I’ll get those videos you mentioned, Ramón. Are they still up to date and what is the best up to date book about Color Management in general or for print, not just for photography?

Thanks a lot guys! And girls!
GB
g_ballard
Jan 7, 2009
untagged sRGB looks great here on my monitors

I actually prefer the slight saturation boost I get with untagged sRGB when ColorSync applies my monitor profile to it in Safari and FireFox
R
Ram
Jan 7, 2009

T. Schmidt,

The videos in question are titled from The Art of Fine Printing—Camera To Print, so they are very much about and for photography. They are of little interest to someone not primarily involved with photography.

My take on color management books is very subjective and definitely photography-oriented, of course. Real World Color Management by Fraser et al. remains the basic color management book. I also very much like Andrew Rodney’s Color Management for Photographers.

I am not in the Margulis camp, even though I did read the Canyon Conundrum and Professional Adobe Photoshop, which I still have, without having profited much from the latter and not at all from the former. I don’t care much for Scott Kelby either.

the best up to date book about Color Management in general or for print,

I am not quite sure what to make of that phrasing. …or for print? As far as I’m concerned, color management is the art of maintaining color accuracy and consistency from capture to print.

97% of the time I get an untagged image it’s sRGB

Quite a few untagged image files floating around turn out to be in Color Match RGB or Monitor RGB, so I can’t assume sRGB. What I can tell you is that I encounter fewer and fewer untagged files myself, as my known stance on beating morons who give me untagged files with a baseball bat seems automatically to shield me from said morons for the most part.
T
T._Schmidt
Jan 7, 2009
I guess I’m in the "Margulis Camp", liked the book and think LAB is awesome for big adjustments and experimentation. Lately I’m doing the following on a regular basis: Dublicate the image and keep one in RGB, one in LAB. Then quadruplicate (is that a word) the layer in the RGB document and replace each of the three new Layers’ L channel with either R, G or B. Then I take the best of each via Layer Masks. Instant great eyes, instant perfect skin etc. and to me experimenting in LAB is just so much more fun. Ok sorry for digressing.

Ramón, I said or because I meant either this or that. I didn’t expect a one-for-all solution. Thanks for the tips!

Over here the morons have the bats, you’re using proflies? Don’t you konw profiles can cause problems? Don’t you know LAB is dangerous?
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
guess I’m in the "Margulis Camp"

Then I can safely skip the rest of your post. B)
P
pfigen
Jan 8, 2009
Margulis is THE most thought provoking author out there. Canyon Connundrum is the single best digital imaging text I’ve ever seen. I figure that anyone who doesn’t want to take the time to learn these techniques will just be a distinct disadvantage and less competitive in a very competitive environment.

L*a*b is dangerous in the wrong hand, but in the right hands, it’s literally magic.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
Margulis has been aptly described as: <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.59b72237/20>

Margulis — the king of 700-step arcane workflows; sworn enemy of ICC color management, high-bit workflows, wide-gamut color spaces and Raw rendering too, just to cap it all off nicely with a bow. A true trailblazer…back to the stone age!

Let’s just say that his "optimal" is not exactly *my* optimal. Hopefully, he’ll just retire soon and thus charitably spare us any more of his bright insights, inside some "canyon" or elsewhere.

He has his devotees and his detractors.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
I figure that anyone who doesn’t want to take the time to learn these techniques

Typical, easily dismissable arrogance.
P
pfigen
Jan 8, 2009
Ramon,

The problem with what you posted is that it simply isn’t true. Those sound like the words of someone who either hasn’t read Margulis or just doesn’t understand.

There are no 700 step workflows let alone seventy. There are workflows that involve duplicating files and layers, but those workflows abound in RGB and CMYK workflows. The criticism of icc profiles is not about the profiles themselves, but of Photoshop’s lack of any controls to edit black generation and total ink, but you’d know that if you read any of several of his books. If you listened only to Andrew Rodney or Marco Ugolini, I can see how you might have a skewed view. Kinda like the pinheads (no offense to all you telemarkers out there, I’m into cable bindings myself) who think Limbaugh is the final word.

What there are in abundance, are explanations of why you *might* want to try something and see how well it works for you, all based on actual experience.

What there is also is a rare willingness to admit when he’s made a mistake, and even rarer, someone who is constantly learning and refining technique to be ever more effective and efficient. I’ve seen him revisit examples to show how a new technique improved the result over the older. That, is missing from virtually every other text I’ve seen. I mean, Jesus Christ, the last Real World Photoshop I looked at still had those abysmal bicycle crankset still life Leaf scans attempting to show the effect of different rendering intents.

Dan’s book versions have typically revised with new and better examples for 70-80 percent of the book, while many others, and I definitely include RWPS in this group, are pretty much the opposite. In fact, I stopped buying that particular book when I realized I could skim through that parts I’d read half a dozen times previously and read the actual new content in about half an hour.

But hey, have you actually read his books and really tried any of techniques in earnest? I find it almost hilarious when one digital dog offers harsh criticism while admitting never having actually read the book.

"Typical, easily dismissable arrogance. "

Let’s see. You’ve been posting here for how many years and I can’t think of a single image that demonstrated that we’re listening to anyone more than an armchair quarterback. In other words, let’s see some of your incredible images and description of the technique so we can all learn something new.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
Peter,

Yes, I’ve read the books. I had already said so. I don’t need your descriptions nor sermons from any whited sepulcher.

My greatest pleasure in photography is that I don’t need to make money directly from it, though I have used it extensively in my work and for pleasure.

Not being even remotely interested in American football, I don’t exactly know how pejorative the expression "armchair quarterback" may be intended to be, but I fail to see how looking at your work, or anybody else’s, would make me sob in repentance of how I choose to view Margulis’s techniques.

[At this point I was going to expand on how I’ve used photography during the last six or seven decades, and what the subject matter of it is, but I don’t need to justify anything. What little I can contribute to the forums is based solely on the strength of what I have learned about Adobe applications, not on a stupid representation of my work or anyone else’s on the web.]

From the mean-spirited, petty, and baseless criticism you people pile on the work of professional photographers you don’t get along with on the Adobe Photography forum, I have been able to get a pretty good sense of what posting one’s work on these forums accomplishes: nothing good.

To tell you the truth, I remember but a single image of yours, and on the other hand I do remember (and even keep a sampling of) Wade Zimmerman’s architectural photography, and the works of others like Ann Shelbourne, Lawrence Hudetz, Andrew Pietrzyk and the superlative Amish images of Donald Reese, among others whose output I admire. Because I only remember your montage of an excellent portrait of a guitarist superimposed on a ghastly background, I am not at all surprised that you don’t remember any of the admittedly small handful of images of mine I have posted in the past.

Neither am I surprised you’re not interest in my opinion, the only surprise is that you get so worked up about it.

Some of your contentions, such as your assertion of the non-destructiveness of repeatedly saving a JPEG without modifying the image, have been totally wrong. Your ability as a photographer has nothing to do with that. As far as I’m concerned, only what you say about Adobe applications counts, and that includes your views on color management and color workflow.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
Dan’s book versions have typically revised with new and better examples for 70-80 percent of the book

You may have a valid point there. I bought the first edition of each of the two books I mentioned above as they came out, read them and never went back to look at newer editions. 😐
T
T._Schmidt
Jan 8, 2009
I think about getting Kelby training for one month only because of Margulis and nothing else. I want to learn about why he changed his mind on sharpening the a and b channels.

Ramón, not trying to convince you just saying, you’re missing a lot. Even if 60% of what Margulis said was wrong, I still benefit more of his than any other Ps book. I always skip his "storytelling" paragraphs and ignore the completely oversharpened and usually quite ugly pictures of the book and focus on the techniques. Saves so much time to work in Lab.

Non-destructiveness of repeatedly saving a JPEG without modifying the image?
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 8, 2009
Just one question, T.:

Why would you be editing JPEGs in the first place?!

8/
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009

T. Schmidt,

Non-destructiveness of repeatedly saving a JPEG without modifying the image?

That’s the nonsense that Peter Figen was expounding, even to the point of turning it into a nasty personal attack on me. Of course the image deteriorates every single time you re-save it, even if the image is not modified.

In that particular thread, Freeagent even performed the tests I had been suggesting and confirmed what I was saying: the JPEG does deteriorate every time you re-save it, even without modifying it.

On the other subject, did you maybe miss the part where I said that I have in fact read both of the Margulis books? If you didn’t miss it, then I see no reason for you to mention the subject at all again.
JM
J_Maloney
Jan 8, 2009
ProPS is in it’s 5th edition. My guess is that a lot has changed since the first edition. I enjoyed the book and found a lot of the advice useful.

I know only a little about the rancor that exists when Dan’s name is mentioned, but if Ramón or Marco have tips as to what books I should be reading, or what websites might publish techniques that trump Dan’s, I’d be excited to know. Genuinely excited, not sarcastically excited. If I could have Marco’s resumé when I die… well, it’s just not going to happen, and as friend of mine with a Nobel winner for a dad once explained, "I made peace with that long ago."

Obviously ACR/CS4 is on my list, and Martin’s upcoming book as well. Any others I’m missing?
P
pfigen
Jan 8, 2009
The problem is that the test Ramon referred to was flawed and he completely refused to look at the files I posted.

If you don’t alter a single pixel and then resave (do a Save As) there is no image degradation.

Think whatever you want, but if you actually do a valid test, you’ll come to the same conclusions.

There are plenty of reasons to edit jpegs. Virtually every stock image on the planet is delivered in jpeg form these days, and usually at quality level 8. Since many of these stock image jpegs are very marginal in terms of color and tonality, I make a lot of money fixing them for clients. Would I prefer to have the original raw files or high res drum scans? Sure, but that ain’t reality. Jpegs work just fine, and for very high end litho too.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 8, 2009
There are plenty of reasons to edit jpegs. Virtually every stock image on the planet is delivered in jpeg form these days, and usually at quality level 8.

Any right-thinking professional immediately re-saves a JPEG as a .psd (preferably a 16-bit one to boot!) before attempting to make any edits to it.

Surely you do that too?
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
If you don’t alter a single pixel and then resave (do a Save As) there is no image degradation.

Bull.

What was flawed was Peter Figen’s methodology.

I will not engage in this discussion for the umpteenth time. We have had enough threads on this subject, and each time the destructiveness of the procedure has been proven without the slightest shadow of a doubt. The last time, a forum contributor by the user ID of Freeagent confirmed it.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
Peter,

Your insistence on this nonsense puts the nail in the coffin on any attempt of yours to rehabilitate Margulis or anything else in my eyes.

Next time you make a JPEG degradation experiment, do not stop at seeing a totally black image when you superimpose the nth iteration of a repeatedly saved JPEG as a layer over the original image in Difference blending mode. Your monitor may not have the wherewithal to help you out.

Instead, try the ingenious method described by Mark J Peterson

Mark J Peterson, "JPEG and color management" #6, 8 Dec 2008 9:23 pm </webx?14/5>

(The thrust of that thread was irrelevant and had nothing to do with what we’re discussing here, but the technique is very interesting. It brings out minute differences.)
NK
Neil_Keller
Jan 8, 2009
J,

It’s hard to tell anything from two 264x128px images of fluffy clouds — there are no finely-detailed hard edges to compare. That said, the background of the cloud on the right appears coarser.

As for me, any stock house .jpgs are immediately resaved as .psd files.

Neil
P
pfigen
Jan 8, 2009
Ramon,

That thread has to do with miniscule changes that may occur when converting a tiff or other lossless format to jpeg, not re-saving an existing jpeg on top of itself with the same compression factor.

As far as monitors are concerned, I’m using the same piece of crap you are – Sony Artisans, only my eyes are probably a couple of decades younger.

It’s funny how you get so worked up when you are challenged. It’s as if you can never afford to be wrong and start throwing insults to cover up your own shortcomings. I can feel another incoming round on the way…
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
It’s funny how you get so worked up when you are challenged. It’s as if you can never afford to be wrong and start throwing insults to cover up your own shortcomings. I can feel another incoming round on the way…

This is why I’ve got you classified as the archetypical whited sepulcher, Figen.

You are the one turning this into a personal attack because you are dead wrong. I do not feel challenged or threatened by you at all. As far as I’m concerned you are a non-entity.

I don’t cover up my shortcomings, and in this particular case I have no shortcomings to cover up. You’re just projecting your own personal defects on others.

I know you use an Artisan, and I also remember that you couldn’t see any artifacts when we were discussing the DPI Target crop you provided because you run it at the maximum recommended resolution. You never can see anything on that screen of yours, that’s why I specifically mentioned it.

You are just plain wrong. Clearly, you have delusions of adequacy.

If you feel insults coming your way, it’s precisely because you have provoked me, insulted me and pissed me off. Very convenient.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
That thread has to do with miniscule [sic] changes that may occur when converting a tiff or other lossless format to jpeg, not re-saving an existing jpeg on top of itself with the same compression factor.

Yes, you dumb ox! I specifically told you that the subject matter of that thread is irrelevant. Good grief, man, you are just so stupid that it’s not even funny. You must have a miniscule [sic] brain.
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
It’s only the technique to observe the artifacts that mattered in that thread. I told you so from the get go.

Sheeze, what a dork you are.
NK
Neil_Keller
Jan 9, 2009
We’re done here.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections