Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Which color Profile for Jpeg  (Read 2192 times)
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


WWW
« on: September 05, 2013, 04:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

My knowledge of color profile is superficial, so please bear with me.

I am trying to create jpeg backups of my raw images (tiff is too big for online storage) and I am trying to decide which color profile to use for the output. Since I dont intend to publish these files, I can choose whichever profile will give me better results. I can go with Prophoto, Adobe, or sRGB.

However I am not sure if ICC profile make any difference in the quality of image (and the information contained in it). Would a jpeg file rendered with prophoto intent have more color information then one rendered with sRGB? Should I choose a bigger color space for JPEG?

Please note that broad support is not my concern, as long as image can be opened in PS, LR , or other pro imaging software I am fine with it. However, if it is all the same I will go with the most common space (sRGB).

Logged

FranciscoDisilvestro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2013, 05:12:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I would use AdobeRGB in your scenario. Pro photo is not recommended for 8 bit files (as regular jpg).
If you are interested in backup only, you could consider using an online backup with unlimited storage such as Crashplan.com, where you could store your Raw files.
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2013, 05:39:11 PM »
ReplyReply

My knowledge of color profile is superficial, so please bear with me.

I am trying to create jpeg backups of my raw images (tiff is too big for online storage) and I am trying to decide which color profile to use for the output. Since I dont intend to publish these files, I can choose whichever profile will give me better results. I can go with Prophoto, Adobe, or sRGB.

However I am not sure if ICC profile make any difference in the quality of image (and the information contained in it). Would a jpeg file rendered with prophoto intent have more color information then one rendered with sRGB? Should I choose a bigger color space for JPEG?

Please note that broad support is not my concern, as long as image can be opened in PS, LR , or other pro imaging software I am fine with it. However, if it is all the same I will go with the most common space (sRGB).


Adobe graced us w/ the option of lossy compression in DNG... so why JPGs then ?
Logged
Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 100


« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2013, 06:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't store in JPEG.  IMHO, you throw away too much by relying only on the JPEGs (8-bit) with a limited colour space too.
If I were going to use online backup, then I'd be looking for somewhere I could store the files that retain as much info. as possible:  RAW, DNG, or TIFF.  If the worst comes to the worst and I ever need that backup, I can always recreate what I've done to RAWS (in principle, anyway). 

Just my 2

Cheers

Tim
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2013, 06:50:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps consider lossy compressed DNG.  In many cases they're much smaller than the original (lossless compressed) raw, even if you choose to maintain the pixel count (i.e., full resolution).
Logged

WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2013, 09:10:01 PM »
ReplyReply

My knowledge of color profile is superficial, so please bear with me.

I am trying to create jpeg backups of my raw images (tiff is too big for online storage) and I am trying to decide which color profile to use for the output. Since I dont intend to publish these files, I can choose whichever profile will give me better results. I can go with Prophoto, Adobe, or sRGB.

However I am not sure if ICC profile make any difference in the quality of image (and the information contained in it). Would a jpeg file rendered with prophoto intent have more color information then one rendered with sRGB? Should I choose a bigger color space for JPEG?

Please note that broad support is not my concern, as long as image can be opened in PS, LR , or other pro imaging software I am fine with it. However, if it is all the same I will go with the most common space (sRGB).



I'd use sRGB for images that don't have any intense colors or golden evening sunlight and such.
I'd use ProphotoRGB for most that have subjects like emeralds, intense clothes, flowers, sunsets, tropical waters, shots taken during golden hour lighting, etc. (sometimes they will fit into AdobeRGB and you could use that in those cases, it tkaes more time since you'd need to check each image against gamut and see if it fits or not though and if you use 16bit jpgs the whole prophoto gamut is too large goes for only slightly relevant to entirely irrelevant and you probably want to 16bit jpgs anyway since once you are in 8bit you are really limited as to anything you could ever do to manipulate the files again.

Personally there are so many aspects in a RAW that can be adjusted and more advanced processors of the future could handle better I'd never want to consider a backup that didnt back up the RAWs a backup. I'd get some external HD and backup the RAW to those, get a second set and store them at parent's, siblings, friend's house, or a safe deposit box or something if you want to be secure even in case of disaster.
Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2013, 09:10:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe graced us w/ the option of lossy compression in DNG... so why JPGs then ?

yeah, at the worst, at least store them as compressed DNGs, wayyy better than as JPGs.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2013, 12:30:51 PM »
ReplyReply

yeah, at the worst, at least store them as compressed DNGs, wayyy better than as JPGs.


lossy compression and compression are different animals in DNG realm
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 371


« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2013, 01:06:07 PM »
ReplyReply

For jpegs, use sRGB if you expect them to be put on the web or sent to anyone else, or if you don't have a calibrated and profiled monitor (using a hardware calibrator) and use only colour-managed software.  Any other profile is likely to cause grief (i.e. false colours but without you being aware of it) without a fully colour managed workflow. 

You could use Adobe RGB (with the caveats above about colour management), but I'd recommend not using ProPhoto RGB in jpeg or any other 8-bit format - there's more of a risk of banding in areas of similar colours (e.g. sunset skies).  The reason: ProPhoto RGB is a wide space, with a wider gap between each adjacent level - wide enough to be potentially significant in 8 bits. 
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2013, 01:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply

My knowledge of color profile is superficial, so please bear with me.

I am trying to create jpeg backups of my raw images (tiff is too big for online storage) and I am trying to decide which color profile to use for the output. Since I dont intend to publish these files, I can choose whichever profile will give me better results. I can go with Prophoto, Adobe, or sRGB.

However I am not sure if ICC profile make any difference in the quality of image (and the information contained in it). Would a jpeg file rendered with prophoto intent have more color information then one rendered with sRGB? Should I choose a bigger color space for JPEG?

Please note that broad support is not my concern, as long as image can be opened in PS, LR , or other pro imaging software I am fine with it. However, if it is all the same I will go with the most common space (sRGB).


What size are your raw files in pixels and in MB's?
Jpegs can be smaller than raw, something like 40-50% of the raw file, but I cannot see how a file size difference like that makes the difference in being able to online backup or not. If your main application is LR or PS storing the raw with the xmp sidecar is the best option: no loss of quality, should not be a limiting factor in backup solutions.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 01:57:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for all the replies. I already have a backup of my Raw files. This is a separate backup that I am making of developed files which are final. These were exported from C1 and other Raw processors, and/or edits from Photoshop and other image processing software. I currently keep this as 16-bit TIFF, which are easily into hundreds of Megabytes for each file.

However, since this is final output and I don't need to modify these in any major way, I am starting to make HQ Jpegs. I am not too much concerned about loss of non-visible info as I dont need that.

Looks like Adobe RGB will be the way to go for this. Although some people say that you gain more gamut in Adobe at the cost of luminance. Anybody know if it is true or of consequence?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 02:00:19 AM by sunnycal » Logged

Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 371


« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 04:42:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you have a calibrated/profiled monitor (with a hardward tool), and use a colour-managed workflow?  If not, you will probably get more accurate colour by keeping to sRGB throughout. 
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3646


« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2013, 06:33:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps consider lossy compressed DNG.  In many cases they're much smaller than the original (lossless compressed) raw, even if you choose to maintain the pixel count (i.e., full resolution).

Hi Eric,

What would the minimum version of LR or Photoshop / ACR be, to allow opening of such files? The lossy compressed DNG was introduced in 2012, so I assume LR4 and CS6 ?

The OP didn't mention which software/versions he's using, so it might be relevant.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2013, 08:52:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for all the replies. I already have a backup of my Raw files. This is a separate backup that I am making of developed files which are final. These were exported from C1 and other Raw processors, and/or edits from Photoshop and other image processing software. I currently keep this as 16-bit TIFF, which are easily into hundreds of Megabytes for each file.

However, since this is final output and I don't need to modify these in any major way, I am starting to make HQ Jpegs. I am not too much concerned about loss of non-visible info as I dont need that.

Looks like Adobe RGB will be the way to go for this. Although some people say that you gain more gamut in Adobe at the cost of luminance. Anybody know if it is true or of consequence?

The main diff between sRGB and aRGB is the amount/level of saturation achievable. I am not aware of any loss of luminance. It requires something that can display aRGB (monitor or print) to see. Displaying such files on a monitor that is (much) less than aRGB will not give a correct rendering anyhow on saturated colors.
So yes aRGB to preserve as much as possible the saturation.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2013, 09:29:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The OP didn't mention which software/versions he's using, so it might be relevant.

He said however = "Please note that broad support is not my concern, as long as image can be opened in PS, LR , or other pro imaging software I am fine with it. " so we shall assume he is OK to get whatever version of LR or ACR that is required, so - non issue
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 09:31:09 AM »
ReplyReply

These were exported from C1 and other Raw processors, and/or edits from Photoshop and other image processing software. I currently keep this as 16-bit TIFF, which are easily into hundreds of Megabytes for each file.
well, it seems that lossy compressed DNGs are not an option for you as you are using raw converters that do not output such files...
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3646


« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 10:24:31 AM »
ReplyReply

However, since this is final output and I don't need to modify these in any major way, I am starting to make HQ Jpegs. I am not too much concerned about loss of non-visible info as I dont need that.

Hi,

What will you be using the final product HQ JPEGs for? Viewing on screen, printing?

Don't forget that conversion to an output profile is also a major number crunching operation, and it would be a shame if the carefully converted HQ JPEG falls apart at the final step. Also, converting to a smaller gamut colorspace comes with trade-offs, best postponed till late in the process.

Quote
Looks like Adobe RGB will be the way to go for this. Although some people say that you gain more gamut in Adobe at the cost of luminance. Anybody know if it is true or of consequence?

Well, Adobe RGB seems to be a better choice than sRGB, and I don't think Luminance suffers in any meaningful way. sRGB does record the shadows a bit different, due to the shape of the gamma curve used, but again it depends on your use of the files whether that matters.

If you are seeking a replacement for your 16-bit/ch TIFFs, maybe a more flexible compromise would be HQ JPEGs in the BetaRGB working space. That would still allow to do significant colorspace conversions with little risk, and you can use a high quality JPEG compression (without chroma sub-sampling) to preserve almost all color nuances in your 16-b/ch TIFFs, as far as output is concerned.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 10:26:32 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad