Simple question about RAW

[Bobobird]

In camera settings, we have options to shoot either in sRGB or Adobe RGB.

ACR has 4 options to choose from which leads me to think that it does not really matter which in-camera profile is used.

Question then is - does it matter which profile is used in-camera if shooting only RAW?

Thanks.

[Mike Buckley]

My thinking is that the only thing that matters is that you are forced to select a color space in your camera, so you might as well select the one that you are going to use to view in your RAW converter or whatever software you use to cull your images before converting them.

I suppose it could be argued that the color space that you select in the camera will also be used when viewing your images on the LCD, but from a practical point I doubt that I would see any difference on such a small screen, which is often displayed in bad lighting conditions that make it difficult to see. Similarly, the color space that you select might affect the "blinkies" display and the histogram display, but the differences between those displays caused by the various color spaces probably would not be anything that could not be controlled in your RAW converter.

[PhotomanJohn]

Bobo - The setting in the camera does not change the RAW data file but the selected color space is noted in the metadata. The settings you make in ACR / Photoshop will control the working space. Remember to convert to and embed the appropriate color space if sending files out for printing. I suggest doing a little reading on how color space is handled in Photoshop.

John

[xpatUSA]

I guess I'm first up [was, until Mike & John pipped me at the post]

The short answer - it does not matter if shooting only RAW, i.e. not RAW+jpeg.

There might be an indirect effect if your in-camera settings affect the LCD views in any way, blinkies, histogram, WB, etc.

[Mike Buckley]

I guess I'm first up

Wrong guess.

[Bobobird]

Thanks guys. I thought so too.

Since I do not print much the ACR default is set to Adobe RGB.

In-camera it is sRGB.

[DanK]

As folks have noted, the color space setting on the camera doesn't matter, but the color space in the editor does, or can. Since you don't print much, you will be outputting images in sRGB, which is the smallest of the color spaces, so in that sense, one might think it doesn't matter. however, the more data you preserve, the more headroom you have in editing. For that reason, a lot of folks recommend using ProPhoto RGB (the largest space) in the editor, which is the Lightroom default. AFAIK, LR does not give you a choice about this, but in any event, I haven't looked for one, and I have my working space in PS also set to ProPhoto. I don't actually know which is set on my newer camera. LR and PS will map the image to the appropriate space to display it, but internally, it is keeping all the data.

When I export TIFFs for some other editors, e.g., Zerene (my stacking software), the images look awful because the program does not map from Prophoto to sRGB for display purposes, but when I bring the stacked image back into LR or PS, it is fine.

[Colin Southern]

Time for Colin's 2c worth ...

A RAW file can't have a colour space. End of.

There is one tiny difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB settings in camera shooting RAW; with Adobe RGB they change the file name to include an _ (Underscore) which some find annoying if they're sticking with the same file name throughout the workflow (I just mention it in case some folks wonder why their camera does that).

[Mike Buckley]

A RAW file can't have a colour space. End of.

I disagree. The RAW file contains information pertaining to the assigned color space. My cataloging software is configured to display the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file rather than to convert the RAW file. So, when the camera assigns a particular color space to the RAW file, that color space is also in the embedded JPEG. As a result, my cataloging software displays the image using the assigned color space. I use that software to cull my images before my RAW converter touches the RAW files.

[Colin Southern]

I disagree. The RAW file contains information pertaining to the assigned color space. My cataloging software is configured to display the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file rather than to convert the RAW file. So, when the camera assigns a particular color space to the RAW file, that color space is also in the embedded JPEG. As a result, my cataloging software displays the image using the assigned color space. I use that software to cull my images before my RAW converter touches the RAW files.

Yep - that's fine ...

... but it's still not a RAW file with a colour space.

A RAW file is in essence only 3 grayscale images before it's demosaiced.

(I'm not saying that the intended colourspace isn't passed along with other metadata - or that that data isn't used in the production of the embedded JPEG - just that you can't assign a colourspace to a RAW file; it has to be processed before that can happen, so from that perspective, it doesn't matter what the camera is set to).

[Mike Buckley]

Your statements would be correct if you were referring to the RAW data. So long as you refer to the RAW file, which includes lots of information other than the RAW data, you're incorrect.

This is not unimportant in my mind; if it were unimportant, I wouldn't even mention it. The reason it's important is that lots of people don't even realize that a RAW file contains the embedded JPEG. That lack of understanding leads to lots of other important misunderstandings.

[Colin Southern]

Your statements would be correct if you were referring to the RAW data. So long as you refer to the RAW file, which includes lots of information other than the RAW data, you're incorrect.

This is not unimportant in my mind; if it were unimportant, I wouldn't even mention it. The reason it's important is that lots of people don't even realize that a RAW file contains the embedded JPEG. That lack of understanding leads to lots of other important misunderstandings.

OK - when my people spoke with your people, they decided upon the following:

"A colourspace can't be assigned or applied to the collection of ones and zeros representing an image in it's RAW form".

Yes, it may well be applied to any embedded JPEG, but that's not a RAW image, IMO (not what I was intending anyway); it's just a camera-processed JPEG that's stuffed into the same file for the convenience of showing how the in-camera picture styles were applied, displaying the in-camera histogram, and of course for ready identification by external programs.

[Mike Buckley]

it's just a camera-processed JPEG that's stuffed into the same file

Your operative words are that it's the same file. It's a RAW file. You and others often make the same mistake of failing to make the distinction between the RAW data and the RAW file. The file contains all of the data, some of which is RAW and some of which isn't. To state otherwise is misleading in my opinion.

I'm making a big point about this because when I first got into digital photography and using RAW files, I read lots of similarly misleading information and -- you guessed it -- I was misled.

By the way, it's not just a camera-processed JPEG. RAW converters also process the embedded JPEG. I appreciate that you understand that but I'm mentioning it for the people who don't. We have a lot of novices hanging out here, so I'm bringing this to light for them.

[Colin Southern]

Your operative words are that it's the same file. It's a RAW file. You and others often make the same mistake of failing to make the distinction between the RAW data and the RAW file. The file contains all of the data, some of which is RAW and some of which isn't. To state otherwise is misleading in my opinion.

I'm making a big point about this because when I first got into digital photography and using RAW files, I read lots of similarly misleading information and -- you guessed it -- I was misled.

By the way, it's not just a camera-processed JPEG. RAW converters also process the embedded JPEG.

It's not a RAW file per se, it's groups of ones and zeros describing a number of things in an expected format -- just like any other file for that matter. Some of those ones and zeros represent the 3 grayscale image - some of them describe other events - some of them represent the embedded JPEG.

What I'm trying to say (which is proving surprisingly difficult) is that any data in the file that represents the photographers colourspace of choice bares no co-relation to the data representing the 3 gray scale images what-so-ever. It doesn't change that data in any way and it can't be applied to that data in any way.

For me (and I suspect many others) whether that colourspace selection is or isn't applied to the in-camera generated JPEG is moot; whilst displaying the image on the review screen the camera will present the information correctly for either colourspace, and once it's out of the camera and on to the PC then - personally - I only want to deal with the here-unto untagged RAW data.

[Mike Buckley]

It's not a RAW file per se,

I'll let others decide for themselves whether, as an example, Nikon's NEFs are considered RAW files, per se or otherwise. Given your statement that they are not, I don't have anything else to contribute to the discussion.

[Colin Southern]

I'll let others decide for themselves whether, as an example, Nikon's NEFs are considered RAW files, per se or otherwise. Given your statement that they are not, I don't have anything else to contribute to the discussion.

I've always considered RAW files to contain RAW data - however - you pointed out that they also contained non-RAW items. Therefore to refer to them as "RAW files" no longer seems sufficiently accurate in the context of this "discussion".

All I'm simply saying that it's what's inside them that's important, not what we call them. In that context, colourspace selection is irrelevant to the RAW image data in the whatever-the-heck file you want to call it.

[xpatUSA]

What I'm trying to say (which is proving surprisingly difficult) is that any data in the file that represents the photographers colourspace of choice [bears] no [correlation] to the data representing the 3 gray scale images what-so-ever. It doesn't change that data in any way and it can't be applied to that data in any way.

Would that be 4 gray-scale images for normal cameras?

(Seeing as we're being very careful to talk only about the raw data per se: R, G1, B, G2)



Well, I suppose we did say "representing" . . .

[Colin Southern]

Would that be 4 gray-scale images for normal cameras?

I have no idea how they're represented internally, sorry.

[DanK]

Seems to be getting a bit heated here.

I am not an expert on this stuff, but isn't the following the answer:

1. The raw color data in a raw file have to be rendered to make them viewable (regardless of what other stuff, including a jpeg thumbnail and metadata, is included in the file). The calculations used to do this rendering assume a color space that is set either by the user or by the software's defaults. None of these is inherent in the raw file. Of the commonly available color spaces, ProPhoto (or the Lightroom variant, Melissa) is the largest, retaining more information than the others (and a wider gamut than the human eye can perceive). Because no current output devices can represent the full ProPhoto gamut (and there is no reason to, since some of it isn't even visible to us), software has to map the image to a smaller color space for output purposes.

2. Setting a color space in the camera has no effect on this.

[Mike Buckley]

Seems to be getting a bit heated here.

If you're referring to my discussion with Colin, I don't sense any heat on his or my part. Disagreement, yes. Heat, none at all. Apologies if my posts are somehow accidentally coming off that way.