sRGB vs. sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Question

Level 1

26 points

sRGB vs. sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Anyone know what the difference is between

/System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/sRGB Profile which says it's "sRGB" version 2.2.0 and is 1,080 bytes in size

/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Color/Profiles/Recommended/sRGB Profile which says it's "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" version 2.1.0 and is 3,144 bytes!

Obviously one came with Mac OS X or Aperture, while the other came with Photoshop CS2. But what is reallly the difference between the two profiles??

I also have a Nikon sRGB profile. Seems like I should pick one and use it consistantly in Aperture, Photoshop and Nikon software? But which one?

Power Mac G5 Quad (2.5 GHz, 7 GB RAM) and 12" PowerBook G4, Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Posted on Jul 25, 2006 2:54 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

GTPhotoMan

Level 1

70 points

Jul 26, 2006 9:00 AM in response to Piggy

I believe the question was:

What's the difference between sRGB version 2.2 and sRGB IEC1966 2.1; not what's the difference between Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB?

The two questions are completely different.

Reply

Answer 2

Jul 26, 2006 3:50 PM in response to GTPhotoMan

Hello, GTPhotoMan 🙂

Quote: "I believe the question was:

What's the difference between sRGB version 2.2 and sRGB IEC1966 2.1"

Yes, I know.

If a person is going to work in sRGB they should also know the pros and cons of that gamut.

It is recommended by numerous camera manufacturers like Nikon to set the camera Color Mode to that of Adobe RGB unless I'm mistaken, and I think I am not, taking shots in sRGB which is the default for Nikons is not the best gamut so there is no good reason to ever use sRGB over Adobe RGB especially if you are going to edit them in Aperture or Photoshop.

Knowledge is good. Just trying to help out Piggy 🙂

Shooting and working in Adobe RGB 1998 and should you want to -- proofing in sRGB is having the best of both worlds because you would never force the photographs into an inferior gamut when you take them.

🙂

love & peace,
victor 🙂

Reply

Answer 3

Jul 25, 2006 6:13 PM in response to Piggy

That is good question. I check them out and they seem to cover the same gammut. sRGB IEC61966-2.1 seems to have more limits and points of reference, but they both seem to compose the same amount. So I don't think there is a difference in either.

http://www.terraoptica.com

Reply

Answer 4

Piggy Author

Level 1

26 points

Jul 25, 2006 11:34 PM in response to victor maldonado

I use sRGB color space for images I print at places that use mini photo labs like Frontier and Noritsu if I don't have a machine specific profile. I should have explained this in my initial post. Sorry.

I assume I would also use sRGB for images intended to be displayed on the Internet.

Reply

Answer 5

Jul 25, 2006 10:06 PM in response to Ramses Moya

sRGB IEC1966 2.1 is the International standard profile.

Commission Internationale de L’Eclairage set the sRGB standard in 1966, hence the name in the profile. Personally, that's the one I've always used. I will look into the difference and get back to you.

Cheers,
Glenn

Reply

Answer 6

Jul 25, 2006 10:10 PM in response to Piggy

Hello, Piggy 🙂

Quote: "sRGB vs. sRGB IEC61966-2.1"

They both suck.

Quote: "I also have a Nikon sRGB profile. Seems like I should pick one and use it consistantly in Aperture, Photoshop and Nikon software? But which one?"

Neither. You should never use these old color spaces.

Use instead Adobe RGB (1998) on your camera and the rest of your workflow. The color space of Adobe RGB 1998 is larger.

Adobe RGB 1998

Comparision of Adobe RGB 1998 vs sRGB

RGB Color Space

love & peace,
victor 🙂

Reply

Answer 7

Jul 25, 2006 10:42 PM in response to victor maldonado

Don't be too quick to dismiss sRGB victor 🙂

If you read the second article closely you'll discover that sRGB is actually a better space to use if you plan to target Frontier printers and/or the web. Using larger gamuts just wastes 'color precision' on unused colors.

Reply

Answer 8

Jul 26, 2006 12:31 AM in response to Sean Houghton

Hello, Sean 🙂

Quote: "Don't be too quick to dismiss sRGB victor 🙂

If you read the second article closely you'll discover that sRGB is actually a better space to use if you plan to target Frontier printers and/or the web."

Not true.

I think you're reading the graph wrong. sRGB does not cover all the colors for the Fuji Frontier printer nor does it for highend printers only Adobe RGB does except for the tiny bit in the 75% luminance graph.

Quote: "Using larger gamuts just wastes 'color precision' on unused colors."

Not if you edit with Aperture or shoot RAW or use 16bit tiffs. It's a fact that sRGB is a narrower gamut than Adobe RGB.

You can always Proof sRGB in Aperture for lowerend printers and monitors.

More data more possibilities.

🙂

love & peace,
victor 🙂

Reply

Answer 9

Jul 26, 2006 2:29 AM in response to Piggy

Both color spaces have the same number of colors - 256 red, 256 green and 256 blue. sRGB uses a smaller color space so the difference between the colors is closer together.

I've been getting better results with skin tones by switching the camera to sRGB.

Check out this web page - sRGB vs Adobe 1989.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

Photoscene

PowerBook G4 17 inch, PowerBook G4 12 inch Mac OS X (10.4.6) Tiger/Panther

Reply

Answer 10

Jul 26, 2006 5:33 AM in response to victor maldonado

Victor, we use sRGB for web JPGs export - It has to be used. Exporting to Adobe or other to display in a browser is does not yield good results on the mayority of monitors.

The question is the differences between these profile definitions.

Reply

Answer 11

Jul 26, 2006 5:36 AM in response to Photoscene

?

They all have 256 red, 256 green and 256 blue - the question is the intensity and interpretation of the color curve given per profile. The profile defines the spaces between each level and its magnitude. I don't think we were trying to compare the adobe RGB to the sRGB or its use... But two profiles that seem to define the same space and the differences between them.

Reply

Answer 12

Jul 27, 2006 11:39 AM in response to victor maldonado

Victor

Thanks for the information concerning Adobe RGB 1998.

The difference between sRGB and sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is still a mystery. In fact the whole subject of color - color space, color management, ICC profiles and so on, is one of the toughest problems in digital photography. For example images in iPhoto look red. Nobody knows why.

I'm using sRGB because it's working for me, not because I think it's better then Adobe RGB. I have my PowerBook display and Photoshop set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1.

I would need to work out why Adobe RGB isn't getting me the results I'm looking for.

PowerBook G4 17 inch, PowerBook G4 12 inch Mac OS X (10.4.6) Tiger/Panther

Reply

Answer 13

Jul 27, 2006 12:03 PM in response to Photoscene

Quote:
"I'm using sRGB because it's working for me, not because I think it's better then Adobe RGB. I have my PowerBook display and Photoshop set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1. "

This is wrong. Your displays should have the profile that came with it, the profile generated by a hardware calibrator, or the ones generated by OS X (System Preferences, Displays, Color, Calibrate..). Having a different profile on the screen will give wrong colors and will cause problems when printing.

sRGB or Adobe RGB are "color containers".

Reply

Answer 14

nycruza

Level 2

341 points

Jul 27, 2006 12:15 PM in response to Piggy

Most people get confused.
Worse, most are misinformed.

sRGB is a display/monitor profile.

Adobe RGB is a printer profile.

It is that simple!

Can you use one over the other for either monitor or printer - SURE! (albeit - profile reguired maybe printer dependent). Unless maybe you're a purist! 🙂

For more precise information, I would strongly suggest those interested in color profiling and color management to vist

http://www.dpreview.com/

And check out the Printers and Printing forum or do a search on Color Management. You will have days of reading fun and learn something too!

AJM

Reply

Answer 15

Piggy Author

Level 1

26 points

Jul 27, 2006 12:46 PM in response to nycruza

I shoot in RAW, profile my display with a Spyder and use Aperture.

I apply a Costco profile when I output images for Costco, and choose "no color correction" when I upload them.

I apply an sRGB profile (or sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile -- hence my initial post) when I output images for everywhere else, and ask them not to apply any color correction, enhancements or changes of any kind.

The sRGB profile was set by Apple on all of the export presets, so I'm confused now as to whether or not this is correct.

Also I've read about color management and find conflicting comments and instructions. It doesn't help that different versions of Photoshop handle it different ways.

Some exports say shoot in the widest gamut you can, others say if your output is destined for the web don't waste your time and just use sRGB.

I've seen places where I'm supposed to "embed" the profile in my image for Costco, etc. and others where I'm not. By "embed" does one actually mean "apply?" Because using Aperture, I just took a RAW image, exported it to my desktop using a Costco printer profile, and viewing the image shows a "ColorSpace" of "RGB."

Reply