Tag: Camera

  • COSYSPEED is crowdfunding to create first ‘Made in Africa’ camera lens pouches

    German company COSYSPEED is looking to raise at least $ 11,000 by offering up the option of either plain or ‘African-style’ camera lens pouches to backers via the popular crowdfunding platform, Indiegogo. Burundi, located in central Africa, is the world’s poorest country. COSYSPEED has partnered with Burundikids, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating young women and girls, to produce a series of 3 microfiber-lined lens pouches plus a microfiber cloth.

    The lens pouches come in three sizes designed to fit prime, standard zoom, and telephoto zoom lenses. The microfiber cloth is the most affordable option, starting at $ 4, followed by $ 9 for the prime pouch, $ 10 for the standard, and $ 11 for the telephoto zoom lens pouch. The entire bundle, containing all 4 items, can be purchased for $ 28. The measurements for each item are as follows:

    • S size Lens Pouch: (Ø) 80 mm / 3.2″ x (h) 100 mm / 4″ – Fits prime lenses
    • M size Lens Pouch: (Ø) 120 mm / 4.7″ x (h) 200 mm / 8″ – Fits standard zoom lenses up to 24-70/2.8
    • L size Lens Pouch: (Ø) 140 mm / 5.5″ x (h) 280 mm / 11″ – Fits tele zoom lenses up to 70-200/2.8
    • Microfibre Cleaning Cloth: 150 mm / 6″ x 150 mm 6″ – For lens cleaning

    If the campaign is successful, COSYSPEED aims to set up a permanent production facility in Bujumbura, Burundi’s largest city, so they can continue to produce the first ‘Made in Africa’ photo accessories. It will house homeless young mothers, and their children, while providing them food and health care. The women will also have the opportunity to participate in an apprenticeship program that will make them dressmakers.

    COSYSPEED will be crowdfunding on Indiegogo through January, 2020. Items are expected ship starting in May.


    Disclaimer: Remember to do your research with any crowdfunding project. DPReview does its best to share only the projects that look legitimate and come from reliable creators, but as with any crowdfunded campaign, there’s always the risk of the product or service never coming to fruition.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • 2010-2019: The decade in review – the camera industry

    Officially launched in 2010, I had a feeling that the Fujifilm X100 would be a hit from the first moment we saw a mockup. A small number of journalists worked closely with Fujifilm during the final stages of the X100’s development (and afterwards) to mold what turned out to be a really significant camera for the company.

    My career as a photography writer spans 13 years, ten of which I’ve spent at DPReview. Ominously (as if 13 years wasn’t ominous enough), I started my career the year before Apple released the very first iPhone. In many ways, Apple (and other smartphone manufacturers – Samsung, Google, Huawei and the rest) have provided the mood music for everything that has happened since.

    But I’m skipping ahead. In this article I want to look back at some of the biggest themes of ‘my’ decade in the industry. Not ‘mine’ in the sense that I had any significant impact on or influence over it (I didn’t) but from an insider’s point of view. The industry has gone through a lot of changes during my time, some of them very painful, but I suspect that before too long, we’ll will look back on the 2010s and realize that in many ways photographers, and those of us who write about cameras, never had it so good.

    Here’s why.

    From my perspective both as a photographer and photography writer, the 2010s was the decade during which consumer digital imaging really came of age. Consider that in 2010, the only mirrorless cameras you could buy offered Four Thirds format sensors, with (by modern standards) laggy and low-resolution electronic viewfinders.

    A sample image from one of my first reviews for DPReview, of the Nikon D3S. Featuring highly advanced autofocus and fast continuous shooting from a full-frame sensor, the D3S offered specs which were a world away from most DSLRs and ILCs at the time.

    By the end of the decade, features like advanced focus tracking, 10+fps shooting and high-quality video (the D3S offered 720p) would be commonplace in much cheaper cameras.

    Most ILCs sold were DSLRs, and while full-frame was definitely a thing by 2010 (Canon’s EOS 5D-series was on to its second-generation by that point, and both Nikon and Sony had sub $ 3000 FFs), if you wanted a really fast, really tough, really capable camera, there weren’t that many full-frame options available. The 12 MP Nikon D3S that I used professionally at that time was miles ahead of any APS-C format ILC then on the market, but unsurprisingly, it was priced to match.

    Fast-forward to 2019’s pre-Christmas sales and you could have picked up a factory-fresh Nikon D750 for under $ 1,000 if you were quick off the mark. The fact that a five year-old camera could be found at a good price isn’t in itself particularly surprising, but the fact that I’d still recommend a friend should get online and buy it goes to show how different the second decade of this century was from the first.

    The 2010s was the decade during which consumer digital imaging really came of age

    The D750 was released five years after the D3S but offered twice the pixel count, a superior autofocus system, much better live view / video and in a smaller, lighter body. The point is that those kinds of specs just don’t go out of date.

    It’s wrong to say that camera technology plateaued during this time, but it definitely matured. Spare a thought for those of us who have to write about such things: no longer can we confidently declare a camera to be ‘best’. Instead we have to add endless caveats: best for landscapes, best for portraits, or – horror of horrors – best for the maddeningly-indistinct “you”.

    We’re not arguing about sensor formats anymore

    In 2019, just like 2010, we have three main interchangeable lens formats. Four Thirds (the original mirrorless format), APS-C (the original mainstream DSLR format) and full-frame (the primary SLR format). Back in 2010 we might have put those in order: Good, better, best. I don’t think we’d do that any more. We wouldn’t even necessarily call today’s 44 x 33mm medium-format sensors ‘best’ except in heavily-qualified terms. They’re just different – just another option.

    I was among those in the photo media who expected that once affordable full-frame cameras came onto the market, APS-C and Micro Four Thirds would just sort of wither away. I’m happy to say that it hasn’t happened. While there’s definitely less growth in that market segment now than there was (and less compared to full-frame), high-end APS-C and Micro Four Thirds cameras are still alive and well. In a way, I think companies like Olympus and (especially) Fujifilm may have benefited from a bit of distance opening up between the formats, because it has allowed them to carve out their own distinct spaces.

    If you’re buying a camera in 2019, the chances are it’s made by one of the same companies you would have been buying from ten years ago

    As we all know, the 2010s were a tough decade for the industry. But amazingly, there have been very few casualties. Casio stopped making digital cameras, Samsung came and went, Pentax kind of sort of doesn’t exist anymore, but that’s about it. There’s been plenty of restructuring, but for the most part, if you’re buying a camera in 2019, the chances are it’s made by one of the same companies you would have been buying from ten years ago.

    Rumors of Olympus leaving the camera business have been floating around for as long as I’ve been writing about them, but as you may have noticed, it’s is still in business. In part that’s down to a concerted effort on the company’s part to differentiate, and to pick its competitive battles.

    The original Olympus OM-D E-M5 was a perfect expression of the promise of a small-sensor ILC. It was very compact and lightweight, but fast and powerful, featuring effective in-camera image stabilization, in 5 axes.

    Perhaps the best example is the OM-D series. With the launch of the original OM-D E-M5 back in 2013, Olympus used the undoubted benefits of a small sensor to reinvigorate the spirit of its iconic OM-series film cameras, and create a range of products which didn’t look like anything else which existed at the time. Meanwhile Panasonic has doubled-down on video in more specialized M43 options like the GH line.

    Fujifilm’s X-series, which debuted in 2012, is a great argument for the unique benefits of a small-sensor system: genuinely compact cameras and lenses, without a huge penalty in image quality. But while I knew that the X100 would be a hit from the first time I saw a mockup, I will admit that I was a little concerned that Fujifilm might have missed the window of opportunity by the time it created the X-mount. I needn’t have worried: since its inception, the X-series has generated a large, and very loyal audience of fans.

    Likewise Sony’s a6000-series, which offer incredible speed and class-leading autofocus, in bodies which cost a third of the price of similarly-fast full-frame options.

    And then there’s medium format. After deciding not to bother with full-frame at all, Fujifilm decided – like Pentax before them – to explore the market for a series of consumer cameras built around an even larger sensor. While this year’s $ 10,000 GFX 100 is beyond the means of most of us, the GFX 50S and 50R have proven very popular, especially with studio and landscape photographers.

    Technology, technology, technology

    The past ten years has seen a lot of technological development in the field of photography – not least in the smartphone arena. But in the camera industry, two companies really made the running at the beginning: Samsung and Sony. Arguably, no other manufacturer did as much as either of these players in the first half of the decade to shift our expectations of what digital cameras could do.

    I remember as far back as 2007, even before I joined the team at DPReview, being invited to focus-group sessions with Samsung in London to give notes and feedback on prototype cameras and concept drawings. Samsung was really serious about making a difference in the photography space, and its ambitions culminated in the NX1: one of the most capable mirrorless ILCs ever made. Throughout the process of developing the NX-series, Samsung was perhaps the most proactive of all the manufacturers in seeking feedback from industry journalists and incorporating our notes and suggestions in new firmware versions.

    That feeling of collaboration, especially around the development of the NX1, remains one of the highlights of my career, even if it did make the NX1 a very difficult camera to review, since Samsung kept on making changes to it!

    Sadly, Samsung left the field before the full potential of its NX system could be realized (one of the few great ‘what ifs?’ of the photo world) but it was very clear that Sony, on the other hand, was in it for the long-haul.

    What we might call the ‘democratization’ of full-frame and larger sensors started in the 2000s, but it was in the past decade when really good larger-sensor cameras became really affordable. High-resolution stalwarts like Nikon’s D800-series, and Canon’s slowly-evolving 5D-series (including the sometimes overlooked super high-res 5DS/R) and less costly ‘entry-level’ options like the Canon EOS 6D and Nikon D600-series, all helped put full-frame into the hands of more photographers than ever before. I remember the original 36MP Nikon D800 being something of a wonder, at a time when 24MP was still considered more resolution than most people really needed. Resolution was one thing, but the dynamic range benefits of Sony’s dual-gain sensors actually changed the way I shoot, permanently.

    In the five years it took Canon and Nikon to create full-frame mirrorless mounts, Sony had released seven a7 and a9-series ILCs

    Which brings us to Sony: arguably the most important manufacturer of the entire decade, in this industry. When it was still evolving what had been the Minolta A-mount, Sony had made a handful of full-frame DSLRs alongside a range of innovative ‘SLT’ cameras, which were sort of a halfway point between traditional SLRs and a pure digital experience. It took quite a while before this experimentation paid off in significant market share, but in the 2010s, with the launch of the mirrorless E-mount, things really took off.

    Sony was first to market with a full-frame mirrorless lineup, and – probably more than any of the other major players – really created the expectation that mirrorless could be a viable alternative to DSLR. In the five years it took Canon and Nikon to create full-frame mirrorless mounts, Sony had released nine a7 and a9-series ILCs, and in that time had taken a considerable technological lead in many key areas, including on-sensor autofocus. It’s also worth noting that many of the digital ILCs, and the majority of the compact cameras sold today contain Sony-made sensors – something that has actually been true across the whole of the last decade.

    As a technology journalist, I will always be grateful to Sony for keeping us busy and injecting some energy into the industry at a time when we were resigned to cautious, incremental releases from most other manufacturers.

    Summing-up

    A lot has happened in the world of photography since 2010. The past decade didn’t see quite the same breathless pace of camera development (and heady sales) that characterized the first ten years of the 21st Century, but there’s been plenty of progress, and the digital photography landscape in 2019 is certainly radically different how compared to how it was 2010.

    In some ways of course it’s a poorer and more frightening place: certainly for camera manufacturers. The decade began in the shadow of the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s, and in 2012, a devastating earthquake and tsunami caused enormous loss of life and considerable disruption to manufacturing centers in Japan.

    Meanwhile, as apps like Instagram and Snapchat turned photographs into units of social exchange, a whole generation stopped buying dedicated cameras. Ironic, perhaps, but totally logical, given that the cameras in smartphones make that process easier, and they keep on getting better, and better, and better. Looking ahead, it seems inevitable that the next ‘revolution’ in digital imaging will be courtesy of so-called ‘computational photography’. That’s a pretty easy prediction to make, given that it’s already underway.

    As apps like Instagram and Snapchat turned photographs into units of social exchange, a whole generation stopped buying dedicated cameras.

    So that was my decade in digital photography. A period which spanned disasters (both natural and man-made) major technological advances and upheavals, and some major personal upheavals too: a move to the US in 2010 being chief among them. My colleague Richard (another 10+ year veteran of DPReview) will be penning his own look back in Part 2 of our 2010s retrospective, focusing on developments in autofocus and video, so keep an eye on our homepage for that.

    While the industry we’re reporting on now is quite different to the industry we joined way back in 2006 / 7 (my three years at Amateur Photographer Magazine in London overlapped with Richard’s first couple of years at DPReview), I truly believe that there’s never been a better time to be an enthusiast photographer. Thanks for joining us on the journey, and I hope you’ll join me in raising a glass to the next ten years.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • This DIY ‘digiObscura’ digital camera features a massive 1-kilopixel image sensor

    Creator Sean Hodgins has published a new video detailing his creation of ‘digiObscura,’ a large boxy digital camera that features his own 1-kilopixel image sensor. The camera’s creation involved 3D printing the camera body and soldering phototransistors on a custom printed circuit board alongside a pair of 32-bit analog multiplexers.

    As you might expect, the 1KP images captured by digiObscura are very blocky and pixelated due to the camera’s very low resolution, but it’s an incredible look at what’s possible with enough time, patience and knowledge.

    In addition to the video above, the project is detailed on Instructables, where tools and components are listed. More detailed information, as well as firmware and other files, are available on the project’s Github. Files for the 3D-printed components are available on Thingiverse.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • CAMERADACTYL creator launches Kickstarter campaign offering camera files for 3D printers

    Ethan Moses, creator of the Homonculus 69 camera introduced last summer, has launched a Kickstarter campaign for CAMERADACTYL Brancopan, a 3D-printed panoramic camera that supports Mamiya Press lenses and 35mm film. Specifically, Moses is seeking funds to cover the costs of releasing the STL files for the camera, enabling 3D printer owners to print and assemble their own cameras.

    In his Kickstarter campaign, Moses explains that increased demand for his cameras has resulted in considerable time spent printing, assembling and shipping the units. This has taken up time that would otherwise be spent researching and developing additional cameras.

    According to Moses, if the Kickstarter campaign reaches its $ 12,000 initial goal, he will release the STL files for the Brancopan camera to Kickstarter backers first, then, later on, he will release them to the general public on May 1, 2020. As well, the files will be joined by videos that teach DIYers how to print the components, assemble the camera, calibrate it and then use it.

    Moses explains on Kickstarter:

    This Kickstarter is my shot in the dark, my test to see if people will pay for the R&D on an open-source project in a specific way. I am not sure that this will work, or how people will feel about it, but I do know that if the Kickstarter should fail, nobody gets charged anything and I can always go back to selling cameras through the mail, but if it does work it could change the way I work and the projects that I get to tackle, and the types of cameras and photographic tools available to the public now, and in the future.

    The released files, assuming the campaign progresses to that point, will be licensed for personal use only. The estimated delivery date for Kickstarter backers is January 2020. Some Kickstarter pledge options include laser cut film counter dials, video chat troubleshooting and more.


    Disclaimer: Remember to do your research with any crowdfunding project. DPReview does its best to share only the projects that look legitimate and come from reliable creators, but as with any crowdfunded campaign, there’s always the risk of the product or service never coming to fruition.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • These are the next lenses you should buy for your new Micro Four Thirds camera

    From pocket-sized prime lenses to fast zooms designed to weather the elements, there are lenses of all shapes and sizes for Micro Four Thirds shooters. If you’ve recently acquired one of these cameras then we’ve got some ideas for your next lens.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • These are the next lenses you should buy for your new Fujifilm mirrorless camera

    Maybe you were gifted a Fujifilm X-mount camera like the X-A7 or X-T30, or you treated yourself to an X-T3 for being extra good this year. In either case, we’ve got some suggestions when you’re ready for your next lens purchase.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • These are the next lenses you should buy for your new APS-C Sony mirrorless camera

    If a Sony a6000-series camera found its way into your hands this season you’re already well-equipped to take some great photos. But nothing opens up new possibilities like another lens – here are our suggestions for APS-C Sony mirrorless cameras.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Your first interchangeable lens camera: a beginner’s guide

    Just getting started with your first interchangeable lens camera? Don’t be intimidated – we’re here to help.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • The Fujifilm X-T3 is still our pick for the best camera under $1500

    We’ve updated our guide to the best cameras under $ 1500 and despite some serious competition from newer models, Fujifilm’s excellent X-T3 remains our top pick in the price bracket.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Camera Color Spaces Explained – sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs RAW

    The post Camera Color Spaces Explained – sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs RAW appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Herb Paynter.

    camera-color-spaces-explained

    Your camera is probably able to capture color images in a variety of different color containers called “spaces.” These camera color spaces collect colors in one of several size light buckets labeled sRGB, AdobeRGB, and RAW.

    Each bucket gathers slightly increased varieties of light, similar to the way Crayola crayons are packaged and sold in increasingly inclusive collections of colors; small, large, and jumbo.

    Camera color spaces offer photographers a variety of different size boxes.

    Camera color spaces

    camera-color-spaces

    Scenes that include both brilliant colors and bright lighting are excellent candidates for capture with AdobeRGB color space.
    F/3.5, 1/1000, ISO 400, Lumix G Vario 2.8, 35mm

     

    A debate in the photo community usually arises over which camera color spaces to choose in the camera’s preferences. Some color spaces capture more of the hues and saturated colors than others. Pictures captured in one space may include more colors than another.

    Each space is ideally suited for certain purposes, and the question of which camera color space to choose needs a bit of explanation. In addition to the capture question, choosing a color space for post-production editing will depend on the image’s ultimate usage.

    Your camera’s color spaces involve not just color data, but additional parking space on the drive. Larger color spaces provide more bit-depth (explained below), which occupies more digital real estate on the memory card. So, the choice of which to use does have practical importance.

    What camera color space to use

    There is no singularly perfect color space choice, so let’s examine which is best for specific situations.

    camera-color-spaces

    Images that do not include highly-saturated color but contain significant detail in the shadow areas will benefit from RAW format capture and high-bit processing. F/10, 1/1600, ISO 800, Lumix G Vario 2.8, 200mm

     

    Unless the sole purpose of a photo is to display as a high-resolution digital image, you might want to convert the file’s original color space for a less demanding result. However, keep in mind that every time a file mutates from a larger color space to a smaller color space (RAW to AdobeRGB, or AdobeRGB to sRGB), the image’s color intensity and integrity may diminish in the process. Some imaging applications are less demanding than others.

    While copies of digital files remain identical in size and intensity to the original regardless of how many times they have been copied, when a digital file mutates to a lesser color space, it will always lose some critical color information. Your camera color spaces in general, and device color spaces, in particular, are all unique. Each serves a particular purpose.

    Image: The extreme dynamic range and saturated skies benefitted from the RAW capture and editing in...

    The extreme dynamic range and saturated skies benefitted from the RAW capture and editing in AdobeRGB. Detail buried in the shadows was possible because of the 14-bit capture. F/14, 1/300, ISO 3200, Lumix G Vario 2.8, 12mm

     

    It’s a matter of depth

    The difference between camera color spaces boils down to an issue called bit depth. Bit depth is a mathematical description of how many visible distinctions between shades of color can be recognized and reproduced by different devices (a techie term for scanners, cameras, computer monitors, and printing machines). Unfortunately, not all devices can reproduce all colors the same (which is the primary stumbling block amidst all color issues).

    Every device reads and reproduces color using a different process. While this sounds like a fixable problem, there is a sad and unsolvable reality behind the problem. There are at least three different interpretations of color at play in every capture-display-print cycle.

    Image: These colorful seat cushions and deep shadows were captured in RAW format, edited in AdobeRGB...

    These colorful seat cushions and deep shadows were captured in RAW format, edited in AdobeRGB, and saved in sRGB for upload to our camera club’s server for display as part of a club field trip slideshow. F/7.1, 1/320, ISO 400, Lumix G Vario 2.8, 19mm

     

    First, cameras capture color by recording intensities of light as electrical signals and interpreting those signals as colors. Each color is assigned a specific number.

    Second, these numbers are then sent to the computer. Here, they get translated into another process that interprets those electrical signals into a process that turns on tiny lights (called pixels) on a backlit screen.

    And third, those pixels are then sent to a printing machine that instructs those pixel values to spit tiny splatters of colored ink onto paper.

    It’s a very complicated process that color scientists have tried for years to make simple. Unfortunately, it just ain’t that simple!

    Anyway, during this hair-on-fire digital transition, different methods are employed that utilize the various color spaces in a way that transforms the colors from one device to another as accurately as possible. Sometimes the color translations don’t convey the colors as accurately as we would like, which is why sometimes the monitor colors don’t match the printer colors.

    camera-color-spaces-explained

    Science uses charts like this to plot the characteristics of camera color spaces. While these charts are referred to as “theoretical” because they are not visible to the human eye but represent what each color “bucket” can capture versus what the eye can see.

     

    The ultimate referee

    The only comprehensive color space that plots the full scope of what the human eye can see is what the science community calls L*a*b* (inverted horseshoe diagram) space.

    The human eye is the ultimate arbitrator in the color wars, and all device capabilities (camera, display, and printer) are defined by how they match up to the eye’s master gamut. This is why this strange horseshoe shape is referred to as the Reference Space. All other devices, whether camera, display, or printer, can only recognize and utilize portions of this “reference space,” and they usually disagree with each other.

    Color is a very diverse and dysfunctional family. Each device speaks a different dialect of a similar language. Each produces colors that cannot be faithfully reproduced on other devices. Color is a very messy topic.

    color-spaces-explained

    Crayola crayon boxes contain varying numbers of colors just as color spaces collect varying amounts of color. The lightest and darkest color crayons are the same value, but larger boxes contain more colors than smaller ones.

     

    Some devices can express color more completely than others. Unfortunately, no device created by humans can reproduce all the colors that can be seen by humans. Also, the colors captured by one device that fall outside the gamut (Crayola box size) of other devices, get clipped, lost, or compressed during the handoff. Those colors never come back home.

    This is the tragic truth about digital color reproduction. The trick to color reproduction is in retaining as much of the common color as possible during the process. Fortunately, this same human eye (and brain) are very forgiving about accepting the limitations of non-human devices.

    Color reproduction is a true application of the law of diminishing returns and the visual science of physics. Photographers understand this law quite well.

    Very rarely can a camera actually capture all the color and dynamics of an original scene. Moreover, nature’s color gamut extends even further than the colors that the human eye can identify. Any time a digital image gets transposed from one form into any another form, that transformation is a diminished-value exchange.

    As an image is transferred from one device to another, those pixel values located outside the color gamut of the destination device always get lost in the translation. The object of color management is to mitigate color loss and maintain as much of the appearance of the original as possible, all the way through the reproduction process.

    RGB spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto RGB)

    It all begins with the camera’s color settings that are in place when you capture the scene. All cameras capture light through red, green, and blue filters (RGB color space). While there are a number of RGB color spaces to choose from, each sports a slightly different color gamut.

    camera-color-spaces-explained

    Each device in the photography chain interprets colors slightly differently, and each responds to the individual color spaces uniquely.

     

    Each color space (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc.) provides a unique collection of color attributes, and each space satisfies specific display and reproduction requirements.

    Gamuts are descriptions of the range of colors that a device can recognize, record, display, or print.

    Shooting a vibrant, saturated scene with the camera requires a larger color space. Using a camera color space with a smaller gamut could significantly diminish the raw, harsh emotion of the scene. This is why most photography experts encourage photographers to set their cameras to capture images in AdobeRGB.

    sRGB

    Almost all digital cameras are factory-set to capture colors using sRGB as the default color space for a plausible reason; most of the pictures we take never get printed! At best, we view them on computer monitors or social media. Quite honestly, most of the pictures we capture never make it past the initial glance at the camera’s LCD screen. Capturing those images in higher-bit color space is a total waste of disk space.

    camera-color-spaces-explained

    sRGB color space remains largely unchanged since it was defined in the 1950s to compress video images into a manageable size for broadcast. While the format has been updated slightly, the basic intent is the same.

     

    sRGB was developed by HP, Microsoft (and others) back in the early days of television to address the color gamut needs of most televisions (early versions of computer monitors), and the standard was set long ago. The airwaves and Internet browsers live on an sRGB diet. As such, the sRGB color space standardizes the way images are still viewed on monitors and televisions.

    Adobe RGB

    If the ultimate destination for your picture is monitor or display-based presence (presentations, Internet, or television displays), this is probably the best choice to capture images. However, if you shoot for print on paper, both AdobeRGB 1998 and ProPhoto RGB RGB contain a wider gamut of colors and are thus more suited for preparing images for print.

    camera-color-spaces-explained

    The brilliant dynamics and saturated colors are always captured best in the deepest color bucket of all – RAW. The degree of adjustments provided by RAW capture and ProPhoto RGB editing is perfect for images like this. F/6.3, 1/800, ISO 400, Lumix G Vario 2.8, 26mm

     

    RAW

    Actually, the most ideal bucket for capturing images actually exceeds the gamuts of all three of these camera color spaces. I’m speaking of course of your camera’s ability to capture images in RAW format. This is a format that supersedes any defined color spaces.

    RAW files capture color in the highest bit depth possible; up to 14-bits per color. RAW is not an acronym; it is more of a description. It is the recording of all the limited color depth and uncompressed dynamic range of the original scene. Start RAW and strip down from there.

    Camera color spaces explained – Conclusion

    Congratulations on sticking with this article through all the minutia.

    By now, it probably seems like camera color space is more like outer space, but it doesn’t have to remain this technical. Simply remember to capture images in RAW format (perhaps in addition to capturing them as JPG) and then transform the colors down the chain of reproduction as the need dictates.

    Edit images in the camera color spaces of ProPhoto RGB or AdobeRGB to retain as much color elbow room as necessary. Those images destined for print should be transposed to AdobeRGB, and reduce those images destined for the Internet or slideshows to sRGB. Simple, enough!

    The post Camera Color Spaces Explained – sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs RAW appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Herb Paynter.


    Digital Photography School