sRGB or AdobeRGB?

I've been shooting in AdobeRGB as i'm a graphic designer who uses a Mac with everything Adobe set up on it.

Is there anything to be gained from using sRGB that i'm missing out on? I read somewhere that AdobeRGB images are a wee bit lighter, but don't know if i'll gain anything from swapping back.

You need sRGB for web images, but I use that for everything. The reason is it gives me punchy prints. OK, the colour gamut is more restricted, but I found that was a bit academic really.

It's the end result that counts, and there are never any incompatibilities with my colour space, whatever I'm doing.

I think AdobeRGB images should only appear lighter if they are not being dealt with properly. In fact they are a lot lighter if used just as if they were sRGB.

An alternative would be to shoot RAW and then convert to AdobeRGB or sRGB JPEG or TIFF as required. The camera's colour space setting does not affect the RAW data, leaving you free to make the decision any time later.

I shoot Raw then convert to AdobeRGB and use this right through to print, only convert to sRGB for web photos.

If shooting Jpeg's (Rare) camera colour space is set to AdobeRGB.

Like Tel, I shoot RAW, process to AdobeRGB and do all my editing in AdobeRGB. Only when saving for web do I convert to sRGB
Matt

I was lead to believe that for web work its better to work in sRGB as only safari colour manages, but for printing opt for Adobe-RGB.

So as most of my photos are for web based applications I just shoot in raw with sRGB.

Same here as Tel and Matt.

Jon, Firefox is also able to interpret colour profiles. As you have to switch that on, though, and most users are probably not even aware of different profiles, I convert to sRGB for WEB posting.

Prieni

ah... ok. i shoot raw anyway so does it really not matter at that stage. I wonder, as in my camera set up menu it gives the option. I didn't realise that the colour profile isn't assigned to a RAW file...

something new every day

The colour profile camera setting is stored with the RAW file, but it doesn't affect the actual RAW image data. It's just a flag that RAW converter programs use to know what profile you want the output to be. But you can over-ride it before doing the conversion.

Same thing with the white balance. The WB setting is stored separately from the RAW pixel data and can be over-ridden with no ill effect whatsoever.

Colour spaces are complicated things. Most printing firms, even professional photo printers work in sRGB only. There is very little flexibility when it comes down to it.

Adobe RGB has a wider colour range, problem is it is wider than almost any monitor. Most monitors will not even display the full sRGB colour space.

A calibrated and profiled display with profiled software will show that sRGB images reach saturation much faster as overall there are less tonal intervals. This is why AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB images look 'pale' or washed out. Most monitors have to simulate more colours by making everything lighter (because they are limited to less than sRGB).

The biggest problem here is if you do get an ARGB of PPRGB image printed as sRGB it will look washed out. They will only look right when everything matches the colour profile.

I shoot RAW and develop images in sRGB and export in sRGB as I am yet to find a printer that will support a larger gamut and my monitor definitely does not do ARGB and PPRGB any justice either.