Color Space: sRGB or Adobe RGB?

[ZakSaenzPhotography]

I shoot in JPG and Adobe RGB. If you are not consistent with your shooting and are having problems with exposure then you are better off shooting RAW. If you are using an old tube style monitor then you may want to use sRGB. For internet use use sRGB but to retain the best color space us Adobe RGB and a printer or print shop that prints with it.

Zak

 

[LensWork]

I shoot in JPG and Adobe RGB.

I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose in using Adobe '98 if you are shooting JPG. Since JPG is only 8-bit, as opposed to raw 12 or 14-bit, are you getting the full benefit of the wider gamut of Adobe '98 in JPG? In fact I have read that using Adobe '98 in small bit (8) image capture can actually be a drawback, and if shooting in 8-bit you are better off with sRGB.

 

[Browncoat]

I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose in using Adobe '98 if you are shooting JPG. Since JPG is only 8-bit, as opposed to raw 12 or 14-bit, are you getting the full benefit of the wider gamut of Adobe '98 in JPG? In fact I have read that using Adobe '98 in small bit (8) image capture can actually be a drawback, and if shooting in 8-bit you are better off with sRGB.

JPG vs. RAW is a matter of personal preference. I see a lot of "old school" photographers who used to shoot film simply stick w/ JPG. Instead of using software to convert their images, they're doing it in-camera. RAW files are digital negatives. They're just data files until converted into an image by software, either in-camera or on a PC (or Mac for the tree-hugging hippie types ).

Working pros just don't have time to fiddle with a lot of image tweaking. The reality is, they're better photographers in most cases and don't need to do a lot of post-processing work anyway. They're better at camera settings, and frankly, get it right the first time. For these guys, shooting JPG is a better option because it's a faster workflow.

Yes, RAW is 12-bit...but there's a catch. They're linear data files. JPG is 8-bit non-linear format. Without going into a bunch of technical jargon, it should suffice to say there is virtually no difference between the two. To say 12-bit vs. 8-bit is not an accurate comparison. They are not "shooting in 8-bit". They are shooting in 12-bit and the camera is converting it into an 8-bit format.

All that said...software that processes RAW files are much more powerful than any digital camera firmware. The options available in ACR, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are almost endless. On an image-by-image basis, shooting RAW and doing post-processing work gives the photographer far more options. But for 'togs who actually do this to put food on the table, time is money. Shooting JPG is just fine.

 

[Eduard]

Though I'm not a working pro, those that I know and those that I talk to or read their blogs often discuss using a "PhotoShop guy" or retoucher to maximize the potential in their images which leads them to shoot RAW. Here is one great example: It’s Guest Blog Wednesday featuring Douglas Sonders & Justin Paguia! « Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More

But those same folks will also say it depends on the time requirements of the image. Sports & news photographers seem to be more inclined to shoot JPEG because they need to post and/or transmit the images quickly. Landscape, portrait, fashion, etc photographers that don't have that immediacy in their work seem to be more inclined to shoot RAW.

 

[ZakSaenzPhotography]

I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose in using Adobe '98 if you are shooting JPG. Since JPG is only 8-bit, as opposed to raw 12 or 14-bit, are you getting the full benefit of the wider gamut of Adobe '98 in JPG? In fact I have read that using Adobe '98 in small bit (8) image capture can actually be a drawback, and if shooting in 8-bit you are better off with sRGB.

I know with my setup there is a visible difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. I can see it when I compare the two images. I also see there have been a couple great responses with much better explanations than I can give but it is true that if the quility of your images are where they should be shooting in JPG is a huge advantage in post processing for a person that needs to go through 1k images.

Zak

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

You make a good point Zak, the time spent in downloading and then again converting can become substantial when one has a lot of pics.

 

[DavidForthoffer]

RAW and sRGB.
...
Yes, there is a slightly wider range of color, but that comes at the price of less vibrancy because you're squeezing more colors into the same amount of space. Adobe RGB is also worthless for internet viewing, because browsers can't render it.
...
Trust me on this one, kids. Stick with the world standard, sRGB. You'll get more vibrant colors and more consistent results. Don't take my word for it. Do a Google search for Adobe RGB vs sRGB. The results are almost unanimous.

Most people do not understand color management (including Ken Rockwell). Googling "Adobe RGB" versus sRGB gets lots of hits from people who do not understand color management. I do understand color management. I was the lead test developer for Adobe's Color Management group for a number of years, and have a patent involving color management (unlike Ken Rockwell, whose patent concerns hardware matrix multiplication).

The advantage of Adobe RGB is as a source color space, not as a destination color space. If you are shooting only JPEG and need to capture and shift color values that are not captured in sRGB, then use Adobe RGB. When you are done processing your image and want to release it, convert to the color space appropriate for your destination, such as sRGB for the internet, or a printer profile for printing.

Of course, if you always shoot RAW and process from RAW, the camera color space does not matter.

If you sometimes need to show pre-processed images to clients in the field, it may be better to shoot RAW+JPEG with sRGB color space.