Color Space: sRGB or Adobe RGB?

Looking for a general census as to what most of you set your color space to.
If I understand correctly, Adobe RGB has a wider range (gamut) color than sRGB.
So if I where to just post or print a picture sRGB would be recomended? And if I where
to enhance a photo with software, Adobe RGB would be recomended?

Thanks
Michael

I do everything in RAW with Adobe RGB 1998. It's easy enough in Aperture 3 to convert the format to anything else I need. I also print some of my shots for friends and sometimes to be entered prints in photo contests and Adobe RGB 1998 is the best color set for that. If you just do emails, publish or enter contests on the internet then you should use sRGB. If you have prints made at a internet printing company most of them require jpeg down loads and sRGB should be the color set.

Joseph Bautsch said:

I do everything in RAW with Adobe RGB 1998.

Click to expand...

+1

I always shoot RAW, 14-bit uncompressed, Adobe 1998. It's always easy to resize down, change the color space for web, etc., but I always want to start with the best quality image possible before I start throwing data away.

LensWork said:

+1

I always shoot RAW, 14-bit uncompressed, Adobe 1998. It's always easy to resize down, change the color space for web, etc., but I always want to start with the best quality image possible before I start throwing data away.

Click to expand...

Count me as +2 on this Memory is cheap, great photos are priceless.

Joseph Bautsch said:

I do everything in RAW with Adobe RGB 1998

Click to expand...

Me too.
I guess thats +3

RAW and sRGB.

I'm sure some of you are surprised to read that, considering I'm a 20+ year Photoshop veteran. Here's why:

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. When it comes to prints, unless the photo print lab also uses Adobe RGB, your photo colors will come out even more dull. The one single advantage of using Adobe RGB is if you make your own prints and have the software and techniques necessary to make it work. Even then you are limited by the actual printer, because most printers aren't capable of fully rendering Adobe RGB either.

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.

Hmmm... interesting. Anthony makes a good case and his information is backed up by many other including Ken Rockwell
sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

snip

Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file. Special smart software is then needed to expand the colors back to where they should be when opening the file. Since Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range, the full range represents a broader range of colors, if and only if you have the correct software to read it.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you have the right software to re-expand the colors you theoretically might have a slightly broader range of colors. However, if at any point in the chain you don't have the right software and haven't attached the Adobe RGB profile you'll get the duller colors as recorded!
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Web browsers don't have, and print labs rarely have, the right software to read Adobe RGB This is why people who shoot it are so often disappointed. Even if a place has the right software, if you forget to add the Adobe RGB profiles to your files these places will read them incorrectly and you'll get dull colors.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adobe RGB may be able to represent a slightly larger range of colors, but no screen or print material I've used can show this broader range, so why cause yourself all the trouble? I've experimented with 100% saturated grads in these two color spaces and never seen any broader range from Adobe RGB either on my screen or on SuperGloss Light jet prints.[/FONT]​

[/FONT][/FONT]

Click to expand...

I see Anthony's point, but a portion of Ken Rockwell's quote that AfterImage provided that was omitted does validate the use of Adobe 1998 for some: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you're one of the few a full-time career professional photographers left standing and shoot for print, by all means shoot Adobe RGB".

Anthony & Ken both speak of sRGB providing more vibrant colors, but where more realistic, accurate if you will, colors are required, a properly calibrated Adobe 1998 profile from capture through the printing process will yield more accurate colors than sRGB. I found this to be true when shooting product shots for a camera bag manufacturer's print catalog. In this case the bags varying shades: slate blue, navy blue. forest green, olive drab, etc. were rendered more accurately using the Adobe 1998 color space. [/FONT]

Anthony is brigs up a good point. A lot of labs will only print sRGB.
Another thing to consider is that some monitors may not accurately display Adobe RGB.
But when I print them on my Epson printer I use Adobe RGB.
Is it not best to match color profile to whatever will produce the end result?

LensWork said:

...were rendered more accurately using the Adobe 1998 color space.

Click to expand...

Rendered more accurately on your monitor, sure. In print, on someone else's monitor, or on the web...likely no. Adobe RGB certainly has its place, and that's if you are a print photographer who can control the process from start to finish...from camera, to post-processing, to actual hard copy prints.

Anthony Hereld said:

Rendered more accurately on your monitor, sure. In print, on someone else's monitor, or on the web...likely no. Adobe RGB certainly has its place, and that's if you are a print photographer who can control the process from start to finish...from camera, to post-processing, to actual hard copy prints.

Click to expand...

Could it be that the colors are more accurately rendered by Adobe 1998 when converted to and printed in CMYK because Adobe '98 color space encompasses most of the colors achievable on CMYK printers (especially in the cyan-green range) as opposed to the vibrant colors of sRGB?

I use Adobe RGB since my monitor has been calibrated for Adobe RGB. But for pics posted on the net, I usually use sRGB.

adobe rgb for me too

What these sRGB Vs. Adobe RGB articles, Including Ken Rockwell, are talking about is the transmission of digital photographs over the internet to labs other computers and for posting on web sites. In that case and as I previously stated you should use sRGB. They also admit that Adobe RGB is best is best to use for printing. These people are internet users and do little or no printing. Is adobe RGB difficult to use for printing? As with many questions in photography the answer is it depends. If all I need is a bunch of 4x6 prints for friends I can turn them out just by hitting a few buttons and get good results. But if I need a 8x12 print for a contest it will take time to make the color corrections to just what I want. This is no different than doing post processing on shots from the camera. Adobe RGB by far gives the best color printing results. As has been stated in this thread you want to start out with the best quality possible and that is Adobe RGB and shot in RAW. With that you can do both prints and with a simple conversion send jpeg in sRGB over the internet to where ever you want. BTW all of the shots I have ever posted on this site has been in Adobe RGB and I have yet to see a comment about dull colors.

sRGB


Adobe RGB

The proof is in the pudding. The difference is especially noticeable in the greens, yellows, and reds, which are more vibrant in sRGB. Another great read on why sRGB is better. Even Scott Kelby, one of the world's foremost authorities on Photoshop and photography, recommends that 99% of photographers should stick with sRGB.

Use sRGB if:

• You post your photos on the web
• Customers order prints of your photos
• Someone else handles your prints

Use Adobe RGB if:

• You have the required software and hardware (printer)
• You do your own prints

That said, there is an advantage to setting the color space in-camera to Adobe RGB if you shoot in RAW and do all your post-processing work in ACR or Lightroom. In RAW mode, the color space is not processed until it reaches the software, therefore you can switch back to sRGB because the software will simply throw out the extra color data.

You can not however shoot in RAW mode in sRGB and convert that data to Adobe RGB later to add in the extra color data.

Anthony Hereld said:

That said, there is an advantage to setting the color space in-camera to Adobe RGB if you shoot in RAW and do all your post-processing work in ACR or Lightroom. In RAW mode, the color space is not processed until it reaches the software, therefore you can switch back to sRGB because the software will simply throw out the extra color data.

You can not however shoot in RAW mode in sRGB and convert that data to Adobe RGB later to add in the extra color data.

Click to expand...

Ok, but what if you shoot in aRGB, post process in ACR + Photoshop in 16bit mode and then output the file to a fullsized TIF and a websized sRGB Jpg? Is there anything to be gained by that method? My workflow is to make all the changes and tweaks, save an uncompressed 16bit TIF for archive and resize for web posting in jpg. Thoughts on aRGB/sRGB for that kind of archiving? I would hate to change my method if it means losing something in the TIF or continuing this way doesn't effect the final jpg.

LensWork said:

Could it be that the colors are more accurately rendered by Adobe 1998 when converted to and printed in CMYK because Adobe '98 color space encompasses most of the colors achievable on CMYK printers (especially in the cyan-green range) as opposed to the vibrant colors of sRGB?

Click to expand...

This one is a bit tougher to explain...sRGB and Adobe RGB are variations of the same color space: RGB. CMYK is a completely different color space. It's like comparing an apple, a larger apple, and an orange.

The RGB color space represents colors projected by light. That's why computer monitors and cameras use the RGB color space, they both use light to interpret color. The CMYK color space represents the colors of pigment, and are used by printing presses for magazines and the like.

All three color spaces have 16,777,216 possible colors (256 x 256 x 256), or 0-255 for each color bit. There are so many different processes for RGB to CMYK conversion, and they will all vary depending on the print shop or software doing the conversion. The only real issue is that it is possible to see colors in RGB that you can't translate to CMYK. This is referred to as "out of gamut". I would venture to say that enough information is mixed up in the CMYK conversion that it doesn't matter which RGB color space you're coming from.

AfterImage said:

Ok, but what if you shoot in aRGB, post process in ACR + Photoshop in 16bit mode and then output the file to a fullsized TIF and a websized sRGB Jpg? Is there anything to be gained by that method? My workflow is to make all the changes and tweaks, save an uncompressed 16bit TIF for archive and resize for web posting in jpg. Thoughts on aRGB/sRGB for that kind of archiving? I would hate to change my method if it means losing something in the TIF or continuing this way doesn't effect the final jpg.

Click to expand...

Here's an interesting tidbit: RAW image files are 3 to 4 times more compressed than TIFF!

What you're talking about really has nothing to do with color space preferences, though...it's more about storage and archiving. Yes, you should absolutely edit in RAW or TIFF, then convert to JPG for photographs used on the web. Both RAW and TIFF formats are loss-less, and each has its perks and quirks:

RAW

• Smaller file size
• Loss-less
• Uses proprietary software. Will those saved RAW files be readable 5 years from now? 10?

TIFF

• HUGE file size
• Loss-less
• Great for archiving...but buy an external drive!

If I find the time I think I am going to test this out.... 2 identical shots; one in aRGB and the other in sRGB. Identical post-processing and resizing for web. We can compare the aRGB and sRGB for any differences and have a usable working answer. I really want the "master post-processed" image to retain as much information and detail as possible. And, if the jpg outputs are identical, it makes sense to continue with the RAW + aRGB workflow I currently use.

aRGB


sRGB


These two images came from the same RAW file and are unedited except for their color space. There is not a huge, striking difference between them. It's not like sRGB is leaps and bounds better than aRGB...but the bottom image is more vibrant across the entire color spectrum.

Right-click each image and open them in a different tab, then toggle back and forth. The difference is more apparent.