sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

[The1]

was just poking around in a book i have, and was learning the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB

I was wondering how many people here have their cameras set to record AdobeRBG rather then sRGB.

I can see the benefit to shooting both, but was just wondering if it's really worth switching over to Adobe when most printing software and such can't reach all the colours and just start making up colours instead.

Quick definition (from my interpretation) if anyone is confused by my question.

sRGB is more universally accepted as everything is able to show/print in these select few colours.
Adobe RGB is able to capture a little bit more of the visible light specturm, it can show up a bit better on computers as they have millions of colours to choose from and work with as opposed to what printers can do.

Some printers can reach out into this colour spectrum a bit further then others, however what colours they can't copy they tend to pick the next closest colour and might add a slight level of fakness to the image.

I know what you see isn't what you get, so it's not something that bothers me too much, but maybe i might start shooting my shots in Adobe RGB then if i'm going to print the image, i'll switch it in photoshop or another program that can change it to sRGB so i can see what is going to be printed instead of find out once it is printed.

I'd love to hear any opinions on this, or if anyone has had an instructor advise them one way or another.

and yes, i spell colour with a U because i'm Canadian...

*edit* upon further research which i have added further down in this thread has revealed there isn't much use to Adobe RGB at this time due to the restrictions of current technology in printers, monitors, and even jpeg files. The internet and email don't even have the ability to show the Adobe specturm, attachments are a different topic.

[The1]

first picture (not really truely acurate but gives an idea) shows in the big loop the visible light spectrum
inside the loop are 2 random shapes, they are supposed to show the difference between how much of the visible light spectrum both colour modes are supposed to capture

the second and 3rd images are a different approach to show the same thing. as you can see in the taller image, the full colours (like the red) just turn fully solid red, where in the shorter image, there is still a variance inside the red and it seems to have more depth.

[rodi]

because you posted an image from Ken Rockwell, everything you say henceforth is invalid.

[The1]

did a lot more serching and found a pretty good reason to not make the switch.

basically nothing on my market is capable of reproducing Adobe RGB colours unless it's for your own personal use on a very very high end monitor/t.v.

very few printers can do it, and JPEG files aren't well equipped to deal with it.

sRGB as a result can often produce more pronounced colours in many cases because even if you have a 24bit television showing these colours, you still have the same number of available bits for more colours to be handled and it just doesn't really work.

Adobe RGB can produce more colours, but it can also look more washed out as a result of trying to have more colours and ignoring the standard RGB spectrum.

so long story short, 99.9% of the public professional or not, should stick with sRGB rather then Adobe RGB as there really isn't the technology out there to handle the ladder.

maybe in a few years or if someone is running 32bit monitors and etc.

here's a good link, it's obviously based on 1 persons research, so take it with a grain of salt, but it answered a majority of the questions i had as opposed to a lot of other sites that just added to my confusion.

http://www.jseaman.com/articles/srgb.html

[The1]

Originally Posted by rodi

because you posted an image from Ken Rockwell, everything you say henceforth is invalid.

lol, that's why i kept researching. i didn't get much usefull info form him

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by The1

was just poking around in a book i have, and was learning the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB

I was wondering how many people here have their cameras set to record AdobeRBG rather then sRGB.

I can see the benefit to shooting both, but was just wondering if it's really worth switching over to Adobe when most printing software and such can't reach all the colours and just start making up colours instead.

Quick definition (from my interpretation) if anyone is confused by my question.

sRGB is more universally accepted as everything is able to show/print in these select few colours.
Adobe RGB is able to capture a little bit more of the visible light specturm, it can show up a bit better on computers as they have millions of colours to choose from and work with as opposed to what printers can do.

Some printers can reach out into this colour spectrum a bit further then others, however what colours they can't copy they tend to pick the next closest colour and might add a slight level of fakness to the image.

I know what you see isn't what you get, so it's not something that bothers me too much, but maybe i might start shooting my shots in Adobe RGB then if i'm going to print the image, i'll switch it in photoshop or another program that can change it to sRGB so i can see what is going to be printed instead of find out once it is printed.

I'd love to hear any opinions on this, or if anyone has had an instructor advise them one way or another.

and yes, i spell colour with a U because i'm Canadian...

It'd be easier to decide which to use with a few side-by-side images shot both ways. It seems they'd have to have lots of greens to really see a difference.

[rodi]

I use adobeRGB when filming with the 5D. supposedly makes for better skintones.

[The1]

but stick to standard RGB for photos?

[rodi]

yeah, but only because i hate how my nikon names the files with a leading underscore when you choose AdobeRGB. haha. fail.

[The1]

haha, something so simple can just ruin the potion.

[rodi]

haha. i guess i could just batch rename them on import.

if you have a Mac, the best app you could get is A Better Finder Renamer. simply awesome.

[scollins]

I've been shooting in Adobe RGB since I got the D3. I guess I should do some side-by-sides to figure out if it is worth it.....

Just figured since I use Adobe software to process my RAW files, it should be able to handle Adobe RGB colorspace. But when I save JPEGs, it converts them to sRGB anyway....

[The1]

Originally Posted by scollins

I've been shooting in Adobe RGB since I got the D3. I guess I should do some side-by-sides to figure out if it is worth it.....

Just figured since I use Adobe software to process my RAW files, it should be able to handle Adobe RGB colorspace. But when I save JPEGs, it converts them to sRGB anyway....

yup, and if you're printing you pretty much need a 1000$ printer to optimize whatever you can get out of it. From what I've read anyhow.

to keep the colours you'd have to convert to a TIFF file, but i don't think there's any benefit to that either.

[Diver]

It only makes a difference if you are shooting Jpeg's in camera. With a raw image, you can assign a different color space, or your editing program will assign one.

[dcstep]

I use sRGB, optimized for internet. I have printed a couple of vanity books and was really very happy with the colors. Maybe if I printed some larger prints it might become more important to me, but I'm viewing on a 47" HDTV and 24.1" 1920p monitor and not feeling short changed.

I would love to see one of the mega-bucks, billion-colors monitors next to my fairly high end, color and contrast calibrated NEC. I may be missing something, but I don't see it. I ask my young daughters to use their young eyes to compare colors and they, and I, can see the oversaturated colors on Windows IE when you use RGB, but that's a problem with IE, not the camera or the RGB color scheme. On a color corrected browser, they and I can't see a difference.

I'm figuring that if it's hard for a high end user, like me, to see a demonstration of the difference and advantages, then my average viewer isn't go to know any difference.

Since 99.9% of my viewers see my images online, I'm sticking with sRGB for now, but I could be swayed with one really convincing demonstration, after which I'll kick myself for recently buying NEC instead of EIZO.

Dave