file formats

[rubadubdub]

Hello all,

I recently read that all digital photos should be taken in the Adobe RGB format as this allows greater colour range for printing though the images appear flatter when viewed on monitor.

Any comments or advice?

Rubadubdub

[Norm in Fujino]

For most people's use it doesn't matter. I've read that it's primarily for people using professional printing services that know what they're doing. For the rest of us, S RGB is fine.

Can anyone out there really point to a specific example in everyday life of where the use of Adobe RGB will make a clearly visible difference?

[rey]

I'm also interested on what people who know thinks about this, especially how it applies to when shooting JPEG vs RAW.

[VTphotog]

When shooting RAW, the color space is applied during the conversion, so the camera setting has no effect, except on the thumbnail image which is created along with the RAW capture.

If you shoot jpegs in Adobe rgb, check to be sure your camera embeds the color space. This will usually be indicated by a change in the filename extension to .jpe or something similar, rather than .jpg. Then, if your editing/printing software is color space aware, it should render colors properly.

My own opinion is that sRGB is morethan adequate for my purposes. Be aware that , although Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut, it is only in the red and green. Blue is essentially the same in both, and this can cause aRGB pictures to be rendered with a dark orange cast, similar to applying a warming filter. Some photographers use this to their advantage, to get the strong orange skin tones many people seem to like.

brian

[granthagen]

I've read a few articles on this that concluded that sRGB is fine for most people most of the time. Apparently, most mass-market commercial printers can't reproduce the extra color gamut of Adobe RGB and unless you have a pretty good six-cartridge inkjet printer, you can't reproduce it at home, either.

Certain "Pro" printers have equipment that can reproduce Adobe RGB, but I guess that it's something you have to ask about.

Grant

[slipe]

If you use the manufacturer's paper and ink, most printers will come pretty close to a calibrated monitor without profiling using sRGB. That is what most consumer printers are set for. If you use Adobe RGB be prepared to either profile for it or get the warmer colors VTphotog described.

Many if not most browsers don't accept color profiles. I'm not sure how to go about getting mine to honor them. But I ran an online test and found that my Internet Explorer seems to consider everything sRGB regardless of the embedded color space. You will show colors that are more true online for most viewers if you stick with sRGB.

I take it back. My browser does seem to be color managed on this page. Maybe it will display properly: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_...Gprofiles.html#

I had Photoshop on Adobe RGB for a while. But I have decided sRGB is easier to live with and switched back.

[JohnG]

Another thing to keep in mind - most consumer processing labs (local stores and online places as well) do NOT use Adobe RGB - they will either reject it or automatically convert to SRGB. And, SRGB is for some reason better for web-based viewing. So, before you bother using Adobe - make sure you have a way to print with the Adobe profile. Otherwise, it's pointless to work with a photo that only you on your home monitor will ever see with that color profile.

[amazingthailand]

Some additional reading - very interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

[rubadubdub]

Thanks all for your great replies and advice I think I'm understanding this a little better, the links were a great help.