Colour Space Clarification plz

[Gazer]

Greetings. First, thank you for taking the time to read this. Your input is much appreciated.

I've been taking pictures for quite some time, but I am new to digital photography. I have no formal education in photography. I've read some good books and I have a basic understanding of the fundamentals. I'm an amateur with no aspirations of going pro. I am, however, very interested in taking FULL advantage of my gear in order to produce the BEST quality work possible.

I've read conflicting reports/opinions on which colour space to work in. The texts I read (Tom Ang mostly) clearly state that I should be taking advantage of the AdobeRGB colour gamut. My printer's manual says this as well. My camera's manual states that AdobeRGB is "mainly for commercial printing and other industrial uses".

My final product will be split between prints AND the web. To date, I have not been disappointed with my prints or what I see on my monitor. However, if there is an available method to improve on what I've seen so far, I most certainly want to take advantage of it.

Yesterday I changed the settings on my camera and in my photo editing software (DPP) - and 'calibrated' my monitor (all I did was go to XP's control panel and used the Adobe Gamut wizard to adjust my monitor's settings - made a nice change by the way). Went out, took some shots and took a look at them this morning. I did not see an improvement. If anything the colours were off. I'm assuming this is due to my monitor. I haven't tried a print yet as I thought I'd post this first in hopes of further education.

Thank you for any input.

[Jim Bryant]

I did a google search...here's some good info: Should I Shoot in the Adobe RGB or sRGB Color Space?, in the Computers, Photography > category, on danandsherree.com

as well as tons of info can be found here: http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Gazer]

Thanks for links. I've read many similar articles (if not the same). Maybe I've been a little too skeptical when visiting such websites. Thanks for the endorsement.

[Gazer]

Seeing how no other opinions are being expressed in this thread, I'm assuming that most of you shoot in the sRGB colour space.

Are there any, perhaps, artistic photographers out there who shoot in the AdobeRGB colour space who may have differing opinions? I really don't mind taking the time to learn more about digital image processing if this will lead to a superior final product.

Thanks again.

[i speak in math]

I don't have a wide gamut monitor to display the colors of aRGB, and therefore use the color space which I can properly display and edit; sRGB. As a reminder, RAW files do not have a color space assignment to them until you get them on the computer and assign one in your raw editor.

[BCampbell]

I also don't have the monitor to properly display aRGB and my print service only has one machine that cna properly print them, and those prints are very expensive. No point.

I'm working on a tutorial on the basics of prepping files for print that covers this a little, look for it soon.

[teaking]

To get the best our of aRGB you need a full colour managed workflow a profiled monitor, and application that supports colour management and a printer profile. If your publishing images to the web I think most people will straight away tell you your wasting your time with aRGB. If your workflow isnt fully colour managed then again sRGB may be the way to go. Adobes RGB profile has the same number of colours its just there spaced further apart so it is best to use with RAW failes as you get less banding due to the bit depth. But remember check with your lab if they support aRGB and if your printing your self soft proof your prints as your printer may not be able to handle the graduation of the colours in your image.

If im honest its simpler to use sRGB for the sake of slightly deeper colours... and spend the money you would on wide gamut monitor on your self

[greenmantle]

I like the simplicity of the quote on http://danandsherree.com/2005/03/04/should_i_shoot_in_th.php
Think of sRGB like a 3-gallon bucket and Adobe RGB as a 4-gallon bucket; simply, Adobe RGB is larger and can hold more varied and different colors than sRGB.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB (14bit RAW) and keep my entire work flow in that profile until it's at the final stage before being sent to the DLAB (Agfa hardware - tweaked to run Kodak paper, chems and software) printer at work (has its own profile a bit smaller than sRGB), alternatively, for larger prints on our 30inch wide Chromira we stick to AdobeRGB all the way. The gamut on that printer with metallic paper has to be seen to be believed.

I'll have to grab some examples from the office next week to share but, it's worth seeing just how much switching colour profiles back and forth for an image can mess with it. It's extremely destructive (flouro faces anyone?) if you mess up and change an image to the smaller DLAB profile and then back to aRGB, but looking at the original and the DLAB profile side by side, only a slight darkening is noticed.

I should add that all systems/monitors in our workflow are calibrated fortnightly and the papers and printers are all calibrated with each startup as well.

[sybren]

I shoot portraits mostly, so I have no use for the extra gamut that AdobeRGB gives me. I rather use those bits for more detailed skin tones that sRGB gives me.

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by sybren

I shoot portraits mostly, so I have no use for the extra gamut that AdobeRGB gives me. I rather use those bits for more detailed skin tones that sRGB gives me.

Your statement makes no sense. You either have the extra gamut or you don't. You don't replace it with anything. Especially not detail in skin tones. aRGB has a wider color gamut so, if anything, skin tones will be more detailed under it rather than sRBG.