Adobe RGB vs sRGB

[Dave Phillips]

Adobe RGB vs sRGB....it DOES make a difference in what we see here when images are critiqued and yet critiques are given(by mods and others) to increase sat, boost contrast etc to an image presented in Adobe RGB.......huh?

An image should be converted to sRGB for web display, yet who seems to care?
I do, I want to see the best the image has to offer.

Have made 3 or 4 contacts to mods and the "powers" about this, but am ignored.
Have made many posts to images in Adobe RGB and often ignored..it makes a difference....tight?

Here's a simple read for anyone interested in the difference, beside the pros
http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/oct_2007.html

I can open an image that looks flat dull and undersaturtated.....pull it into ps and sure enough it's Adobe RGB.
Am I nuts? I guess so!! No one else ever sees this?
Maybe it's none of my business

[Robert Amoruso]

Dave,

Basically, if you are going to post to the web, you should do it in sRGB. If you are going to print do it in Adobe RGB. My workflow is to create a Tiff file from the RAW in Adobe RGB. I only convert once I get to the Save for Web part of my workflow. Adobe RGB is a wider gamut than sRGB. sRGB more closely matches a computer monitor. For printing I use Adobe RGB colorspace.

In Photoshop, there may be reasons to use LAB color or CMYK color but you normally come back to Adobe RGB.

When I critique an image, I am doing it to the one posted - assuming it is sRGB. I am not downloading it to check to see if it is in sRGB. You have to consider recommendations are given based on the image presented as we have no way of seeing a Adobe RGB version of the image unless that is what is uploaded.

If I download an image to work on, I will generally (but I am sure I have not done it all the time) check what the colorspace is.

The poster needs to realize that when working on the TIFF Adobe RGB image, specific recommendations made against a sRGB image may differ.

I could upload a Adobe RGB image that does not look flat or dull. And I could upload a sRGB image that is flat and dull. So I feel that the original processing has more bearing on the final outcome once converted to sRGB. About the only issue I have problems with going from Adobe RGB to sRGB is an increase in contrast and clipping. I may purposely decrease contrast to account for this.

See http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2472 for a tutorial Fabs did that may have some bearing here.

[Dave Phillips]

mostly agreed Robert, but most images posted in Adobe RGB jump out as such and THEN checking confirms this.
Sure you can post a contrasty saturated Adobe RGB, but the browsers I know of cannot properly interpret that colorspace/gamut, thus not a true representation of what was in the working colorspace of the editor..ps etc!

I guess it matters not anyway...thanks for your response

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I also assume that images are posted in sRGB and it matters when people use browsers that are not color-managed. Safari, however, is color-managed and the differences may not be so obvious.

[Robert Amoruso]

Dave,

I think I might have missed your initial point. Axel and you are correct, if you are not posting in a color gamut that the monitor and software can display properly, it is not going to look good.

[Alfred Forns]

Dave it is a simple mater. For posting you need to use sRGB. If you want to print you want Adobe RGB 1998. There is no getting around this. If you the poster chooses a different color space the results will not be optimal. If you think this is incorrect or get better results the other way around would suggest to check your calibration.

btw this it the first I hear about it? Don't have a clue what are you talking about.

[Maxis Gamez]

I just would like to point out that a lot of pro-print shops are now using sRGB. My cameras are set to sRGB.