Adobe RGB or sRGB ?

You will see different colours, But I use sRGB all the way through my workflow from camera to printing. I think you will get quite a few people for and against RGB/sRGB - this may be a long thread.
 
I believe that the RGB colour palette is larger than what can be viewed on most monitors. So you will end up working with colours that you cannot see.
 
It is only for JPEGs. RAW is done in ProPhotoRGB which is far better than the other two.

sRGB is used for screen output, but some printing processes may prefer Adobe.

Either way when you shoot RAW that doesn't matter. You have to make this decision later if / when exporting as JPEG.
 
I think you may notice a difference initially, as your pictures may have a little bit more 'pop' out of the camera, but you'll soon get used to it.

I read that if you plan to edit use Adobe RGB as there is a larger gamut of colours than sRGB. However, most Browsers are not colourspace aware so images edited and put onto the internet in Adobe RGB may look dull when displayed to most viewers. :shrug: I'm with Nikon Fan, though I don't print much, some images go onto the internet, so it is a step out of preparing them for display. Edit with the output in mind.

There are probably more technical reasons for and against. ;)
 
I use sRGB as I'm very happy with the results I get from my Prints, I have had loads of images accepted into various salons and have been complemented on the quality of my prints. So I will stick with what I know.
 
I leave mine on sRGB since it only effects JPEG files and I can't remember the last time I shot one.

Adobe RGB would be a wider gamut and my monitor can display it but if I did shoot JPEG I'd prefer it to be displayed completely on any monitor/printer. Almost all labs use sRGB too whereas there are fewer which support Adobe RGB colour space.
 
No point having an ultra wide gamut if you can't see or print it, as far as I understand it's only the high end glossy mags that use anything but sRGB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adobe RGB has a wider Gamut and is best used for prints, SRGB is good for vewing on a screen.

If your workflow is based around Lightroom and Photoshop, it is best to use Pro-Photo RGB as this has an even wider gamut

No point having an ultra wide gamut if you can't see or print it, as far as I understand it's only the high end glossy mags that use anything but sRGB.

To the best of my knowledge both are true to a large extent.

The Adobe profile is technically superior due to the extended colour gamut but only if the printer/developer is using the Adobe profile for calibration - the majority use the more common sRGB profile as the basis for printing so using the Adobe profile will at best, have little to no benefit and will possibly even lead to a less accurate reproduction of your image.

If anyone can offer a definitive answer then please do!
 
Last edited:
There are lots of arguments for and against it.
You can also spend a massive amount of time banging your head against a brick wall working out the intricacies, then shoehorning it into a workflow.

It won't kill you to keep sRGB all the way through. Yes, it will limit the gamut available throughout the process, but is it *really* limiting that much to be detrimental to your photos? I'd say not.

I think someone said a while back, in response to the question "Should I change from shooting in sRGB to Adobe RGB". I think the answer was something along the lines of "If you have to ask, then no"

That said, I shoot in Adobe, Process in Adobe, then convert to sRGB for web, as that's how my workflow is set up (can't remember why or how, but it's stayed like that, so that's how I roll)
 
[Snip...]

That said, I shoot in Adobe, Process in Adobe, then convert to sRGB for web, as that's how my workflow is set up (can't remember why or how, but it's stayed like that, so that's how I roll)


That's also my workflow and I've had no problems with it.

I'm still curious whether my printing choice represent the best option available though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top