colourspace setting

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
21,426
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
Mines set to sRGB

Is there any significance or any good reason to change to adobeRGB

Anything at all for any reason..?

Using a canon 1dx but I guess question suitable for any camera that has the option..
 
— Using a canon 1dx but I guess question suitable for any camera that has the option.​
• Right! … a Nikon user here!
If you are shooting RAW, the question is irrelevant since Raw files have no colour space. This
option regards .jpg shooters.
 
I just about never shoot RAW

So what difference would it make in jpg?
 
• sRGB is an old, antique, 1969 Adobe colour space. Today, nothing justifies it since the web
and computers are more powerful, faster, and can easily handle the larger gamut of the 1996
revised RGB (Adobe that is!) that shows a slightly heavier file size and better colour rendition.
 
Adobergb will give you a wider range of colours but not all browsers/software etc will recognise/cope/have switched on the ability to display them accurately. If you aren't going to put them online and only using in LR or PS then it isn't a problem, things may have improved with new browsers but it caught me out a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
If you use AdobeRGB (which has a larger colour gamut) but send to non pro labs, or post on the web you need to convert to sRGB, if not your colours will look wrong.
 
— but not all browsers/software etc

• True statement for older browsers/software and possibly uncalibrated monitors. But who
is involved in photography today and is not aware of monitor colour calibration and software
fine tuning…

Since years, to my own website or else, I publish only in 1996 RGB. The mistake to avoid
is to publish in the beautiful ProPhoto RGB which WILL NOT RENDER WELL ON THE WEB.

The ProPhoto RGB color space, also known as ROMM RGB(Reference Output Medium Metric),
is an output referred RGB color space developed by Kodak. It offers an especially large gamut
designed for use with photographic output in mind (prints).​
 
Last edited:
I had trouble viewing my images on my mobile until I changed the colourspace to SRGB.
I asked on here and got lost in the technicalities of the replies!
I mainly shoot RAW but at the final stage convert JPEG'S to SRGB. Don't know why it works but it does seem best for mobile viewing.
 
andyscott said:
If you use AdobeRGB (which has a larger colour gamut) but send to non pro labs, or post on the web you need to convert to sRGB, if not your colours will look wrong.
Click to expand...


thats the one... thanks.. will stick to sRGB then.. thanks :)
 
Note that a wider gamut does not mean more colours. Both aRGB and sRGB will display the same number of colours. This of it as counting in ones - 1,2,3...100 against counting in 5s - 5,10,15...500. Both will involve counting through 100 numbers: counting in ones will allow finer gradation than counting in 5s.

The problem with aRGB is that most devices can't display it properly. So your aRGB image will look pale and washed out.

Stick with sRGB until a print lab asks for aRGB.
 
KIPAX said:
thats the one... thanks.. will stick to sRGB then.. thanks :)
Click to expand...
Wise decision mate, tried the switch myself a couple of years ago and everything on every browser, every single editing suite, every single different printer and every single computer and monitor looked totally different, it might be OK in a totally controlled environment but not in our world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top