sRGB vs AdobeRGB vs ???

[jeffkohn]

(b)Inkjet printers CAN print a wider gaumet than the on-line wet process printers.

Yep, the difference is pretty substantial in the case of the latest printers, too. (BTW inkjets also beat out consumer dye-subs).

(c)aRGB and sRGB HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF COLORS AVAILABLE!! (256X256X256) The transitions between these colors is smoother in sRGB.

They don't have the same number of colors, but they do have the same number of color values. The "smoother transitions for sRGB" is only true for 8-bit files, and is due to the fact that those 256^3 color values are spread over a larger gamut in the case of Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. Once you move to 16-bit (and if you're shooting RAW, you should) the limitation goes away and the advantage of the larger gamut is very real.

(e)There are a very few on-line labs that will truely print in the wider color spaces but they are expensive

Any lab using the the Noritsu/Fuji printers will be limited to sRGB because these printers are not colorspace aware. In theory they could have a custom profile that they convert to before printing; this wouldn't help with the gamut but could give more accurate results. But I think very few if any labs do this (certainly not at Walmart/Walgreens/Costco/etc).

That said there _are_ labs out there that can handle non-sRGB. West Coast Imaging uses a Chromira printer, which is colorspace-aware, so as long as your file has the correct color profile embedded it should handle it correctly. They're actually pretty affordable, too, if you use their preflight print service (which requires you to fully prep the files for printing).

I agree that if you're shooting 8-bit JPG and/or using a photolab for prints, sRGB is probably the way to go. It's certainly a lot easier; color management is a pretty intimidating subject for many, and if not done correctly can produce worse results than just sticking with sRGB and ignoring the whole mess.

On the other hand, if you shoot RAW and want to get the most from your images, especially from a late-model inkjet, sRGB can be pretty limiting. I actually prefer ProPhoto RGB because even Adobe RGB doesn't fully contain the gamut of most inkjets. Also keep in mind, once you convert to a smaller gamut that extra color information is gone; there's no getting it back by converting back to a larger color space (although you can start from scratch with the original RAW file assuming you're willing to re-do all your post-processing).

[David Price]

Jeff,

Thanks for that write-up. I'm agreein' with you here BUT I just found another reason this won't work for me. I'm using PSE3, not the full blown CS2.

By the way, here's a link that supports what you're saying here.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...photo-rgb.html

[Steelsun]

One of the popular cheap photog mags (i.e. Popular Photography, Outdoor Photography, etc) had an article last month or the month before talking about choosing between AdobeRGB and sRGB for doing your photoshop work.
I'll see if I can find it when I clean out the car this weekend (which is where I store my mags for several months at a time), and find the link to the online version.

The gist of the article was that there is not much, if any, visual differance in the final product, and to use what you feel comfortable with.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by David Price

Jeff,

Thanks for that write-up. I'm agreein' with you here BUT I just found another reason this won't work for me. I'm using PSE3, not the full blown CS2.

Yeah it's my understanding PSE is somewhat limited in 16-bit support so this would definitely be an issue.

By the way, here's a link that supports what you're saying here.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...photo-rgb.html

Yeah I think he overstates the "imaginary colors" problem a bit; if you're starting with a digital photo you shouldn't hit this unless you do some really wild edits (in which case you get what you deserve ).

Another benefit of ProPhoto for ACR/Photoshop users is that the internal working color space used by ACR is basically a linear-gamma version of ProPhoto. So using ProPhoto as your output color space means one less conversion. In fact, even if you know you're going to end up in a smaller color space further down the line, there are advantages to this approach because you can control how the conversion is done. For instance, you can use perceptual intent for the conversion, or do some editing while in ProPhoto RGB to get the image to "fit" the smaller gamut before converting. If you use AdobeRGB/sRGB as the output profile, ACR will essentially do a relative colorimetric conversion, clipping any colors that fall outside the output colorspace (which is why changing the color space setting in ACR will affect the clipping display).

[David Price]

O.K. Jeff............my brain is getting full. Seriously, I appreciate your taking the time to respond here. I'm getting the picture (as Wyatt says: I made a punny) with your help. I hope this thread helps a few others as well.

Note to self: Try to remember to updat your ACR tonight.

Another note.........just 3 more post and I get to be a re-member instead of just being Jr.