You are right, sRGB is brighter than aRGB, but aRGB gives you more flexibility in PP due to it keeping more of the picture information, and I believe a larger dynamic range..
However... Unless you have a monitor which can specifically display aRGB natively, and a printer which can print aRGB natively, your better off sticking with sRGB. The reason is that if you shoot in aRGB, you won't be able to see on the screen and during PP what your final printed/exported image will look like (the picture you see will look a lot flatter and less saturated than the printed/exported image), and hence you might PP it such that it looks good on the screen, but then when you print or export it suddenly it looks way too saturated and contrasty...
You have to have a program that understands color profiles or Adobe RGB will look dull. That might be the issue... What software are you using to view your files???.
One fellow I read recommends shooting in SRGB, that way when you poston the internet, everything stays the same. Others say it's better toshoot in ARGB, but then you have to change to SRGB when you post onthe web. Is there really a huge difference. When I first started Ishot and printed SRGB and it seemed my colors were brighter andpunchier. Now that I shoot and print ARGB, they seemed toned down forsome reason. What's up?..
I enquired about this a while ago... the answer I got was to stick to sRGB (which suits standard monitors and inkjet printers) unless I had a clear reason to use aRGB. I think that is good advice. aRGB has a wider spread of colours ('gamut') and will do a better job of rendering *some* colours more accurately - as long as your printer and inks can cope with those colours, which they probably can't..
If you are a relative beginner or a 'domestic amateur' (like me) there is no need to use aRGB... if you are a more high-end user, generating the highest quality images for publication or commercial purposes and precise colour fidelity is important, then you need aRGB (or some other colour space with a wider range than sRGB)..
It is important not to mix-and-match. If you process a picture so that it looks nice on a standard sRGB monitor, and then transpose it to aRGB for printing, the colours will all shift slightly..
The smart axx answer is that, if you have to ask the question, use sRGB..
There is some truth to that because you really shouldn't use aRGB unless you have a reason to do so. Obviously, if you are asking the question you haven't had a good reason to use the aRGB color space. If someone to whom you are supplying images says they want them in aRGB, I think you should just stick with sRGB. Life will be simpler. Most home printers, the web, and likely your monitor will do best with sRGB..
Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...
I was surprised the other day to read info from a commercial lab suggesting it's customers should work in AdobeRGB, but it was a very complicated recommendation, based on a lot of specific technical aspects..
RE>Now that I shoot and print ARGB, they seemed toned down for some reason.< The "print" word in this sentence interests me..
My understanding is that AdobeRGB is a good format for preparing a file that then is converted into CMYK for printing with four inks on a four color press..
With inkjet printers, my understanding is that the specifc printer, the specfic inks (and how many of them) and the specific paper all come into play. Perhaps even viewing conditions..
Also of importance is the subject. Even though the gamuts differ, if the image is alsmost all within the overlapping sRGB and AdobeRGB gamuts, picking the complicated one (AdobeRGB) over the simpler one (sRGB) would not yield any benefit anyway..
What I do know for sure is that when all the conditions are favorable,..
Take a look at the link Mike provided which provides a good visual "explanation" of the relationship between the two color spaces and capabilities of two printers to utilize the color spaces. Scroll down to the section labeled "In Print" and move your cursor over the printer names to see the color space used by each printer...
Thanks for all the replies. Will check that site. I have an Epson 3800 and use Photoshop CS2. I know George Dewolfe and Skott Kelby in their books, suggest shooting and printing in ARGB, but others say just stay in SRGB. Will do some tests and see what's what...
Thanks for all the replies. Will check that site. I have an Epson3800 and use Photoshop CS2. I know George Dewolfe and Skott Kelby intheir books, suggest shooting and printing in ARGB, but others sayjust stay in SRGB. Will do some tests and see what's what..
Please read the whole thread. Regards,Baz..
I shoot RGB from the camera to the other end. the colors are fine. you should know that sRGB is a subset of RGB. that is, if you shoot RGB you can get sRGB at any time you wish in photoshop, but if you shoot sRGB you really cannot get a true RGB later, the colors are just not there, and they were not there to begin with. Because they were not shot and saved to your memory card during the shot. there is also a slight increase in the camera's headroom if it is set to RGB; the storage tank, as it were, is bigger.
If you shoot raw, then it does not matter. You can create either when you do the raw conversion..
The important single point in talking and using color gamuts is that once the pic is made from the raw or is coming via a download from the camera: you do not change it till you are done. What you do not want to do is shoot RGB, have your pp software and monitor set to sRGB, then print RGB..
I send my 16x 20 and 20x30 matte to kodakgallery.com and my panoramas and 16x20 and 20x30 glossy to jumbogiant.com they both use photographic techs to work on prints and image files. so for them it doesn't matter if they get a RGB they adjust it themselves. From either the color are fine. I print my own if 8x10 and smaller but the printer is set to RGB. that is what I meant earlier when I said I use RGB beginning to end...
I have a wide gamut monitor (Adobe RGB), should I shoot in sRGB anyway? I don't plan on printing many of my pictures as I mostly just view them on my computer. I assume sticking to Adobe RGB would give a wider gamut range to my pictures?..
One fellow I read recommends shooting in SRGB, that way when you poston the internet, everything stays the same. Others say it's better toshoot in ARGB, but then you have to change to SRGB when you post onthe web. Is there really a huge difference?.
The answer depends much on your commitment to your hobby. If all you do is take snapshots of the family during outings then sRGB gives great results, and so what if a color is off here or there. But if you really care about color accuracy then you should always shoot RAW so that you can preserve your colors (and you should also shoot some kind of white balance target...but thats another discussion.).
Your camera has it's own colorspace. The colorspace of a Canon 1Ds MarkIII is a good bit larger than AdobeRGB. That means the AdodeRGB cant capture all the colors that the 1Ds can. Thats why the ProPhoto colorspace exist. The ProPhoto colorspace is much larger than AdobeRGB and is able to properly describe all the colors that a Canon 1Ds can capture..
But what good is having all those colors if you cant print them, or even see them on the monitor? That an argument you hear a lot. Well, the technology doesnt exist to reproduce such colors but that doesnt mean it wont in the future. Its better to preserve the full color information now so when technology catches up youll be able to make prints in their original colors..
But like I said, thats if youre critical of your photography. Otherwise sRGB produces results that will make most people happy..
When I first started Ishot and printed SRGB and it seemed my colors were brighter andpunchier. Now that I shoot and print ARGB, they seemed toned down forsome reason. What's up?.
You didnt tell us how you wind up with aRGB images. Are you starting from RAW? Are they coming straight from the camera?.
If theyre coming from RAW then it may be a post processing issue. The camera does a good deal of processing on an image before saving it as a JPEG or TIFF. If you dont perform similar steps when processing RAW then your image will look different than the JPEG that was produced with it..
If the TIFFs are coming from the camera then the problem is likely software. Dull images can come from photo editing applications that do not have color management turned on, or have color management configured incorrectly..
One of the programs I use is Paint Shop Pro Photo XI. If color management is turned off and I open a TIFF created from, say, Raw Therapee, the image on the screen is dull and it will also print that way. However, if I turn on color management then the colors are displayed correctly, and also print correctly. But theres a bit of work and know-how involved...I have to set the working space correctly and I have to set the printer correctly. I have to understand what the relationships are between various settings. If you dont know these things theyre youre bound to make a mistake..
If you really care about color accuracy then read up on color management. Otherwise, stick to sRGB and dont worry about it. sRGB has enough color to make great photos...