matty

Maybe some of the more experienced photogs out there can help explain this a little better to me.

I've read the differences between the two (sRGB and Adobe RGB), and it just seems that Adobe RGB has a wider color spectrum that sRGB. However, a lot of monitors can not display the entire of spectrum of Adobe RGB, and sRGB works 'better' on monitors.

My question is... does it just make sense to shoot in Adobe RGB and capture a 'wider' color spectrum to cover all my bases, or do certain situations turn out better if sRGB is used? How big of a difference are we talking about here. I've seen the comparative color spectrum charts, but that really doesn't help translate it in my mind.

eric

Do you read offtopic or something? This topic just came up...

Anyways, no real downside to sRGB. Downside to aRGB is it looks bland on the internet and some (or most) printers don't handle it correctly. Upside to aRGB is it potentially has more/better color for printing.

What I do: Shoot only in RAW. Use lightroom and process all of them, save as JPG using sRGB. This is what I backup online and use if I email them or anything. If I want to print a picture I go back into the RAW and save it as aRGB with the correct printer profile. You should sharpen just for print if you are going to print it so it works best to just go back to the RAW anyways.

If you save all of the in aRGB you can either deal with bland photos online or go back into your editing program and save it as sRGB. If you're like most and you post photos online way more than print, that's a pain in the ass.

matty

Eric, thanks for the info. Sorry, I wasn't aware this had already been brought up.

I was planning on shooting RAW anyways, so I guess I don't have anything to worry about in the first place!

eric

No, no, it was brought up today on an entirely different forum.

Anyways, you do have to worry about it if you shoot RAW. You're going to convert those RAWs to JPGs at some point most likely so you need know what you're goal is when you convert them.