micro Loc: Texas

On my Nikon D5100 there is a menu choice of either sRGB or Adobe RGB. The manual expalins that sRGB is for direct OOC printing and Adobe RGB should be used if "extensive" post processing is planned.
I'm still unsure.
I do minimal (Picasa) PP.
Any advice?
What do you use?

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Use sRGB. Use Adobe RGB if you plan on using some real fancy printing equipment.

micro Loc: Texas

Thanks!

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

Not True: "if you are sending your images to a commercial printer they will prefer Adobe RGB"..."If you use sRGB, you will be limited to colors that can be represented in sRGB.""...Many online photo printers deal exclusively in sRGB since that is the lowest common denominator." "If you are printing at home, you can generally benefit from the wider gamut of Adobe RGB as well since current desktop printers with expanded ink sets can print colors beyond sRGB."

The bottom line: If you shoot in Adobe RGB and process 16 bit you can always convert to SRGB and accept the loss of some of the color range. If you shoot in SRGB you start with less and end up with less.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I beg to differ. There are several good articles on the subject. Some of them explain what the monitor sees and what the home printer can print. As for commercial printing, there are a whole lot of conditions that must be met there also. Now then, if you went directly from the camera to a professional printer, that would be another story because you would never notice the difference, which isn't much.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Well....not as a blanket statement. You quoted that - from where? SOME pro labs are finally accepting 16-bit files in AdobeRGB 1998, But the majority still require an 8-bit JPEG in sRGB. If you shoot in sRGB, process your images as PSDs or TIFFs, then convert at the end to the jpg, you would be hard-presssed to see a difference. Not that there IS no difference - you just would almost certainly not see it.

Try both, see if you can see a difference.

micro Loc: Texas

OK, I guess this means I have to do my own research.

Thanks all for weighing in.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I'm sorry I meant to included the link: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html

I think the authors reasoning is balanced and far from dogmatic. My reasoning is based on the presumption that more is usually more, and that there is little reason to accept the the less information inherent in 8 bit sRGB when one can as easily shoot in 16 bit Adobe RGB.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Oh sure - Bob's article. I know Bob - nice guy and very sharp. I think a thorough reading of that article will give a good understanding of the sRGB v AdobeRGB 1998 options. It is not an unqualified endorsement of AdobeRGB 1998.

If you really look at the two color spaces and see what AdobeRGB includes that sRGB does not, you can see that it might offer a marginal benefit for some types of photography but virtually none for others.
For portrait work, ALL skin tones are within sRGB. For some flower photography, some of the really saturated colors that can only be described by AdobeRGB might be worth it.
Then there is the issue that with the exception of the high-end monitors by Eizo, Dell, Samsung, most monitors cannot even display AdobeRGB, let alone ProPhoto RGB.

It is true that the high-end printers like the Epson 3880 and others like it, really do reproduce AdobeRGB at 16 bits.

My only point here is that those who are so hard over that AdobeRGB is the only path to quality images are not correct. It is certainly ONE way, but to dismiss sRGB as some substandard color space is not fair to those reading this and wanting advice.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Excellent - just what I have been trying to say, but they say it better. Now if we can just get everyone on UHH to read it and get off this silly AdobeRGB fantasy.

Sorry, but Scott Kelby is not always right.

I shoot sRGB, process in sRGB, and Print in sRGB. I get PPA print awards with that. For important images I shoot RAW and process in TIFF, but it goes to the printer as a JPG. If I print at home, I may sent it to the 3880 in 16-bit, but still sRGB.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Thank you, CaptainC.

ephraim Imperio

From Earthbound, here is a discussion of sRGB versus aRGB:

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html

ephraim Imperio

Why use ProPhotoRGB as a color working space?

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/prophoto-rgb.html

Bigdaver

sRGB is the least amount of color information you can make your camera capture. Sound good?
sRGB is a web and print color space. That should be your OUTPUT color space, not your CAPTURE.