smith934 Loc: Huntsville, Alabama

Which do you use? I understand that the Adobe colour space is best for printing while sRGB is better for the web. Also I understand that one can convert Adobe RGB to sRGB but not the other way. Do you change the colour space setting on your camera depending on what you intend to do with the image? If you're shooting RAW, does it matter which you use?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Read the Adobe RGB vs. sRGB entry in the Frequently asked Questions section HERE.

smith934 Loc: Huntsville, Alabama

Thanks, I will, but I think I've just opened a can of worms...based on some of the articles I've already read prior to posting here.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

No can of worm. It is only controversial if one wants to make it so.

Personally I use ProRGB but I need to be really careful when I have to step down in order to print as MOST of the extreme colors will not print correctly* when using a 'run of the mill printer'.

The final product is what should guide you to make a color choice. A printer color space AND of paper type used are your (severely limited) guidelines. The rest is B.S.

----
* Some colors are not even visible!!!

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

When I've asked for specs from printers, they ask for sRGB.

fes22 Loc: Upper Gwynedd, PA

I recently got prints back from Adaromapix that we're dark. When I questioned Adaroma I was told to use sRGB. They credited my account , and told me to resubmit. The new pics haven't arrived yet, hopefully there will be an improvement. I'll post when they return.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I attended a class on landscape photography and the teacher, Dave McCain, had us set our camera to sRGB. Not sure if shooting in RAW makes any difference, or not.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Raw has NO color space. That is applied by your raw converter when you save the file to whatever your destination - JPG, TIFF, PSD, etc. This is all explained in the link Goofy posted.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have participated in previous discussions involving color space and bits in use. I am no technical guru but I read, learn and think and come to my own conclusions.
In the first place, we live in a sRGB world. That is what most viewing devices can see and what most professional printers use. It has millions of colors that neither you nor I can see. Adobe RGB is a wider color space with trillions of colors that you cannot see either. If you shoot Adobe RGB eventually you will have to convert it to a sRGB and now you are compressing a large color space into a much smaller one. Something has to give!
RAW has no color space EXCEPT when using Nikon Capture NX2 for editing. Nikon honors all the settings in camera when editing RAW files. Those settings can be changed because RAW is a very flexible file.
Adobe RGB is not better for printing unless you are using a home printer. It surely cannot be printed by commercial printers that only see the colors of sRGB files. If there are modern printers that can do that job I am unaware of it.
I use RAW and JPEG files. Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality and if saved as a TIFF the original becomes lossless. JPEG files are not as flexible as a RAW file but they are files that require less work during editing.
A RAW file is usually 14 bits compared to the 8 bits of a JPEG. This never has been a problem for my photography and when I shot RAW I ended up with a JPEG for printing anyway since I do not know of any printing that prints RAW. I will let you imagination to figure out what happens when you convert a RAW file to a JPEG but I will give you a tip, you loose the 14 bits and usually the color space since the conversion to sRGB is made for the Web and for printing.
I usually shoot sRGB even if I shoot RAW. I have not seen that such a move has deteriorated the quality of my prints.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Lots of good info., thanks for posting. Do you shoot with a Nikon?

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

If you shoot in raw, you are not shooting in sRGB as raw does not have a color space and your comment about NX2 is not correct as (by definition) no raw converter has a color space. THAT is set when you leave the raw converter for any other format.

You are 100% correct that using sRGB will not degrade your images to any meaningful degree.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am also correct and I do not mean to be rude when I say that Capture NX2 honors every single setting made to camera. Obviously, this is not going to be a productive discussion.
What is important for me is that Adobe RGB is a wide color space that needs to be compressed to an sRGB when it is time to print. It is important for me too that a 14 or 16 bits file when compressed will loose all those bits to 8.
Never ever I had a problem because I shot sRGB and JPEG, as a matter of fact some of my best enlargements came from those files.

TheDman Loc: USA

You might also lose them.

Shooting in Raw gives you the benefit of editing in 16 bit, and editing in a color space like Pro Photo RGB gives you a wider space in which to edit. I convert to an 8 bit sRGB file as the last step after all my editing is done.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

If they were dark, then your monitor is too bright.

Most monitors are set very very bright because they look better that way...colors pop...things look better that way, but you get a false sense of how bright your image is.

I have my brightness set to less than half of what it was from Dell...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

That is precisely what is so hard for me to swallow. Yes, RAW will allow you to use ProPhoto with all those colors that neither you nor the printer can see if there is such a thing as printing ProPhoto files. After working so hard with colors and all that information available in 16 bits now you have to compress the file loosing all those colors of the wider space plus those 16 bits that end up in only 8. Can you see the difference? Of course not.
I use RAW files but I have to admit that using sRGB and JPEG I have been able to make some of my best enlargements.