bearwitme Loc: VA, USA

_______________________________________________

Have you converted from sRGB to aRGB?? If so how is it done on the monitor. Is there actually and option in the menus??

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

No I'll look at it later when I am back home. But unless your printer works in AdobeRGB, why would you work in that? If you did you would need to convert on output. Also you would more than likely have out of gamut colors once you converted. You would need to bring those colors back into gamut doubling your work for no perceivable gain.

fjrwillie Loc: MA

Can you add some additional detail for us novices. What are the practical differences between the 2 formats (if that is the correct way of saying this)


Willie

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

If you are talking the differences between AdobeRGB and sRGB color spaces, GoofyNewfie posted a graphic a few post back the shows the difference. This is very simplified because a color managed workflow is a long process. The 10,000 foot view is that you have to be sure your camera, software, monitor and printer can all work in the same workspace. The most common of which is sRGB. And unless you are a commercial photographer, this is plenty. The only time I ever had to change the color workspace was for a 10 foot by 20 foot standout I did for a company.

It is true that AdobeRGB has a wide color gamut, but this is mostly imperceivable to the human eye up to a point. Moving back and forth between color spaces means you really need to understand how to bring colors back into gamut when they go out. If this is something you would like to learn, and I would encourage it. You need to google "Photography color managed workflow" or pick up a book on the subject. It's hard to give better than a 10,00 view here on this forum.

My 2 Cents

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

At 100% each or less?

bearwitme Loc: VA, USA

______________________________________________
OK Cool.. I was starting to get confused cause someone said you needed adobeRGB, but if the sRGB is what is normal then I think I am good.. I will not be printing posters or anything like that...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I would disagree. Try comparing images with alot of yellow and greens and the difference is evident. The trend is aRGB. That's the future, sRGB is not.

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

I agree, but we are a ways off yet. Computers monitors and printers all have to come up to speed and make AdobeRGB the standard and we are not there yet.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I think we are there. Computers are there. There are monitors displaying aRGB and the bigger print labs can process them. It is a matter of choice to get the best images possible.

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

I'll just say that if you can do your entire workflow in AdobeRGB then I agree you are better off. The problem arises when you have to switch back and fourth between sRGB and aRGB. Now you need to fully understand this workspace and color gamuts, and how to get colors back into gamut that have gone out.

Does it make sense to use aRGB with JPG's? A wider gamut also, like everything else in photography is a trade off. You will lose some of that gradual transition between colors. Can websites display aRGB properly? (most can't) Forcing you to move back and fourth. This is why I think we are not there yet.

Maybe, I see the glass as half empty, but I tend to think understanding these gamuts and workspaces is out of the realm of most. This is based on the questions I see asked and answered here on this and other boards. I realize this is antidotal evidence at best, its just my impression.