Lots of sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998 talk: Just for your interest here is a chart of the two compared; sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998. Which has more info ?

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Just for your interest here is a chart of the two compared; sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998.
Which has more info ?

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

And yet, the use-cases are simple to understand and follow: What happens when you set your camera to Adobe RGB?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'll simply stick with sRGB, it's the most universal.
No switching or changing necessary, no worries.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Longshadow wrote:

I'll simply stick with sRGB, it's the most universal.
No switching or changing necessary, no worries.

Generally you want to use sRGB for images to be shared on the internet or viewed in browsers, shared with friends etc.

You want to use Adobe RGB for retouching, editing etc then convert to the smaller color spaces as needed for printing or sharing, etc.

I’m talking about processing workflow here. See CHG_CANON’s link above for guidelines on how to set the camera.

User ID

Ive seen that diagram many times and always wondered what good is all that extra green.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JD750 wrote:

Generally you want to use sRGB for images to be shared on the internet or viewed in browsers, shared with friends etc.

You want to use Adobe RGB for retouching, editing etc then convert to the smaller color spaces as needed for printing or sharing, etc.

So by setting the camera to sRGB you are limiting your color space at the source. You can never add it back.

And using anything other than the sRGB colorspace for your JPEGs requires you to edit your images, even if to just convert to sRGB. Something people really should consider, rather than nonsense pictures and internet wisdom.

Using anything other than the sRGB colorspace for your RAW files is completely nonsensical. You get your files awkwardly renamed and your digital editor doesn't care, as RAW files have no colorspace, rather the digital editor does.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

CHG_CANON wrote:

And using anything other than the sRGB colorspace for your JPEGs requires you to edit your images, even if to just convert to sRGB. Something people really should consider, rather than nonsense pictures and internet wisdom.

I edited my post. Thanks.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JD750 wrote:

I edited my post. Thanks.

I edited mine too ...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

User ID wrote:

Ive seen that diagram many times and always wondered what good is all that extra green.

Maybe the landscape JPEG shooter has more blue and green color data? But, with the file's bit depth compressed into an 8-bit format, who cares?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

CHG_CANON wrote:

I edited mine too ...

I think I finally got mine right. I Was meaning to add some info not to contradict anything.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JD750 wrote:

Generally you want to use sRGB for images to be shared on the internet or viewed in browsers, shared with friends etc.

You want to use Adobe RGB for retouching, editing etc then convert to the smaller color spaces as needed for printing or sharing, etc.

You may want to use Adobe RGB, but I've absolutely no need (or desire) for it.
99.9+% of my photos are viewed by a browser, sent to friends, or printed by an outside printer.
I don't need to worry about missing 100 shades of green,
that most people will never notice.
I'm totally fine with sRGB.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

Maybe the landscape JPEG shooter has more blue and green color data? But, with the file's bit depth compressed into an 8-bit format, who cares?

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"Just for your interest..." Peter how many of your commercial clients have ever queried you on your choice of color space? While I've had a few clients ask me what brand/model camera I prefer I've never had a single client voice any concern what so ever about the color space I use... albeit back in the day I recall a few who asked me which photographic film I preferred.

btw, as for your post on Woodstock NY? Were you in attendance on Aug 15, 1969 – Aug 18, 1969?
I was and it became a pivotal moment in my life... for the first time I realized that my thoughts and concerns were indeed mirrored by a huge magnitude of like minded individuals.

Somehow I don't find Color Space to be high on my priority list... Same as what key I tune my guitar to... so easily changed a.k.a. dynamically allocated as my situation predicates...

As for acoustic classical guitars, I have found both Yamaha and Cordoba acoustic guitars are an excellent cost effective option. Especially Cordoba classical guitars... These fine instruments are built in the Spanish tradition, and they can add resonance and presence to the music of any genre. Best yet there are competitively priced for the fine quality of materials and workmanship they bring to the table.

Precious moments with my acoustic classical guitar bring far more joy to my world than any of my digital cameras, albeit the cameras pay the bills... enough said

Wishing you much joy and happiness on your continuing journey in the photographic arts Peter...

My colleagues Julius & Samantha... btw, Samantha is our Studio Makeup Artist (as well as an agency model)

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

Ive seen that diagram many times and always wondered what good is all that extra green.

Not like many people can differentiate the differences.

But I suppose it's "important" to some people to have thousands of colors at their disposal.
Adobe is bigger, it must be better.......

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhoto RGB: Just about everything you need to know: https://photographylife.com/srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-vs-prophoto-rgb