Depends what you use your photos for.
for example? i looks the same to me
Some agencies, newspapers etc , require you to submit in adobe colorspace. If for normal use srgb is good enough for most puposes , especially Screen. adobe will have difference on print or if you have special monitors.
Lifted off gary friedman
Adobe is large color space than sRGB, and is favored by professional graphic artists who have $10,000 printers and for
whom color matching is of paramount importance. If you choose to shoot in AdobeRGB format you
will have to convert back to sRGB in an external program editor like Image Data Converter or
Photoshop if you want to share the file electronically with non-professionals, or send it to most 1-hour
photo printers. In addition, AdobeRGB almost always requires additional post-processing on the
computer, and so the benefits of shooting in this mode for beginners are difficult to articulate (probably
because there are none!)
End lift
so meant adobe is more for professional usage ?
...
If you are such a person, it is advantageous to use sRGB.
Why?
That's because your camera's LCD screen uses sRGB, not Adobe RGB.
I don't think there's a significant difference of Adobe RGB/sRGB seen from LCD, especially under practical conditions where LCD can't say much about the colors at all. Unless you claim that your LCD exactly shows the colors that you see on computer.
Most common LCD's can't display Adobe RGB. But using Adobe RGB colourspace can cause a lot of problems instead of being useful. The keyword here is "colour management" and "embedded profile". Some simple examples why one should stick to sRGB: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#
I don't think there's a significant difference of Adobe RGB/sRGB seen from LCD, especially under practical conditions where LCD can't say much about the colors at all.
Unless you claim that your LCD exactly shows the colors that you see on computer.
Before I continue, I want to emphasize the point that I am referring to image review on the camera's LCD monitor only.
The camera's LCD monitor (which can't be profiled/calibrated) more closely reproduces the sRGB colour space than the Adobe RGB colour space.
In other words, all I am trying to say is that the colours of the images during playback are more accurately depicted on the camera's LCD monitor if you choose sRGB.
It's a very subtle difference. You often have to zoom in during playback and compare 2 pictures to be able to see the difference. Not everyone can do that either, by way of analogy, normal folks have different degrees of colour blindness.
This is a big deal only if you want to get the "What You See is What You Get" where colours are concerned.
Again, because you can't calibrate the camera's LCD monitor, you can't do that either, neither can you see the image's colours accurately on the camera's LCD.
The only way to see the correct colours of an image is to use a monitor which has been colour calibrated with the correct colour space.
BTW, some people may also say that it does not matter if you shoot in RAW, but that is also not technically correct.
Even if you are shooting in RAW NEF, what you see on the camera's LCD is the embedded JPG in the NEF file (for those who are unaware, there is an embedded JPG file in all NEF files).
Before I continue, I want to emphasize the point that I am referring to image review on the camera's LCD monitor only.
The camera's LCD monitor (which can't be profiled/calibrated) more closely reproduces the sRGB colour space than the Adobe RGB colour space.