sRGB VS Adobe RGB
- Thread starter williamchew85
- Start date
- Status
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
Last edited:
Put it this way, until you know the difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB, shoot in sRGB first.
If you operate in an industry that requires you to shoot in Adobe RGB, then it is likely that you would have understood what it means to shoot in Adobe RGB.
In any case, Adobe RGB is a wider color space when compared to sRGB. It is especially important in the print industry, as well as any other industry when color reproduction is of paramount importance.
If you intend to shoot for fun, family and friends, or beautiful landscapes/portraits/streets etc, you'd do fine with sRGB.
If you operate in an industry that requires you to shoot in Adobe RGB, then it is likely that you would have understood what it means to shoot in Adobe RGB.
In any case, Adobe RGB is a wider color space when compared to sRGB. It is especially important in the print industry, as well as any other industry when color reproduction is of paramount importance.
If you intend to shoot for fun, family and friends, or beautiful landscapes/portraits/streets etc, you'd do fine with sRGB.
perhaps the most simple and straightforward explanation you can find on the web on this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
But don't read too much into his other articles though. The guy's tell you there's no difference of the output of DSLR from a point and shoot.
Most people (myself included) rely on their camera's LCD screen to review the picture taken before deciding whether or not to keep or to delete the picture taken.
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.
So if you shoot in Adobe RGB, there is no way on Earth that you can accurately review the colours of your photos on your camera's LCD monitor.
Unlike your computer LCD monitor which can be calibrated (or profiled) to Adobe RGB, the camera's LCD monitor can't be altered to display Adobe RGB correctly.
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.
So if you shoot in Adobe RGB, there is no way on Earth that you can accurately review the colours of your photos on your camera's LCD monitor.
Unlike your computer LCD monitor which can be calibrated (or profiled) to Adobe RGB, the camera's LCD monitor can't be altered to display Adobe RGB correctly.
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#
Aiya.... the answer is simple...
If you print, you'll eventually know why you want to shoot in Adobe RGB. But if I could shoot in LAB, I would.
Hahahaha... deviated from my original answer. The answer is if you shoot in sRGB, you only have that much color space to work with, but if you shoot with Adobe RGB or LAB, you got wider color space that will enable you to print with wider color gamut.
But in the first answer, you'll see richer colors compared to sRGB.
If you print, you'll eventually know why you want to shoot in Adobe RGB. But if I could shoot in LAB, I would.
Hahahaha... deviated from my original answer. The answer is if you shoot in sRGB, you only have that much color space to work with, but if you shoot with Adobe RGB or LAB, you got wider color space that will enable you to print with wider color gamut.
But in the first answer, you'll see richer colors compared to sRGB.
I know those problems already, and you could have been assured of that if you just cared to check the link I posted earlier. What I said is that the camera LCD already has bad color rendition in the first place and given that fact, the difference of sRGB or Adobe RGB won't be much on the LCD. One can't decide the exact colors of the photo from the LCD, under whatever colorspace, especially outdoors under bright lights.
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).
actually, if we want to quibble about it, there are already monitors out there which can dispaly Adobe RGB colourspace.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03100701nec22adobemon.asp
but, AFAIK, it will probably cost you your arm, leg and mebbe a kidney...
before the breast-thumping gets any worse, suffice to say that it is up to the individual. it matters for some to preserve the biggest (as of now) possible colourspace for their pictures, hence Adobe RGB (actually, there are bigger colourspaces than AdobeRGB). In the event that when technology and costs catches up, they want to re-edit their pics to get the best quality, then it matters that you shoot in AdobeRGB.
but, if that's not your intention (and i suspect 99% of us belong to this category), just shoot in sRGB and save you the headache of remembering to convert colourspaces before printing or viewing correctly.
Last edited:
I did not campaign for Adobe RGB, if that wasn't clear from my citation of Rockwell. What I said is that given the known innacuracy of camera LCD and the usual harsh conditions at least on outdoors when we look at it, worrying about the LCD colorspace would be akin to worrying about the effect of thermal expansion of a kitchen knife on the accuracy of cutting.
I rest my case.
- Status
Similar threads
