# sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998



## PNA (Aug 16, 2007)

Ive been reading Ken Rockwells report on sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998. Up till now my D70 is set on Adobe RGB1998 and Im wondering if making the change is meaningful enough with regard to camera, monitor, printer..

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

Any thoughts out there in PhotoForum land?


----------



## Cuervo79 (Aug 18, 2007)

I've read about that also, what I found that was to my liking is that working in adobe RGB has "more colors" (I read another article) and when editing having more info makes photoshop add less "unreal" information after editing say levels or curves.
What it really does if it helps or not however is still a dark fog to me hehehehehehe


----------



## ann (Aug 18, 2007)

you will see the difference when printing.

your monitor uses sRGB

think of sRGB as a box of crayloa's, the basic 8 color pack. and 1998 as a 124 color pack.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 19, 2007)

Yep you will see a difference because common printers have even less of a colour gamut. I've done tests being very careful to control all the variables every step of the way from the original raw to the printer, even doing one over saturating first to intentionally blow the colours out of gamut range. I can say I have convinced myself it is no where near worth the effort. Not even close.

Converting the image to sRGB and printing with auto colour management ticked produced nearly identical results to converting to PhotoPro or Adobe RGB, setting up my printer proof with the colour profile for the paper, setting up adobe colour management, and then disabling colour management in the printer driver. 

Ok admittedly I am sure if you take it to a professional lab that handles the format you may actually get better results, or if you have one of those 8 colour Epson printers too. But with a standard 5 colour photo printer all I established is that I wasted an afternoon trying it out. And it definitely is not worth the effort to me to archive in anything other than sRGB since I then need to convert it everytime I do something basic like upload it to flickr or send it to a friend etc.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 22, 2007)

Pro labs over here usually request adobe 98 color space, I use an 8 ink epson for proofing only, if you want great prints use a decent lab and forget those working srgb. H


----------



## RyanLilly (Sep 1, 2007)

Seems like the few reputable camera shops/Labs around me, when I have inquired, recommend 8 bit sRGB files for their printers. Although I dont know what printers they use. Actually I'll probably have a few photos printed at each place for comparison.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 1, 2007)

i do everything in sRGB, because it's universal.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 1, 2007)

RyanLilly said:


> Seems like the few reputable camera shops/Labs around me, when I have inquired, recommend 8 bit sRGB files for their printers. Although I dont know what printers they use. Actually I'll probably have a few photos printed at each place for comparison.



This is because of their workflow nothing else. Any lab can theoretically support any colour space, often it's their software / printer drivers setup specifically to support sRGB because well it is a universal standard.

The quest for an extended colour gamut which is only visible with really high end prints is what leads to the questions like "I just uploaded my photos on photobucket, why do the colours look dull." The problem is simply the use if it is not seemless.


----------



## glaston (Sep 2, 2007)

I see a difference when I look at something in sRGB as opposed to AdobeRGB.

It's not just from the difference between output devices either.
It could be that I have my computer set to use AdobeRGB, on a system wide level though.


----------

