# Adobe RGB vs sRGB



## kkamin (Aug 27, 2009)

My new digital camera comes with Adobe RGB and sRGB options.

In Photoshop I am set to Adobe RGB, so it makes sense to have the camera set to the same setting right?  My owners manual says that Adobe RGB will create more muted colored photographs.  Why?  Is the sRGB more heavy handed and skew everything in a more saturated direction?

Thanks, everyone.


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 27, 2009)

The colour gamut is larger... that is the technical answer why.


----------



## icassell (Aug 27, 2009)

As you can see, this is not straightforward ... enjoy these references 

Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

The Great sRGB Versus Adobe RGB Debate - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light


http://cameradojo.com/2009/04/19/adobe-rgb-vs-srgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/


----------



## KmH (Aug 27, 2009)

Good links Ian, thanks.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 28, 2009)

Colour gamut is determined by the original recorder / converter of the image. Unless you're processing in RAW then it doesn't matter what photoshop is set to, it'll load the image in whatever colour gamut the camera is set to. If you open the RAW in photoshop it still doesn't matter what photoshop is set to, it's what CameraRAW is set to that matters.

Now AdobeRGB is a larger gamut. But there are many issues with working with larger gamuts. The bulk of them are discussed here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...prophoto-colour-management-general-worth.html

The gist of it is:
- Colour management is a complicated workflow or it produces crap results.
- Most can't view gamuts larger than sRGB.
- Can't upload to the net with gamuts larger than sRGB.
- Most can't print with gamuts larger than sRGB (some very expensive labs can, do you use them?)
- Unless you use 16bits per pixel all the way through your workflow your results in wider gamuts will be worse than in sRGB.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

In other words, using anything wider than sRGB is a serious, serious PITA, even when you know what you're doing, and the itty-bitty benefit you might get out of it usually isn't worth it. (Maybe it's worth it for scientific experiments with colour, or perhaps it's worth it to a photog who uses *super*-saturated colours in their images; colours that fall outside the sRGB gamut. Of course you can only come close to that kind of large gamut with prints, and only good ones made with top-quality printers. Oh, and then there's the whole calibration and colour matching thing. What a bloody nightmare.)


----------



## mariusz (Aug 28, 2009)

just make sure to work in the same color space as you printing.  Adobe RGB gamut is capable of reading more colour.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 29, 2009)

IF you can print it


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 29, 2009)

Garbz said:


> IF you can print it



And lo, did the colour management curse descend upon us all again. :lmao:


----------



## Garbz (Aug 29, 2009)

Actually I just got a lovely panorama printed by a local pro lab who offered a Kodak Supra metallic finish on the photos. They charged me $45 for a 32x20" print and their requirements? sRGB JPEG file or TIFF file. They do a "colourmanaged" process as well allowing ICC profiles in JPEGs for a $20 surcharge. Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 29, 2009)

Wait, they have the software to manage ICC profiles, and the want to charge you for something that'd be done automatically anyway? Ridiculous.


----------



## Plato (Aug 29, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Wait, they have the software to manage ICC profiles, and the want to charge you for something that'd be done automatically anyway? Ridiculous.



It's kinda like charging for photography.  You push the button and the camera does 3/4 the work.  You load the image into your computer and the software does the remaining 1/4.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 30, 2009)

I don't think that's a fair assessment, considering the amount of work that actually goes into producing a good image. The camera doesn't have a "make image good" button.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 31, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Wait, they have the software to manage ICC profiles, and the want to charge you for something that'd be done automatically anyway? Ridiculous.



Compare ridiculous to "the masses who think it's cool and don't know what they are doing".

I like the idea since by charging extra they make people think twice before saving the file. From what I was explained that price also includes them checking it and informing you if something doesn't look right to them before they print it, and a test 6x4 metalic print which you're welcome to proof before you get the final.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 31, 2009)

Garbz said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, they have the software to manage ICC profiles, and the want to charge you for something that'd be done automatically anyway? Ridiculous.
> ...



OH. I had just assumed that they were yoiking the money and doing nothing really extra (i.e. not doing a proof for you). Guess I'm just too used to American capitalism. :lmao:


----------



## Jedo_03 (Sep 1, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Actually I just got a lovely panorama printed by a local pro lab who offered a Kodak Supra metallic finish on the photos. They charged me $45 for a 32x20" print and their requirements? sRGB JPEG file or TIFF file. They do a "colourmanaged" process as well allowing ICC profiles in JPEGs for a $20 surcharge. Thanks but no thanks.



Hi Garbz...
Can you post a link for that pro lab please...?
many thanks
Jedo


----------



## Garbz (Sep 2, 2009)

Err will you accept a phone number? 

They were local and small, recommended by a friend. Not sure if they have a website.


----------

