Adobe RGB - worth bothering with?

[mcg]

<p>I'm looking for advice on Adobe RGB, specifically, is it worth bothering with!<br>

I know about colour spaces and the fact that Adobe RGB affords a wider gamut than the standard alternative of sRGB. I also know that the output I typically use - whether web or printer - use sRGB and will my printer driver will convert an image using Adobe RGB into sRGB.<br>

So, my question is, is there any point working in Adobe RGB if it's going to be just converted into sRGB by my printer anyway? New pro level printers will handle 16 bit files etc, but my old Epson 1290s is 8 bit using an sRGB profile, so I'm left wondering if there's really any point to me using Adobe?<br>

Or is it the case that if I manipulate the data of a RAW image in the Adobe RGB space in Photoshop, that it will still be rendered in a superior manner when converted to sRGB than one worked on in sRGB throughout my workflow?<br>

Or even if the file does get converted to sRGB for output, is it worth having an archived PSD in Adobe RGB just to maintain that wider gamut in a working file? But if your screen just shows sRGB, how possible is it t use the wider gamut of Adobe RGB if it's not visible on your screen?<br>

I'm a little confused on this, so would value some expert opinion!</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>some quick answer of your multiple question..im going otu for lunch : )</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>is there any point working in Adobe RGB if it's going to be just converted into sRGB by my printer anyway?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Im not aware that my printer convert eveything before..and i can see a big difference if i send a pro photo, a adobe rgb or a srgb to my epson.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>New pro level printers will handle 16 bit files etc, but my old Epson 1290s is 8 bit using an sRGB profile, so I'm left wondering if there's really any point to me using Adobe?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>16bit vs 8bit have nothing to do with the use of srgb or adobe rgb..its 2 different thing, but if you use a 16bit workflow, you should also use a wide gammut color space like pro photo to get the most out of your image.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or even if the file does get converted to sRGB for output, is it worth having an archived PSD in Adobe RGB just to maintain that wider gamut in a working file?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, so one day when you use a better printer you will have all the quality to print</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But if your screen just shows sRGB, how possible is it t use the wider gamut of Adobe RGB if it's not visible on your screen?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Cheap monitor show just srgb, higher end wide gammut one like my NEC show 93% of the Adobe RGB, some even show 100% of it.</p>

<p>In the ned is..why use a dslr to shoot if any point and shoot could do it since you are using only srgb screen and printer? good questions hein?! ; )</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>I think the summary at the bottom of this article says it all.<br>

<a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm">Click:- sRGB vs. ADOBE RGB 1998 Working Space Comparison.</a></p>

[steven_clark]

<p>Your 1290 can do better than sRGB if you use the "No Color Adjustment" option and individual paper profiles.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>The rules are:</p>

<p>- Use large color spaces for editing flexibility ... minimizes clipping.<br>

- Transform to sRGB for web display. <br>

- Use paper profiles to transform to printer-ink-paper specific needs.</p>

<p>Presuming Photoshop CSx as your editing environment, set the Color Settings for "North America Prepress 2" and then edit the RGB working colorspace to ProPhoto RGB for the most you can get from your digital captures.</p>

<p>- If you capture in RAW format and output to RGB in 16bit per channel, set Camera Raw to output ProPhoto RGB. </p>

<p>- If you capture in RAW format and output to RGB in 8bit per channel, set Camera Raw to output Adobe RGB and tell Photoshop CSx to use the embedded colorspace. </p>

<p>- When you render to a JPEG for web display, convert the colorspace to sRGB before saving to a new file. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Your printer and paper combination is likely capable of a much larger gamut than the limits of sRGB. Further it doesn't do an Adobe RGB(1998) to sRGB conversion. if you are talking about an inkjet printer it does a device independnet RGB color space to device specific ( printer + paper) profile conversion.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>About the only thing useful about sRGB is for web publishing (today with sRGB like displays). I've yet to see any non emissive (printer) output space that isn't larger than sRGB and in some cases by a huge amount. The new Epson HDR inks exceed Adobe RGB in many saturated areas of color space. Its not at all difficult to capture images that exceed Adobe RGB as well. So the question is, do you want to toss away data your capture device and output device TODAY can deal with? I have no such desire to do so. </p>

[steven_clark]

<p>I'm going to add back in that if your "printer" is a person at a lab rather than an object that sits on your desk, then they very well may only use sRGB even if their "printer" that's a very large object that stands on their floor can do more.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to add back in that if your "printer" is a person at a lab rather than an object that sits on your desk, then they very well may only use sRGB even if their "printer" that's a very large object that stands on their floor can do more.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They may demand you send them documents in sRGB, they are absolutely NOT sending sRGB to the printer as there is no output device but a very specific CRT display, with a very specific phosphors that can produce sRGB. They have to convert to the native output color space which is most certainly not sRGB! They do this because they are basically lazy and have no clue about proper color management, at least in terms of helping their customers use modern software to properly soft proof and convert their data for output. Far from best practices.</p>

 

[bill_tuthill]

<p>Moray, my opinion is that if you are going to undergo the pain and suffering of a non-standard colorspace (and nobody can argue that sRGB is the Web standard) you might as well go with 16-bit ProPhotoRGB.  AdobeRGB is an obsolete 8-bit colorspace useful for CMYK offset printing and little else.  Fastidious photographers complain about invisible combing effects in the luminance channel after Levels/Curves modifications of 8-bit images, however they are oddly silent about more-visible combing effects after colorspace conversions. From time to time, newbies do notice a washed-out effect, but the Photoshop cognoscenti scoff. I am intrigued that Patrick reports improved results on his inkjet(?) printer with AdobeRGB.  If I'm not mistaken, that is the first such report on photo.net.<br>

ProPhoto RGB was invented by Kodak and is the bee's knees.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>? where did i say that?</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

 

[bill_tuthill]

Patrick, maybe I misinterpreted this to mean AdobeRGB beats sRGB:

"i can see a big difference if i send a pro photo, adobe rgb or srgb to my epson."