My turn to post a question! :-)
I know there are many on here who are more versed in color space than I am, so I'm gonna chum the water a bit…
I came across a post on Zack Arias's “Ask me anything” tumblr where someone asked about sRGB vs Adobe RGB. His response surprised me, but it seems simply logical. The specific Q and A is here: “Which color profile should serious amateurs/aspiring pros be using?”
I have immense respect for Zack and he's a successful commercial photographer. His work gets printed all the time — in fact when you listen to him talk, what he cares the most about when talking camera quality is the print. Yet as you can see from his answer, he's saying to stick with sRGB.
So then… have at it, folks. Waddaya'll think?
-Joseph
Commercial photography has a shorter life span than Fine Art therefore more concern probably should go with FineArt images. That said Commercial images end up with as CMYK which is smaller than Srgb so he has a point. If you think your images will last till other technologies come out and are able to use the additional color information then shoot Prophoto or Adobe98 and edit in those spaces. If you only care about what your client can do with it right now then its kinda mean to show them a wide gamut image on a wide gamut screen knowing they are printing on a Srgb or CMYK Device. They will have to convert it and see the color wash away, they might get made at you. I dont think about it anymore I use Adobe98 and let them have that color space. Their prepress people can explain to them the lack of color going from A98 to Srgb and thenloose more going to CMYK. Thats what they get paid for. I got paid to shoot it. Cheers
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
I too am a big fan of Zach’s work … his portfolio and personal success is a testament to his efforts. On this issue, however, he is neither 100% correct, nor is he 100% wrong. There is much more to consider when comparing color gamut between various color spaces … for example, in many instances not only does Adobe RGB offer a “wider” gamut, but also smother more accurate gradations in color tonality that can get muddled in sRGB. YMMV.
For the vast majority of photographers who take an interest in the details of color reproduction, the end results are purely subjective … and there really isn’t a wrong opinion … if the final use of the images in question meets the needs of the client.
I am well acquainted with two full-time professional photographers who have been working with digital imaging for well over a decade who have NEVER shot RAW files … strictly 8 bit jpegs, sRGB … they work meticulously to get accurate WB and exposure in the camera and do very little post processing after the shoot. They both have been quite successful in the end.
That said … now, and in the future, we are seeing more printers and monitors that are capable of rendering Adobe RGB … not fewer … the same will be true for printers that will be capable of rendering 16 bit files. While there are few options currently for Adobe RGB capable monitors … I wager that will change sooner rather than later.
In the end, if sRGB is the preferred route … there is little need to spend money on cameras, software or printers that offer the capability to achieve a wider color gamut. Otherwise, it is just an exercise in futility.
I could write a long post about this, but I’m not going to go into it all. It’s probably of little interest to most people here. The bottom line is that many ‘amateur’ printers are capable of printing colours well outside the sRGB space and quite a number of monitors are capable of displaying those colours too … so why throw them away?
The repro industry is moving fast towards digital. Indigo presses have 7 inks. Short runs on large format ink jets for exterior posters have 6 inks. These devices can print well beyond sRGB. My own inkjet has 12 inks and can print greens beyond AdobeRGB! Honestly … living in sRGB isn’t even fine for the web anymore.