What's the advantage of Adobe RGB for me?

[julianliu]

Hey, guys, and girls! I have been hearing that Adobe RGB (and Profoto RGB) is better than sRGB for a long time. But I do not know what's the advantage of shooting Adobe RGB for me. I can shoot Adobe RGB in my camera, but my monitor only shows sRGB. After I edit in photoshop, I usually save as jpg, which only support sRGB, either give to my clients or post online. If I shoot in Adobe RGB, I need to convert to sRGB then save as jpg in photoshop. Lightroom can help make this process much easier, but when Lightroom does not work ( for example now it does not recognize my D810 new raw file after I updated LR and worked once), this process of converting multiple photos is pain in the butt in PS. I do print some photos out, and the online printer usually only accept jpg or tiff with sRGB profile inbedded. Even if they accept Adobe RGB, the printer color profile CYMK is smaller than sRGB. Anyway, my point is I think sRGB is enough for me (and most amateur photographers I guess) to view on my monitor, to display online and to print out. What do you think?
I can notice there was color degrade when I change from Adobe RGB to sRGB on my monitor. But I suspect the color in jpg will be better if I shoot in sRGB rather than Adobe RGB.
I have had this question for a long time, would like to hear your thoughts!

 

[W.Fovall]

stick with sRGB.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. [/FONT]

 

[Derrel]

stick with sRGB.
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

So,so not what "photo forum experts" will tell you, and yet so, so accurate are true in the actual, real world.

 

[W.Fovall]

what?

stick with sRGB.
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

So,so not what "photo forum experts" will tell you, and yet so, so accurate are true in the actual, real world.

 

[Derrel]

I agreed with your post. Sorry for the typo...I meant to write "and true" instead of "are true".

sRGB has really sort of become the default color space of the real world. In actual practice, it is what is "expected" many times, and it works quite well. Shoot in sRGB, edit in it, output in it, upload to the web in it, print images from sRGB files...it all ties together as a real-world color space that actually works for millions and millions of people on hundreds of millions of different devices.

I've heard all the puffery about editing ONLY using uber wide-gamut spaces....yah,yeah, yeah...and I ought to listen to ALLLLLLL of my music on vinyl pressings with a $2,000 turntable through reference grade headphones OR using $5,000 a pop speakers with $500 per foot speaker wire....yeah,yah, yeah...no...I listen to most of my music in MP3 format on a computer, on my phone. I do not see a lot of advantage for the average person to messing around with ultra-wide gamut color spaces when they are going to be e-mailing the files or e-mail a gallery URL to friends and family who will view the shots over the internet.

If a person needs to ASK what advantages Adobe RGB offers, I don't think there's much better an answer than "none", and "Shoot and output in sRGB. Make your life easier...go sRGB all the way."

 

[Overread13 1]

Ok guys take it to a literacy forum or something and get back to colourspaces.

 

[ann]

In actual practice in my world. I can see the difference in my prints, and sometimes I like the difference sometime I don't.

However, I also use a calibrated monitor and a printer with paper profiles to match the monitor.

So the easiest for me is to shoot in adobe RGB, and change when printing when needed.

I really don't think there is ALWAYS , ONLY ONE WAY to do things. Folks need to experiment with the advice given and determine which fits their vision (IMHO)

 

[manaheim]

stick with sRGB.
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

stick with sRGB.
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

So,so not what "photo forum experts" will tell you, and yet so, so accurate are true in the actual, real world.

I totally get where Derrel and W.F. are coming from here, but I think it's oversimplifying a bit.

AdobeRGB gives you a broader gamut of colors than sRGB. That means that you have more color information, and where and when your display medium can handle it, you will get better results. For most monitors this doesn't matter, as most monitors do not come even close to AdobeRGB... though mine do... and they're only about $450 each... so, with time that may change.

The trick if you choose to shoot in AdobeRGB is you must simply remember to convert to sRGB before putting an image up for display on the web, or the colors will look wonky for most people. This is a simple 1-step operation on most graphic editing programs.

If you shoot only in sRGB then you are deliberately accepting a lower quality result. I am NEVER an advocate of this unless the higher quality result is more complicated, such as the case with RAW images. This is really not more complicated. It's about the easiest thing you'll have to deal with in the digital photography space. They key is simple awareness.

Much more detail for you here:
https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

 

[keyseddie]

I totally get where Derrel and W.F. are coming from here, but I think it's oversimplifying a bit.

AdobeRGB gives you a broader gamut of colors than sRGB. That means that you have more color information, and where and when your display medium can handle it, you will get better results. For most monitors this doesn't matter, as most monitors do not come even close to AdobeRGB... though mine do... and they're only about $450 each... so, with time that may change.

The trick if you choose to shoot in AdobeRGB is you must simply remember to convert to sRGB before putting an image up for display on the web, or the colors will look wonky for most people. This is a simple 1-step operation on most graphic editing programs.

If you shoot only in sRGB then you are deliberately accepting a lower quality result. I am NEVER an advocate of this unless the higher quality result is more complicated, such as the case with RAW images. This is really not more complicated. It's about the easiest thing you'll have to deal with in the digital photography space. They key is simple awareness.

Much more detail for you here:
https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

I don't know what happened to the quote thingie here:scratch: [from manaheim- fixed it for you]

What he said. I have been using adobe since forever for those reasons, except I never convert to s for the web and never had a complaint. I make my own prints, on various hahnehmule papers on a canon printer and two epson printers. I have bay photo print my large metal prints. I mostly view on a 27" iMac. My prints, unless I made a mistake or am experimenting, are ALWAYS perfect.

 

[julianliu]

I totally get where Derrel and W.F. are coming from here, but I think it's oversimplifying a bit. AdobeRGB gives you a broader gamut of colors than sRGB. That means that you have more color information, and where and when your display medium can handle it, you will get better results. For most monitors this doesn't matter, as most monitors do not come even close to AdobeRGB... though mine do... and they're only about $450 each... so, with time that may change. The trick if you choose to shoot in AdobeRGB is you must simply remember to convert to sRGB before putting an image up for display on the web, or the colors will look wonky for most people. This is a simple 1-step operation on most graphic editing programs. If you shoot only in sRGB then you are deliberately accepting a lower quality result. I am NEVER an advocate of this unless the higher quality result is more complicated, such as the case with RAW images. This is really not more complicated. It's about the easiest thing you'll have to deal with in the digital photography space. They key is simple awareness. Much more detail for you here: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

what do you use your image for that you think Abode RGB is crucially needed ?

I heard Adobe RGB has wider gamut, but I do doubt that means it's better and it's for everyone. For that I kindly disagree with what you said " If you shoot only in sRGB then you are deliberately accepting a lower quality result."

 

[runnah]

I always shoot in Adobe, but convert to SRGB.

 

[julianliu]

I don't know what happened to the quote thingie here:scratch: [from manaheim- fixed it for you] What he said. I have been using adobe since forever for those reasons, except I never convert to s for the web and never had a complaint. I make my own prints, on various hahnehmule papers on a canon printer and two epson printers. I have bay photo print my large metal prints. I mostly view on a 27" iMac. My prints, unless I made a mistake or am experimenting, are ALWAYS perfect.

My friends complained once I gave them some images I edit in Adobe RGB and forgot to convert to sRGB.
Did you deliberately examine the difference of converting to sRGB or not ?

By the way your iMac though looks fabulous only display sRGB.

 

[JacaRanda]

The last post in this thread https://forums.adobe.com/message/5213695 states that newer IMAC monitors exceed the sRGB gamut.

 

[keyseddie]

I don't know what happened to the quote thingie here:scratch: [from manaheim- fixed it for you] What he said. I have been using adobe since forever for those reasons, except I never convert to s for the web and never had a complaint. I make my own prints, on various hahnehmule papers on a canon printer and two epson printers. I have bay photo print my large metal prints. I mostly view on a 27" iMac. My prints, unless I made a mistake or am experimenting, are ALWAYS perfect.

My friends complained once I gave them some images I edit in Adobe RGB and forgot to convert to sRGB.
Did you deliberately examine the difference of converting to sRGB or not ?

By the way your iMac though looks fabulous only display sRGB.

I examined it years ago, yes. I don't care what my friends say about my work. I don't care what other photographers say about my work. I care about the people's opinions who buy my work. I'm unclear about the meaning of your last sentence. My sale-able images look fabulous on my screen, your screen, and the homes and businesses in which they reside.

What I think you're doing is fretting over a minor issue. Pick an area where you think you need improvement and work on that. Figure out color space another day.

 

[W.Fovall]

How many of the people that say they use adobe rgb actually have a adobe rgb capable calibrated monitor and printer?