What's the advantage of Adobe RGB for me?

[tirediron]

Ken can be a great resource, but the problem with his stuff, IMO, is that since he's paid to push certain things, not all of his information is published from a neutral viewpoint. Certain lenses, accessories and retailers (who I assume pay for the privilege) get pushed a LOT more than others, and if for instance, Adobe was a supporter (I have no idea if they are), I would expect his articles to contain a very strong and favorable slant for Adobe products over others.

 

[tirediron]

its hard to type and drive..

I REALLY hope that's said tongue-in-cheek!

 

[W.Fovall]

its hard to type and drive..

I REALLY hope that's said tongue-in-cheek!

its type as fast as possible before the light turns green

 

[julianliu]

Ken can be a great resource, but the problem with his stuff, IMO, is that since he's paid to push certain things, not all of his information is published from a neutral viewpoint. Certain lenses, accessories and retailers (who I assume pay for the privilege) get pushed a LOT more than others, and if for instance, Adobe was a supporter (I have no idea if they are), I would expect his articles to contain a very strong and favorable slant for Adobe products over others.

I used to read a lot of Ken's stuff but gradually I found is not credible as I would think it it.
I started shooting sRGB, then switch to Adobe RGB. And I am thinking changing back to sRGB now based on what I read here and my experience.

Fun point, I have a co-worker, whose name is also Rockwell. My co-worker had no idea how they are connected, but Ken added my co-worker as cousins on Facebook.

 

[Derrel]

julianliu, I would suggest that you try this: take some images shot, edited, and processed to any of the large, printing out machines that are installed all across the USA. Order, or make some self-service prints on the FujiFilm machines. See what sRGB workflow actually looks like. Upload some images to your web storage space, then go look at them on a library computer, or a friend's computer, or on the various mobile devices of friends. You will likely find that sRGB images look pretty good.

There is the world of theory, and of widest-possible gamut; there is the idea of working in a color space that is sooooooo wide that nobody has a device that can handle it, yet, or at a wide level of actual, real-world existence. Then there is the world of the web and mobile devices, and the world of actual printing out machines. Using wide-gamut spaces really doesn't ensure much, except that there's a chance that your images will be edited in a way that is very different from how they will ACTUALLY be printed, or seen, by many other people.

If you have a closed-loop system, meaning your computer, to your lab, to finished prints, then you can use whatever color space you want, and the necessary routines to ensure that what you see transfers to a finished print from a specific lab, printed with a specific machine, with specific pigments, on a single,specific type of paper, with a specific color profile that has been exhaustively tested and refined. If on the other hand, you want to just "release your images into the world of the 21st century on the 'net ", sRGB is your friend. I think that's what ken Rockwell was trying to point out; there are the highly technically obsessed individuals working in small, tightly-wrapped loops, and then there are people shooting for wide-audience use and wide-audience viewing. Interent forums seem to have a mixture of people who feel that their one-man loops are the "true ways".

I used to shoot Adobe RGB, Color Mode II. I gave that up two yeas ago, and life is easier.

 

[Ysarex]

.... sRGB is your friend.....

:thumbup:

Yes. Unless you're making your own prints using a state-of-the-art inkjet printer or your commercial printer has specifically requested AdobeRGB, then sRGB is the correct color space for your finished photos.

Joe

 

[mmaria]

will someone tell me why my post is deleted from this thread? ...it was on the first page, nothing special, just a sentence or two... I don't get it

eta: I got the answer

 

[julianliu]

julianliu, I would suggest that you try this: take some images shot, edited, and processed to any of the large, printing out machines that are installed all across the USA. Order, or make some self-service prints on the FujiFilm machines. See what sRGB workflow actually looks like. Upload some images to your web storage space, then go look at them on a library computer, or a friend's computer, or on the various mobile devices of friends. You will likely find that sRGB images look pretty good.

There is the world of theory, and of widest-possible gamut; there is the idea of working in a color space that is sooooooo wide that nobody has a device that can handle it, yet, or at a wide level of actual, real-world existence. Then there is the world of the web and mobile devices, and the world of actual printing out machines. Using wide-gamut spaces really doesn't ensure much, except that there's a chance that your images will be edited in a way that is very different from how they will ACTUALLY be printed, or seen, by many other people.

If you have a closed-loop system, meaning your computer, to your lab, to finished prints, then you can use whatever color space you want, and the necessary routines to ensure that what you see transfers to a finished print from a specific lab, printed with a specific machine, with specific pigments, on a single,specific type of paper, with a specific color profile that has been exhaustively tested and refined. If on the other hand, you want to just "release your images into the world of the 21st century on the 'net ", sRGB is your friend. I think that's what ken Rockwell was trying to point out; there are the highly technically obsessed individuals working in small, tightly-wrapped loops, and then there are people shooting for wide-audience use and wide-audience viewing. Interent forums seem to have a mixture of people who feel that their one-man loops are the "true ways".

I used to shoot Adobe RGB, Color Mode II. I gave that up two yeas ago, and life is easier.

Derrel, I will test what difference these two gamut make whenever it's convenient. But for now I will use sRGB. That's my conclusion from this post.

 

[julianliu]

will someone tell me why my post is deleted from this thread? ...it was on the first page, nothing special, just a sentence or two... I don't get it

eta: I got the answer

I am curious about what you said.

 

[manaheim]

julianliu, I would suggest that you try this: take some images shot, edited, and processed to any of the large, printing out machines that are installed all across the USA. Order, or make some self-service prints on the FujiFilm machines. See what sRGB workflow actually looks like. Upload some images to your web storage space, then go look at them on a library computer, or a friend's computer, or on the various mobile devices of friends. You will likely find that sRGB images look pretty good.

There is the world of theory, and of widest-possible gamut; there is the idea of working in a color space that is sooooooo wide that nobody has a device that can handle it, yet, or at a wide level of actual, real-world existence. Then there is the world of the web and mobile devices, and the world of actual printing out machines. Using wide-gamut spaces really doesn't ensure much, except that there's a chance that your images will be edited in a way that is very different from how they will ACTUALLY be printed, or seen, by many other people.

If you have a closed-loop system, meaning your computer, to your lab, to finished prints, then you can use whatever color space you want, and the necessary routines to ensure that what you see transfers to a finished print from a specific lab, printed with a specific machine, with specific pigments, on a single,specific type of paper, with a specific color profile that has been exhaustively tested and refined. If on the other hand, you want to just "release your images into the world of the 21st century on the 'net ", sRGB is your friend. I think that's what ken Rockwell was trying to point out; there are the highly technically obsessed individuals working in small, tightly-wrapped loops, and then there are people shooting for wide-audience use and wide-audience viewing. Interent forums seem to have a mixture of people who feel that their one-man loops are the "true ways".

I used to shoot Adobe RGB, Color Mode II. I gave that up two yeas ago, and life is easier.

It's entirely possible that the people working in the larger color gamut can actually tell a difference when you cannot.

Two of my screens show something like 99% Adobe RGB. I have a third screen that does not, and the difference is amazing. And when I compare prints to both types of screens it's obvious that the Adobe color gamut has an effect. And that's printing with three different print houses.