Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim The color space used has nothing to do with the monitor or video card used. Certainly a monitor that is capable of exhibiting close to full aRGB will be easier to nail color balance, but using a calibrated sRGB monitor will allow you to get more out of aRGB - especially if you willing to do a test print or two.
If anything, the better at-home photo dedicated printers available for the past 10 years or so will do far better at extracting full gamut than the mass printers - which are almost all based on sRGB output. Of course, if the outside printer handles ICMs, that's a different matter.
There is no difference when printing 8-bit or 16-bit images; how the image has been manipulated to get to final image is the key question - and this is where 16-bit is far less destructive. For a fuller range of 16-bit image handling, superior alternatives to Adobe converter and finishing programs do exist.
Scooter there is not much point in editing in AdobeRGB if your monitor can't display the full gamut of AdobeRGB. There is also not much point in printing on a full gamut printer when you cannot see the full gammut on the monitor. The weakest point (usually the monitor/video card) will determine the final colour space.
My point was if you only take photos for displaying on a screen or for home printing then stick to sRGB for colourspace continuity, if you are more serious then buy a full gamut monitor and video card and printer then work with AdobeRGB or higher if you need that level of gamut.
16 bit colour will help reduce banding while processing, but of course if the image is saved as a jpg it is only at 8 bit.
I find ACR does a great job of creating my workflow and I have no doubt there are better programs out there for 16 and even 32 bit processing but I find Adobe works very well for what I want and probably for the vast majority of photographers.
I agree calibrating the monitor (and printer if you can afford the printer calibrator) is essential.