[jdg]

What color space do you set in your camera's? And which is the best to use sRGB or adobe RGB?

[Gadget_Guy]

I too would like to hear what people use/prefer and why.

D.

[egordon99]

1)Colorspace has NO affect if you are shooting RAW
2)If you are asking this question, stick with sRGB
2b)If you know WHY you need aRGB, then you can use it, but ONLY if you know EXACTLY why.

Clear as mud?

[Gooshin]

in a nutshell it is to preserve colour accuracy between what the camera does, what you see on the screen when you "develop", and what your printer spits out as the final product.

[MJB DIGITAL]

some printing sources require sRGB and some others have the capability to print adobeRGB files.

aRGB has a more broad color gamut, so I here. I just listen to my printmaker. I'm lucky enough to have found a local small privately owned one man printing operation. If I ever send sRGB he calls me and says 'mitch, ya know aRGB has a wider color gamut, I can get much more color out of aRGB and you sent me sRGB....' every time. 8) at least he takes care of me.....

so thats that.
just check with your print source before you start shooting. if you can print aRGB files, go ahead and shoot aRGB...I hear they have a broader color gamut. 8)

[drabina]

I have a very basic understanding of color spaces but would like to add that if you set your camera to aRGB and your print shop (or your printer) also supports aRGB, then your monitor should also be set to aRGB. This way you have an unified work environment. Here is a link to wikipedia article about color space.

[Oceanic]

I did a quick test shot in a bulb only lit room with flash, srgb looked right and argb took the colors way light to where green looked yellowish and pink was too white.

[flyer]

I did a quick test shot in a bulb only lit room with flash, srgb looked right and argb took the colors way light to where green looked yellowish and pink was too white.

That is because your computer screen is sRGB. It wont show you the full color gamut ofaRGB unless it is recalibrated. But, then , it wouldn't match your printer. Adobe RGB is used mainly for professional use like printing wher the expanded gamut is really needed to offset the loss you get in the printing process.

[mattdm]

I have a very basic understanding of color spaces but would like to add that if you set your camera to aRGB and your print shop (or your printer) also supports aRGB, then your monitor should also be set to aRGB. This way you have an unified work environment. Here is a link to wikipedia article about color space.

So, to add to egordon99's "2b", unless you paid a lot of money for a high-gamut LCD monitor of quite recent vintage, your monitor can't show all the colors in aRGB mode. That doesn't mean you can't use it, but you'll have to color-correct by number and chart, not by looking — for that, you'll need to make test prints.

Calibrating your monitor for aRGB will help but isn't sufficient, since it's physically impossible for most current monitors to show the full gamut. If your monitor does support all of aRGB it will be very clear in the marketing materials and documentation (and probably price). I'd like to do aRGB or another wide-gamut colorspace, but I just can't afford it. So, sRGB for me.

[christinelandon]

I shoot in the Adobe1998 ("aRGB") color space, and have my monitors and printers profiled to that color space. (I use the Spider2/PrintFix Pro suite from Datacolor/Pantone for keeping things consistent between two Macs and a pair of Epson photo printers.) If an outside lab calls for sRGB for prints larger than 13"x19", I'll get specs, convert accordingly, and ask for proof prints before spending the money for the bigger prints I'm ordering.

[mattdm]

I'm kind of surprised Sony isn't pushing xvYCC ("xv color") for its digital cameras. This is starting to be a big thing in consumer electronics (TVs and whatnot) and while it's not perfect would be a big step up from sRGB when combined with larger bit depth ("Deep Color" in TV-market-speak).

[Matjazz]

I'm using sRGB or whatever local print shop requires (usually printers own profile). As far as "better color profiles" go, mind that images have 8 bits per channel regardless of color profile so aRGB is not any richer just differently mapped.

[Geekybiker]

I'm using sRGB or whatever local print shop requires (usually printers own profile). As far as "better color profiles" go, mind that images have 8 bits per channel regardless of color profile so aRGB is not any richer just differently mapped.

Imagine color space as a balloon. You have 256 marks along the outside of the balloon in 3 axises. You put a little air into it. This is sRGB. Put a little more are in and its aRGB. A little more air yet and its Pro Photo RGB. Sure its still 8 bit, but the marks are further apart with each little bit of air and the color space gets larger.

[twinda1]

1)Colorspace has NO affect if you are shooting RAW
2)If you are asking this question, stick with sRGB
2b)If you know WHY you need aRGB, then you can use it, but ONLY if you know EXACTLY why.

Clear as mud?

I agree completely. Setting up a color managed workflow takes time and money. And if you don't understand the process, you'll likely end up publishing a photo on the web that looks washed out to 95% of internet users.

In a nutshell, Adobe RGB can handle a wider range ("gamut") of colors, but unless your entire worfkflow (and this includes your video card, monitor, operating system, photo editor, printer, photo lab, and intended audience in the case of web viewing) is aware of the wider gamut, the end result will be worse color accuracy.

[benjikan]

That is because your computer screen is sRGB. It wont show you the full color gamut ofaRGB unless it is recalibrated. But, then , it wouldn't match your printer. Adobe RGB is used mainly for professional use like printing wher the expanded gamut is really needed to offset the loss you get in the printing process.

Exactly why I never use sRGB and only Adobe RGB 1998. A much wider colour gamut. It is what is demanded by the magazines and in TIFF or PSD format.

Ben