# Adobe RGB or sRGB please?



## 360_6pack (Sep 25, 2012)

I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 25, 2012)

Pretty much everything is gear towards srgb, printers at labs like mpix,miller labs, monitors, etc. Save some headaches and shoot srgb.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2012)

If you print at a commercial lab, ask them. Else, just use sRGB.


----------



## curtisnull (Sep 25, 2012)

The Adobe RGB colorspace contains way more color than sRGB. Most printers (Labs) print in sRGB. Shoot in Adobe RGB then dumb it down to sRGB yourself if you need to for printing. sRGB is a very old colorspace developed many many years ago by Microsoft. Adobe RGB is a much more modern, up to date colorspace.


----------



## shining example (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm currently doing a course on colour management for digital photography, and the instructor told us to always shoot Adobe RGB.

As I understand it, the reason is that because the Adobe RGB colour space is larger than sRGB, you will have more colours to work with in post, even if you then convert your final output to sRGB.

Or what curtisnull said while I was obviously typing too slowly...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2012)

Adobe RGB has a wider Gamet, which means it can show more colors. However, you then need a monitor that can show Adobe RGB and a printer that can print it.
Thats why most except for the really tech savy use SRGB. I've used Adobe RGB, my Epson 3880 can print a wider gamet, but truthfully, SRGB is a lot less headache.
Also note, when you set your camera to Adobe RGB, the first digit of the file name will be a dash. This causes lots of people consternation that have changed the setting without really knowing what they were doing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2012)

curtisnull said:


> Shoot in Adobe RGB then dumb it down to sRGB yourself if you need to for printing.



Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB _matters_, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG. If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> However, you then need a monitor that can show Adobe RGB and a printer that can print it.



Exactly - if you're sending it to a lab that prints with Adobe RGB, then you need a monitor that has that same wider gamut. Perhaps 'need' is too strong - if you've got a lot of experience working with images on a stardard monitor and the corresponding Adobe RGB output, it can be done, much like working in CMYK on an RGB display. But if you lack that experience, you may tweak an image to look fine to you, only to have it look funky if you share that image with others.


----------



## Jamesy (Sep 25, 2012)

Like Neuro said. Shoot RAW and color space is irrelevant. Most printers who do 'C' prints understand RGB. If you send them an Adobe RGB or Pro Photo image it will look really bizarre. Higher end print shops will share their printer profiles with you but save yourself the hassle and go sRGB.


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 25, 2012)

I have heard, Print yourself shoot Adobe, print at a lab shoot sRGB.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 25, 2012)

I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more. stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.


----------



## 360_6pack (Sep 25, 2012)

Thanks for the responses. I am using a computer running Win Pro 7 and a Canon Ink jet or Fuji colour laser printer. So if I understand the advice it won't matter for my local printing but will probably matter to a lab. All my photos to date have been sRGB. Would I notice a big difference changing to Adobe RGB. If so would it be just when printing or on my computer monitor as well.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2012)

360_6pack said:


> I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.



LR room basically uses ProphotoRGB internally (even larger than AdobeRGB). In ACR and PS, which are a bit different than LR, I set them to ProphotoRGB 16bits. If you ever get a wide gamut monitor, the sRGB files will have clipped away colors in some photos (mostly stuff like: fall foliage, sunsets, intense tropical waters, glow in the dark clothes colors, many flowers, anything with really deeply saturated reds, oranges, yellows, deep blues, purples, turquoise). I would save a prophotorgb output from LR for any files that could make use of it. If you want, you can also save an sRGB version for easy use with anything without any color-management issues.

FOr in cam jpgs, you are cooked in, so for stuff like fall foliage and sunsets and flowers I'd use AdobeRGB since if you shoot sRGB you'll never have a way to get the colors back (for RAW shots it doesn't matter what the camera is set to) although for shots without any dramatic saturated things I'd shoot sRGB since AdobeRGB would just waste bits and perhaps sRGB might make some tonal transitions a trace smoother.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2012)

curtisnull said:


> The Adobe RGB colorspace contains way more color than sRGB. Most printers (Labs) print in sRGB. Shoot in Adobe RGB then dumb it down to sRGB yourself if you need to for printing. sRGB is a very old colorspace developed many many years ago by Microsoft. Adobe RGB is a much more modern, up to date colorspace.



Keep in mind that if you print yourself though, then you can take advantage of more than sRGB and surely you can if you view on wide gamut monitors (which are slowly becoming more popular, and the upcoming OLED stuff is natively all somewhat more wide gamut and we are also moving to 4k monitors). Most ink jets can print lots of colors outside of sRGB, although it's true that at the same time there are a lot of sRGB colors, never mind others, that they can't print. (and a few commercial labs also accept and make use of wider gamuts)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more. stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.



It's actually a fallacy that Adobe vs sRGB is only about the greens. People base that on a single 2D slice of the 3D gamuts and all they see is a giant chunk of green added.

Crazy saturated intense greens are actually somewhat rarer to come across in nature so it's actually reds, purples, oranges, yellows that are where you'd see the most difference between say ProphotoRGB and sRGB viewing on a wide gamut monitor. Try to make a deep red rose or deep purple petunia look realistic in sRGB and it just can't be done, same for many flowers, use prophotorgb and a wide gamut monitor and suddenly they look vastly more like real life. Shoot a sunset and in sRGB some bright saturated cloud bands disappear but pop back right out at you on a wide gamut.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 25, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more. stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.
> ...



I have noticed the differences mentioned for the colors highlighted and in deep blues being more realistic and more accurately portrayed.


----------



## unadog (Sep 25, 2012)

I shoot RAW + JPEG.

JPEGs shot for the web get the sRGB color space. JPEGs shot for anything else get AdobeRGB. You can convert to sRGB later.

You can alsways convert to a smaller space easily. If you try to go to a larger space, like sRGB->AdobeRGB, you are missing data and will have "combing."

If you want to see what the image could look like on a printer, etc, on your camera LCD, set it to AdobeRGB. Set your Profile to "Neutral" or "Faithful."

Lately I have been shooting with the Prolost settings. Go to Prolost.com

I used to shoot with the Marvel Cine Profile.

Good luck!
Michael


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

360_6pack said:


> I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.


Srgb for 99% of everything. A-RGB for special prints.


----------



## RuneL (Sep 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 360_6pack said:
> 
> 
> > I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.
> ...



This. Unless otherwise requested.


----------



## chito (Sep 25, 2012)

That's got me thinking...

Is the LCD on the back of the 5D Mark III "wide gamut"? Or does it show just the sRGB color space?


----------



## risc32 (Sep 25, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more. stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.
> ...



No, it's not. Look at the 3d colorspace map and then look at a CIE chart and understand it. Besides, i never said it was ALL about the green, just that green shows the most improvement, and that any green improvement would be the most noticeable anyway because the human eye is far and away most sensitive to green. It's theorized that it'd due to us looking at, and hiding in foliage from predators since the dawn of man. But that is another topic all together. This is one of those simple matters that can be solved with 5 dollars worth of prints, but nobody wants to do it. Also, could you do me a solid and stop posting 3-4 times in a row.


----------



## Martin (Sep 25, 2012)

shining example said:


> I'm currently doing a course on colour management for digital photography, and the instructor told us to always shoot Adobe RGB.
> 
> As I understand it, the reason is that because the Adobe RGB colour space is larger than sRGB, you will have more colours to work with in post, even if you then convert your final output to sRGB.
> 
> Or what curtisnull said while I was obviously typing too slowly...



As far as I am concerned It doesn't matter which colour space you choose* in camera* while shooting RAW, as RAW has no colour space embedded-It uses full spectrum of the sensor. You then have to choose what colour space will be used for editing. It does matter while shooting JPGs, of course in theory due to the fact that no one is editing jpg's in professional world. Of course AdobeRGB is largest space and it is good for editing, however it depends what monitor you work with. CMYK is the smallest and final print space, but working in AdobeRGB gives you a kind of margin when editing and while having a wide gamut screen you will be able to see more colour tones in specific areas. I suggest one should read a "Real world color management 2 Edition" - imho it's the best and most comprehensive book on the market concerning the colour topic. Highly recommended


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2012)

risc32 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



You forget that the greens that it adds are hyper bright saturated greens for much of the additional chunk of the space and that your average natural scene doesn't have much of that. Shoot some glow in the dark green clothes and crayons or some deep green emerald-colored minerals and yeah but that stuff is not nearly so common as flower, sunset/sunrise, fall foliage,bright red clothing,evening lighting shots etc. I've compared tons of images and it's not the green where you see the most difference by any means.

Yes we are more sensitive to green in the way you mention but that is irrelevant to this.

Take some shots of some red roses, some deep purple petunias, some sunsets and view on a wide gamut monitor and flip between sRGB an ProphotoRGB and tell me you don't see a noticeable difference and one far larger than you see the greens change in most shots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> curtisnull said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot in Adobe RGB then dumb it down to sRGB yourself if you need to for printing.
> ...


You are right, I set mine to Adobe RGB but use raw, so it really made no difference. I use Lightroom 4 which has a prophoto gamut that is even wider.
I can do a soft proofing to my printer / paper profile and bring the colors into gamut as required.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB _matters_, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG. If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.
> ...



You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...). I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings _do_ matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms. So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I received my $2750 5D MK III from Adorama yesterday, but haven't bothered changing the gamut setting and likely won't. I've not yet setup custom file naming either. I want to get at least some of my lenses AFMA'd for a shoot coming up Saturday, but time seems hard to find.


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...). I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings _do_ matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms. So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter.
> 
> I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?



I think you just made a really good argument for leaving the camera set to sRGB. It's the smaller color space so if you don't see any clipping in the tiny, questionably precise histogram in sRGB, you damn well won't have any clipping in the image when processing the RAW file.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That is why many set AdobeRGB and lowered contrast and slightly lowered saturation in neutral profile when shooting RAW to make the jpg histogram a bit closer to RAW while still making the the image look somewhat normal and not crazy flat and hard to judge.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 27, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...). I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings _do_ matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms. So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter.
> ...



Nah it just means you crippled RAW even more than you had to (although if all you ever care about is final sRGB output I suppose not).


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 27, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I think you just made a really good argument for leaving the camera set to sRGB. It's the smaller color space so if you don't see any clipping in the tiny, questionably precise histogram in sRGB, you damn well won't have any clipping in the image when processing the RAW file.
> ...



I don't see how this would cripple the RAW output. The setting only affects the preview, so at worst you take a picture, look at the sRGB based histogram and decide the exposure was good, when it might have been possible to push the exposure a little bit more. 

Now look at the converse situation. You set the camera to AdobeRGB, take a picture, look at the histogram and see that it is at the very limit of the cameras dynamic range...any more exposure and you would have clipping. Now you import the RAW and when output to sRGB find that there is clipping.

Honestly, the margin we're talking about (if not imagined) must be tiny.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I do not notice any difference in the preview for any color difference. I have a Pacific Blue Tang in my saltwater tank and when I take shots of it with sRGB the color is awful off it looks purplish not blue. With AdobeRGB it blue. The tang still shows up purplish in the preview. Clipping is a good question though.


----------



## 360_6pack (Sep 28, 2012)

Thank you all for your feedback. I think I shall continue to shoot raw and Ljpeg but with adobeRGB set to take advantage of the larger colour range if I want to show a photo immediately to friends on my laptop.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 28, 2012)

360_6pack said:


> Thank you all for your feedback. I think I shall continue to shoot raw and Ljpeg but with adobeRGB set to take advantage of the larger colour range if I want to show a photo immediately to friends on my laptop.



99% of any monitor made today cannot display the extra color range of ARGB. Infact, some web browsers may show your colors dull because of this.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 29, 2012)

360_6pack said:


> Thank you all for your feedback. I think I shall continue to shoot raw and Ljpeg but with adobeRGB set to take advantage of the larger colour range if I want to show a photo immediately to friends on my laptop.


I think you may have misunderstood how raw works, it can be converted to adobe or srgb in digital photo from canon. Honestly your jpegs will look aweful when shooting adobe color space. 

You can get both by shooting raw and jpeg in srgb. Then output the individual raw files to 16 bit tiff after you have changed your color space in your raw converter.

When you shoot raw all of your data is preserved and you can change back and forth to different color spaces.


----------



## koolkurkle (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I shoot RAW and use UniWB. Adobe RGB is important for those who use UniWB because sRGB shows inaccurate highlight clipping. For anything you could ever want to know about the histogram on the back of your camera, go to http://www.rawdigger.com/houtouse/beware-histogram

This quote below from the above link is what got me interested in UniWB, which is also explained by the article. (Minor thread hijack to follow...)

*"In standard (i.e. corresponding to the shooting conditions) white balance settings, the camera histogram and the camera overexposure indicator cannot be used to control overexposure."
*
For anyone who wants to skip the "why" and just try UniWB (like ETTR, but better), here is the quick and dirty. I don't claim to be a UniWB expert, and there are different ways to go about the process, but I have had excellent results with the following technique. (This only works for RAW shooting)

1. Cover the eyepiece and take a picture with lens cap on (I know what you're thinking) at the fastest shutter and smallest aperture.
2. Set your custom white balance to the picture you took in "1."
3. In picture style, set maximum saturation and max contrast
4. Set colorspace to Adobe RGB

Increase exposure compensation until you get blinking highlights, then backoff a third of a stop. The previews on the camera LCD will have a green cast and look terrible. Process in ACR and use Auto WB to get in the ballpark. YMMV, but I am a happy convert.


----------



## EvaCasado (Oct 1, 2012)

Always work with AdobeRGB the gamut is wider than in sRGB,* if your lab ask for sRGB files change your lab hehe*. sRGB is for internet JPG´s in order to achieve the same result on different screen setups.


----------



## Sitting Elf (Oct 5, 2012)

360_6pack said:


> Thank you all for your feedback. I think I shall continue to shoot raw and Ljpeg but with adobeRGB set to take advantage of the larger colour range if I want to show a photo immediately to friends on my laptop.



If that is the primary use of your photos, then sRGB is the answer. The time-honored rule is that if your photos are primarily for display via the web or on a computer, then sRGB is the most that a computer display can present via the web.

However, if you are planning to print high-end, then shoot raw in AdobeRGB which gives you the option to convert later when printing yourself or working with a professional lab that has printers that can print the entire color gamut of aRGB.


----------



## koolkurkle (Oct 6, 2012)

"However, if you are planning to print high-end, then shoot raw in AdobeRGB which gives you the option to convert later when printing yourself or working with a professional lab that has printers that can print the entire color gamut of aRGB."

Incorrect with regards to RAW. *You can set any white balance, and use either sRGB or AdobeRGB and there is no effect on the RAW file.* If you shoot Jpeg, you can select AdobeRGB instead of sRGB, but I don't know why anyone would do this instead of just shooting RAW and developing to AdobeRGB. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is one good reason to select AdobeRGB; to make the histogram more useful for determining correct exposure.


----------



## SPL (Oct 30, 2012)

*AdobeRGB VS sRGB*

Hey everyone!,

I hope I’m not bringing up an old post/topic (I think I am..) but would like some opinions and advice. I was recently viewing an online instruction video and the instructor strongly advised the importance of setting your camera to the AdobeRGB setting as this was better than the factory setting of sRGB. I have read that this isn’t very important and can actually cause some difficulties with labs attempting to process prints. So,…what do people generally use?,…I am an amateur/hobbyist,…I usually shoot RAW with a 7D & 5D III. Any thoughts? 

Thanks!


----------



## unadog (Oct 30, 2012)

*Re: AdobeRGB VS sRGB*

Three things really

1) You always want to use sRGB for any images that go to the web, or they won't display very well. They will look flat - low saturation - and lower contrast/gamma.

2) You usually want to use AdobeRGB for printing. That is a "larger" color space that most printing equipment - like Epson photo printers - can make use of. Some of the less sophisticated labs will ask for images in sRGB, but you are better off finding a lab that can handle AdobeRGB.

3) I usually shoot RAW+JPG. When I am going to use the JPG directly on the web, I will shoot with sRGB and appropriate settings. When I am going to process the images in Lightroom, etc., I use AdobeRGB and set Saturation, Contrast, and Sharpening to low, so that the LCD reflects what I will be able to "pull out of" my RAW. The immediate representation in Lightroom (based on the camera settings) will also be much closer to my final image.


So, basically, you can either adjust your camera so that a) The LCD reflects the wider range that you can get from RAW, or b) The JPG straight out of camera looks the way you want it to, for minimal processing prior to posting online (or sending to print, with adobeRGB, etc.)


This is a quick overview, obviously there are lots of details around each area/point.

Good luck!
Michael


----------



## Zv (Oct 30, 2012)

*Re: AdobeRGB VS sRGB*

If you shoot RAW the camera's color space doesn't matter but if you shoot jpeg keep it in sRGB just to be safe and avoid all complications later on. I hope one day technology will be synchronous and AdobeRGB will be the standard (or something else that offers a wider gamut) on every screen and printer but until then we will just have to make the best of sRGB!


----------



## derek (Mar 10, 2013)

This thread comes up fairly high on the subject in the Google rankings (I was actually looking for something else), but there seems to be a lot of confusion.

*SHOOTING*

*Quick Summary of Camera Settings*

sRGB : Use for Digital display medium such as monitors, phone screens, tablets, web publishing, embedding into video games, etc. (probably 90% of what people do with their photos these days). 

AdobeRGB : High-end printing. Requires the proper print driver, print profile and a quality printer, or useful for sending the photo to a professional print shop.

JPEG : Embeds the color-space information. Set the camera up correctly (white balance, sharpness, presets like Portrait or Landscape, exposure, etc.) or suffer the consequences of ruined shots. Does not require further processing on the computer to develop a usable photo file. As a correlation, most additional processing may not be possible. 

RAW : Colorspace (and most camera settings) are ignored and stored as mere suggestions for further processing tools. Full control over every detail of the photo, requires time and dedication to process the "RAW" negative into a JPEG. Most mistakes (except ISO, shutterspeed, aperature) can be fixed.

*Colorspace*
When you set up your Canon for shooting, the first thing to think about is what you will be doing with these photos for the most part. If the photos are intended for presentation on the web, a tablet, your phone, setting the camera up for sRGB is correct. All this does is embeds metadata into the output to tell other software (web browsers, Lightroom, Photoshop, image viewers) how to correctly _represent_ the colors for a digital output medium. As an aside, most laptop displays these days can't even display 85% of the sRGB space and you will need to specifically shop for a high-end laptop to get up over 95%.

On the other hand, if the intended use for the photos will be mostly printing, choosing the AdobeRGB colorspace will set the output up for high-end printing. You will not be able to see these colors accurately on a monitor while working with them on a computer unless you shell out for a high-end graphics monitor, such as the NEC PA241W. 

*RAW vs JPEG vs Both*

Many Wedding and sporting event photographers choose JPEG for two reasons: the camera can capture them and write them to the memory card at much higher rates than their comparatively larger RAW siblings, and when the shoot is done they are much faster to publish, as JPEGs do not require further processing or conversion to look good. JPEG is also the right format for anyone who doesn't have the stamina or dedication it takes to process the RAW "negatives" to generate higher quality output. JPEGS are a good choice for the casual family photographer.

The caveat with JPEG is that you _must_ have your camera white balance set correctly at the time the shot is taken. Over- or under-exposing is fairly permanent in a JPEG (although brightness can be corrected to a degree, but it messes with the colors).

RAW is what I use because I want full control over the entire end-to-end processing of my shots. The settings for JPEG/output now only matter for how the photo is represented by the camera's display (and in thumbnails in some software). You can completely mess up the settings (Faithful vs. Neutral, overly sharp or too much color, etc.) and at the end of the day, it does not affect the RAW file. RAW files are literally RAW because it is a record of all of the raw data the image sensor captured. The camera settings used (like white balance) are also recorded, more as a courtesy, but these can all be changed later. RAW files must be further processed in a program such as Lightroom or Photoshop elements, on a computer that has a Canon RAW driver installed (which tells software how to read the RAW). You can shoot with a Florescent white balance on a sunny day and completely not worry about the mistake. (Shooting JPEG, that's a ruined photo). And you can change the colorspace from sRGB to AdobeRGB and back when working with RAW. The RAW isn't what gets displayed on the monitor or in the print output, it's the processing of the RAW that matters. 

A good reason to shoot RAW + JPEG (either consistently or periodically) is in this scenario: you don't want to necessarily spend the time processing the RAW negatives and just want to use the JPEGs shot by the camera. The RAW is there as a backup in case the shot is priceless and you want to do something different than what your camera was setup for.

For example, say you set up your camera for sRGB, Auto white balance, Portrait mode. In general you're taking pictures of your family picnic and most of the shots are of people, so the Portrait mode warms up the skin tones and softens the shot a little. The intended medium is Flickr, so sRGB is correct, otherwise web browsers will display the wrong colors to your fans. Around sunset, you notice amazing light and contrast near a waterfall and you snap off a few shots. But the Portrait mode wasn't a good choice for the images and you definitely want to get this one printed at a professional printing shop to put over the fireplace. Now, you have the option to process the RAW file in Lightroom, set up the colors, change the colorspace to AdobeRGB and send it off to the printer.

*Processing RAW for Display*

After you're happy with your RAW processing, when you export, choose sRGB for photos that someone is reviewing on their computer or publishing on the web. For example, maybe you're printing a quality photo album of your sister's wedding but before you blow through $400 in ink, you want her to choose from the digital portfolio. If you send her photos exported in the AdobeRGB space, she'll think you hate her. So, export the photos in sRGB. When you've selected the photos for print, export with AdobeRGB, set up the printing profile and print away.

*Displaying AdobeRGB accurately*

This is the subject of entire books. In a nutshell, you'll need about $1500 to purchase a high-end monitor like the NEC PA210W (I mention this one again because it is well regarded and there aren't too many options out there), which runs about $1000, and a color-correction device like the Colormunki, used to profile both the monitor and print output. The monitor must be calibrated for the light color of the intended viewing environment (eg. 4500K or whatever). The printer's output must match colors on the display almost exactly.

*Printing*

Keep in mind sRGB will print just fine for most general applications. Printer drivers expect people to be shoveling sRGB JPEGs into the printer, so they optimize the colors by usually increasing saturation (which makes detail-oriented people like me freak out; I photographed an asian friend whose skin hue was slightly in the orange spectrum. Their home printer made him look like he had a cheesy fake tan so I really had to dumb down the saturation in Lightroom to get the printer back to where it should have been).

High-end printing is just another matter altogether and takes weeks and months of dedication to learn. I'm still a novice in this particular area and it's a tough learning curve.

*SUMMARY*

I've provided a lot of detail here based on my experience and extensive reading on this stuff. If you're showing your work online in any medium that generates light (screens), sRGB is what you want. MOST people should be shooting in sRGB. It should be noted that the AdobeRGB colorspace can always be converted down to sRGB for display purposes, so it's not the end of the world.

The serious hobbyist, semi-pro and professional photographers who are printing for color accuracy, galleries, magazines, or quality display in the home will want to shoot RAW and post-process. When exporting, choose AdobeRGB and let the professional printshop know that they are setup for this. 

I hope this helps anyone looking to understand the colorspace setting of their Canon cameras better.


----------



## cocopop05 (Mar 10, 2013)

When I first got my 5D Mark III, I set it to Adobe RGB to get the larger colour palette, but noticed photos viewed on my display looked a little flat. Changed it to sRGB and now find editing my photos easier to get the colours I want. 

Though I wonder if Abode RGB would look better on a 10+ bit per colour display?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2013)

I'd like to thank everyone in this forum for such informative discussion and useful advice. Thank you Derek so much for that tutorial on RAW, jpegs, RGB and sRGB, which sums it all up. I hope you become a regular contributor to the forums as I for one and I am sure many more learned so much. 
Alan


----------



## Mr Bean (Mar 10, 2013)

AlanF said:


> I'd like to thank everyone in this forum for such informative discussion and useful advice. Thank you Derek so much for that tutorial on RAW, jpegs, RGB and sRGB, which sums it all up. I hope you become a regular contributor to the forums as I for one and I am sure many more learned so much.
> Alan


+100. I pick up so much info from these forums. This thread in particular. I hadn't really thought much about colour space, then Derek wanders into the scene


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 10, 2013)

I think the simplest answer is that, if you have to ask, you should use sRGB, but you should also take it upon yourself to learn why Adobe RGB has the potential to provide better results (but only if you do an awful lot of non-obvious stuff, because, if you don't, you'll get worse results).

Color Management is a very deep rabbit hole, indeed. Adobe RGB actually isn't a particularly good color space; it's just not as bad as sRGB while still being fairly ubiquitous and well-established. The best option for a general-purpose RGB color space these days is Beta RGB, but the big name raw developers don't support it.

Incidentally, the color management of the big name raw developers also sucks....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## eyeland (Mar 10, 2013)

derek said:


> In a nutshell, you'll need about $1500 to purchase a high-end monitor like the NEC PA210W (I mention this one again because it is well regarded and there aren't too many options out there), which runs about $1000, and a color-correction device like the Colormunki, used to profile both the monitor and print output.


I was wondering if the LCD of my w530 can be trusted when calibrated with the built in calibrator, or if the stated specs are "for show"?
"15.6" (396mm) FHD (1920x1080), anti-glare, LED backlight, 270 nits, 16:9 aspect ratio, 500:1 contrast ratio, 95% Gamutcolor, calibration sensor: huey™PRO Colorimeter by X-Rite® "


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm sure you're probably more confused now than when you first posted your question but I'll add my 2 cents to the pot.

Like another poster, I've taken Digital imaging and PS classes and the instructors (all graphic arts and newspaper people) always recommend setting the workspace to, you guessed it Adobe RGB because of the wider gamut. The reasons they give is similar to the advice they give for cropping and re sizing, etc: mainly this: You can always take away data but its harder to put back what you've removed. Besides, you can always convert to sRGB once you've finished your editing. 

As far as monitors go, I suggest looking at IPS (in-plane switching) monitors. Unless you do photo editing or graphics design professionally, you don't have to spend big bucks on a decent monitor. Have a look at the Dell Ultrasharp U2412 or ASUS PA248Q. IPS Monitors are pre-calibrated at the factory, although, its a good idea to do your own calibration. I wouldn't rely on the built-in calibration algorithm in most monitors. It might not be to your liking especially if you're doing your own printing.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 11, 2013)

FWIW, I just calibrated my 17" macbook pro's screen (last model made)- and it said it only covers about 78% of the Adobe RGB space. So, I don't know how beneficial editing in Adobe RGB is if you can't even see it!

Side rant: I really hate the reflective screens on the new macs now. My last MBP had a nice matte screen.


----------

