sRGB or aRGB for wildlife/landscapes

[Singletracklovr]

Hello all,
I tried a search with no luck.
Which in camera color setting is best for outdoor/wildlife/landscape photography?
Pictures will be printed no larger than 8x10 for coffee table photo album.

Thank you for your time and expertise...

[mjs1973]

How are you printing your photos? I use a lab that prints in sRGB so that is what I shoot in and work in. If you have a lab that can print in aRGB then it may be worth it to use that color space.

The aRGB color space is larger than the sRGB color space, but can your workflow and printing handle the aRGB color space is the questions. If so then you may get smoother transitions between colors, but I would guess the noticeable difference would be minimal.

[Medley]

There may be trade-offs either way, and it would take a little experimentation to find out.

Most printers convert the image to CYMK at some point. Even "true RGB" printers normally print in CYMK, they just accept input as RGB.

The advantage of sRGB, being a smaller color space, is that most of the colors are likely to be in gamut. That means there won't be too much conversion of colors between the RGB image and the print. The downside is that there may actually be more color conversion within the camera, to make the scene fit within the confines of sRGB, so you may not be getting the "true" colors of the landscape.

The qualities of aRGB are reversed. That is, you'll likely get a truer conversion of colors in the digital image, but may have to convert more pixels to fit into the printer's gamut.

Mike's right in that in most cases, the visual difference is negligible. That's because- usually- the pixels in an aRGB image that are out of gamut are individual pixels scattered throughout the image. In this case, the "relative colorimetric" rendering intent simply finds the nearest CYMK equivalent for the out of gamut pixels, and you don't visually "see" much of a difference.

However, in some (relatively rare) instances, large blocks of pixels can be out of gamut. In landscapes, I find this is particularly true in sunrise/sunsets. In this case, the relative colorimetric rendering intent can produce a noticeable color shift in the out-of-gamut areas. The solution is to switch to the "perceptual" rendering intent. In this instance, the entire image is desaturated until the rogue pixels fall within the gamut. The theory is that the eye compensates, because the relative color proportions haven't changed. But desaturating all the colors in a landscape may not be the best "fix", if you get my drift.

So, my advice would normally be to shoot in aRGB. Being the larger gamut, you can always convert to sRGB if necessary. Once you have the image in pp (assuming you're using Photoshop), you can go to View> Gamut Warning to view pixels that would be out of gamut in a generic CYMK profile. This converts all the pixels that are out of gamut to a neutral gray, making it easier to tell where they are. By the way, these gray pixels are dynamic- that is, as you make edits that bring the pixels into gamut, the gray pixels "disappear", being replaced by the in-gamut color(s). Doing a Select> Color Range> Out of Gamut would ensure that any edits are confined ONLY to the out of gamut pixels. (my pp tip for the day. )

If you find you have large out of gamut areas in several images, it may simply be easier to shoot in sRGB mode.

- Joe U.

[Singletracklovr]

Thank you Mike and Joe.
Most of my prints are 6x8 and 8x10s for our coffee table photo album. Nothing
good enough to print and frame.

I usually use the photo shop at Walgreens.
I don't know which color space Walgreens uses.

I calibrate my monitor monthly with a Spyder 3 and have found what I see at home is about 1 stop brighter than what the Walgreen's machine prints.

I thought aRGB was better however reviewing a lot of EXIF file from pictures posted here on PR the color space is almost always sRGB. That's why I thought I'd ask the question.

[SmartWombat]

sRGB is needed for the web, most browsers don't display anything else properly.
sRGB is also used by most 1 hour laboratories.

I always shoot with aRGB , edit with aRGB and then convert to sRGB for printing at Costco, or for posting here.

[Medley]

Your Costco doesn't have downloadable icc profiles Paul?

- Joe.

[Singletracklovr]

sRGB is needed for the web, most browsers don't display anything else properly.
sRGB is also used by most 1 hour laboratories.

I always shoot with aRGB , edit with aRGB and then convert to sRGB for printing at Costco, or for posting here.

Thank you Paul, that looks like a good work flow.

Joe I will check my local Walgreens for an ICC profile.

[SmartWombat]

It does, but I don't use them for anything serious
Besides, the well trained staff have gone.
I use a local Giclee printer if I want anything really good

[Photo-John]

Adobe RGB all the time, for everything. It's a wider gamut workspace so it gives you more options in the long run. It's easy enough to convert to sRGB later, if you need to. one of the first things I do with every camera that allows it is to switch it from sRGB to Adobe RGB.