sRGB or AdobeRGB?

[ken1953]

Hello all...I'm getting deeper into my camera, the Pentax *ist DL, and it allows me to setup whether I use sRGB or AdobeRGB. I am using Adobe Photoshop CS2, and my Printer is an Epson Photo Stylus R300. I use only the Epson Ink and for the most part, Epson Premium Glossy paper. Can anyone suggest the best setup for my camera for this configuration of equipment? None of my peripherals are calibrated.
Thanx,
Ken

[Ronnoco]

On one of my cameras, I have two versions of sRGB: Natural and Vivid and my preference is Vivid. AdobeRGB gives you accurate but dull colour: no richness, no impact Winter shots and early morning shots would end up looking more black and white than colour.

I like the saturation in Vivid sRGB which is still accurate, but with a little more punch and impact. It prints out well too.

If you are still undecided, get a colour wheel or something similar from an art store and shoot it in both Adobe RGB and sRGB, print it on your printer and see which you prefer.

Ronnoco

[drg]

Adobe RGB [ Adobe RGB (1998) ] is what you want to set the camera for, particularly if shooting RAW format. It provides the greater gamut (wider color range) than the sRGB.
sRGB was the standard over a decade ago for monitors. The range of color is over 25% less than Adobe. A file saved or converted to it may appear posterized. It has been described as cartoonish in some cases. For display, the web, email, sRGB, for printing Adobe.

Now to really confuse the issue. There are new color spaces like PRO rgb emerging that further remap the color space on to an even bigger model that can provide a greater number of colors and adjustments. Plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop CS2 are now coming with profiles to make an image look like it was shot on a certain film, or printed in a certain way and look that way on your monitor. This plug-ins have preset Curve adjustments that are also being labeled as Vivid and Vibrance.

Confused? Until you decide on something particular , use the Adobe 1998 variant and remember it can be compressed (sRGB) if needed.

Be careful of expecting targets to tell you much. If you do use one, be sure to set CS2 to full control of the color scheme or the printer may kick in and 'fix' the picture. Don't be disappointed if you get some bad prints at first, it can take some time to figure it out. Usually by using Adobe RGB (1998) for printing the results will be just about as good as you can acheive.

I'll answer the questions I can that you may have. I've been working a lot recently with new color matching schemes and tools. I

[readingr]

Ken,

No matter which you use you must get your monitor calibrated. I tried using sRGB and Adobe before calibrating and never got brilliant prints - that is they looked different to the monitor.

I have now invested in a calibration system and print problems disappeared.

I still think you need to assess if your going to print at professional quality or just view on screen or on projector as this will dictate which you should use. Adobe if printing and sRGB for all other stuff.

You still get good prints using sRGB for "Home use" if its just for the family snaps.

Roger

[another view]

I have to agree with the advice to calibrate at least your monitor. IMO it's a higher priority than considering a different color space. Keep in mind that most labs (about 99% from what I've seen) use only sRGB so you'll need to convert your images to that color space if you ever send an image out to be printed. You can print an Adobe RGB image as an sRGB file and it will be pretty close. Personally, I wouldn't settle for "pretty close" because you really won't know what the print will look like until you see it.

I've always used sRGB. I know there are benefits to using Adobe RGB, but I don't own a printer. I've always been happy with the results - and I'm using a calibrated monitor. My monitor isn't top of the line by any stretch; it's a 3-year old Viewsonic bought on clearance for well under $200. I'm using Monaco Optix XR calibration for that monitor only and it was also well under $200. In terms of getting a printed image to look the way I wanted, it was the best purchase I have made.

[Ronnoco]

sRGB is indeed designed for the web,computer monitors and for video projection and it is the default for most digital cameras as well. Vivid might be characterized as as form of sRGB that comes much closer to AdobeRGB because of enhanced colour space.

The only value in AdobeRGB is IF the printer is calibrated for Adobe RGB and not all printers are set up for this colour space. So sending out photos in Adobe RGB to a printer that is not set-up for AdobeRGB means no benefit at all, and according to

Bottom line is really taste and style. Do you want total colour accuracy even if it is a little dull at times or do you want a little more saturation and punch?

To quote from "Adobe Camera Raw": "sRGB looks snappier with brighter colours and stronger contrast, many photographers prefer these colours and tones(sort of like the preference for Velvia) and find sRGB gets them to an image faster than working with Adobe RGB."

My preference goes along with this quote.

Ronnoco

[ken1953]

Thanks everyone...I'll do some testing...I will probably stay with sRGB because of the comments about being more vivid. But for my own personal understanding I will definitly test to see the difference for myself.
Ken

[Chunk]

Ken I know this isn't what you asked...
I use Ilford's Galerie Smooth Gloss inkjet paper. Sam's Club sells a 100 sheet box of 8.5x11 for about $23. Give it a try and save a bit. Prints look about the same as Epson Premium Glossy and you use the same setting on the printer.