davem01 wrote in post #16401090
that'll be it - i read that adobe RGB is better for printing and sRGB for web so changed - its been driving me crazy as it happened as i went over the 999 shot
is there any way round it other than going back to sRGB - has anyone actually noticed any difference between sRGB and RGB
I shoot pretty much everything Adobe RGB and then convert finished files to sRGB whenever necessary (which I'll grant is most of the time).
Adobe RGB captures a wider gamut. You can always reduce a copy of a file to sRGB, leaving the original file untouched.
However, although you can convert an sRGB to Adobe RGB, there wasn't as much data in the original sRGB capture and you can't add back in what wasn't there to begin with. So you can never go from an sRGB file to a truly full gamut Adobe RGB file.
I figure it's a bit of future proofing to simply capture the widest gamut possible. Sooner or later monitors and printers will be probably able to make full use of the wider gamut. Heck, if it were possible, I'd shoot one of the other color spaces that are even wider gamut than Adobe RGB. But most cameras are limited to no wider than Adobe RGB.
Also, my intent is always to sell my images for commercial purposes and Adobe RGB is prefered for CMYK printing methods that are used for many types of commercial printing methods.
But sRGB is the current standard for Internet display, non-commercial inkjet printing, and general purpose.
As to your file naming conventions... No... Sorry, but with Canon cameras there is no way to keep Adobe RGB files from using that underscore as the first character.
That doesn't bother me at all because I rename every file anyway. I use a simple date/sequence format for files and date/keyword format for folders. I could care less what file numbers my cameras come up with. More important to me, because I shoot with multiple cameras frequently, I keep them carefully time/date synced so that images can be sorted precisely in the order they were taken, no matter which camera was used.