What's the Difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB..?

:o I've always had my DSLR's colour space set to sRGB, but I've never really questioned the other option until now - what is the difference between the two? What do each mean? This is probably a newb question but I dont feel like digging through the manual to find the answer and maybe you guys can give me a real-world answer over the textbook one..

Adobe RGB provides a wider gamut of colors to use. If shooting RAW you'd be best suited using Adobe RGB then doing conversions to sRGB in post processing, for prints or web postings.

sRGB vs. ADOBE RGB 1998

And, if things are not confusing enough, when you shoot in raw mode, there is no color space assigned to the image regardless of the camera setting. This is because raw data is exactly what the sensor records before being converted into a viewable format. Digital color cameras are capable of capturing a huge gamut of color -- even more than the human eye can see, but the lighting conditions and shooting environment during the exposure will determine what range of colors are actually recorded.

During the conversion process from raw to an RGB image, you can decide in the software what color space you wish to use. Canon's DPP, Adobe Camera Raw, and Adobe Lightroom each offer the choice of four or five different color spaces. Large color spaces like AdobeRGB and small color spaces like sRGB each offer advantages and disadvantages.

AdobeRGB is a much larger color space than sRGB, but unless you have a wide gamut monitor and/or a high end printer, you may not see the additional colors. If you view an image with a color profile of AdobeRGB using a typical computer monitor, the result would be that the colors seem a bit drab.

Most of the time, using sRGB for your image's color profile is completely adequate. If you are more interested in photography than becoming obsessed with rendering every bit of color in an image, then it is much easier to stick with sRGB. I am probably one of those who obsesses too much over color. In either case, it is worthwhile to use color management if your software supports it.

My real world answer is to ignore the issue until you KNOW you have a reason to use Adobe RGB. sRGB is most likely the best choice for you unless you have a specific reason to use Adobe. When you get that reason, you will know why you need it.

Many publishers and some stock houses will only accept images originally shot in RGB, and will reject any shot in sRGB. That is reason enough to stick to RGB.

It doesn't matter if you shoot in RAW. It's only applies to jpg shots.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14212193
Many publishers and some stock houses will only accept images originally shot in RGB, and will reject any shot in sRGB. That is reason enough to stick to RGB.

Did you mean to say AdobeRGB?

Print publications can use either sRGB or AdobeRGB since they are both considerably larger than the US Web Coated (SWOP) CMYK color profile.

rral22 wrote in post #14212023
My real world answer is to ignore the issue until you KNOW you have a reason to use Adobe RGB. sRGB is most likely the best choice for you unless you have a specific reason to use Adobe. When you get that reason, you will know why you need it.

To pretend that I'm a better photographer; because somebody on the interwebs told me that better photographers use aRGB?

That seems to be the main reason from the posts I've read over the years.

When I got my camera it was set to sRGB. The images looked fine on the screen, but horrible when printed, looking nothing like they did on the screen. After going through all sorts of calibration processes for the computer monitor and printer without changing the result I came upon an article discussing sRGB and Adobe RGB. When I checked the camera and saw it was set to sRGB I changed it to Adobe, shot some subjects and printed. The printed result looked like what was on the screen -colors matching and detail restored. I've shot with Adobe RGB ever since.

I will say there are photographers who swear sRGB is the way to go. Shoot some photos with both settings and see for yourself which looks better.

For more info. on sRGB and Adobe RGB, take a look here:
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …als/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

For the purpose of printing prints at a third party printer, most if not all require sRGB. They can accept aRGB but they will most likely be converted to sRGB by the printer. Call the printer you use and ask about it to be certain. If printing at home with a high end printer, utilizing aRGB is best IF the printer can handle the gamut. I use a Canon 9500m2 and use aRBG for printing at home.

They key to making sure you dont get color shifts when viewing from camera LCD to computer monitor depends on the color profile your proofing program is set to. If that is set up correctly you should not have any color shifts.

Not all publishers use RGB. Depends what the end product is. I work at a major book publisher and we use SWOP CMYK. Any RGB image will get converted or it is rejected at the printer.

What this comes down to is preplanning what the end product will be for. If all your photos will be web based, use sRGB. If all home printing, aRGB, and printing via third party lab, sRGB.

Any advantage that a larger color space like AdobeRGB has over sRGB is not so much in the final product as it is during enhanced image processing of raw images if that is something that you are into doing ... and even then there may not be an observable difference in the final product.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #14213905
When I got my camera it was set to sRGB. The images looked fine on the screen, but horrible when printed, looking nothing like they did on the screen. After going through all sorts of calibration processes for the computer monitor and printer without changing the result I came upon an article discussing sRGB and Adobe RGB. When I checked the camera and saw it was set to sRGB I changed it to Adobe, shot some subjects and printed. The printed result looked like what was on the screen -colors matching and detail restored. I've shot with Adobe RGB ever since.

My guess would be that you did not have color management enabled correctly in Photoshop, Lightroom, or whatever software you are using. Color management is a slightly different subject than image color profiles, but basically it means that all of your image devices like monitor, printer, and scanner have been characterized (meaning that they have a color profile file that describes their gamut of color with respect to a reference standard). When color management is enabled in your imaging software, it is able to accurately translate color information from one device to another regardless of its color space. How accurate the translation is depends a lot on how good the profile happens to be.

An example of using color management is your camera itself. Take a JPG picture of something using sRGB as the image color profile and then another shot of the exact same subject using AdobeRGB as the color profile. When you view them on the camera's LCD display, they will appear essentially the same because color management in the camera's software uses the various color profiles to translate numerical values in the image to corresponding values in the LCD color profile. This isn't to say that the two images will appear precisely the same because they probably won't ... things like quantization errors, out of gamut colors and non-linear quirks in translation make the process less than perfect. Perceptually, you would be hard pressed to see a difference.

Im stealing this from someone else but here is the best explanation i an give:

Think of it this way: RAW is the entire spectrum of colors your camera is capable of capturing. AdobeRGB would be a big box of crayons chosen from that spectrum, and sRGB would be a smaller box of crayons. Photoshop is a skilled artist that can render a pretty good image using any of these sets, but of course the more crayons it has available the better it will be able to handle subtle differences and gradations, so it's a good idea to capture and edit photos with the widest range of data available (AdobeRGB). However, most browsers (and some photo labs) assume you're working with the smallest box of crayons (sRGB) no matter what colors you actually used, so the result will be drab and lifeless unless you convert to sRGB before posting.

in short aRGB will give you more options in post, for instance pulling details in over exposed areas. just make sure when you export your final image for use on web choose sRGB and for printing what ever color space the printer uses.

I think there is a bit of misinformation being offered here (and im probably about to add to it) but this is the interwebs so we all get to contribute to the confusion.

The comparison to a box of crayons can be valid, but not as put forth. The adobeRGB box of crayons would actually be the same size as the sRGB box of crayons - it just has more colors so to speak, while sRGB has more 'in between' colors. Which means that gradients in sRGB will actually be smoother and more pleasing because it had 12 crayons to go between green to darkgreen as opposed to only 6 crayons to go between green to darkgreen that aRGB has.

Think of color spaces like record collections with the same amount of records but with varying degrees of genres... adobe RGB has Shakira, Bach, Sepultura, Shania Twain, Rag Pahadi and Larry Carlton; while sRGB would have Shakira, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Shania Twain, Ricky Skaggs and Carrie Underwood.

i thought mike311's crayon analogy sounded logical, now i'm confused again. i only shoot raw, so it sounds like as long as i convert to whatever my lab uses when i export as a jpeg, i will be aok. unless i'm not...