So which is it then? sRGB or Adobe RGB for prints

By reading online I hear both extremes.
I'm guessing it's the nature of many forum people (a lot of which are just bullies).

If someone says I accidentally gave my clients Adobe RGB people will respond "That's bad! sRGB is fine for both print and browser viewing"

If someone says I hear I should start using sRGB for prints from a friend what do I tell him? Now people respond "sRGB will give you muddy colors, clip highlights, and so on and so on, sRGB is the devil for prints"

For what kind of prints do YOU use sRGB and which do you use Adobe/ProPhoto RGB?

I've read articles but would like answers from real photographers, preferably wedding photographers.

From the wording of your question, can we assume that you yourself are a wedding photographer?

If so, do you sell digital files to your clients? Or do you strictly do all the printing yourself?

I use strictly AdobeRGB for printing, but my labs support it.

I use sRGB for web.

I don't do weddings but I do print quite a bit, mostly sending images you to a lab, as I only have a basic A4 Pixma multifunction at home. I use a workflow system fully based on LR, and usually for printing I go through the Print module for both the local and remote printing devices. When I export from LR for printing I always use the colour space that is recommended by the lab. For most of my prints that will be using the .icc profile supplied by the lab for the specific papers in use. For any system for which they don't supply a profile then I use the colour space they advise, which is always sRGB. The normal service I use at the lab allows me to specify No conversion/No adjustment, and everything else that they do will convert to sRGB before it goes to the printing device. Of course for my locally attached printer, a Canon Pixma MG5150, in which I normally only use OEM inks and Canon Platinum Pro paper, LR uses the appropriate Canon supplied .icc profile for the paper, although of course there is not actual file created in this process. Way more than 98% (but less than 99%) of my images processed in LR only exist as CR2, or DNG, files until they are exported for a specific purpose, printing or uploading to a website for example. For the 1% to 2% of images that do have to be converted to RGB for additional editing in PS they are saved as 16 bit ProPhotoRGB PSD files and then managed from LR in the same manner as the RAW files.

Over the years I have seen multiple posts my a member whose name escapes me trying to find a lab that would use any working profile other than sRGB, without first converting to sRGB, and was only ever able to find one confirmed case of a lab printing in aRGB. This excludes those labs that allow you to use their hardware specific profiles with zero conversion. Given how hard it is to find a lab that uses anything other than sRGB I personally would not give anyone files in anything other than the sRGB. I only do a small amount of commercial work for a couple of small businesses, and that is product and other related work and I would not supply my clients with anything other than sRGB JPEG files, because they simply would not know what to do with anything else. I have even dealt with some small print shops for offset press work, and often when speaking to them I will ask for submission requirements and what colour space was required to be met with??. In that circumstance I'm sending sRGB, because that's what they will be getting from most people, so statistically they are less likely to stuff it up. If that is the situation for commercial situations, with people who should know this stuff, I would not consider giving a bride or other family member a file in anything other than sRGB because it is a 99% probability that they would not even know that an image file had a thing called a colour space, let alone what to do with it. I absolutely would not be giving anyone a file that was in ProPhotoRGB, since that colour space should only be used in 16 bit images, and I'm not giving anyone my master PSD files to play with. Even giving someone a 16 bit TIFF in ProPhotoRGB with the layers flattened is not really a goer, most folks would again have no clue as to what to do with it.

Being ex forces I strongly believe in KISS, and KISS is a sRGB JPEG file, because if you give them anything else they will find a way to bugger it up, and cause you problems sorting it out. In just the same way that you ensure that you give them files with the PPI value set to 300 PPI, because otherwise they will go to some lab to be told that a 6000×4000 pixel image is too low resolution to print, because the lab's ROEs software only looks at the PPI tag. After all the PPI tag really only matters if you are opening the image file in some DTP programs like InDesign, which by default looks at the PPI tag, and actually uses it to set the default image dimensions in the publication. Really annoying when you open a full size image from a P&S camera that a contributor sent you, to find it has set the PPI at 72 by default, and suddenly the image box becomes something like four feet by three feet, and you have to zoom right out to resize it. Oh and even then I have never found the need for anything other than sRGB, although the publication I was editing/publishing was not offset printed, we used a laser printer and folded/stapled by hand, since distribution was normally only about 150 copies on a roughly weekly basis.

So in summary my output files will always be in sRGB unless there is a very specific requirement otherwise.

Alan

For web, sRGB is the right choice.

For sending to a lab, you need to ask the lab what they will accept.

Consumer labs tend to prefer sRGB. If it's going to a retail client, sRGB is the best choice unless they know enough to ask for something they prefer. For a commercial client, they will tell you (or ask).

Working (post processing) in sRGB is probably a mistake, because you are tying your hands from the start. I do all my work in DCAM and you should do your work in the profile you think is best. Once your PP is done, convert to the profile for your client.

Andrew Rodney who is very knowledgeable with this said you should work in aRGB. Even though a home printer may be sRGB they are all different. You never know how much outside the sRGB gamut a printer can go. Work in aRGB and then convert to sRGB if using PS. I remember him stating that on forum many years ago. Of course there are things you have to adhere to as F2Bthere others have stated. The web can only see sRGB.

http://www.digitaldog.​net

digital paradise wrote in post #18244129
Andrew Rodney who is very knowledgeable with this said you should work in aRGB. Even though a home printer may be sRGB they are all different. You never know how much outside the sRGB gamut a printer can go. Work in aRGB and then convert to sRGB if using PS. I remember him stating that on forum many years ago. Of course there are things you have to adhere to as F2Bthere others have stated. The web can only see sRGB.

http://www.digitaldog.​net

I had to reread this post because I found the use of aRGB confusing.

I don't mean to be "that guy," but ARGB stands for something else and aRGB is not a way to write Adobe RGB.

I wouldn't bother saying anything, but if folks start writing it that way, it is going to start huge amounts of confusion.

Use of industry standard terms helps keep communications clear.

Trivia Gold Star for anyone who knows what the s in sRGB stands for...

While I wholly agree with you I'm sure why I need to write the whole word Adobe out every time when we are talking about the same thing. I have seen the short cut on multiple forums for the last decade. Sorry for being lazy.

Does s stand for Standard? I am trying not to look it up

s is for suxy.

I must be the worst photographer on the planet. (<- Hey, TF, I dare ya!) I have never shot anything using Adobe_RGB. I use AWB and JPG (sRGB) with flash or daylight, raw (color space irrelevant) and Custom WB for everything else. I get my prints made at Walmart (online). I am happy with the results I am getting. Is that wrong?

digital paradise wrote in post #18244213
Does s stand for Standard? I am trying not to look it up

It stands for "safe" and "sensible".
Well, no, it doesn't, but it should.

F2Bthere wrote in post #18243537
Working (post processing) in sRGB is probably a mistake, because you are tying your hands from the start.

No, this is a myth. A myth created by people who don't understand the purpose of raw processing, and innocently spread by other people because it sounds so plausible, until you actually think about it.
The wide gamut myth.

CMYK or GTFO.

Damo77 wrote in post #18244320
It stands for "safe" and "sensible".
Well, no, it doesn't, but it should.

No, this is a myth. A myth created by people who don't understand the purpose of raw processing, and innocently spread by other people because it sounds so plausible, until you actually think about it.
The wide gamut myth.

Not sure what you base this upon, but I have direct experience with files which demonstrates the opposite of what you are claiming.

It may not visibly impact all images or all manipulations, and it may be more important when creating prints than when comparing on screen, but I have seen the impact often enough on screen.

Based on your post numbers, I'll assume you aren't just acting as a troll. . If you actually care about the issue, I will refer you to Jeff Scewe's books for an accessible explanation about color spaces.

You can also perform some tests of your own. Take an image with a reasonably broad range of colors and tones. Process it into a TIFF file to eliminate possible issues from compression using the sRGB color space. Repeat the process and use a broader color working space such as ProPhoto or Adobe RGB.

digital paradise wrote in post #18244213
Does s stand for Standard? I am trying not to look it up

To the best of my knowledge, the actual meaning has not been preserved. I was hoping we might dredge up the truth, but the odds are against it. Hence the .