Editing in AdobeRGB if output is always sRGB?

Looking for a new monitor and trying to determine if I want better AdobeRGB coverage, or a more economical "only" sRGB coverage.

95% of my work is output into sRGB, and for the remaining 5% I don't think it's worth it to look for the premium of a quality AdobeRGB monitor.

But then I started wondering - is there any benefit to editing something in the larger color space, even if the final output is a subset sRGB? On the one hand you'd be editing with as much detail as possible, but on the other you'd effectively be editing invisible things... and might be shift some of the colors moreso than desired than if you were just in sRGB mode the whole time?

You have a slightly wrong understanding of color spaces. Let me help you here...

1. both sRGB and aRGB are 8-bit-per-color spaces, both only support 16.7 Million colors
   ...it is like 1000-value numerical system: I can count 1000 values by 1's from 0-999 or I can count 1000 values by 2's from 0 thru 1998 ...but only 1000 values with either system!
   
2. If you work with RAW data in a program like Photoshop or Lightroom, they work internally in a 16-bit-per-color space, and only 'convert' to sRGB or aRGB when you choose to export a JPG output file
   

• imagine converting from counting 0,1,2,3...999 (numerical system A above) to counting 0,2,4,6...1998 (numerical system B above)...
  and you lose all the odd values from 1 thru 999!
  
• imagine converting from counting 0,2,4,6...1998 (numerical system B above) to counting 0,1,2,3...999 (numerical system A above)
  and you lose all the numbers from 1002 to 1998 because system A cannot count that high!
  

For images that contain colors beyond sRGB, but are destined to the sRGB world, an AdobeRGB monitor could even be a pitfall, hiding the need for dealing with the exceeding color areas.

This is what I have experienced when my images contained magentas that my printer couldn't render, while they were well within the sRGB gamut of my monitor. There was no direct visual warning and the result was a ruined print.

Of course there are ways to avoid such errors if you are on the lookout.

Oh Kaitlyn, it's always so refreshing to find somebody who gets this.
You're right, there is ABSOLUTELY no benefit to editing in a larger colour space.

Damo77 wrote in post #18766839
You're right, there is ABSOLUTELY no benefit to editing in a larger colour space.

That's assuming that the image doesn't contain colors beyond the sRGB gamut.

If it does though, it makes sense to keep the image in a color space wide enough to fit, while you are pulling the exceeding colors into the sRGB gamut range prior to actually saving to sRGB. That prevents the loss of detail within the exceeding color areas, which clipping would cause.

But you need no high-end monitor to do this. Monitor's gamut doesn't need to match the color space you are editing in.

agedbriar wrote in post #18766949
That's assuming that the image doesn't contain colors beyond the sRGB gamut.

If it does though, it makes sense to keep the image in a color space wide enough to fit, while you are pulling the exceeding colors into the sRGB gamut range prior to actually saving to sRGB. That prevents the loss of detail within the exceeding color areas, which clipping would cause.

True. It also depends on what you are outputting for. There are an increasing number of printers that are capable of printing much wider than sRGB.

nqjudo wrote in post #18766981
True. It also depends on what you are outputting for. There are an increasing number of printers that are capable of printing much wider than sRGB.

where 'printers' = the thing on your desk, while most 'commercial printers' have sRGB input for their devices!

Wilt wrote in post #18766984
where 'printers' = the thing on your desk, while most 'commercial printers' have sRGB input for their devices!

I have a number of local labs that accept AdobeRGB. I prefer to provide a file with the widest profile be it ‘printers’ or ‘commercial printers’ rather than cut myself off at the knees. Even in the case I have to export a sRGB profile I prefer to soft proof rather than let a downstream process manage my colours. So back to the monitor question, how do I edit for AdobeRGB output if my monitor can only display sRGB?

agedbriar wrote in post #18766949
That's assuming that the image doesn't contain colors beyond the sRGB gamut.

If it does though, it makes sense to keep the image in a color space wide enough to fit, while you are pulling the exceeding colors into the sRGB gamut range prior to actually saving to sRGB. That prevents the loss of detail within the exceeding color areas, which clipping would cause.

But you need no high-end monitor to do this. Monitor's gamut doesn't need to match the color space you are editing in.

No, the whole point of shooting raw is to make sure that there AREN'T any photos beyond the sRGB gamut.

nqjudo wrote in post #18766987
I have a number of local labs that accept AdobeRGB.

For close to a decade I have typically 'challenged' POTN members almost annually...
"Tell us which commercial printers accept aRGB files and do not convert them into sRGB space before printing."
And only twice in the 1st 8 years was ANYONE able to provide the name (and website) of someone who met that! Additionally, more recently someone in New Zealand said he had two places (IIRC).
'Local' is where for you?

Wilt wrote in post #18766989
For close to a decade I have typically 'challenged' POTN members almost annually...
"Tell us which commercial printers accept aRGB files and do not convert them into sRGB space before printing."
And only twice in the 1st 8 years was ANYONE able to provide the name (and website) of someone who met that! Additionally, more recently someone in New Zealand said he had two places (IIRC).
'Local' is where for you?

Sure Wilt. I’ve heard that call from you several times. I think you’ll agree that printers don’t actually print in sRGB or aRGB. There’s always a profile conversion process. If you Google around there are many labs that request aRGB for fine art printing but often require soft proofing with a given profile. I think very few request more than sRGB. Maybe because it leads to a lot of color management hand holding? If you walk into a lab or have a good relationship with one you’ll surely find aRGB printing. I mean, wouldn’t it be a very odd thing for someone to own wide gamut printers and ignore their potential use? I don't think your question is as much a question as it is confirmation bias. You're asking about very specific types of operations and using the lack of responses as confirmation that wide gamut printing is just as non-existent. There are many operations where one can enter, present aRGB TIFF files, work on in-house calibrated wide gamut monitors, proof with profiles that are far wider than sRGB and print with them. I know one such operator that has these facilities in-house but offers a sRGB only web portal upload for casual users. Your questions doesn't account for that or any other number of scenarios. The lack of answers to your question says more about the question than it does about the availability of wide gamut printing.

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #18766794
Looking for a new monitor and trying to determine if I want better AdobeRGB coverage, or a more economical "only" sRGB coverage.

95% of my work is output into sRGB, and for the remaining 5% I don't think it's worth it to look for the premium of a quality AdobeRGB monitor.

But then I started wondering - is there any benefit to editing something in the larger color space, even if the final output is a subset sRGB? On the one hand you'd be editing with as much detail as possible, but on the other you'd effectively be editing invisible things... and might be shift some of the colors moreso than desired than if you were just in sRGB mode the whole time?

It is an interesting and important question to ask.

I used to run a photography business that output solely to the web and an sRGB printer, and so intentionally used only sRGB monitors. At the same time for my personal work I used (and still have) aRGB monitors.
The sRGB monitors were cheaper, and meant less potential issues putting images through non-colour managed software as well as providing confidence that we would see what the customer would see.

I had no issues working only in sRGB, although it should be noted we did very little post work on images and it was a very high speed production environment. The extra colour range you can see in a aRGB monitor working on aRGB files just wasn't needed and had no impact on quality or value of the out put images.

If you are working in a properly colour managed environment (workflow) then even if out putting to sRGB there is no disadvantage to working with an aRGB monitor, and if your producing work were colour accuracy is important then it can be an advantage, especially if out putting to high end print etc.
I currently work in a team producing 100s of images a day, all through a colour managed workflow with aRGB monitors at the capture and editing side of the process. Images are output in sRGB for use, but some of the archive files are in a format that could still be used in either colour space because we just don't know how the images will be used in the future.

The other thing to consider is the availability of high quality sRGB monitors and aRGB printers.
10 years ago there were plenty of colour accurate high quality sRGB monitors with good back light consistency and there was a real lack of aRGB printers. (The Dell 2412 was king of sRGB monitors).
That has changed significantly now, and I can only find one sRGB only monitor that I would be happy editing on. They are now mostly for gaming and general home and office use, this compromises them so they don't always have full sRGB coverage and the new LED back lights have terrible consistency across the panels surface. Most can't be calibrated to any useful level of accuracy.
There are however some monitors being produced for production work that do calibrate really well, have good back light, are all aRGB, and the price different isn't that great compared to an sRGB model.

Printing has changed the other way, Most wide format art printers are now aRGB, but most printers don't really know what that means, or will bother to tell you.


If you want to save money and are happy with a sRGB monitor then the BenQ PD2700Q is the best value on the market:
https://www.computerlo​unge.co.nz …nentview.asp?pa​rtid=29381

And for aRGB the BenQ PD2700PT (which I use): https://www.computerlo​unge.co.nz …nentview.asp?pa​rtid=29381

Wilt wrote in post #18766805
You have a slightly wrong understanding of color spaces. Let me help you here...

both sRGB and aRGB are 8-bit-per-color spaces, both only support 16.7 Million colors
...it is like 1000-value numerical system: I can count 1000 values by 1's from 0-999 or I can count 1000 values by 2's from 0 thru 1998 ...............

...............like TIFF can be (but is not always) 16-bit color space. The disadvantage is the files are huge to transmit.

Sorry Wilt, but I think you've gotten bit depth and colour space confused, and your post doesn't make much sense.

Moppie wrote in post #18767123
Sorry Wilt, but I think you've gotten bit depth and colour space confused, and your post doesn't make much sense.

OP had the comment, "But then I started wondering - is there any benefit to editing something in the larger color space, even if the final output is a subset sRGB?", which made it seem as if she thought aRGB were a larger color space than sRGB, which (wrongly) was how aRGB achieves a larger color pallette than sRGB.

So I corrected that misperception (if it existed) and stated that LR worked in a 16-bit space (neither sRGB nor aRGB) and put out 8-bit space files when Export created sRGB or aRGB files to be printed.

Wilt wrote in post #18767133
OP had the comment, "But then I started wondering - is there any benefit to editing something in the larger color space, even if the final output is a subset sRGB?", which made it seem as if she thought aRGB were a larger color space than sRGB, which (wrongly) was how aRGB achieves a larger color pallette than sRGB.

So I corrected that misperception (if it existed) and stated that LR worked in a 16-bit space (neither sRGB nor aRGB) and put out 8-bit space files when Export created sRGB or aRGB files to be printed.

No, colour space and bit depth are not the same thing, they are related, but independent.
An 8bit JPEG can have any colour space assigned to it, sRGB, aRGB or even ProphotoRGB.
Same with a 16bit, or 8bit TIFF.

Colour space determines the range of colours visible on a device, print or with in a file, and conversion occurs all the time between devices and software as needed (or doesn't and things look funny).
sRGB is designed to closely resemble the human visual range of the colour spectrum, from red to blue while still being easy and affordable to achieve in displays for manufacture.
aRGB covers more than sRGB, although still with in the range of the human visual system, and some weird ones like ProphotoRGB have coverage outside the human visual range but are useful for preserving data for technical or colour accurate work.


Bit depth is the amount of data the file can store for each colour channel, i.e how many tones between light and dark, or black and white. It impacts things like colour banding between similar tones and how much detail you can pull out of shadows and highlights. Most displays are 6 or 8 bit, and the really high end ones are 10 bit. Hence a cheap display can show colour banding in an image that won't be visible in a print or on a 10bit display.

Note, it is bits per colour channel, 8 bit for Red, 8 bits for Green, 8 bits for Blue.
Also note, nearly all cameras now are only 14 bit, some older DSLR's are 12bit and some simple cameras are 8 or 10bit. Only some of the medium format digital systems claim to be a full 16bit but most are actually 14bit with extrapolation to get to 16bit.