Who does NOT use sRGB color profile?

I have had some interesting discussions with different photographers recently and found that some of them use a color profile other than sRGB during their work flow, and then convert it to sRGB at the end.

Please share what color profile you use and why?

I use AdobeRGB with a Dell 2209WA, works great.
I also print AdobeRGB 16bit .tif files using Qimage.
Works good for me.

Since I work almost entirely in Lightroom, I am of necessity working in Melissa RGB.

Those who do web display and inkjet should typically use SRGB or convert to at end.
Those who do offset or litho platemaking and printing normally use ARGB and often CMYK output.

Using ARGB in normal inkjet work is a user preference but if you do high dollar ad work and the printer requires CMYK you might feel more comfy using ARGB then converting to SRGB for inkjet print or Web display.
Note -
For High $$$ ad work its not only ARGB but about 2 dozen other very specific settings.
It is specific photographer and printer custom settings and calibration and is often a "secret sauce" type of relationship.

I used ARGB for a couples years under the misguided notion that it was just "better" until I really did my research on the subject. Yes, I know in some instances it really is better but for most of us it's not the way to go. To me, the biggest benefit to switching back to SRGB is now longer having my damn files named _MG anymore.

buggz wrote in post #11584606
I use AdobeRGB with a Dell 2209WA, works great.
I also print AdobeRGB 16bit .tif files using Qimage.
Works good for me.

Ditto this.

I use 16-bit Adobe RGB. My images are rarely, if ever in SRGB since my goal is printing to paper.

mensur wrote in post #11584748
I used ARGB for a couples years under the misguided notion that it was just "better" until I really did my research on the subject. Yes, I know in some instances it really is better but for most of us it's not the way to go. To me, the biggest benefit to switching back to SRGB is now longer having my damn files named _MG anymore.

If you are shooting in raw then there's no need to mess with the in-camera color space setting and no need to settle for _MG.

krb wrote in post #11585261
If you are shooting in raw then there's no need to mess with the in-camera color space setting and no need to settle for _MG.

Sure there is, the histogram still reflects the output of the JPG in either space. So if you want an accurate reflection of the aRGB histogram you have to select the aRGB color space.

I REALLY hope we start getting easier color management for the masses. I would love to exclusively use aRGB as colors often fall into this realm in my shots. Many monitors are now representing the aRGB space. The question is...when are there more aRGB monitors out there than sRGB monitors which is effectively the reason we default to sRGB nowadays.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #11585684
Sure there is, the histogram still reflects the output of the JPG in either space. So if you want an accurate reflection of the aRGB histogram you have to select the aRGB color space.

I REALLY hope we start getting easier color management for the masses. I would love to exclusively use aRGB as colors often fall into this realm in my shots. Many monitors are now representing the aRGB space. The question is...when are there more aRGB monitors out there than sRGB monitors which is effectively the reason we default to sRGB nowadays.

Were the older cheap radiation tubes - aka cathode tube monitors - striclly sRGB, and now with LCD monitors everywhere they can easily do aRGB??
I have no idea, just read this thread and curious....

mtbdudex wrote in post #11587000
Were the older cheap radiation tubes - aka cathode tube monitors - striclly sRGB, and now with LCD monitors everywhere they can easily do aRGB??
I have no idea, just read this thread and curious....

No, most LCDs cannot do more than sRGB either. If the monitor doesn't have something along the lines of "wide gamut" in the description then it only does sRGB. Even then, most of them seem to only support 90-95% of Adobe RGB.

Also note that some color calibration tools have issues with wide gamut monitors.

I use adobe rgb be because the printer who prints our newspaper says to.

There aren't many Adobe RGB monitors out there and if you have one you know they are not for the masses. Almost nothing other than some browsers and photo editing software supports color management so, these monitors are specifically aimed at phtographers, graphic artists and similar. Gamers/office applications/email, web browsing and the like make up 99+% of the public out there. The digital world is mostly non-colored managed hence the lowest common denominator, sRGB.

I use whatever working space I need to, depending on input device, colors in the subject and intended output. The monitor I use is 100% irrelevant.


Working in AdobeRGB if intended output is sRGB is not a good idea.
(If you think it is: Explain why )

My camera is set to sRGB, since I prefer my histogram (and clipping warnings) to blink a bit early rather then a bit late.
Mostly a matter of what you are used to & rest of the camera parameters you have set. (and shooting circumstances)

A practical reason to keep the camera set to sRGB... My camera is kept set to sRGB so when my wife uses it to shoot a family picture for Aunt Matilda, she won't accidentally shoot in Adobe RGB.