Adobe RGB or sRGB???

[onnect17]

Wherever the device you're using to manipulate the image, most likely the monitor, is capable of. If you display can handle 97 or 98% of AdobeRGB, then you should be OK with that space. Otherwise you are safer using sRGB.

[sanking]

Wherever the device you're using to manipulate the image, most likely the monitor, is capable of. If you display can handle 97 or 98% of AdobeRGB, then you should be OK with that space. Otherwise you are safer using sRGB.

How does one determine what percentage of AdobeRGB a monitor can display?

Sandy

[Mark Stahlke]

Sandy,
I use Apple's ColorSync Utility. The ghosted part is my monitor profile, the color part is sRGB.

[onnect17]

It's mostly based on area within a tricolor vector based graph. At least NEC uses that system. Check --> http://www.necdisplay.com/documents/...cBrochure1.pdf

Here's a shot of the screen. The yellow tringle represents the AdobeRGB. Actually the display goes beyond the AdobeRGB IN the "reds"

[Greg Miller]

Wherever the device you're using to manipulate the image, most likely the monitor, is capable of. If you display can handle 97 or 98% of AdobeRGB, then you should be OK with that space. Otherwise you are safer using sRGB.

The compromise being clipping wide color gamut images today to accommodate a low quality monitor or today's monitor technology. Then in a few years monitor technology improves (or you replace the low quality monitor) to a point where it could have displayed those out of gamut colors but you no longer have them available. Many people will have a hard time accepting that compromise. Especially considering what technology will allow in 5, 10, 20, 30 ... years.

[paulr]

The compromise being clipping wide color gamut images today to accommodate a low quality monitor or today's monitor technology. Then in a few years monitor technology improves (or you replace the low quality monitor) to a point where it could have displayed those out of gamut colors but you no longer have them available.

Exactly.

And there's no downside to using a larger color space, assuming you're working with 16 bit images. Use the wide space, use a color managed workflow and calibrated monitor, and then soft proof to your final intent, whether it's to sRGB for the web or to the profile for the printer you're using.

Easy peasy.

[Preston]

Exactly.

And there's no downside to using a larger color space, assuming you're working with 16 bit images. Use the wide space, use a color managed workflow and calibrated monitor, and then soft proof to your final intent, whether it's to sRGB for the web or to the profile for the printer you're using.

Easy peasy.

+1 That's exactly what I do. I use Adobe RGB and let Photo Shop manage color for printing using the appropriate paper profile, and sRGB for the Web. btw: I have an NEC wide-gamut monitor.

--P

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

To EVERYONE... Thank you!!! I need to explore Prophoto RGB, truth is I have never even heard of it.
So it's aRGB for the camera and shoot in Camera RAW, scan in Prophoto, print with the Epson 3880 using Prophoto. Does Photoshop use Prophoto?
Thanks, Bill

[Jim Andrada]

There's always LAB color - I've read a couple of books that make some reasonable sounding claims about it that (like a lot of things lately) I can't quite remember. Oh well, better to forget things that happened than to remember things that didn't I guess. At least I'm not quite to the point where, when I go to a party, I have to wear my "Hi, I'm Jim" badge upside down so I can remind myself who I am.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

LAB Color... a friend of mine has shown me how to use LAB color to isolate the B&W channel, then sharpen the B&W only, recombine the channels and you have a sharp image without the edges of the colors becoming distorted. Seems to work. Any comments? The sharpening part of digital photography kicks my butt.
Thanks again, Bill