sRGB or AdobeRGB?

[katbel]

I read few threads about it and can't make up my mind.
I have a Sony Alpha 6400 : which profile would be the closest to reality?
This photo has been taken in AdobeRGB and exported in AdobeRGB

The following one has been taken in AdobeRGB but exported for web in sRGB, after reading that sRGB would be better for any web browser

Would you please tell me if you see a difference, that I cannot see here.
Thanks in advance

 

[mollyc]

You actually have your images reversed in your post based on your text; they are showing up sRGB then aRGB. That said, for me, they are showing up the same in both Safari and Firefox. I believe I have tweaked settings in Firefox, though.

Shooting in Adobe RGB gives you the widest color space for editing and printing in the future. At present, the default for most browsers is sRGB, and I do often see color space mismatches among newer photographers where Adobe RGB images look dull, flat, and overly green when posted on the web.

I typically recommend shooting and editing in the largest color space available, assuming you can ensure that any image you post to the web is converted to sRGB.

The reality is that most browsers are only half-assed color managed, and most non photographers/visual artists don't tweak their browser settings to ensure compatibility. Also, the vast majority of printers request sRGB files. For that reason, I typically work in Photoshop as sRGB and save as sRGB. My initial import to LR is in Adobe RGB, so if somewhere wayyyyyy down the line printers develop magic ink that reproduce more colors, then I can reconvert in LR to whatever that new magical color space is.

A lot of monitors can't even reproduce the full sRGB spectrum, so you aren't inherently missing out by working solely in sRGB.

I turned off color management for Firefox, and perhaps now you can see the difference in the greens (grass). Generally the Adobe RGB images look super weird when skintones are involved.

 

[r.harris1]

Interestingly, raw files don’t have a color space. The color space you choose in camera is important if you shoot JPEG, otherwise it has no real effect. When you are processing your raw files on your computer, use the color space with the widest gamut available that your monitor can support (e.g. Adobe RGB) and when you export for the web, choose the smaller sRGB to accommodate a wider array of viewing devices. As more and more devices are coming out supporting wider color gamuts (Apple’s P3 for example), that general advice might change but for now sRGB is the go-to choice for the web.

 

[katbel]

You actually have your images reversed in your post based on your text; they are showing up sRGB then aRGB. That said, for me, they are showing up the same in both Safari and Firefox. I believe I have tweaked settings in Firefox, though.

Shooting in Adobe RGB gives you the widest color space for editing and printing in the future. At present, the default for most browsers is sRGB, and I do often see color space mismatches among newer photographers where Adobe RGB images look dull, flat, and overly green when posted on the web.

I typically recommend shooting and editing in the largest color space available, assuming you can ensure that any image you post to the web is converted to sRGB.

The reality is that most browsers are only half-assed color managed, and most non photographers/visual artists don't tweak their browser settings to ensure compatibility. Also, the vast majority of printers request sRGB files. For that reason, I typically work in Photoshop as sRGB and save as sRGB. My initial import to LR is in Adobe RGB, so if somewhere wayyyyyy down the line printers develop magic ink that reproduce more colors, then I can reconvert in LR to whatever that new magical color space is.

A lot of monitors can't even reproduce the full sRGB spectrum, so you aren't inherently missing out by working solely in sRGB.

I turned off color management for Firefox, and perhaps now you can see the difference in the greens (grass). Generally the Adobe RGB images look super weird when skintones are involved.

View attachment 1996595

Fixed it: thanks not only for pointing that out but for you wise tips and checking on two different browsers.

 

[katbel]

Interestingly, raw files don’t have a color space. The color space you choose in camera is important if you shoot JPEG, otherwise it has no real effect. When you are processing your raw files on your computer, use the color space with the widest gamut available that your monitor can support (e.g. Adobe RGB) and when you export for the web, choose the smaller sRGB to accommodate a wider array of viewing devices. As more and more devices are coming out supporting wider color gamuts (Apple’s P3 for example), that general advice might change but for now sRGB is the go-to choice for the web.

This is very true too, thanks!
I didn't know it .

 

[Apple fanboy]

sRGB is around 75% of Adobe. I would also recommend shooting, editing and saving your images in the widest colour space available. With a good monitor you should be able to calibrate both colour spaces and review your image in sRGB prior to posting to check you are happy with it. My BenQ's can show 2 colour spaces side by side which is a useful feature.

 

[katbel]

sRGB is around 75% of Adobe. I would also recommend shooting, editing and saving your images in the widest colour space available. With a good monitor you should be able to calibrate both colour spaces and review your image in sRGB prior to posting to check you are happy with it. My BenQ's can show 2 colour spaces side by side which is a useful feature.

I have an iMac 5k 27" as a monitor, not too much if I calibrate with the iMac profile .
I can see others profiles -not suggested for the iMac though
One of those is Adobe RGB 1998. It changes the colors a little, I would say slightly more intense compared to the iMac profile
I tried the Apple RGB too, awful!
Thanks for the tip: so more to learn ?

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have an iMac 5k 27" as a monitor, not too much if I calibrate with the iMac profile .
I can see others profiles -not suggested for the iMac though
One of those is Adobe RGB 1998. It changes the colors a little, I would say slightly more intense compared to the iMac profile
I tried the Apple RGB too, awful!
Thanks for the tip: so more to learn ?

By calibrate I mean with a device, a colorimeter. Then you get a more genuine ICC profile rather than a generic one.

 

[Laird Knox]

When I had my gallery I used a calibrated monitor that could display 99% of the Adobe RGB space. When I sent my image to the lab they used a chromogenic process that had a different color space than my monitor which was also different than my printer. When I got the prints back they looked exactly like I expected.

Every device displays colors differently. Monitors typically show blues and purples better than an inkjet printer can. Using the largest color space you can helps to mitigate those differences. You don't want to crush some color gradients just because your monitor can't display them. Your printer might handle them spectacularly.

You never want to throw away data. The only exception for me was when I exported jpegs for online use. I would export them as sRGB since the majority of displays only support that - and in many cases don't even come close to 100% coverage of that space.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Export images based on where they'll be used. Adobe RGB is better for printed reproduction, sRGB (we referred to it as s**t RGB) tends to be used on the web.

 

[orionquest]

They look almost exactly the same. There might be a subtle difference but no one will notice it, unless they were side by side. Are you doing some high end shooting, if not then either will work for you.

 

[katbel]

They look almost exactly the same. There might be a subtle difference but no one will notice it, unless they were side by side. Are you doing some high end shooting, if not then either will work for you.

No, I'm just learning what is best for uploading photos or for printing .

 

[orionquest]

No, I'm just learning what is best for uploading photos or for printing .

No where in your post did it mention that.
Again the differences will be subtle. If it's not highend or client specific then it will be fine.
If your camera has the built in Adobe RGB then give it a shot. If not and it's after the camera conversion leave it alone.
You can do some trial tests submitting files for print and see what works.

 

[mollyc]

Color shifts can be quite noticeable on unmanaged browsers. Yes, most browsers today convert Adobe RGB natively, but older ones do not, and if you are posting to the web, you can't control what browser the end user is using. It is always better to convert to sRGB for web posting. Especially with portraits and skin tones. Many of us don't shoot client work and still have high color standards.

AdobeRGB vs. sRGB

If you've dug through your camera's settings a few times, you've likely ran into the Color Space setting. You may have asked another photographer what it all means, and they've probably just told you to set it to one or the other, and forget about it. However, both sRGB and AdobeRGB have their...

fstoppers.com

For printing, I have seen many printers request sRGB. As I stated earlier, best practices are to edit in a wide color space and then convert as needed for specific use cases.