The Photographic Community for the Four Thirds Photographer
MyFourThirds.comArticles > Digital Workflow > Adobe RGB or sRGB?

Adobe RGB or sRGB?

by Reinier van Beest

I'm wondering what you MFT members use, Adobe RGB or sRGB. I have been using Adobe RGB as in cam setting and for Photoshop thinking I would obtain the best result in IQ. But I did not realize that images on the web and on most monitors are presented in sRGB and that images shot and Post Processed in Adobe RGB could look quite bad in those cases. So what to do?

Comment/Rate Share this Article


Images shot and processed in any format do not look bad if, as a last stem in Photoshop, are converted to sRGB 8 bit before being presented. I (typically) do not shoot JPEG images, I shoot RAW and process in my favorite color space to 16 bit. RAW images do not have a color space, regardless of the camera setting (just data as it comes off the chip). I choose the color space while processing the RAW image, just as I choose to use 16 bit, rather than 8 bit color. When I am satisfied with my image, I have an action that completes the final step by converting to 8 bit sRGB for web presentation.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $ at 15:49 EST on 2007-Dec-28 [Reply]


I read that Adobe RGB has a wider, more extended color gamut than sRGB, which would make it the better choice if you want to take your images to press. For web use however, you should always convert to sRGB for best results before posting your images to the web.

Geert Deleu ¤ at 16:08 EST on 2007-Dec-28 [Reply]


Edwin, Thanks for your explanation of your workflow. As I also shoot in RAW I can choose from that point on if I want to use Adobe of sRGB. But to benefit from the additional colour detail Adobe RGB you would also need a monitor that can produce it. There are plenty (LCD) monitors out there that can, even some that are quite affordable. But the disadvantage most of them have is that you either can't switch easily between Adobe RGB and sRGB or that you can only calibrate your screen for one of them. So how do you do this? I'm thinking of using two computers, one for the main purpose of processing and printing images in Adobe, with a quality LCD. The other for Web browsing and processing and viewing in sRGB. BTW How do you save an image in sRGB through Photoshop? I can choose Adobe RGB or sRGB as the color profile but when saving there is no option to choose one of them? (or does adjusting from 16 to 8 bit automatically mean that you switch to sRGB?)

Reinier van Beest Win ¤ $ $ at 19:45 EST on 2007-Dec-28 [Reply]


You do not switch the color space of your monitor! Each monitor (even two individual units of the same model from the same manufacturer) may have its own profile. You profile your monitor so that you can use whatever color space you prefer. I can't take the time to explain this, especially since there is so much written about this, and a good place to start profiling your monitor would be the owner's manual for your monitor. But here is a basic article on the process...


I should also note that aRGB is not the widest color space, and still often results in individual channel spikes, or blown out highlights for individual colors. Why? The camera sensor can record colors well beyond most color spaces.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $ at 20:04 EST on 2007-Dec-28 [Reply]


I shoot most subjects in aRGB, but convert to sRGB before posting on the Internet. If others are going to print my pictures I also convert to sRGB.

When I take pictures of people I usually switch to sRGB because aRGB tend to give people very red faces (easier to just shoot in sRGB instead of shooting in aRGB and then trying to modify the red).


p.t. Inactive Win ¤ $ at 02:23 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]


the everlasting appearing question...
several times discussed on the site.

refering sRGB or aRGB colorspace for webpresentation I'd like to
recommend the following links:

Test of browser colour management


diglloyd: Web Browser Color Display

to make it short: there are only two (2) uptodate webbrowser with color management available:
Safari (mac / win(v3 beta) and OmniWeb (mac)...

michael hoefner HoF Win ¤ $ at 04:28 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]


Thanks Michael. Whic hbrowser do you use? As probably most people use IE I would think that the safest gamut is sRGB for Web presentation.

Reinier van Beest Win ¤ $ $ at 07:29 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]


hi Reinier,

am mostly using SeaMonkey (a Mozilla derivative, no color management supported)
on Mac OS X 10.3.9. only occasionally Safari. I like the all-in-one concept of seamonkey.

not sure about most of the people are actually using IE nowadays.
according to the web statistics of my own website about 45% are using IE (6.x/7.x).
Firefox is used by 35%. Safari about 11%. Mozilla (SeaMonkey) about 8%.
don't know if these numbers are of generally value.

think its useless to use a webbrowser that supports color management as long
as most webbrowsers don't and also most people don't use such a browser.
makes no sense to me when on my browser the images are correctly displayed
while on most folks browsers they appear quite different in color.

usually I process my images in aRGB and convert them into sRGB for printing (except
for special prints).
when saving for web I use the sRGB but don't include the color profile as long as the
colors don't appear too different. to prevent a strong wrong color (e.g. blue skies) I convert
into generic RGB (!only on MAC available!) before saving.
in generic RGB the colors appear much more correct after saving for web.
example here:

guess there is no common valued solution except everybody would use a color management
supporting browser...

michael hoefner HoF Win ¤ $ at 08:36 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]


HERE is a little article complete with roll over demonstrations. I support their conclusions.


E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $ at 11:21 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]

Thanks all..

.. for your input, food for thought! :-)

Reinier van Beest Win ¤ $ $ at 11:50 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]


i set my LR color space to 16-bit ProPhotoRGB by default; when processing in CS3 for web, i set my color space to Monitor Color profile which uses sRGB, this yields the best matching colors on both CS3 and the web display; images exported from LR would be converted to the color space i set in CS3 in my workflow; images posted on MFT will be converted to 8-bit on the same color space when saved as JPG; for printing i reset CS3 to NA Prepress which uses aRGB. I use Firefox mainly due to its security features and myriad of addons so i can block out scripts I don't want run on my desktop ....Cheers ;-))

dee vee HoF Win ¤ $1 at 13:31 EST on 2007-Dec-29 [Reply]

Colour Space, Myth & Magic and how to make your life more complicated.

I shoot in RAW and then I stick to sRGB from then on and I do embed the sRGB profile. Why do I do this? Well the only people I know that have problems with colour are those with a little knowledge of colour space. I would add that it is not easy to know a lot as it is I have found conflicting ‘views’ on the web. I have been to several colour management seminars and have concluded that even expensive lecturers can get themselves in a twist. Also I don’t like taking risks for zero benefit. My monitor has a profile that is close to sRGB, an option is to actually profile it as sRGB. So I don't get WYSIWYG if I start playing in other colour spaces. There will be a colour engine somewhere doing the conversion (with its own set of rules for conversion; eg you can influence the Adobe colour engine you cannot influence the Microsoft Colour Engine (yes they do have one)), or worse there won’t be a colour engine as in IE7 which is colour blind and therefore assumes all images are sRGB. Also you can have a long discussion about how best to influence the colour engine! So for web based images going outside the sRGB colour space just means you have to bring it back in again or let some unknown colour engine do it for you (or not). So I want to print an image out. Well firstly when I experimented with colour spaces by doing multiple conversions of a RAW image I had to struggle to find an image where the gamut was pushed such that there was likely to be a difference in the colour spaces. So before struggling to understand colour space find out if there is any benefit in your photography. (It’s a bit like buying a Ferrari if you never drive outside Amsterdam). So going back to printing. Well I use an Epson 2100 and its profile is loaded into CS3 so that I can use Shift+Ctrl+Y to see where I have out of gamut colours. So I then have a choice if I see out of gamut colours, I can desaturate them to bring them into gamut so that I know what I’m going to print or I can let the software fix it in some unknown way. In my experiment I found an unusually highly coloured image, when I checked the sRGB, aRGB and ProPhoto RGB image preprint with Shift+Ctrl+Y I was a bit surprised to find that some out of gamut colours were shown on the sRGB image, a few more on the aRGB and a lot more on the ProPhoto RGB. So deciding to work in sRGB required a little work, aRGB a bit more and ProPhoto a hell of a lot. Another thing my experiments showed was that the difference between sRGB and aRGB were not worth any effort (that is on top of the fact that this comment proposes it is all a waste of time anyway). So if I were going to prepare my images for use by an extermnal pro-print lab I’d want their icc profile to load up into CS3. At this point, an aside. When I decided to do my experiments I wanted to print my colourful experimental image using laboratories with so that I could see the benefit of the ‘other’ colour spaces. So I phoned several pro-labs and those that could offer me the profile of their printer were in the minority. I had one ask me what an icc profile was. . Assuming that I was going to stick with the pro-print lab then it would be worth using Shift+Ctrl+Y in CS3 on my images processed in the three colour spaces provided by my E1 to see if they offer any worthwhile advantages. Mark you I still wouldn’t know what they are are going to look like until the lab returns them as I am operating outside WYSIWYG because my monitor doesn’t go beyond sRGB, damm. So my advice is that you should stick to sRGB, WYSIWYG works better, it is easier to understand what you are doing, the benefits only appear with high gamut images using a pro-lab that know what they are doing, it is less error prone and it is less work. Now all the above is what I have gleaned since about 2004 when I became interested in colour space. Some of the above is fact, I have done the experiments, but I might have done them incorrectly, the rest is opinion and I won’t enter into a “it is better”, “No it isn’t”, “Yes it is” argument. If someone can add to the facts with their own experiments I’d be interested. I am afraid the net is full of junk and opinion about colour space.

Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 03:47 EST on 2007-Dec-30 [Reply]


I'm one of the rare persons that doesn't get headaches but I get very close to getting one thinking of color management. Here is what I do.

I have dual LCD setup calibrated with Spyder2Express. Since I attach the calibration spyder to my left monitor, that is the one I process images on even tho the profile is used on both.

I shoot RAW and bring the photo into CS3 using my calibrated "working" profile. I don't print at home but get prints from my Smugmug site as well as anyone who purchases them, so the finished photos are uploaded there ( with an sRGB profile as that is what smugmug uses for their printers.

Almost all mass market online pro labs use sRGB. If you print your own at home or work with a boutique lab where you can get a one-on-one relationship, it might be advantageous to use aRGB (for home) or the labs custom profile, if they use one.

On saving an image for the web, I embed it with an sRGB profile. The image becomes slightly duller on my monitor as it (the monitor) is using the Spyder profile but once the image is viewed thru the browser (IE for me) it once again looks like it should. The final master PSD files remain in the "working" profile.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 13:24 EST on 2007-Dec-30 [Reply]


Jeff, you might be confusing "profile", which is the setting you make so that your hardware (monitor) shows white whites, black blacks, a full range of contrast and colors without color shading, and a "color space" which is universally standard for each of the mentioned ones (aRGB, sRGB and ProPhotoRGB). If you process images using your personal monitor profile (instead of a universal color space such as sRGB) and experience a color shift in your images when you save for web, that tells you there is indeed a problem. But if you are happy not worrying about it, so be it. But if you are not worried about it, why spend the money on a Spyder to calibrate your monitor in the first place?

Rex is correct in general. To get consistent colors, profile your monitor using your spyder, then stick to sRGB. Little hassle that way, and there will be no color shifts.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 16:28 EST on 2007-Dec-30 [Reply]



I don't think I'm confused.

When my computer boots up, it loads the calibrated profile into my video card. Since Photoshop is a color managed system, it then uses that calibrated profile as it's default color working space. When I process a RAW file, it is saved out of Oly Master as a tiff with an AdobeRGB profile. When that is brought into PS, PS discards the aRGB and uses the calibrated working space. I work on the image and save the final PSD with my calibrated working space as its profile. So now at any time in the future when I reload that file, it will brought into my calibrated working space which is the whole purpose of calibrating the monitor.

When I save out to a jpeg or tiff for either web use or print, I have to first assign a profile (sRGB) other than my working (Spyder2) profile to the exported image. The reason I said I get a color shift is because my export image (dup of original) is still open in PS but using an sRBG profile. This makes sense and shows that the color managed system is working as my (also open) original has no color shift as it is using the "working space" and displaying the correct colors for that space and my calibrated monitor which is what I want. The exported sRGB image displays fine when opened in a browser or printed from a printer using an sRGB ICC profile.

If I were to bring an sRGB image (to work on) into PS and ignore PS's suggestion to use my calibrated Spyder2 working space, THAT would be defeating the purpose of having a calibrated system.

I'm assuming from your comment you're not working with a hardware calibrated monitor.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 17:34 EST on 2008-Jan-01 [Reply]


I think there may be confusion for some between "working" and "printing" color space/profiles. They are two entirely separate issues and should not be thought of as being one and the same.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 17:57 EST on 2008-Jan-01 [Reply]


Well, I do have a calibrated monitor Jeff, profiled to the hardware so that I can see the correct colors and contrast in each image. Profiles are for hardware, but color spaces such as aRGB, sRGB and ProColorRGB are standard and defined color spaces. I also work my images in a variety of color spaces (usually aRGB or ProPhotoRGB), determined by which color space works best for a particular image. And I do know the difference between a "working" and a "printing" color space from your second post in a row above. The only reason I made any comment at all is that if you are experiencing some sort of color shift as you mention above; that is a red flag indicating some problem in the work flow. If I were experiencing the color shifts you suggested you see with your work flow, I would be concerned because that should not happen. But, like I said, if you are satisfied, then that is fine.

Good shooting this yesr Jeff.


E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 10:39 EST on 2008-Jan-03 [Reply]


So you're saying that in your system, if you made 4 dup's of the same image and assigned them all different color spaces you would not see any color shifts with them sitting side by side in PS?

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 22:35 EST on 2008-Jan-04 [Reply]


If you assign different color spaces to several versions of an image you will see color shifts. That is the problem. When an image is desired to be in a different color space, the image should be converted to that color space, not assigned to that color space. When converted using the perceptual conversion, there is no significant perceptual change.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 22:49 EST on 2008-Jan-04 [Reply]


I just tested what you said and you are right, there was only the slightest shift using the Convert option.

As a test, I pulled in one of my "online" images that I "assign" the sRGB profile upon final save and PS showed that the sRGB was now embedded in the file.

So my question is if one "converts" an image at the beginning and on another "assigns" at the time of saving, is the same end objective being met? Do they both end up in sRGB?

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 23:18 EST on 2008-Jan-04 [Reply]


I just tested again and yes, the same objective is met. A correction on my post above: that first test was with the "Relative Colorimetric" setting so there was still a slight shift but not with the "Perceptual" setting as you recommended.

So I think we're both right, just going about it different ways.

Since my final print files (tiff & jpeg) need to be sRGB for the labs printers, I'll continue to assign/convert them at time of final save and keep/work with the master PS files in the color space that's been calibrated for my monitor.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 00:31 EST on 2008-Jan-05 [Reply]


I've been doing some reading................remember that headache I never get..............I think I'm getting one.

Disregard my last two posts. I have some more to read.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 01:25 EST on 2008-Jan-05 [Reply]


Jeff, here goes your headache!

A monitor profile will only "describe how the monitor is currently reproducing color." Every monitor is different, and each monitor is likely to change over a period of days, weeks, months or years. Re-calibrating occasionally is a must because it can shift. Since a monitor profile is nebulous and changing, it SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A COLOR SPACE FOR WORKING AN IMAGE. Choose to work in sRGB, aRGB or even ProPhotoRGB in Photoshop. Since you have profiled your monitor and saved that setting in Windows on on your Mac, your image processing in Photoshop will look just fine, and be accurate.

Monitor profiles are not a "color space" to work images in. Why? Because it changes over time, is different for each monitor, and most importantly because of these shifts, it is not standard. Images must be worked in a standard, defined and universal color space to get accurate repeatable color.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 10:41 EST on 2008-Jan-05 [Reply]


Thanks E, actually what you gave me was some asprin to help me think.

About a year and a half ago I was working with an uncalibrated monitor and had some photos printed by a local print shop and they came out way too dark. That's when I realized my monitor was set way too bright and so I processed everything much darker. They looked good on my monitor but, well you know the story. So once I got the calibration setup, it told me that any color managed software (PS) would recognize and use the new profile created for the monitor. So I thought all was well and I was now in color nirvana. When I would load an image into PS it would tell me that it's color management policy was to disregard the embedded profile and convert to the "working" space which was my monitor profile that PS "automatically" set as default. Well thinking that Adobe knows better than me, that's what I've been doing. One website I was looking at last night sited that same scenario and heavily critized Adobe for allowing that and for even having the option of changing the working space to the monitor profile.

I'm definately changing my workflow but I'm not sure yet where my photos have been hurt as the prints I've ordered have been spot on and even my photo that was printed in the MFT calendar came out exactly like my master PS file. So I'm stumped there.

Question: If the labs that do my printing use sRGB, what advantage would there be to convert, work and save the master PS file in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto and possibly even 16bit?

Even though I had to eat a little crow, I'm glad I got involved with this discussion. Learning is why we're here right?

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 15:10 EST on 2008-Jan-05 [Reply]


you are going to print 'elsewhere'; in order for you to be 'in control' (note the 'marks'); you really need the icc profile of the printer. That will allow PS to indicate to you what will happen when you print. I have also heard the comment from colour labs that they ignore the embedded profile. I struggled at some prolabs to find anyone to talk to that understood colour! I friend asked me if there was any advantage in printing 3*16bit over the 3*8. I explained that all home printers that I knew of were 8 bit and said that I didn't think the eye could tell the difference between 8 & 16 bit colour. I therefore produced the followingLINK which when I printed it out showed a gentle gradation across the stepped colours. If you check it out you will see that adjacent squares differ by just 1 in 255. On my Epson I cannot see the step. I admit that when I embedded a profile in this document I could then not open it in CS3 with the RGB values intended. It was created in Corel and I abandoned Corel in favour of PS due to colour management.

Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 17:44 EST on 2008-Jan-05 [Reply]



If your lab does indeed print in aRGB, then send your completed image file to them, converted to that color space.

Save your RAW (out of camera) file so that you may process from the beginning at a later date. (You never know, your taste may change, programs may improve and a superior "performance" of the RAW file may be possible later.) What format you save your master converted image in (your conversion from raw, tweaked to your satisfaction; your completed image) is up to you. I tend to save my finished image as a PSD with all layers intact and in whatever color space I chose in the beginning.

I have a set of actions that I can "play" on my completed master, depending upon how I intend to use the image.

Best wishes,


E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 15:24 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


The E1 offered conversion from RAW into sRGB; aRGB and ProPhotoRGB using Oly software. The spec for the E3 doesn't mention ProPhotoRGB, is that still available in the software?

Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 15:42 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


"The E1 offered conversion from RAW into sRGB"


RAW is RAW, and I use Adobe Camera Raw to develop RAW images, not any sort of Olympus software. Why couldn't a RAW image, regardless of the camera that took the image (E-1, E-3, E-510 or E410, etc) be converted into any color space desired?

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 15:56 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


is not an infinite colour space and it does have one. I'll give it a name KodaKOlyRawRGB. I know it is a bigger colour space than sRGB, aRGB and ProPhotoRGB for my E1 using KodakOlyRawRGB because I am allowed to 'develop' into those colour spaces. If ProphotoRGB were removed from the selection for 'development' that would mean ProPhotoRGB was now a bigger colour space (or covered some areas not covered by (and I'll name it) E3OlyRawRGB colour space. Which would be another bit of info about compromises in the E3, on the other hand I expect it will be in the options for 'development' but I'd like to know.

Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 17:31 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


RAW image data is just that. It is RAW data. Raw is not an image. Since RAW is data only, it has no color space. The artist develops the data into an image using software. So yes, I agree. You are very correct Rex.

I know nothing of Olympus software because I do not use it. And I do not own an E-3. Perhaps an E-3 owner can explain why RAW data from an E-3 (apparently, if I understand your question) can not be developed into the ProPhotoRGB color space. That seems very odd to me.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 23:05 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


Oops, I mis-read. I disagree. Data has no color space. It is not infinite or finite. Data is 0s and 1s. It is binary information. That data is developed into an image, if the data represents an image from a sensor. But you certainly have the right to call it whatever you like! ;-)

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 23:16 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]


Thanks E.

I save all my raw files. Anyone would be insane not to. I have from time to time gone back and reprocessed something due to some new thing I've learned or just because I may not have liked the outcome in retrospect (sorry for those shooting in jpeg). My finished masters are PSD's with all layers intact and ready for any improvements.

Jeff Tangen Win ¤1 at 23:40 EST on 2008-Jan-06 [Reply]

On that basis

JPG,TIFF,PSD have no colourspace as they are 0 & 1's

The chromatic performance certainly gives the sensor a colourspace in which it can reproduce images, so I gave it a name.

Let's propose that for a medical reason I produced a sensor withe a different micro filter such that its filter was R,G1,G2. This would be capable of having its images developed in sRGB (possibly) but it would be a subset of sRGB. Its my guess that the software around the device would then be decared as developing into oRGG (o standing for other) or some other label.

If the sensor cannot fill a colourspace is it entitled to claim it develops into that colourspace?

Oh and keeping old RAW images has a long term threat. In the future will we be able to buy a converter for Oly RAW to work on the replacement for Vista or the replacement for that. So dng or psd MAY be better. I say that as someone with thousands of 'undeveloped' RAW images.

Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 01:52 EST on 2008-Jan-07 [Reply]

I'm far from being an expert

But from the little I have read so far about color managing and color spaces, every device (camera, scanner, printer, monitor) has it's specific color space, some bigger, some smaller. So it might not be accurate to say the RAW data doesn't have a color space. Yes, RAW data is the most pure form of input coming from the camera sensor, but those 0s and 1s are a translation to PC language of the data perceived by the sensor of the camera, which ends up having the same color space as the sensor itself, since it can't store info that the sensor can't receive or interpret. That's why the images' dynamic range is limited to the dynamic range the camera sensor can interpret, which is smaller than the one our eyes posess.

So, for example, if you took a photo that used all the color range of the camera sensor, and opening it on Photoshop, using a determined color space (for instance, Adobe RGB) and got a gamut warning, that would mean that the sensor color range was bigger than the Adobe RGB color space and that you had lost data on that conversion. If you don't get that gamut warning the sensor color space is as big or smaller than Adobe RGB.

These are my conclusions so far, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say that the RAW has the same color space of the camera sensor and that that info is translated into the universal color spaces you chose while it's processed through all the different devices, starting from the image processing software, then the display on the monitor and finaly the printer, generally resulting in losses of color gamut on the last two steps, if you don't use quality equipment.

Ricardo Lamego ¤ ¤1 at 07:36 EST on 2008-Jan-07 [Reply]

From the "User Guide" for Adobe Photoshop cs2

"A camera raw file contains unprocessed picture data from a digital camera's image sensor." "Camera raw image files contain the actual data captured by the sensor without any in-camera processing: these are the only files containing 'pure' data." "In Adobe Bridge or Photoshop, you can process only those camera raw files obtained from supported cameras." In other words, if the program does not know what camera recorded the raw file, it has no way to know the characteristics of that camera's image sensor and can not convert the raw data properly.

I think we have covered more than the question of this thread, so I will retire from further comments. But to answer the question...

"Adobe RGB or sRGB?"

Both of these, and ProPhotoRGB too.

E. Edwin Ennor ~ (Eł) HoF Win ¤ $1 at 09:55 EST on 2008-Jan-07 [Reply]

Indeed, Edwin.

We have strayed from the original doubt.

Yes, those color spaces are perfectly usable and none is the best or more correct (at least from my experience), with the exception that the most suitable for web publication should be the sRGB due to the "color blindness" of most web browsers, that always assume this is the space the image uses. This conversion can be made on the end of the workflow, so all the adjustments and image processing can be made in Adobe RGB, if you think it will preserve the quality better on the PSD file, if you use Photoshop, of course.

Hope all this helped in some way, Reinier. I've learned that this is a very complicated subject indeed.

Ricardo Lamego ¤ ¤1 at 10:16 EST on 2008-Jan-07 [Reply]


it was an interesting Thread!!


Rex Waygood HoF ¤1 $ at 12:08 EST on 2008-Jan-07 [Reply]

Ricardo, to answer your question

Yes, it was very helpful. I didn't manage to keep up with the postings from last week, mainly because I got ill that week. It has been food for thougt. For now I have concluded that I will take my "old" computer (is 4 years really old??) out of the closet and set it up with my current LCD for sRGB web browsing and editing. My main computer will get a wide gamut LCD (and some more RAM!) and will be set up in Adobe RGB. Only thing is that in my current setup I hardly have enough room for two screens on my desk. Fortunately we will be moving by the end of this summer to a bigger place where I will have my own "darkroom", yippie!

Reinier van Beest Win ¤ $ $1 at 07:45 EST on 2008-Jan-08 [Reply]


Lucky you... Wish I could do the same setup for a "darkroom" :-)

Anyway, hope you're feeling better now and welcome back.

Take care and good work -- Ricardo

Ricardo Lamego ¤ ¤1 at 07:52 EST on 2008-Jan-08 [Reply]