probably RGB adobe then I believe its the preferred option for printing as far as most camera makers are concerned
could be irrelevant Tim I am sure someone will give us an in depth answer, anyway it is a in camera option and in fact an option in capture one editing software so guess it is an option in photoshop etc
digital-photography-school.com
Yep I have read several of these over the last couple of years and have always shot sRGB anyway after trying adobe RGBHere's an interesting article. I do not know how old it is, but according to it you always want sRGB for posting on the 'net.
Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose?
Which is the best Color Space sRGB or Adobe RGB? Which one you use and why depends on your needs - see which this author uses, and discuss in the comments.
Yep Tim I have used both and there does seem to be a difference
One reason I asked this is because when looking on line at reviewers and when out and about shooting a was suprised by how many people were shooting in the vivid option
Sounds like they're simply uninformed. The truth is, vivid isn't vivid unless it's viewed under the right circumstances. According to that article, Adobe RGB images viewed on sRGB gear (the entire internet) are desaturated and dull. He posts some examples.
Maybe, but it all boils down to this:First part of the answer: the in-camera setting is somewhat irrelevant if you are shooting RAW. You can set the camera to sRGB and import the image as Adobe RGB or an even bigger colour space if you want to (such as ProPhoto). All the in-camera setting does is specify the default choice of colour space.
Why would you choose a smaller colour space? if you are working in a smaller colour space, you get finer resolution from your 14 bits - the steps are smaller.
Why should you choose a larger colour space? If you are photographing a scene that includes colours which are inside a large colour space, but not inside a small colour space, then the small colour space cannot show the colour - it gets clipped to the closest thing inside the range of the colour space. "Out of gamut" colours are basically what you are trying to address with a larger colour space.
Things to consider:
I'm not going to get into the subject of printing - that's considerably more complicated (you don't just need to calibrate your printer - you have to calibrate it for the ink and the paper you are printing on, plus the light under which you plan to display the print...). Prints may have a smaller gamut than monitors.
- can your monitor display the full gamut of your colour space? This used to be a major problem, because wide gamut monitors were ridiculously expensive (as in many thousands of dollars). Even now, the kinds of monitors you pick up cheaply are likely to have a limited gamut. The sRGB colour space was specified to be within the capabilities of decent monitors at the time it was defined.
- can your monitor display the colour accurately? Even if the monitor can theoretically display all of the colours in your selected gamut, will it display the right colours for what you ask it to display? The best monitors have high precision lookup tables in hardware to convert an incoming signal into the appropriate colour on the screen - these are called "hardware calibrated" monitors. If your monitor doesn't have hardware calibration you can approximate it using software calibration, but that reduces the available detail.
- have you calibrated your monitor? You need to calibrate your monitor for it to display accurate colour, and I don't mean one of those programs where you eyeball the colours - I mean using a proper hardware calibration device (technically a spectrophotometer - but hardware calibrator is what most people call it). I use an i1 Display Pro (from a company whose name has changed more than once: Gretag MacBeth to XRite to Calibrite - possibly others). If you use a hardware calibrated monitor, but don't calibrate it, then it will show you wrong colours - the colour output changes with age and use - you need to recalibrate every so often. Not as often as we used to need to - CRT monitors needed recalibration much more often.
The usual complaint is "why bother? People are going to look at my images on lousy monitors, so why should I try for accurate colour?" - answer is that if you produce an image with accurate colour, then your image will match the colours of another image that was produced on a calibrated system - your reds will look the same as their reds, your skin tones will match their skin tones. If your images all look greener (or bluer, or more orange) than those from other people, your images will be described unflatteringly
The whole subject of accurate colour is a lot bigger than whether you use sRGB or Adobe RGB. I'm no expert. In fact, the deeper I look into it, the more I feel that I'll never fully understand it all
www.bbc.com
And if I'm not happy, what difference does it make for posting on the internet? Anyone who believes most people are processing on a calibrated monitor is fooling their self. Comparing your colors to someone else's on the internet is a waste of time. The variables are so vast there's no way to suppose how they got to the end result, least of all which color space they're using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVOaNhw65Q . This you tube video called Color Science Made Simple by Dan Steinhardt and Jeff Schewe is one of the very best explanations of sRGB vs adobe RGB vs Pro phot RGB. I am not sure it refers to how you should shoot but they do a great job of why you should consider one over the other.
Annnnnndddd...We're off!
