Adobe RGB makes sense if the final output is to CMYK. I've never had
to do that.
Again, I could regurgitate Crockett's articles, but probably wouldn't
do them justice. He addresses the question specifically here:
http://shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html
Here's an excerpt from it:
"If you're shooting for an editorial client or an Annual Report job,
ask the client which color space they would like their images
delivered in and most likely they will tell you the Adobe RGB space.
It's the graphical standard. Then guess what? Shoot / process /
deliver the images in Adobe RGB.
Simple."
But say you want to create images to make photographs (prints), THEN
what's the right answer? In most cases (not all), it's sRGB."
hth/ScottGee1
On 7/19/06, Rob Harrison <robhar@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Now, it could be that I know just enough to be dangerous, but as I
> understand it, sRGB is the most limited color gamut out there. Adobe RGB has
> a wider range, and if you edit using it you'll get both a wider range and
> more saturated colors. SRGB is the lowest common denominator, kinda like
> Windows....;-)
>
> Here's a picture: <http://drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_spaces.htm>
>
> -Rob in Seattle
>
>
> On 7/19/06 1:13 PM, "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand the sRGB comment. Almost every commercial lab in the
> > country prints in sRGB and if you don't send them sRGB they'll convert
> > it. In my book it's best to start with and end with sRGB.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|