Upload & Sell: Off
sRGB became the default standard for display on the Internet because most monitors have a similar "gamut". If files are converted to sRGB they look "normal" on most screens.
The simplest and most "idiot-proof" workflow for a novice who doesn't understand profile based color management is to shoot JPG and set the color to "sRGB" on the camera menu. The camera will convert the image data to fit sRGB automatically with no user intervention required. If the files have correct WB and are exposed for a full range of detail they will look "normal" on most monitors, phones, iPads, etc.
The other option for color space if shooting JPG is "Adobe RGB". If you were to shoot JPG with those settings the appearance of the files on some browsers which don't understand profile (such as IE) will look flat and less saturated. To optimize appearance for the Net you'd need to run a conversion on the copy of the file you plan to share on the Internet: an extra step in the workflow.
Why use Adobe if it's more work? Because on most printers if you compared a shot taken in sRGB with the same scene taken in AdobeRGB the colors will usually be more saturated in the AdobeRGB file. Whether or not you see a difference and how much of a difference there is depends on the content of the shot. If it's a photo of a bride in a white dress you might not notice much difference because all the colors in the scene fit both gamuts. If she is sitting in a red car the faces will look simliar in both prints but the car will be a more saturated red in the print made from the AdobeRGB file.
The take away? If you plan to make prints from the files it's better to use the larger Adobe space, but bear in mind you'll need to convert any copies you post on the Net to sRGB before saving them.
If you shoot in RAW the assignment of color space is done in the application which opens the RAW files. Somewhere in the menus there are the same options as on the camera — sRGB or Adobe — and usually a third even larger gamut: ProPhotoRGB. There will also be the option to convert the RAW with 8-bits / 256 gradations per RGB channel, or 16-bit / thousands of gradations per channel. 16 bit produces smooth gradients and in general is the better choice, but again if all you are doing to the files is dumping them on a web site or printing a Costco without any extensive PP modification converting directly to 8-bit sRGB JPG will be the quickest, but not the best workflow.
More choices requires more education to make the best choice based on how the files will be used. As with JPG if all you ever plan to do with a batch of files is post them on a web page it's simpler to just convert them to sRGB from the start. But if you plan to do retouching and print as well as post on the Net then you'll get better looking prints if the RAW is converted to AdobeRGB or ProPhoto.
When a RAW file is opened and edited the actual file isn't altered. So if you were to take a batch of RAW files and convert them directly to 8-Bit sRGB JPG today, you could go back a year from now when you understand this stuff better and start again from the RAW file and make a 16-bit ProPhoto copy for printing on a wide gamut printer. The only Catch-22 would be you'd need to redo any retouching you did after conversion.
The most important investment is your time to learn how color management works. It's not rocket science but it's difficult to see how all the pieces fit until you try the different workflows and compare the results. I've got some basic tutorials on my site you may find helpful: http://photo.nova.org/
Thanks, that was great read.