nathanlake Offline Image Upload: On
|
Deezie wrote:
nathanlake wrote: This is a misconception. The amount of information (the number of bits you have) does not vary based on color space. The range of colors may be greater using Adobe RGB, but you "stretch" the same number of bits over a greater range.
If the photo really needs all those extra colors, then by all means use aRGB, but otherwise sRGB is a better bet.
For many of us, those extra colors are not something that we wish to eliminate. It has not been my experience that the average photographer knows which colors extend beyond sRGB. Do they know if the dark greens in their landscape portrait are better served using aRGB? Or what about the magentas and yellows - will they have more punch in aRGB or will sRGB get it done?
If you're thinking about working at a commercial level you better get into the practice of working in a manner that takes little risks where color is concerned. For my company, files we send to print are always CMYK, so we don't dabble too much in aRGB except for initial proofs that we send along to clients. I tend to use vibrant, splashy colors in my work and when I do give files to talent, I make certain it's on my terms and representative of my vision. I am much more discriminating of my work than my clients will ever be, which is why clients trust me. In my opinion, the web is the only place suitable for sRGB.
The example of the greens is the perfect one to make my point. For the most part, the only advantage that Adobe RGB has over sRGB is in the greens and a very slight advantage in blues. If you are shooting portraits or other images that involve little or no green, the advantage goes to sRGB due to having the same number of graduations but within a slightly smaller space.
|