Thanks all for the great input. I have read it all and am listening to youtube videos on the same subject and I am still a little undecided.
There are generally 3 colour spaces I am considering for processing- srgb, ProPhoto rgb, and adobe rgb. Prophoto has the widest gamet, adobe 2nd, and srgb narrowest. [ Just to make it more complicated - apple can display in DCI-P3 colour space which is closer to argb than srgb.]
My R5 camera lets me choose SRGB and ARGB but I shoot in raw and this can be specifed later differently at no cost.
And after reading the comments, I am considering either processing in photo rgb or argb as default and then exporting in srgb or argb depending on whether its for web or for print.
I am still not clear what the benefits of editing in prophoto would be. I am mostly emailing or posting or printing at a online printer company.
if I used pro photo as default, I would be always at least converting down to a lower gamet colour profile, and from what I read I cannot see and my monitor cannot show the wider gamet - whats the point?
Further I listened to a youtube video that suggested conversion has greater risk the bigger the distance you are compresssing (eg photo pro has more risk than argb because it requires more compression risk).
So why would I use prophoto as my default colour space for editing?
If I understand it, the only benefit of pho photo would be if I bought my own printer and mapped it to phrophoto. I am not going to do this.
[Apologies for slow participation. I have been ill - flue/covid - who knows and just recovering]
Thanks all for the great input. I have read it all and am listening to youtube videos on the same subject and I am still a little undecided.
There are generally 3 colour spaces I am considering for processing- srgb, ProPhoto rgb, and adobe rgb. Prophoto has the widest gamet, adobe 2nd, and srgb narrowest. [ Just to make it more complicated - apple can display in DCI-P3 colour space which is closer to argb than srgb.]
My R5 camera lets me choose SRGB and ARGB but I shoot in raw and this can be specifed later differently at no cost.
And I am considering either processing in photo rgb or argb as default and then exporting in srgb or argb depending on whether its for web or for print.
I am still not clear what the benefits of editing in prophoto would be. I am mostly emailing or posting or printing at a online printer company.
if I used pro photo as default, I would be always at least converting down to a lower gamet colour profile, and from what I read I cannot see and my monitor cannot show the wider gamet - whats the point?
Further I listened to a youtube video that suggested conversion has greater risk the bigger the distance you are compresssing (eg photo pro has more risk than argb because it requires more compression risk).
So why would I use prophoto as my default colour space for editing?
If I understand it, the only benefit of pho photo would be if I bought my own printer and mapped it to phrophoto. I am not going to do this.
[Apologies for slow participation. I have been ill - flue/covid - who knows and just recovering]
Nov 18, 2022 at 02:47 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #16097516 « adobe rgb vs srgb and LR and Photohop »
