Quote:
Originally Posted by dfarkas
Sean,
I personally, and as a professional photo lab, also live, work and print in an sRGB world. I teach this in my classes as well. I'm not sold on the idea that you are losing shades of color for "normal" photographic subjects. Street photography, landscapes, protraiture all see practically no benefit from a larger gamut space. Although, photos of a canary yellow Ferrari or gaurds red Porsche might. The basic rule of thumb is that if it is seen in nature, sRGB usually does the trick. If it is a man-made synthetic color then AdobeRGB is usually a better bet, though you are output limited in that case.
And I agree that this is not a popular viewpoint. I've worked professionally in digital imaging since 1991. I went through an AdobeRGB phase for a while, but I've come to the point where I've seen zero benefit for my (or my clients) workflow over sRGB. The final proof is in the print, as we say in the lab business. And I haven't seen any proof.
David
|
Hi David,
Well, that's two of us. <G> Its also so much simpler. Art directors are fine with aRGB files but, for various reasons, I'd much rather send sRGB files to most end clients who are not already pre-press/graphics people. Also, so much of what I do is now intertwined with RR and RR, of course, is viewed in sRGB.
Cheers,
Sean