Adobe RGB V SRGB

[amfoto]

Been looking on and off at a new monitor, been looking at a adobe rgb monitor, now in real terms is there much of a difference between adobe rgb and an normal monitor ? I can shoot raw files in adobe rgb, thou not convinced that there is much of a difference, other than the price. Would appreciate comments from anyone that's got experience about adobe rgb monitors. Don't really want to be spending more than £600 on sumthing that just aint worth it.

Think what I'm trying to say ,, in real terms - Can you see the difference with an image printed in Adobe RGB and one printed on SRGB.

I get Adobe aint the way to go for digital iamges

 

[john.margetts]

You are not going to print in either. Your print colour space is determined by the inks and paper the printer uses.

The AdobeRGB monitor will be able to display more colours than a sRGB monitor will but that might just mean a bigger shift in colour rendition when you print.

 

[st599]

Been looking on and off at a new monitor, been looking at a adobe rgb monitor, now in real terms is there much of a difference between adobe rgb and an normal monitor ? I can shoot raw files in adobe rgb,

I'm more used to ITU-R BT.709 and ITU-R BT.2020 gamuts, but I'd say there is a definite difference and you should see more faithful colour reproduction in greens, cyans and blues.

Raw files use the colour gamut of the camera, this is unlikely to be exactly Adobe RGB. You need some software to convert Raw to a viewable file with a gamut.

Think what I'm trying to say ,, in real terms - Can you see the difference with an image printed in Adobe RGB and one printed on SRGB.

Adobe RGB and sRGB are both standards for screens. They have nothing to do with printing.

 

[amfoto]

You are not going to print in either. Your print colour space is determined by the inks and paper the printer uses.

The AdobeRGB monitor will be able to display more colours than a sRGB monitor will but that might just mean a bigger shift in colour rendition when you print.

Great that i got 2 commets ,,,


However


Im the printer

i shoot or can shoot is adobe rgb

will i see the benifit in editing in adobe rgb , with a adobe rgb monitor ,,,in the prints that i print

 

[john.margetts]

Unlikely. The only point at which you might see a very slight difference is when the printing software changes the image RGB colour space to the CYMB colour space. You will be offered two options - Perceptual which will change only those colours in the RGB colour space which do not appear in the CYMB colour space. The other option is Relative colour where all colours are slightly changed so that the outlying colours fit in the new colour space. I have never actually seen a change in the colours over 12-odd years of printing.

 

[gerry s]

I only have experience with Epson printers but they are capable of producing more than sRGB although not all of Argb. There is a possibility of there being colours produced outside of what you can see on an sRGB monitor so using an Argb monitor could have an advantage. Using Argb could possibly result in smoother colour transition as well. I'm not sure how many people have gone that step further and use prophoto. I think sRGB was developed by Microsoft/HP for monitor displays and Argb was developed to display most of the colours used on cmyk which is now used mainly by commercial printers.
It's a huge subject but I just think there is no real gain from throwing information away.
I am often wrong.

 

[Jase]

When you say you shoot in Adobe RGB, do you mean you work in Adobe RGB because if you are shooting RAW thats not shooting in Adobe RGB.

If you are working in Adobe RGB then get an Adobe RGB monitor if you can justify it the difference in cost, I know a few people who work with and iMac and have a Adobe RGB monitor for reference.

 

[Willid1]

Hi Alistair

I would say that unless you have a very specific requirement to use and display the Adobe RGB colour space (other than wanting justification for spending more money on a nicer monitor ) then I'll repeat the best piece of advice I saw in response to questions about colour spaces and photography.

"If you have to ask - then no!"

I have found that as soon as you print something - unless you view the print in very strictly controlled conditions - it's never going to match the screen image. Look similar to but not match.

Personally I have gravitated towards getting images on the wall rather than fretting over colour spaces, it was very liberating

Good luck with your decision.

David

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We all tend to share our output on RGB monitors and devices.
If you are producing work for litho printing there is some advantage in using the wider gamut. But they will end up using CMYK in all their processes.
ARGB generally looks duller when viewed on RGB devices.
if you can take advantage of the wider gamut of ARGB in your own printing you will see an aditional range of colours not available to RGB.
But you will still need to convert to RGB for general use on the web, and for non professional print labs.