BlueWolf Photography wrote:
just want to know what everyone uses, and to edit the photos as well

If you're shooting RAW it doesn't matter what you set the camera to.  If you're shooting JPG and do minimal post work, if you shoot sRGB your images will look best on the web.  More web browsers are now "color space aware", but if you shoot in the other two formats and post to the web the colors may be dull at best and completely off at worst in many users browrsers.  I always shoot RAW and encourage others to do so.

I work in ProPhoto RGB 16 bit to take advantage of the larger color gamut until final output, which is typically 8 bit sRGB.

GM Photography wrote:

If you're shooting RAW it doesn't matter what you set the camera to.  If you're shooting JPG and do minimal post work, if you shoot sRGB your images will look best on the web.  More web browsers are now "color space aware", but if you shoot in the other two formats and post to the web the colors may be dull at best and completely off at worst in many users browrsers.  I always shoot RAW and encourage others to do so.

I work in ProPhoto RGB 16 bit to take advantage of the larger color gamut until final output, which is typically 8 bit sRGB.

Keep in mind that even if the browser is able to operate in different colour spaces(I believe Opera uses Adobe RGB as a default), that does not mean individual sites do.

Pictus wrote:
It depends on the output gamut:
-For WEB or minilab  = sRGB
-For highend inkjet printer with mate paper = Adobe RGB
-For highend inkjet printer with glossy/semi paper = ProPhoto RGB

What he said.

BlueWolf Photography wrote:
just want to know what everyone uses, and to edit the photos as well

GM Photography wrote:
If you're shooting RAW it doesn't matter what you set the camera to.  If you're shooting JPG and do minimal post work, if you shoot sRGB your images will look best on the web.  More web browsers are now "color space aware", but if you shoot in the other two formats and post to the web the colors may be dull at best and completely off at worst in many users browrsers.  I always shoot RAW and encourage others to do so.

I work in ProPhoto RGB 16 bit to take advantage of the larger color gamut until final output, which is typically 8 bit sRGB.

+1

I set my in-camera to sRGB, as a "set it and forget it" in the event I'm asked to shoot an event jpeg for a filedump after the event. (so I don't forget to switch it in-cam, then have a client wondering why the pix are a tad saturated online or whatever happens in such cases)
I shoot everything RAW unless I'm asked to provide jpegs directly after the shoot. Which I'll do, but dislike doing. I also convert to 16-bit TIFF pix, ProPhoto RGB, and stay there until completion. I print from this, and the difference in tonality and colour-rendition in prints is notable to those with the eye for detail. I'm also a bit of a purist, and like to keep my game tight cuz when I get lazy about my workflow I get real shitty

BlueWolf Photography wrote:
just want to know what everyone uses, and to edit the photos as well

As a general rule, use the smallest gamut colorspace that encompasses all of the colors in your image.

Using a wider gamut color space than needed will not increase image quality and can actually degrade it.

Real world implementations of wider gamut color spaces don't have more colors, they have different colors.  They have a wider range, but less precision.  This is why it is important to use 16 bits per channel when using wide gamut color spaces.  The 16 bits per channel more than compensates for the reduced accuracy.


The other issue of wide gamut color spaces is that many people don't really understand the various conversion options.  If the colorspace of your image has a wider gamut than the color gamut of your output device, you need to make a decision on how to reconcile the difference.  If you just allow the system to handle it automatically, you may not get the best choice.

If the the colorspace of your image has a gamut that's smaller than your output device, then the conversion is straightforward.


Thus, using a colorspace with a wider gamut than you need can reduce quality, increase workflow complexity, increase storage demands, and introduces opportunities for incorrect color management.

Keep in mind, that if the colors in your image fit into sRGB, then there is absolutely no advantage to using a wider gamut colorspace.

The trick is knowing when your image fits into sRGB.  Almost every image you have ever seen on the web is in the sRGB colorspace.  Your image would need to have colors outside of this range in order to benefit from a wide gamut colorspace.  For example, a very saturated hot pink bathing suit would warrant a colorspace wider than sRGB.

You should also keep in mind what your final product will be.  If the final product will be an sRGB image, there is no need to work in a wider gamut colorspace.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work (website) – which may/may not be supportive.

Peter House wrote:
16bit pro photo RGB

Same here and then I can do anything i want to it later as needed...

rfordphotos wrote:
I have been told, you are most likely better off to work in a smaller color space If you cant see it to edit it correctly.

I need to admit, this makes a lot of sense. I do double-check my sRGB jpegs before sending them out, of course. And to be frank, I'm not at the level that I deal with PP RGB pix then send them out   I'm more likely to send-out RAW files to biz clients or retouchers, if anything. And I'm not even there yet!

For now, I'll do it for two reasons. One, to stay in good practice. If and when the day ever comes that I have a $5000 Eizo monitor and the need to work with the images myself during the same period, I'll already have the workflow in place. I've had this 'flow going since 2012, and I still have 2 prints in my book from August 2012 I believe! (it may only be 1)
#2. For my own book. I still have one, and although I haven't done a print in ages I do maintain a printed book. I'm moving from an 11x14 to a 13x19 in the near future though, which will cost my last will and testicle almost if I keep my 11x14 current then switch

Michael Fryd wrote:
As a general rule, use the smallest gamut colorspace that encompasses all of the colors in your image.

Using a wider gamut color space than needed will not increase image quality and can actually degrade it.

+1

Dan D Lyons Imagery wrote:
Wider = better. Wider gamuts don't introduce more colours, they represent more distinctly different variations of colours. To work with wider gamuts, one needs to revise their workflow accordingly. For example, a person must work in a 16-bit workspace with 16-bit files to work in the Adobe or ProPhoto RGB gamuts.

I disagree that Wider is always better, but do agree that wider gamut spaces require a greater bit-depth to avoid color problems.

I generally use 8-bit sRGB, but sometimes use ProPhotoRGB in 16 bit. I used to use Adobe RGB, but found that there were very few images that I shot that didn't fit into sRGB but did fit into Adobe RGB, making it actually worse than sRGB unless I shifted to 16 bit. So most stuff is converted to sRGB/8, and the rare image containing color outside the gamut of sRGB are converted to ProPhoto RGB/16.

Analogy: A ladder.
Consider bit-depth the number of steps in the ladder and gamut the length of the ladder.
A wider gamut for a given colorspace means the ladder is taller (wider range of colors), but unless there's more steps (bit depth), the steps (colors) are further apart.

8-bit sRGB has enough leeway to make moderate adjustments without visible effect. 8-bit ProPhoto does not; in fact, even very minor adjustments can result in banding. ProPhoto RGB really requires 16-bit overall.

Dan D Lyons Imagery wrote:
I didn't mean to say wider is always better, I just meant it as a general rule of thumb. I don't do many prints at the moment, nor do I care to. I just consider it could practice mostly, helping me stay in good habit. Perhaps I'm just doing yet another time-wasting process......

It's not a good habit to use a wider gamut than what you need.

When working in 8-bits per channel, sRGB has 16,777,216 possible colors.  Contrast this to Adobe RGB which offers you 16,777,216 discreet colors.  If you move to ProPhoto the number if 16,777,216,

Notice that all three color spaces offer you the same number of colors.

The difference is which colors they offer.  With sRGB, the colors are the colors that you can see on a typical computer monitor.  Take a photo of a field of grass, and there are many shades of common green, allowing you to get smooth gradients, and exactly the right color.   AdobeRGB removes some of this common shades and adds a few uncommon colors (for instance some super saturated hot pinks).  ProPhoto goes further, you lose even more of the common shades, gain a few more uncommon colors, and even allocate some of your limited colorspace to colors that don't exist.

You can compensate for this by switching to 16 bits per pixel (which doubles file size and slows down your workflow).  At 16 bits there are more than enough discrete colors and we can afford to allocate some to unusual and imaginary colors.


When working in wide gamut workflows you are more likely to need to switch to a narrow gamut colorspace for you final image (or even to view you image on your monitor).  The real issue is not the slight errors introduced by the conversion, but the gross color shifts introduced by trying to fit a wider gamut colorspace into a narrower one.   Make the wrong decision on conversion options, and the colors in your image can shift and look flat.  Make the wrong decision and you can loose all detail in your saturated colors.   

If you want to use a wider gamut colorspace I strongly suggest that you learn about all the various strategies for moving to that smaller color space. Carefully pick the strategy that is appropriate for the image at hand. 

You may wish to do the conversion before delivering an electronic image to a client.  If they have to do the conversion, they might make the wrong choice, and your image won't look as it should.

BlueWolf Photography wrote:
just want to know what everyone uses, and to edit the photos as well

unless you completely understand color space. stick with sRGB.

Michael Fryd wrote:

It's not a good habit to use a wider gamut than what you need.

When working in 8-bits per channel, sRGB has 16,777,216 possible colors.  Contrast this to Adobe RGB which offers you 16,777,216 discreet colors.  If you move to ProPhoto the number if 16,777,216,

Notice that all three color spaces offer you the same number of colors.

As mentioned a couple times earlier, I personally work with 16-bit Lossless TIFF images, right until completion. I'll down-size for web to sRGB 8-bit jpegs, but jpegs are only jpegs. I don't market for web-sales, I market for printable photos. I do not run into problems going PP RGB to sRGB, I run into issues when I drop from 16-bit to 8-bit images. The contrast is raised since the tonality is more abrupt. I need to double-check my work before sending it out. I considered sticking with an 8-bit workflow (lossless TIFF still), but was edicated by my association of professional photographers that the smaller bit-depth could lead to posteurization and many other problems. I was told at a seminar hosted by my Professional Photographers Of Canada that ideally I would be PP RGB 16-bit lossless (recommended .psd but I use more than only CS6), printing from 16-bit images if at all possible and told to double-check my work after converting color gamuts and altering the bit-depth of the image.

Michael Fryd wrote:
The difference is which colors they offer.  With sRGB, the colors are the colors that you can see on a typical computer monitor.  Take a photo of a field of grass, and there are many shades of common green, allowing you to get smooth gradients, and exactly the right color.   AdobeRGB removes some of this common shades and adds a few uncommon colors (for instance some super saturated hot pinks).  ProPhoto goes further, you lose even more of the common shades, gain a few more uncommon colors, and even allocate some of your limited colorspace to colors that don't exist.

As it's been mentioned earlier, wider gamuts offer more distinctly different colours. That's why dynamic range & tonality appear superior in a photo encoded with a wider gamut and remaining there until shown, and shown properly. (on a compatible monitor, or capable printer) Think of it like bit-depth. Since there's more colour information, a more gradual transition of light falling on a red dress/blue shirt/etc can be documented and represented more faithfully.

Michael Fryd wrote:
You can compensate for this by switching to 16 bits per pixel (which doubles file size and slows down your workflow).  At 16 bits there are more than enough discrete colors and we can afford to allocate some to unusual and imaginary colors.


When working in wide gamut workflows you are more likely to need to switch to a narrow gamut colorspace for you final image (or even to view you image on your monitor).  The real issue is not the slight errors introduced by the conversion, but the gross color shifts introduced by trying to fit a wider gamut colorspace into a narrower one.   Make the wrong decision on conversion options, and the colors in your image can shift and look flat.  Make the wrong decision and you can loose all detail in your saturated colors.   

If you want to use a wider gamut colorspace I strongly suggest that you learn about all the various strategies for moving to that smaller color space. Carefully pick the strategy that is appropriate for the image at hand.

I did. Right from the mouth of my print-house, at PhaseOne Toronto/Vistek downtown and a Retoucher who's an accredited member of the Professional Photographers Of Canada. I book gigs using 2 year old prints.

Michael Fryd wrote:
You may wish to do the conversion before delivering an electronic image to a client.  If they have to do the conversion, they might make the wrong choice, and your image won't look as it should.

Why would my client ever do my job? Or, the job of my retoucher? I realize that photographers need to have a higher capacity to 'complete' images in this day & age of clients who will only shell-out for the very best (or offer peanuts for "good" work only), but honestly I think I'm just going to start working with retouchers. And I'll be lazy and stick with sRGB, so I have less to keep track of! Camera RAW is Camera RAW, and with a retoucher handling that end of things it's no real concern of mine. Right? Lol!

Michael Fryd wrote:
It's not a good habit to use a wider gamut than what you need.

This is one of those things that sounds sensible - but actually isn't so much in practice. As it assumes that one always has correctly identified future need at the time the photograph was originated. It's always possible to downgrade the colorspace as appropriate for specific output, but going the other direction is... well.. difficult.

Michael Fryd wrote:
It's not a good habit to use a wider gamut than what you need.

assuming you can identify "what you need" in the future. in the commercial world, it's best to anticipate for the broadest use. limiting the gamut and then doing all the post work at the limited gamut could be a problem. if you want to do only online/web work - that's fine. resolution & color gamut aren't huge issues.

once you go to print and 6-8 color press runs with varnish on sheetfed coated stock. or deal with product color matching, that's a different story. your target market is key. then there's having the resources to deal with it. wide gamut monitors, calibration setups and the equipment to deal with those things becomes vital.

Michael Fryd wrote:
As a general rule, use the smallest gamut colorspace that encompasses all of the colors in your image.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
This is one of those things that sounds sensible - but actually isn't so much in practice. As it assumes that one always has correctly identified future need at the time the photograph was originated. It's always possible to downgrade the colorspace as appropriate for specific output, but going the other direction is... well.. difficult.

Actually, the reverse is true.  It is very easy to move an image into a higher gamut colorspace.  All of the colors in the source colorspace can be represented in the destination colorspace. 

Moving from a wide gamut colorspace to a narrower gamut is the challenge.  By definition, the source colorspace contains colors that cannot be represented in the destination colorspace.  You need to make a decision on how to map the source colors to the destination colors.  Are you going to shift all the colors so that they have similar relationships with each other (but different absolute colors).  Perhaps you want to keep the same absolute colors and just truncate out of gamut colors?  You may wish to fine tune a custom solution based on the needs of the particular image.

In any case, when moving to a narrower colorspace, decisions need to be made that will affect the colors in the image.  I do not suggest relying on the default color conversion choices.  I suggest making an informed choice based on the needs of the job/image at hand.

If all of the colors in your image fit within sRGB, then there is no disadvantage to using sRGB, even if you will be printing the image on a wide gamut printer.

If the image doesn't contain highly saturated hot pink, and I don't need the image to include highly saturated hot pink, then there is no need to use a colorspace that include highly saturated hot pink.

If, at some later date,  I want to edit the image to make something highly saturated hot pink, I can then convert the image to a wider gamut colorspace.


As a general rule, you get the best results with the lease hassle by working in the smallest gamut colorspace that covers the image.

The trick is learning how to use your tools so you they tell you when you need to switch to a wider gamut colorspace.

Michael Fryd wrote:
It's not a good habit to use a wider gamut than what you need.

LeonardG Photography wrote:
assuming you can identify "what you need" in the future. in the commercial world, it's best to anticipate for the broadest use. limiting the gamut and then doing all the post work at the limited gamut could be a problem. if you want to do only online/web work - that's fine. resolution & color gamut aren't huge issues.

No. I am assuming you can identify what you want today.  If the colors you want are all inside the sRGB gamut, then there is no advantage to using a wider gamut colorspace.  If at some time you want to add colors outside the sRGB colorspace, you can always move to a wider gamut colorspace.

LeonardG Photography wrote:
once you go to print and 6-8 color press runs with varnish on sheetfed coated stock. or deal with product color matching, that's a different story. your target market is key. then there's having the resources to deal with it. wide gamut monitors, calibration setups and the equipment to deal with those things becomes vital.

There are two separate issues here. 

Let's talk about critical color matching in catalog or fine art work.  If the colors you are trying to match are in the sRGB colorspace, then you lose nothing by working in sRGB.

If the product contains colors that are outside sRGB, then you absolutely should be using a wider gamut colorspace.


Of course, people who are doing this sort of color critical work should be well versed in the intricacies of color spaces and color management.  They should be knowledgeable enough to understand how to convert to smaller colorspaces when needed.  Even a high end 8 color press can't reproduce all of ProPhoto.  If you are working in ProPhoto, a decision needs to be made as to how to convert from the source image in ProPhoto, to the printer's smaller color gamut.

On the other hand, if the product's colors fit within sRGB. and you are working in sRGB, then there should be no issues with printing to the wider color gamut of an 8 color press.

Michael Fryd wrote:
No. I am assuming you can identify what you want today.  If the colors you want are all inside the sRGB gamut, then there is no advantage to using a wider gamut colorspace.  If at some time you want to add colors outside the sRGB colorspace, you can always move to a wider gamut colorspace.

Huh - what???
"if you want to add colors" - Add colors??? - what, within photoshop add colors???
You used a smaller colorspace that lost the wider gamut colors your image contained. Now they're gone - you're going to add them back using photoshop??

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Huh - what???
"if you want to add colors" - Add colors??? - what, within photoshop add colors???
You used a smaller colorspace that lost the wider gamut colors your image contained. Now they're gone - you're going to add them back using photoshop??

We both agree that you need to use a colorspace with a gamut large enough to contain all the colors in your image.  If the gamut of the colorspace is big enough, then by definition, you won't lose any colors.


My point was that there is no advantage to using a wider gamut than you need.


Let's look at a simple example:

If I am shooting a fine art nude in my studio, it is very likely that all the colors in my image fit into the sRGB colorspace.  I do not lose any colors any colors by working in sRGB.  Should I switch to a wider gamut colorspace (like AdobeRGB or ProPhoto) my image will not magically gain any colors, I will merely gain some stair-stepping in my image.  I can easily compensate for this by moving from 8 bits per channel to 16.

Again.  When the colors I want in my image fit into the sRGB colorspace, there is nothing to be gained by working in a larger gamut color space.

Perhaps I want to use photoshop to artificially colorize part of the image with a highly saturated hot pink.  That color is outside of the sRGB color gamut.  At that point, I would convert the image to a 16 bit per channel wider gamut colorspace.  Once converted I could add the hot pink.

Again, there was no disadvantage to starting is sRGB.  It did not impose any limitations.  Moving from sRGB to a wider gamut colorspace is trivial.

Now if my model was wearing nothing but a highly saturated pink bow, and I wanted to accurately record that color, then sRGB would not be appropriate.

It is the presence of out of gamut colors that triggers the need for a larger gamut workspace.  Unless you want those colors in your image, there is no need for the wide gamut colorspace.

Dan D Lyons Imagery wrote:
Moving from sRGB up to Adobe RGB or PP RGB is like moving from a lossy 8-bit jpeg up to a lossless 16-bit TIFF in PP RGB. Once the info is gone, it's gone. You cannot "move to a wider space", because you've already eliminated the extra information. That's what we've been trying to say. Keeping more allows you to use less or use it all at a later date as-needed. Reverting down from the get-go only serves to limit your options later. Because you cannot go from a smaller gamut to a wider one. I'm not going to validate that statement. You go spend $20/print on 3 prints like I did in 2012 and find out with your own eyes why you cannot.

Bearing in mind that most monitors only display at sRGB, so you likely wouldn't see the difference until you're out $75 bucks and pissed cuz you gotta re-retouch from scratch then shell-out *more money to have tho9se prints on your book

No. Moving from a narrow gamut colorspace to a wide gamut colorspace is like moving from a short ruler to a longer ruler.

Imagine that you have two rulers.  One that is 10cm long with 100 divisions, and one that is 100cm long, also with 100 divisions.

The shorter ruler is accurate to the nearest millimeter, but can't measure anything longer than 10cm.
The longer ruler can measure items up to 10 times longer  (100cm), but with 1/10 the accuracy (1 cm precision).

When measuring an object you are best off using the shortest ruler that is long enough.

If you are measuring something 5.1 cm long, the shorter ruler will tell you it's 5.1 cm.  The longer ruler tells you it is 5cm long.  You lose nothing by using the shorter ruler (and gain a bit of accuracy)

On the other hand if you need to measure something 15.1cm long, the shorter ruler can't do it.  It maxes out at 10cm.  You have to use the longer ruler, which will tell you the item is 15cm long.

Notice that the shorter ruler is more accurate but has a limited range.  The larger ruler has a longer range, but is less accurate. 

Colorspaces work the same way.  As long as the colorspace's gamut is large enough to contain all the colors, there is no advantage to using a wider gamut colorspace.  In fact the smaller gamut colorspace will yield more precision.

To be fair, at 16 bits per channel, they all have enough precision.  As 16bits per channel, the lower precision of ProPhoto and AdobeRGB is not an issue.

Michael Fryd wrote:

We both agree that you need to use a colorspace with a gamut large enough to contain all the colors in your image.  If the gamut of the colorspace is big enough, then by definition, you won't lose any colors.


My point was that there is no advantage to using a wider gamut than you need.


Let's look at a simple example:

If I am shooting a fine art nude in my studio, it is very likely that all the colors in my image fit into the sRGB colorspace.  I do not lose any colors any colors by working in sRGB.  Should I switch to a wider gamut colorspace (like AdobeRGB or ProPhoto) my image will not magically gain any colors, I will merely gain some stair-stepping in my image.  I can easily compensate for this by moving from 8 bits per channel to 16.

Again.  When the colors I want in my image fit into the sRGB colorspace, there is nothing to be gained by working in a larger gamut color space.

Perhaps I want to use photoshop to artificially colorize part of the image with a highly saturated hot pink.  That color is outside of the sRGB color gamut.  At that point, I would convert the image to a 16 bit per channel wider gamut colorspace.  Once converted I could add the hot pink.

Again, there was no disadvantage to starting is sRGB.  It did not impose any limitations.  Moving from sRGB to a wider gamut colorspace is trivial.

Now if my model was wearing nothing but a highly saturated pink bow, and I wanted to accurately record that color, then sRGB would not be appropriate.

It is the presence of out of gamut colors that triggers the need for a larger gamut workspace.  Unless you want those colors in your image, there is no need for the wide gamut colorspace.

Are you under the impression that when you load into photoshop an image with a particular "color-thumbprint" that after doing color based photoshop manipulation, that it's not possible to generate new colors?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Are you under the impression that when you load into photoshop an image with a particular "color-thumbprint" that after doing color based photoshop manipulation, that it's not possible to generate new colors?

I am under the impression that it is not possible to generate colors that are outside of the gamut of the working colorspace.   If you want generate these colors then you need to use a wider gamut colorspace.

If you have no desire to create/use colors outside of sRGB, then there is no need to use a wider gamut colorspace.

For instance, someone doing fine art nudes may never need/desire to exceed the sRGB colorspace. 

Of course, it is a matter of style.  I have never found the need to add highly saturated hot pink to any of my fine art nudes.  Other artists may have very different styles.

Michael Fryd wrote:

I am under the impression that it is not possible to generate colors that are outside of the gamut of the working colorspace.   If you want generate these colors then you need to use a wider gamut colorspace.

If you have no desire to create/use colors outside of sRGB, then there is no need to use a wider gamut colorspace.

For instance, someone doing fine art nudes may never need/desire to exceed the sRGB colorspace. 

Of course, it is a matter of style.  I have never found the need to add highly saturated hot pink to any of my fine art nudes.  Other artists may have very different styles.

I think you're ignoring the realities of photo work in favor of some mathematical reference you read at some point.

So.
- You're in Photoshop working within an sRGB colorspace (wouldn't be my preference).
- You're doing color manipulation on the photo which can generate out of gamut colors
- These colors will be "truncated" (for lack of a better term) - you'll lose them

It isn't like photoshop will pop-up a dialog saying "you are generating colors outside your current gamut - do you wish to use a different colorspace?" - Your scenario of wanting to knowingly create out of gamut colors such as a wild pink fill, doesn't really pass the reality test of virtually all photographic PS retouching use.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I think you're ignoring the realities of photo work in favor of some mathematical reference you read at some point.

So.
- You're in Photoshop working within an sRGB colorspace (wouldn't be my preference).
- You're doing color manipulation on the photo which can generate out of gamut colors
- These colors will be "truncated" (for lack of a better term) - you'll lose them

It isn't like photoshop will pop-up a dialog saying "you are generating colors outside your current gamut - do you wish to use a different colorspace?" - Your scenario of wanting to knowingly create out of gamut colors such as a wild pink fill, doesn't really pass the reality test of virtually all photographic PS retouching use.

If you are doing Photoshop manipulations that generate colors outside the sRGB gamut, then of course you should be using a wider gamut colorspace.

The flip side if this is that if you are not generating these out-of-gamut colors, then there is no need to leave sRGB.

It really boils down to the type of manipulations one does in Photoshop.

Take the example of a fine art nude.  My style is not to use, or introduce, overly saturated colors into my images.  The pallet offered by sRGB is more than sufficient for what I want in my fine art nudes.  There would be no benefit to using a wide gamut colorspace.  However, a wide gamut colorspace would introduce unneeded complexities into the workflow.

Not everyone has the same vision that I have.  If you find that you want these colors in your workflow, then by all means, you should use a wider gamut colorspace.

None of this contradicts my original suggestion that one should use the smallest gamut colorspace that includes all the colors you need.  For many images that will be sRGB.  For those images where you want to exceed sRGB, use a wider gamut colorspace.

Dan D Lyons Imagery wrote:
I'm too lazy to find one of the RGB vs RGB vs RGB write-ups online right now, but for the sake of readers I offer the following in hopes of adding clarity.

Wider gamuts define a wider number of distinctly different colours, yes. I feel that stated like this, the factuality is misleading. I'll attempt to illustrate, in my humblest of non-professor attempts....

There are 256 distinct colours in the sRGB gamut. In PP RGB, there's something like 16 thousand. Now, the same scene is photographed. Let's say it's a Corporate portrait of a man in a royal blue shirt, and a Rembrandt style of lighting was used. (not unlike my current avi, which is between a loop and a Rembrandt) From his armpit to his wrist, the light flows across his shirt and the color is affected accordingly. Rendered using the sRGB gamut, the colours will have a more contrasty appearance, less variation and smothness in how the transition of colours appear. Less "color dynamic range" you could say, although that is an incredibly incorrect term. But for the sake of my explanation an' all that...

Having more distinct colours available to describe the scene, the scene can be rendered more faithfully. More colour-true and real-to-live. On the screen/internet? Nahhh. In print? If your monitor is profiled correctly yes, or if you're lazy like me you spend the money you don't really have on the prints you use to advertise your wares in your 11x14. Just being 16-bit TIFF/.PSD images alone will improve the appearance of the images of anyone's work. (assuming they went 12/14-bit RAW to 16-bit image and never dr45opped to 8-bit and did a "save" function)

There's some good info on this page here, specifically noting the benefits to working in PP RGB if you're doing FA prints. https://luminous-landscape.com/understa … photo-rgb/

Not quite correct.

Both sRGB and ProPhotoRGB have the same number of distinct colors.  The difference is that ProPhotoRGB places adjacent colors further apart, and includes some more extreme colors.

Let suppose you are photographing someone in a blue shirt, with a wide dynamic range.  In sRGB, the gradients across the blue will be smoother than with ProPhotoRGB.  The reason is sRGB has more discrete shades of blue in that range.

The advantage of ProPhotoRGB would be if the shirt was neon blue at it's brightest.  The neon blue might be a bit out of range of sRGB, and accommodations would need to be made.  With ProPhotoRGB we could include the portion of the blue that was incredibly saturated.  We might lose some of the smoothness in the rest of the shirt but we gain the ability to represent the neon blue.

To be fair.  If we are using 16 bits per channel, even ProPhotoRGB will have enough smoothness.

On the other hand, if the shirt isn't that neon blue, ProPhotoRGB offers no advantages over sRGB.

The common misconception is that wider gamuts provide smoother color transitions.  This is incorrect.  Higher bit depths give you the smoother transitions.  Wider gamuts reduce smoothness, and therefore you have to use the higher bit depths to compensate.

Michael Fryd wrote:

If you are doing Photoshop manipulations that generate colors outside the sRGB gamut, then of course you should be using a wider gamut colorspace.

The flip side if this is that if you are not generating these out-of-gamut colors, then there is no need to leave sRGB.

It really boils down to the type of manipulations one does in Photoshop.

Take the example of a fine art nude.  My style is not to use, or introduce, overly saturated colors into my images.  The pallet offered by sRGB is more than sufficient for what I want in my fine art nudes.  There would be no benefit to using a wide gamut colorspace.  However, a wide gamut colorspace would introduce unneeded complexities into the workflow.

Not everyone has the same vision that I have.  If you find that you want these colors in your workflow, then by all means, you should use a wider gamut colorspace.

None of this contradicts my original suggestion that one should use the smallest gamut colorspace that includes all the colors you need.  For many images that will be sRGB.  For those images where you want to exceed sRGB, use a wider gamut colorspace.

Why do you feel there is value in using the smallest possible colorspace while editing?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Why do you feel there is value in using the smallest possible colorspace while editing?

It simplifies workflow by eliminating issues with converting to smaller gamut colorspaces later in the workflow.  A wide gamut colorspace like prophotoRGB will have a wider gamut than your output device, hence a down conversion will be required every time you want to view or print the image.  Down conversions require careful thought.  If you work in sRGB, you minimize or eliminate those down-conversions.  Up-converting to a wider gamut colorspace is a simple and straightforward procedure.

Small gamut colorspaces like sRGB can give good results with 8 bits per channel.  With a wider gamut colorspace you really should use 16 bits per channel.  This doubles file size, increases the memory required to work with an image, and reduces the available file formats to store an image.   With 8 bits per channel and a 50 megapixel camera, a multi-layer photoshop file can easily be 500MB in size.    If you move to 16 bits per channel, your file sizes can double to a gigabyte.

At a given bit depth, small gamut color spaces provide smoother gradients than large gamut color spaces.

If you work in sRGB, you reduce or eliminate  the opportunities for your colors to shift due to a bad conversion.  Convert an sRGB image to ProphotoRGB, and the colors won't shift.  Convert back to sRGB and you can easily get a color shift as the conversion process tries to squeeze the wide color gamut into a narrower one.

There are many situations where your deliverable needs to be an sRGB file.  In which case working in sRGB eliminates a final conversion to sRGB before delivering the file.


In short, if your image fits in sRGB, then working in sRGB provides a simpler, less error prone workflow.  sRGB may allow you to work in 8 bits per channel which reduces file sizes and speeds up processing.

Working in a larger gamut color space gives you the option of including unusual colors in your image.  Your workflow becomes more complicated.  There are additional opportunities to make color management mistakes.  You need to work in 16 bits per channel which doubles file sizes and slows down processing.   Why would I want these disadvantages unless I want to include these colors in my image?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I always take my shoes off while shooting so I don't disturb the elephants.

Yes, some people always use wide gamut color spaces on the chance that their image might contain a color that is out of the sRGB color gamut.


If your images don't use these colors, there is no need to go to the effort of using a wide gamut color space.