MicrostockGroup

I use sRGB for all the micros.  I use adobe RGB for alamy, as they say that's what most of their buyers are used to.  I use 8bit for all files I upload, don't think you can have a 16bit jpeg file.  I use 8bit when editing unless there is a blue sky with subtle tones.  Not sure if editing in 16bit helps reduce banding but I use it with those images.  I remember Yuri tested 8bit and 16bit editing and couldn't see much difference.

I'm shooting in AdobeRGB and uploading in AdobeRGB.

No Adobe 98 RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB. Typically that means less chance of the blues being clipped at the shadow end and less chance of the reds being clipped at highlight end.


iStockphoto previews and websized downloads are sRGB even if you upload wider gamut Adobe 98 images. iStockphoto does the conversion.

If you upload sRGB images iStockphoto converts them to Adobe 98 at L and above. So there is a theoretical slight quality advantage uploading Adobe 98 - and having iStockphoto convert them to sRGB for previews and websized downloads. Either way your previews should look fine.

This has come up many times on the iStockphoto forum and has been confirmed by admins there. It was also pointed out by Rob that either sRGB or Adobe 98 is fine. It's a slight difference.

My RF stuff all goes to iStockphoto. But surely the best would be to upload what works best for any particular site. Different versions for different sites. Presumably you already need different versions with different keywording metadata for different sites depending what schemes are used. Eg Alamy keywording is very different from iStockphoto which is very different again from places which still use the old free text systems.

Different output versions is easy enough to automate with Lightroom or Aperture.

Exactly!

That's what I was getting at. When we get done and upload, it doesn't matter anymore. But I guess there are some different opinions of what a web browser can actually display and all the complications of making different files for different sites and the fact that the end user, most of the time, doesn't care and doesn't know how to handle and process RGB!

Canon or Nikon?

Compression 11 or 12?

UV filter or not?

RAW or JPG - but always edit as TIF?

Tripod or Monopod...

Nice friendly troll luissantos84 

Happy New Year!   

I began shooting sRGB. I switched to aRGB and continue to upload aRGB. I process in Camera RAW as 16-bit and only convert to 8-bit to save my final jpeg. In my opinion, this delivers the best quality to the print customer. If your color profile in shooting matches your color profile in processing and final image, I don't think your thumbnails should appear flat. Websites will convert the thumbnails to sRGB, but this shouldn't effect image quality if your embedded color profile matches each step in your capture/processing. as far as I know anyways. I haven't had any problems since switching to aRGB.