I always use RGB too. if  I am not wrong RGB is preferred .

here is a nice read on the topic
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

Always supply to ALL libraries in RGB format.  They mostly convert to sRGB for their smaller sizes.

It is better to take and store and sell your pictures as RGB because it has a wider gamut than sRGB.  You cannot get back information that you have got rid of.

Always supply to ALL libraries in RGB format.  They mostly convert to sRGB for their smaller sizes.

It is better to take and store and sell your pictures as RGB because it has a wider gamut than sRGB.  You cannot get back information that you have got rid of.

This is why you shoot in RAW and submit in sRGB - You can always go back and re-develop with another flavour.

As I understand it Adobe RGB files look flat if viewed in a browser that doesn't recognise colour profiles, but the previews on most of the sites are shown in sRGB, so it really doesn't matter. It matters for the end product though, and I'm sure many designers have expressed a preference for Adobe RGB files.

Deleted by Author due to having second thoughts

I upload everywhere in Adobe RGB, and also  noticed that our photos look very dull on DT, as compared with IS and SS, so I uploaded some in sRGB They didn't seem to look any better, so went back to  Adobe RGB.

As others have said, it's easy enough to convert to sRGB, but you shouldn't do it the other way.

Apparently IS deliver (to the customer) the two smallest sizes in sRGB, but medium and above in Adobe RGB.

I don't know what the others do.

Linda

This is why you shoot in RAW and submit in sRGB - You can always go back and re-develop with another flavour.

No, because many buyers from agencies buy for print use.  If you convert sRGB to RGB you don't get such a good colour gamut.  So I ALWAYS sell in RGB where possible, because buyers can always discard information they don't need.

We sell for extremely low prices on the microstock sites and I was under the impression that most of the images are used on the internet, so I don't have a problem with sRGB.  I think sharply is right about the colors.  I have noticed some of my Adobe RGB uploads to alamy look a bit dull compared to my sRGB files.

Plus, I'm not going to lose a sale because of something so trivial.  If a magazine approaches me and says "we want the picture in RGB" it's quicker and easier to already have it sitting there in RGB.  It takes me a few seconds to convert it to sRBG if they want that, but it could potentially take an awful lot longer to go back to the RAW file (if I can find it) and process it again.

Generally it is better to

You said exactly what I wanted to.  I'm just not very good at saying things.

I don't go as far as you though, I just keep my RAW, my RGB JPEG and a sRGB JPEG saved for web at 600px high.

I'm by no means an expert on this - so I should probably keep my big mouth shut - but the evidence seems incontrovertible.

Ken Rockwell, on one of his pages (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm ... in which he also tells us what an amazing, brilliant, multi-faceted person he is, having invented pretty well everything that's anything in photography) says "Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors."

Well Ken, when I take an image in Photoshop and switch it from Adobe RGB to sRGB it immediately goes flat, dull and lifeless. I can see that with one click. Try it for yourself.

On top of that, another guru, Scott Kelby, writes, "Photoshop's default color space (sRGB) is arguably the worst possible color space for professional photographers. This color space was designed for use by web designers , and it mimics an 'el cheapo' PC monitor ...

Honestly, I wouldn't even recommend this space for web designers today, and it's fairly ghastly for photographers ..."

'nuff said. I'm sticking with Adobe RGB.

Another link to read:-
http://danandsherree.com/2005/03/04/should_i_shoot_in_th.php

There is another Pro recommending sRGB in the comments.

It seems that indeed there is a lot of confusion going on.

To start with - very few monitors can actually reproduce AdobeRGB colors (some expensive Eizos can and maybe top of the line NEC Spectravision, there may be some more). Most monitors do well if they come close to reproducing sRGB.

When working in AdobeRGB, you do not see AdobeRGB colors - if they are out of the monitor gamut (but still within gamut for AdobeRGB).
Even when they are within sRGB gamut, the situation is the same, because the same (r,g,b) values in AdobeRGB and sRGB basically mean different colors - to the eye, or to a spectrophotometer.

At this point calibration and profiling of the monitor enters. Calibration being the proper setup of R,G and B guns , setting black and white points and color temperature. Profiling being setting up a LUT table to provide corrections between measured and expected colors on the screen. So - calibration and profiling are not the same thing, and are frequently mixed up. Let's assume at this point that our hardware is calibrated and profiled - in short, that it can reproduce sRGB space (or is close to it).

Now - assume that we work in AdobeRGB color space, in COLOR MANAGED application. The application still can't display full AdobeRGB gamut on the monitor - but it will make some intelligent (non-linear) mapping of colors into sRGB - because it KNOWS that the working color space is AdobeRGB. And these colors are displayed properly by our (calibrated and profiled) monitor. And all is good with the world.

Now - you post the file (AdobeRGB color space) on the net. The software which displays the file usually does not care about color space and assumes sRGB - which means that it treats the (r,g,b) numbers literally. No information is actually lost - just is interpreted in a simple way. You may end up with washed out colors and color shifts.

When, however, the file is CONVERTED from AdobeRGB to sRGB prior to uploading - the "intelligent" treatment of the AdobeRGB colors by the color aware application is preserved - because in the process of converting, the (r,g,b) numbers are actually changed -  as compared to the original AdobeRGB file.  At this point one only hopes that the monitor used for display, somewhere in the world, is actually calibrated and profiled. In which case someone will see an image pretty similiar to what you intended him to see.

In essence - work in AdobeRGB, and CONVERT to sRGB before uploading. Uploading AdobeRGB file is usually a recipe for misinterpretation. If sRGB file is uploaded - all the user needs is to have his monitor calibrated and (hopefully) profiled.


I hope that by posting this lengthy explanation I haven't added to the confusion 

Quote from: The Corey on March 06, 2008, 02:11

Generally it is better to work with files and formats that give you the most amount of data headroom. Hence RAW converted to uncompressed Tiffs or PSD files, 16bit, Adobe 1998 or even better Pro Photo RGB. (Storage is cheap ).

So we develop RAW like this?


But then? Convert to jpg/sRGB to upload to agency sites?

Could you tell me what is this software screen shot (PS CS2 CS3?)... actually I want work in adobe RGB but I don't have this option in my version.!?

After all  I think I'll stick with RGB