You are correct in one respect, that if you are using a digital camera and it is set to save in JPEG/sRGB mode and you are using consumer machine print services, then you can theoretically get along with an sRGB display.

But my perspective is that what you are doing is snapshot photography, your not a serious photographer and you are not using but 2/3rds of what a contemporary digital camera is capable of recording and reproducing. That is your choice and if it satisfies you I will not criticize you for doing so, we all have to live with what we choose.

But with an sRGB LCD display you cannot see what is contained in a Raw file, nor can you use Photoshop or a similar image editor effectively unless it too is throttled down to sRGB. In other words you cannot effectively adjust and edit images unless they are limited in color content to sRGB, What a scan of film or a Raw dSLR file captures will not be shown fully by an sRGB display and you can't control what you can't see.

Thanks, David, for the response. I really do appreciate how much time you spend in these forums

Sorry, but I cannot understand what is not defined. You were referring to Kodak and Fuji papers for machine prints like those done at low to moderate cost even by pro service bureaus. Although these printers are exposing the paper from digital files the paper is a silver-based light sensitive emulsion not all that different from what mini labs used 10-20 years ago. Many Walmart's and similar consumer print services are using the Fuji Frontier and the "paper" is really just RC plastic, and is not all that different from what has been used in machine printers for years. Most of these printing systems are set to run sRGB, and the files received are usually expected to be JPEG's.

If I use a lab to produce fine arts prints then the lab expects a file that is not compressed and in a larger colorspace format. I favor Adobe RGB against larger color gamut profiles, simply because if the color is not reproduced on-screen there is no way to perceptually control and adjust what you are editing.

Using a full color gamut profile like Adobe RGB (1998) and color correcting, adjusting and editing images for printing in non-compressed TIF files by a fine arts printer demands that the user LCD display has as close to the color gamut of the file profile as possible (NEC Spectraview 2 is 95% of Adobe RGB), and sRGB is only about 70% of Adobe RGB. In addition the display has to be adjustable in White Luminance to printing paper white for accurate brightness adjustment of the image file, if much brighter as most home/office displays are usually, that screen brightness adjustment will reproduce dark prints.

Perhaps this wasn

First of all your assumption that the color gamuts of an image in different media like camera file, an image open and displayed in Photoshop, and in a print are inextricably linked is not the case because each media has it own characteristics, and each media interprets and shapes a color image to its own character. Adobe RGB is only a profile that describes just one basic dimension of color and only in one kind of media and that is to a file as it is stored and display by a computer. There is no factual or logical basis to assume the color image characteristics of a full bit-depth Raw dSLR file determines how it is used and reproduced by other media, the variations are large and extensive.

Let me describe a recent display test experience using a Lacie 700 Series RGV LED LCD display that reproduces a color gamut much larger that that described by the Adobe RGB (1998) profile. I includes several 48-bit high resolution scan files that have never reproduced what was expected from how the image file appeared with a traditional normal high quality LCD display (about 80% gamut compared to Adobe RGB). For instance one of these files was an image of Navaho sandstone scenery that was in many shades of yellow to reddish brown, but always printed with reds that that were darker and deeper (over- saturated)than the image appeared on screen. However this file and other problem files with printing, displayed by the LaCie RGB LED displayed revealed an image much like the prints with areas of over-saturated red, that were never displayed by the lower gamut display. After changing the color correction and adjusting the image as displayed with the high gamut display, the image file was reproduced with a 12 color Canon imagePROGRAF iPF 5000 printer, and a print was finally produced that matched the new display image.

In other words the limited gamut, of even high quality pro-graphics LCD displays. do not display all of the colors, tones and hues that may be contained in a high-bit Raw dSLR camera image file. So in some cases the color correction, adjustment and display of a digital photograph may contain image color and information that is not seen, so a predictable good quality print may not result, because some of those unseen colors and tones may reproduce to become an unpredictable and undesirable print.

All of the modern dSLR digital cameras will capture images with a color gamut that is close to or even a bit larger than the color gamut of the Adobe RGB (1998) profile. I am sure some do set dSLR cameras to save files in the small sRGB gamut, plus the further loss of image data the JPEG file formats cause, but if I paid a $1,000 or more for a good camera, I would want to get out of it all the image color information the camera would capture. To see that and color correct, adjust and edit the images with Photoshop you are best served by a display that reproduces as much of the color gamut of Adobe RGB as possible, and if you are going to make color managed prints the display contrast (gain) should also be adjusted to match printing paper white.

Just thought I would check back to see if there was any other input on this subject and I see that, once again, David has misunderstood what I wrote

Perhaps you just wanted some controversy -- why not ask some printing experts at their companies for their opinion and some of their experience with this matter and check back with your results?

Yes, it is maybe a question of semantics, but also the fact there is a lot of choice in colorspace selection that will accept just about any source of input data. But it is not just data width, but also depth, which is increased in many new cameras, and that can be handled in both applications on a computer, as well as currently full 16-bit printing offered by both Epson and Canon. It is not that bigger in width and depth will make a superior final image, the image subject, content and photographer intent may benefit most by an astute choice at each step in the image reproduction process. It is an individual aesthetic process primarily, the technical attributes are just a part of what the final image represents.

That's a great work. This will help a lot of administrators to protect their website by removing such links. Thanks for this interesting post.
Testking 70-663 Testking 000-977 Testking 70-291 Testking 642-072 Testking 117-102 Testking 70-595 Testking SK0-003 Testking 642-975