> The important point here Mark, is to consider all those people who told you
> to use Adobe RGB really didn't know much about what they were talking about.
Adobe RGB is a perfectly suitable working space for the vast majority.
> Television screens (Computer monitors) cannot see the entire Adobe RGB space
> anyway.
True of most computer displays, but many also produce/see a lot more than
sRGB.
> Web browsers won't render that colour space.
Web browsers will not display images tagged with Adobe RGB as intended as
they are not ICC aware. Save an Adobe RGB tagged image from a browser
window and open it in Photoshop, the colors still there as intended.
> In fact Fuji Frontier
> photo printers won't render Adobe RGB. They default back to sRGB.
There is a signiicant difference between "won't" and "default".
> Neither will any colour laser printers - even the big poster size laser
> printers.
If one is sending Adobe RGB images to a printer, laser, ink or otherwise it
is up to the application or the CMS to handle the ICC profile of the image.
A large format laser will accept an image tagged with any profile. The
application or that is sending the file or the CMS is responsible for the
color transform, lets use Photoshop as an example ... Working space "Adobe
RGB", print space "Really Big Laser Printers CMYK ICC profile" .. presto the
laser eats Adobe RGB.
> Adobe RGB is a traditional printing industry colour space
Traditional printing industry like Heidelberg, Roland and Komori?
> and
> although it has some use in Photography, sRGB is the universal language of
> photography.
sRGB has it's place for web delivery of images for viewing inside non-ICC
aware applications like browsers.
sRGB would not be my working space of choice, the gamut is too restrictive
and you are posing limits on your photos that do not need to be there. This
is my opinion, I'm always interested in others views.
> JPG is the universal language of photography storage too.
JPG is lossy. Storage is relatively inexpensive. IMO save your RAWs, keep
your edits in a TIFF. Personally I also keep the Photoshop PSD too ...
complete with adjustment layers. It's interesting to go back to an old edit
and see how much I've learned since.
> Die
> hard traditionalists with roots buried deep in the print industry all refuse
> to believe what every digital camera maker in world has been telling them
> for over a decade. At least you now know and that gives you an advantage
> next time.
What are digital camera makers telling the die-hard traditionalists?
KC
Beach Bum - 31 Jan 2006 01:11 GMT
> JPG is lossy. Storage is relatively inexpensive. IMO save your RAWs, keep
> your edits in a TIFF. Personally I also keep the Photoshop PSD too ...
> complete with adjustment layers. It's interesting to go back to an old edit
> and see how much I've learned since.
Agreed. I like to be able to go back to the PSD and make adjustments. RAW
converted to TIFF and mods changed as PSD and exported to JPG for the web.
Only now I also convert to sRGB before saving to JPG. :)
Adobe RGB is a better workspace IMO.

Signature
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery