Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator is not sRGB. The lowest
common denominator is the color space used by any printer. While Adobe
RGB holds more color information:
a) your monitor is an sRGB device and can't display it
b) the printer's gamut is much more restricted than either the
monitor or sRGB
So, if you can't see it on the screen and you can't print it... why use
it? Maybe one day all or our devices will be more color flexible but
what's sitting on your desk today can't do it.
Chuck Norcutt
Rob Harrison wrote:
> Now, it could be that I know just enough to be dangerous, but as I
> understand it, sRGB is the most limited color gamut out there. Adobe RGB has
> a wider range, and if you edit using it you'll get both a wider range and
> more saturated colors. SRGB is the lowest common denominator, kinda like
> Windows....;-)
>
> Here's a picture: <http://drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_spaces.htm>
>
> -Rob in Seattle
>
>
> On 7/19/06 1:13 PM, "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand the sRGB comment. Almost every commercial lab in the
>>country prints in sRGB and if you don't send them sRGB they'll convert
>>it. In my book it's best to start with and end with sRGB.
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|