> 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....;-)
Actually ARGB is not more saturated than SRGB, but just allows
slightly more sublety in the color palette. Kinda the
difference between Kodachrome and Velvia. Both can achieve pure
red, for instance, but Kodachome gives you slightly more shades
of red near the saturation point.
Secondly, you run into an issue with translating the ARGB back
into SRGB for final output (screen or print). The ARGB pallete
has to be mapped to the narrower gamut of SRGB. The sublety
might not get lost, but it's effectively a bit-depth reduction
dealing with colors.
When doing extensive tonal and color editing of an image, there
is a tremendous advantage to working in ARGB or LAB or other
color spaces as the color mappings are more linear and you don't
lose tonal seperations. But if the original capture is
relatively close to final output you will not gain anything by
using ARGB. Essentially, this is just like choosing 24-bit or
48-bit image depth--the extra bits (double the file size) does
absolutely nothing for you if the end result is 8-bit and you
aren't doing tonal editing.
These color workspaces are just a method of mapping bits to take
advantage of the eye's inability to see tonal and color
seperation in low-levels and instead remaps these bits to higher
values where we need a little more sublety.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|