Adobe sRGB

Why is it, that when I shoot in the Adobe sRGB color space, I get less saturated and somewhat pale looking pictures?

Because you aren't using a color managed program to view them. Try looking at them in a color managed program that will interpret Adobe RGB, like Lightroom or Photoshop

The problem is very complicated, but put more simply, Adobe RGB has a large gamut of colors, but your monitor has a small one (sRGB). If the program you're using doesn't interpret the colors of the Adobe RGB image to render properly on your sRGB monitor, then they'll look brown and washed-out, especially the greens.

That's because it is a small color space used for the web. To get the best image quality in camera, you'll need to shoot RAW, then convert to sRGB later if needed.

Matthew

the thing is, even when viewing Adobe sRGB thru the viewscreen on the camera displays a less saturated photo compared to a picture that I shot on sRGB

LSK01 wrote: the thing is, even when viewing Adobe sRGB thru the viewscreen on the camera displays a less saturated photo compared to a picture that I shot on sRGB

The colourspace is sRGB. And that's because the gamut of your viewscreen is also in sRGB, and it sounds like your camera isn't using colour management.

MLKstudios wrote: That's because it is a small color space used for the web. To get the best image quality in camera, you'll need to shoot RAW, then convert to sRGB later if needed.

Matthew

Not everyone wants to shoot in raw...even if that is the best solution.

Trooo wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: That's because it is a small color space used for the web. To get the best image quality in camera, you'll need to shoot RAW, then convert to sRGB later if needed.

Matthew

Not everyone wants to shoot in raw...even if that is the best solution.

That's exactly it, I want nothing to do with raw. It just sounds like too much work.

LSK01 wrote:

Trooo wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: That's because it is a small color space used for the web. To get the best image quality in camera, you'll need to shoot RAW, then convert to sRGB later if needed.

Matthew

Not everyone wants to shoot in raw...even if that is the best solution.

That's exactly it, I want nothing to do with raw. It just sounds like too much work.

Shooting in raw, isn't a lot of work, but the post processing can be. All depends what you plan on doing with the image.

Shooting in raw is just a matter of switching your mode over to raw that is the easy bit, then when you post process it doesnt have to be hard work, I spend about 1 minute on average with each image thats after I have deleted the ones I dont want, it is simple if you just stick to cropping, adding a bit of contrast if needed, lighten or darken if needed it couldnt be simpler.
Those people that spend lots of time on one image are usually changing the image to something like HDR or into a painting etc.
Give it a go, then if you are not happy go back to your jpegs.

I always shoot RAW. It only takes a second in Adobe bridge to enchance the tones and colors. If you shoot in the wrong white balance it can easily be changed in RAW, RAW is like a negative. It keeps all the info. Jpeg throws it away and deteriotes with each use and manipulation.

Nikonjan wrote: I always shoot RAW. It only takes a second in Adobe bridge to enchance the tones and colors. If you shoot in the wrong white balance it can easily be changed in RAW, RAW is like a negative. It keeps all the info. Jpeg throws it away and deteriotes with each use and manipulation.

John Landolfi wrote:

Nikonjan wrote: I always shoot RAW. It only takes a second in Adobe bridge to enchance the tones and colors. If you shoot in the wrong white balance it can easily be changed in RAW, RAW is like a negative. It keeps all the info. Jpeg throws it away and deteriotes with each use and manipulation.

Ditto that!

For sports and action shots, like active wildlife, I shoot jpegs to allow a higher "burst rate". When I don't need the high tares, I use RAW+jpeg. That gives me the best of both worlds.

LSK01 wrote: That's exactly it, I want nothing to do with raw. It just sounds like too much work.

Just stick to the sRGB color space. It does a great job. It's what your monitor displays. It's what the web wants. It's what your lab wants. Adobe RGB is supposed to have more range mainly in the cyans and greens. Do you see any problems with your cyans and greens in sRGB?