Adobe RGB vs. sRGB – What you need to know

Recently I met a photographer on one of the big photo communities. His profile was full of excellent shots, many of them done on a set for a music video. He used the excellent Canon 1D mark II N, a camera model I had been using until 2008. Despite his skills to actually compose the image and find the right moments, something was not right.

I noticed a lot of subdued colors in all of the shots. The blue of the sky was rather a light purple instead of the clear blue sky I would have expected. The finish of the car was also not really bright and catchy, but looked dull and not saturated. At first I thought that this look might be intentional, to give the images that very specific subdued look. But then I looked at some of the EXIF details of the file, and there it was…

Record Mode: JPEG
Color Space: Adobe RGB

The photographer had been using Adobe RGB while saving the image files as JPEGs.

Before I start to discuss the color space issue, I’d like to recommend to you to always shoot RAW. This will enable you to change a lot of stuff at post-processing time. With essential shots for clients, I always go for the risk-free option – which is RAW. Be aware that once the JPEG has been saved, you have virtually no chance of recovering any of the details contained in the shot (that have not been processed correctly by the camera’s JPEG algo). If it can’t been seen in the JPEG, that specific detail is often lost. A RAW on my high end cameras stores 14 bits of color for each channel, that’s 16,384 individual values per color. The JPEG squeezes these 14 bits into 8 bits per channel, i.e. 256 individual values. That’s just about 1.5% of the theoretically available data for each pixel. Now you understand why saving images as JPEGs on high-end cameras is a bad idea.

But in this case, the colors are the problem, and JPEG is the cause, because only when you save an image as JPEG you need to assign a color space at shooting time. A JPEG needs to carry an information on the color space for the image so that other devices (screens) can properly display that image. That’s why there is an entry for “color space” in your camera menu, typically offering both Adobe RGB and sRGB. I know there are photographers out there who like to shoot JPEG, often because they know that they are not going to need the leeway that RAW offers. In these cases, you have to know what you are doing, or your shots turn out wrong, color-wise.

You see, the Adobe RGB space contains basically “more” colors than the plain sRGB colorspace. While the amount of data in the picture stays the same, the colors represented by the colorspace on the monitor look different! If a Adobe RGB photo is displayed through sRGB on a monitor, the colors are basically “made fit” for the smaller sRGB space. The result: bright colors look less saturated, i.e. grey-ish and dull and somewhat off.

Here is an example for this phenomenon, a photo of a hangglider at Izana mountain in Tenerife, Spain. Please note the difference in the colors. Have a look at the blue skies, the red backpack, and the brown soil. I think the difference is quite significant. But please be aware that the difference is NOT visible in a color-managed browser like Firefox. (Thanks to Wes for pointing that out in the comments!)

Saved as JPEG using the original AdobeRGB color space

Converted from AdobeRGB to sRGB prior to saving as JPEG
Mark Zanzig/

Here is another example, this time from a slide that was scanned using Adobe RGB. Again, the first image has kept its original Adobe RGB color profile while the second image was converted to sRGB prior to saving as JPEG. Do you notice any difference? I do. The pink finish of the car is much brighter, and the logo looks actually like gold, the blue sky is blue, and the number plate has better contrasts.

Saved as JPEG using the original AdobeRGB color space

Converted from AdobeRGB to sRGB prior to saving as JPEG
Mark Zanzig/

I don’t know how you post-process your images. Chances are high that you’re using Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop, or Apple Aperture. These are all capable of handling color spaces correctly, but you still need to know about color spaces, especially if you are shooting AdobeRGB with JPEGs (with RAWs you only have to care about the color space when you save the image to JPEG, see below). Lightroom and Aperture automatically recognize the correct color space from the image profile and assign the correct color space to the image.

So, you have to watch out when you open an image with Adobe Photoshop. You typically have set up your Photoshop installation to operate in a specific color space. I have set mine to use Adobe RGB. Whenever Photoshop is instructed to open an image with an assigned color profile that deviates from the standard color space, it will ask you which color space to use? None, or the Photoshop default (in my case Adobe RGB), or the assigned color space (usually sRGB). It does not matter which setting you use, because Photoshop will automatically convert the image into the selected color space (which is good).

But you always have to keep the selected color space in mind when finally saving the photo file as JPEG from Photoshop. Clients usually don’t want RAWs, TIFF is also quite rare these days. They want a JPEG, and now you know that you need a color space assigned to that JPEG. And most printers and screens are calibrated for sRGB, not AdobeRGB. That’s why you should always convert the color space from Adobe RGB to sRGB prior to handing out the photos, or publishing them on the web. Please pay attention that you should convert the photo and not just assign the sRGB color profile to the photo.

Then you and your customers get the brillant colors your high-end camera actually delivers.

36 Responses to “Adobe RGB vs. sRGB – What you need to know”

  1. Guido says:

    Modern browsers like Firefox and Safari support color management and are capable of reading embedded color profiles in JPEGs. With enabled color management there is no difference on the images above.

    Whitout color management (like Internet Explorer 8) there is a big difference in the colors. A 210 red in AdobeRGB is like a 255 red in sRGB. So if a picture with AdobeRGB profile is interpreted as sRGB, you get a flat bright 210 red.

    Here a some test pages for color management support in your browser

  2. Red says:

    For Beginners like myself the Short answer is the best.

    .JPG = 8-bit color (a low quality format)
    .TIFF = (the Best Quality format)

    Adobe RGB = Hi-Quality
    sRGB = Low Quality

    to Embed a Color Profile in the Image is Better so it can use it’s own source for Quality.


  3. Heather says:

    Thank you! I’ve been struggling with this for a while and my solution was a time-consuming glitch in my workflow – the key for me was the last sentence: please pay attention that you should convert the photo and not just assign the sRGB color profile to the photo.

  4. Wes says:

    Yeah, as Guido pointed out, if you’re viewing this page with Firefox, Safari, etc., and you’re feeling all inadequate because you can’t tell the difference in the photos, it’s because the browser picked up on the profile & handled it properly. Open the page in Internet Explorer 8 or previous & you’ll see the difference between them.

  5. Mark Zanzig says:

    Thanks, Wes. Excellent comment. Actually I use mostly Firefox, which indeed does not show much difference in the pictures while Internet Explorer 8 shows the differnce very well.

  6. Craig says:

    Interesting article. However one thing I’m still confused about is whether the colour space used effects a printed photograph. I use snapfish for my photo processing, snapfish is owned by HP and sRGB was “proposed” by HP (and Microsoft). Does this mean I should stick to sRGB?

  7. Mark Zanzig says:

    Hi Craig, yes, absolutely! All the screens, printers and photo labs in the world are using sRGB as default. So whenever you are going to transmit a picture you should use sRGB for the picture you are going to transmit. The only case where you might consider sending AdobeRGB is when you are working for a magazine where they are going to edit the photo (for high-end reproduction). They used to enjoy the bigger color space to get the most details from the image. But in my experience this has become a very rare requirement.
    It’s the same story when you are editing the image. These days I strongly recommend that you use RAW for image capture. This avoids many of the color space issues, especially when you are using Lightroom to edit your images (in Lightroom, you specify the final color space upon prior to exporting the image). But you might have older JPEGs which might have been captured in AdobeRGB. In these cases I use AdobeRGB throughout the editing, and only when I am going to send the photo I do convert the color space from AdobeRGB to sRGB.
    A good rule of thumb is to use the original color space (be it sRGB or AdobeRGB) for as long as the image is under your control. Whenever the image leaves the studio, convert it to sRGB.

  8. Sterling says:

    One should know where the sRGB and Adobe RGB originated: sRGB was/is meant to be the gamut of colours a monitor could reproduce. Adobe RGB was/is meant to match the colours an inkjet printer could reproduce. I believe they are different in dark greens and bright oranges, but do your own research on that. I have always used sRGB, partly because my photolab suggests that, and partly because I reason; in sRGB I will see on my monitor the same colours as the print, at least I will know what to expect. I always set my dslr camera to save a raw and a sRGB jpeg. Does anyone see anything wrong in that logic?

  9. Mark Zanzig says:

    Hi Sterling, your logic is quite right. You basically eliminate one potential error by always using sRGB. But you should be aware that while sRGB is the default for monitors, you should still calibrate the monitors in order to get a precise preview. It is very good that you use RAW at shooting time, because this ensures that you always can start all over again with the original without noticing the limitations of JPEG at all.

  10. RacReed says:

    My question in regards to this topic is…if you import the RAW image and edit it as an AdobeRGB file adjusting it to get it to look just the way you want…isn’t it still going to be transfered down when you convert it to sRGB? I mean, how is you converting it before saving it as a JPG any different than the monitor or printer converting it down to sRGB?


  11. Mark Zanzig says:

    You see, the monitor is always sRGB, that’s right. It does not “know” about AdobeRGB and will just assume that it’s sRGB anyway. However, Photoshop can emulate AdobeRGB if you let it. The setting can be found in the color settings where you can choose the work color space which can be sRGB as well. Then you avoid the hazzle with AdobeRGB vs. sRGB, but you will do the editing in a smaller color space, i.e. colors may not look as brilliant as they could.

    So, you shoot in RAW, you open/edit as AdobeRGB and when you are done with your editing and achieved the look that you were aiming for, you have basically three options to save the image as JPEG:

    1) Assign a new color profile (i.e. a sRGB profile) to the image. THIS IS WRONG, because you were editing in AdobeRGB, and the colors you saw on your screen were in AdobeRGB. When you now assign a sRGB profile, output devices will assume a smaller color space (because of the profile) and the colors will look dull and de-saturated. (This command should be used to edit JPEG images that you know are in sRGB but come without a profile, i.e. Photoshop does not know what to do with it. For such images, you just assign a sRGB profile to be on the safe side.)

    2) Convert your image to another color profile, i.e. to sRGB. THIS IS RIGHT, because the colors of the image (that were looking good during the editing as AdobeRGB) will now be converted (adjusted) to have an identical look in the confined sRGB color space.

    3) Save for web and devices where you have two important options that make your life easier: “Embed profile” and “Convert to sRGB”. Since I do a lot of stuff for the web, I usually do not assign a color profile, but I convert to sRGB before. This makes the image files smaller, and web browsers display any image without color profile as sRGB image by default. But you could also embed a profile and convert to sRGB, so that the resulting image is correct and carries the right color profile.

  12. Roy says:

    My current workflow is as follows:
    1. Shoot as RAW and Adobe RGB
    2. Edit in Photoshop as Adobe RGB
    3. Save as it is for storage purposes, I’d like to keep all color info for future purposes
    4. Convert a copy to sRGB for printing and web posting

    I just bought recently a 100% sRGB gamut monitor (wish I could afford wider gamut displays). I will also calibrate it.

    For monitors that can’t fully support wide gamut such as Adobe RGB, which profile should best be used during editing? I know photoshop will emulate it as Adobe RGB, but still it would be limited by your display’s incapacity to fully support Adobe RGB. I’m very particular with color. But I also would like to keep the additional color info the Adobe RGB offers.

    I’d like to hear your thoughts regarding this.

  13. KRRoberts says:

    Why use Firefox and Explorer when there is Safari? If you really want to be frustrated throw a Nikon Coolscan 5000 into the mix. It is impossible to get the right advice. I can’t get the scanner to output anything but sRGB! And Nikon is absolutely no help.

  14. Jimmy says:

    Thank you for this article, it is very helpful to me.

  15. Roger says:

    Yes, a very interesting article thanks.

    Hello Mark, just a few details and a question please -

    Up and till now I have been using s’RGB all through my workflow, Camera (Canon 30D) s’RGB – Photoshop CS2 set to s’RGB and my Canon Printer to either s’RGB or the Paper Profile when using good quality paper and I know what the profile is. I do all my own printing and find I get better results than sending it off to “Happy Snappy’s” and Pro labs are too expensive for most stuff.
    I was always under the impression that “Home” inkjet printers could only cover the s’RGB space anyway ? (maybe + a bit) ??
    My monitors are also calibrated with a Spyder Elite 3.
    I rarely use RAW unless I know the lighting is going to be somewhat tricky. I get my Exposure and Colour Temps pretty right most of the time (Big Head!) and find editing in Photoshop perfectly adequate. Yes I do get those shots where a bit more “Bounce” would be nice, but usually a touch of Saturation or controlled Curves / Contrast will sort this. I don’t think I would have any problems getting those colours back in the Para Glider for example.
    I also find the Shadow Highlight tool excellent if the shadow are a bit “Blocked Up” I have saved my settings so it is just a one click operation (it is too powerful at default).

    So have I got this right ? Am I correct in thinking that if I set may camera to Adobe RGB and Photoshop also, that I can edit in that mode and then Convert to sRGB, and by doing this am I effectively adding or at least preseving colours and data in the somewhat limited s.RGB space ? In fact as I don’t send out much to the Web, I wouldn’t need to convert to sRGB anyway would I ? or would this screw up my printing ?
    I must do some tests when I can get round to it.
    I usually save in PSD format, Jpeg being lossy. Have I got this right or am I way off beam ?

    Thought some may be interested in my Shadow Highlight settings, so here they are, it is a very good quick fix and of course you can adjust them to suit your preferences.

    SHADOWS Amount 20%
    Tonal Width 30%
    Radius 35 px
    HIGHLIGHTS Amount 5%
    Tonal Width 40%
    Radius 40px
    ADJUSTMENTS Colour correction +20
    Midtone Contrast +10
    Black & White Clip 0.009%

    Roger, UK.

  16. Mark Zanzig says:

    Roger, you are right with your assumption: Changing camera from sRGB to AdobeRGB and changing default workspace in Photoshop from sRGB to AdobeRGB and then converting to sRGB as you need it – this is the right approach that will preserve some colours that can be captured in AdobeRGB but not in sRGB.

    One thing I don’t understand though. RAW offers so much more leeway (also on a 30D) that you probably should always shoot in RAW. Just think of the implications: RAW = 12 bit = 2^12 = 4096 shades per colour, JPEG = 8 bit = 2^8 = 256 shades per color. Soooo, compared to RAW, JPEG can only preserve 256/4096 of the shades per channel. That is just 6.3% of RAW. In other words: you are tossing away almost 94% of the shades! And all that just in return for a little bit of space on the memory card or (later) in the harddisk archive?

    Even if you can nail down exposure upon shooting time, you still have the opportunity to finetune the images in the future without being limited to the 8 bits per channel.

  17. Houston Real Estate Agents says:

    Mark, thank you so much for posting this. However, I don’t quite understand the “bit” piece of it. What is the difference between saving as 16 or 8 bits per channel and when should you save to the lower bits per channel? I’d appreciate it if you could talk a little more about how this affects compatibility and image quality to printing.

  18. Pat Cory says:

    Am I missing something here? If you use adobe rgb because it can produce more colors and then convert it to Jpeg don’t you still only have the specific colors that srgb supports in the first place? So if your output is always going to be jpeg isn’t the only advantage to adobe rgb that you might want to do your own printing with a printer that can support those extra colors sometime in the future and even that only makes sense if you are shooting raw? I have a whole closet of clothes that I’m keeping because I might wear them sometime. All that does is give me a bunch of clothes that I will never wear and take more of my time finding what I want. Seems to me that it might be better to streamline the process in both cases and simply shoot srgb if my final output is going to be jpeg unless I’m missing something.
    One other question. If you shoot raw plus jpeg and select adobe rgb on your camera will you have two files, one in adobe rgb and one in rgb?

    I’d appreciate your comments.

  19. Mark Zanzig says:

    @ Houston Real Estate Agents:

    OK, so the difference between savign as 8 bits per channel and 16 bits per channel is huge. For 8 bits you get 2^8 or 256 color tones per channel, i.e. 256 x 256 x 256 possible tone values. This is 16,777,216 tones. For 16 bits it is 2^16 or 65,536 color tones per channel, i.e. 65,536 x 65,536 x 65,536 individual tone values. This is a whopping 281,474,976,710,656 possible tone values. So it is fair to say that 16 bits is much better than 8 bits as it can (in theory) conserve much more tone values. Unfortunately, this affects only editing of the image as (a) the format is not widely accepted by photo labs and (b) the difference on prints can not be seen by the human eye. However, you can see the difference while editing your photo so I still recommend it if you can not use Lightroom or Aperture which automatically take care of this.

    @ Pat:

    You are right. Once you convert from AdobeRGB to JPEG, you loose the additional colors as the colors are “made to fit” the sRGB color space. But as AdobeRGB captures “more” colors (a wide color range) it still makes sense to use AdobeRGB when you can not shoot in RAW, and also use AdobeRGB for editing.

    Having said that, I strongly recommend to shoot RAW because it gives you (in my case) 14 bits per channel instead of the 8 bits that JPEG supports. That gives you a huuuge leeway for your editing, especially when using Lightroom or Aperture.

    If you select RAW plus JPEG and select Adobe RGB, you will get one RAW file (in, well, RAW format) and one JPG file. The JPG file will be in AdobeRGB. The camera does not save a third file (JPG as sRGB).

  20. Novice Photog says:

    Mark, a quick question…. Having read the articles I see the reason for shooting in RAW (from now on).

    For now, I have some photos shot in JPEG that I wish to send to a printer who’s asked for sRGB instead of RGB files, and publish them on the web at the best quality possible also.

    How do I go about converting my saved JPEGs (in RGB) into sRGB JPEGs? Is there a method either in Photoshop or via some other method you might be able to recommend? Many thanks, NP.

  21. Mark Zanzig says:

    Open your image in Photoshop as AdobeRGB (8 bits or 16 bits) or as RAW. Do all the modifications as you see fit. Save the image as PSD, which is lossless, so you can continue working later on if necessary.

    Now, here’s how to change this image to proper sRGB:

    1) If it is 16 bit, reduce the color depth to 8 bits. (Via the Image > Mode > 8 bits per channel command)* If it is already 8 bits, just ignore this step.

    2) Go to Edit > Convert to profile, and use “sRGB IEC61966-2.1″ as target color space. Then hit OK.

    3) Save as JPEG, and make sure that in the “Save as” dialogue window the Color option “ICC-Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1″ is checked.

    The resulting file will be a properly formatted image, complete with the correctly assigned color profile. Your printer (and anyone else) should be able to use this.

    The process is identical for web use, but you can also use the “Save for devices” dialogue which gives you more control over the compression. However, when using this command, please ensure that you have the option “Embed color profile” checked. This will allow web browsers that use color management (e.g. Firefox) to correctly identify the color profile. Other browsers, such as Internet Explorer, do not use color profiles, so the resulting impression is unknown to you (as it solely depends on the users screen).

    * I do just have the German Photoshop in front of me, so the commands may be different in the English version.

  22. georgia says:

    Hi Mark,

    Great article, thanks!

    Question: My 5DMarkii saves in Raw and jpeg. If I set the color space in the camera to Adobe RGB, then the jpegs are saved that way too, right? So I shouldn’t use those jpegs and just download the RAW files and convert the jpegs to sRGB before I save them?

  23. Mark Zanzig says:


    I have never tried to save both as RAW and JPEG. As the color space setting only affects JPEG images, I’d think that the JPEGs would be then be saved as AdobeRGB (while the RAW images remain unaffected). Indeed, you would need to convert these JPEG image files to sRGB prior to publishing or sending to the printer.

    In general, I recommend to use just RAW (and forget about saving JPEGs in-camera) unless you have a good reason to use those JPEGs. The only reason I can think of is the pressure to send images to a news wire, e.g. from an event or a press conference. In that case, however, I’d suggest to use sRGB in-camera, because this allows you to send the image “as is” without further conversion or editing.

  24. Derek says:

    Phew, I was just going nuts here with lightroom, thinking, my color space is way off, why are my previews and working copies rendering the blue purple?!

    Don’t switch displays without closing and restarting Lightroom!!

    My Laptop’s IPS monitor works in the sRGB realm, while my NEC PA241W is in the Full realm at 5500K. I guess I connected the laptop to the monitor, didn’t close lightroom and it kept on running in an sRGB mode, even though I had recalibrated for the external monitor.

  25. jane says:

    I shoot in RAW and process images in Aperture. Is there a way to convert jpeg to sRGB in Aperture before exporting jpegs? Or in other words, what is the work flow from RAW to jpeg in Aperture to end up with sRGB jpgs to send to the online lab.

  26. Mark Zanzig says:

    Jane, I am a PC user, so don’t know about Apples and I don’t know about Aperture. :-( I’d expect the software to offer similar options like Adobe’s Lightroom though. Somewhere you probably can specify the color space (i.e. “sRGB”) to be applied to the active (or all?) exported images. You will want to check with Aperture users in Mac support forum. They certainly will know the answer.

  27. Alain says:

    This article was written in 2009, now in 2012 it seems that even IE9 uses a color management, because I don’t see any difference. So my question is, is it still needed to convert to sRGB before saving to JPG?
    All browser seems to be the same and correct pictures. Maybe the printers at walmart or walgreens can handle it by now.

  28. Mark Zanzig says:

    Alain, I still recommend to save as JPEG with sRGB profile, because only this will actually ensure that any device that is going to open and interpret (i.e. display or print) the image will have the correct colour profile attached. If you do not save the colour profile, the output device can pretty much do whatever it thinks it should. Especially in the case of expensive prints this may be not desired from your point of view. A printer could, for example, point out that there was no colour profile, so it is not liable for the result.

  29. kris says:

    Hi. I’ve learned a lot from this so far but still have a ?. I want to shoot and work in argb to get the best colors I can, however the lab that I use says to work in a srbg workspace and send to them as an srgb jpeg. I plan on doing my own prints soon, so do I still convert to srgb before printing? Trying to keep things simple, but the more I read, the more confused I get. Here’s a quote from the online print shop I use:

    “We print in sRGB color space, so for best results convert your images before uploading. Want to control your color even more? ICC profiles are available so you have the power to control color from the first print to the last and every copy in between.
    Make sure your monitor is calibrated, and you are working in sRGB color space. Download ICC profile for use with Adobe Photoshop (get it from our home page at … ). Install, or save the profile to the appropriate folder. In Photoshop, Go to: View>Proof Setup>Custom. In the popup, select adoramapix_book_0909.icc (or whatever version is most recent) as the Device to Simulate. Leave the Preserve Color Numbers box unchecked, but select Black Point Compensation. Rendering Intent should be set to Relative Colorimetric.”

  30. Mark Zanzig says:

    Hi kris,

    > I want to shoot…

    Set your camera to Adobe RGB if you are shooting JPEGs. If you want the best results, however, you should set your camera to capture RAW files. Then it does not matter at all what the camera thinks.

    > …and work in argb to get the best colors I can

    So you set up Photoshop to work in Adobe RGB.

    > the lab that I use says to work in a srbg
    > workspace and send to them as an srgb
    > jpeg

    They should not care at all how you work as long as you send them a correct sRGB file. In Photoshop you can work using Adobe RGB during the editing. And ONLY when it comes to handing over the files to the lab, you CONVERT the image from Adobe RGB to sRGB.

    You do this in Photoshop under Edit > Convert to Profile… In the window that pops up you select “sRGB IEC61966-2.1″ as target color space. Then save as JPEG and make sure that you attach the ICC-Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1. There needs to be a checkmark in front of the respective entry in the Save As… dialogue box.

    That should do the trick.

    (If you work like described above, the lab gets an image file with a valid sRGB profile attached. They should be able to print it without further discussion.)

  31. kris says:

    Forgot to mention that I use Aperture.

  32. Mark Zanzig says:

    > Forgot to mention that I use Aperture.

    Ah, OK.

    I don’t know about Aperture. However, the software is perfect for working with RAWs, so you do not need to care about Adobe RGB at all. Adobe RGB only has its uses when you are (a) scanning images with a scanner that supports Adobe RGB, (b) shooting with a camera that does not support RAW but that does support Adobe RGB.

    In any other case, you will either get a pure sRGB image (so: no conversion needed) or a RAW image (Aperture will take care of that).

    All you need to do is to make sure that when it comes to “exporting” your batch of images, that a correct sRGB profile is selected and attached to each image. The export dialogue (or whatever it is called) should help you with this.

    (Sorry to not be more precise, but I am not an Aperture user.)

  33. kris says:

    Thanks, that helps!
    Unfortunately, the camera I use, Fuji xpro1, has little raw support at this time, so until good raw support is available I’m stuck with JPEG. But they are pretty awesome out of this camera!

  34. Louise says:


    Thanks everyone for a fantastic insight into this complex topic! I have learned so much reading these comments today.

    One very specific question remains for me: I have taken product photograps for the first time for a client and did the mistake of not using a graycard, so I am not positive that I have the exact right color for the logotype on the product and the product is not available to me physically any more. I shot in raw and have started editing in Photoshop with Adobe RGB as working profile. The client wants me to deliver in Adobe RGB also. I have now found the same logotype that is on the product on a website. With respect to the logotype on the website probably being in sRGB, can I still use a color picker in Photoshop to make sure I match the color to the logotype on my Adobe RGB product photo?



  35. Mark Zanzig says:

    Hi Louise, here’s what I would do. Open the web page with the logotype. Right click on the logotype, then save the image to your hard disk. Open the image file in Photoshop and ASSIGN a sRGB color profile to the image to erase any uncertainty. Then CONVERT the image from sRGB to Adobe RGB and use the color picker to verify your colors.

  36. Phil Christie says:

    I find there is too much emphasis put on the color space. i have been shooting in adobe 1998 since I began in 2007 and have had trouble printing . So I have done a comparisin of both and I find that it is much more important to make sure that your white balance is correct to have your pictures turn out properly . Thyanks for listening
    Phil Christie