That says a lot. Thanks for the input.

But are you using Adobe RGB in your camera and editing tool workspace and a calibrated monitor and soft proofing for the paper to be printed on, with a aRGB capable printer? Not doubting your expertise or skills, just hoping you didn't miss anything.

Yes! I am here to try and understand why they blame me for the print not matching lol.

I usually don't use a universe map; I personally never use ProPhoto, as it is so much larger than anything I can display or print, it makes little sense to use it. For generic photo's I use sRGB, for specific ones I might use AdobeRGB.

@@ColorPlazaTV Got it! Thanks!

Most Printer drivers take sRGB as a starting point. How well the colors match depends on the printer profiles used in combination with the paper. In general it’s hardest to get bad results using sRGB

If you are getting muddy / boring colors, this is definitely not caused by sRGB, but by your specific workflow assuming AdobeRGB and then treating your images as such, whilst they are not AdobeRGB; don't blame sRGB for that.

Hi Lisa, Assuming you are asking sRGB or AdobeRGB, I would say that unless your printer driver has a specific option for AdobeRGB, you are likely to get better matching colors when using sRGB. As resolution, It's not very useful to exceed 240 dpi on your print size, even when your printer can print a higher resolution, as you are likely to not get a better print from a resolution higher than 240 dpi. The minimum resolution for 8.5" x 11.5" I would use, would be 150 dpi, but on that relatively small size I'd prefer to use 240 dpi. Hope that helps.

If you are certain your audience will be viewing the content on a device with a larger gamut, then you can make use of a larger gamut. It's true that the color gamut of displays is increasing. Your camera shoots in raw, and a profile is applied when processing raw, and when you do process them, you should keep the targeted output device in mind.

DPUK 01 When you know the user will be able to use a larger colorspace and your image exceeds sRGB colorspace, only then it has advantages to use AdobeRGB. If you’re not certain, many problems can be avoided by using sRGB and you will never get complaints that an image is “dull” because you stored it with sRGB.

@@ColorPlazaTV Thank you very much for your explanation. Based on what you say, I will experiment with staying in the sRGB colour space for everyday work. I do have the raw files to go back to if I need to work in a wider gamut.

@@dpuk0159 That's a sensible approach; in case the extra color gamut can be used for a specific purpose and is there in your particular image, you can always take advantage of it.

Hi Gary, It was a busy last quarter, so I only now noticed your comment; printer gamut is not increasing much anymore, mainly because there is a limit to what pigments can do in inks. That said, manufacturers always claim their new inks have a wider gamut, and often provide you a chart without any details to "prove" it. It is more likely that inks change because manufactures want to protect their business; without inks, no more printers would be developed; Both Epson, Canon and HP would not be able to produce printers without the ink business. Ink costs are only a few dimes per liter, and is sold for hundreds of Euro's/dollars; that's a margin they only have on ink. Printers would be much more expensive if the manufacturers would want to make money on the printers themselves.

Printers are not capable of producing full AdobeRGB. Not even 12 color high end printers. But on the right media, some can produce colors outside of sRGB.

@@boudewijnkrijger346 So, the best of printers and papers are closer to sRGB you would say? There's no use going the aRGB way, you suggest?

@@ColorPlazaTV That's so sick of them. I mean, have some margin but 100s of times!

@@danlightened I won't say there is never a reason to use AdobeRGB, but sRGB will give you good results in 99% of the time. Using sRGB will mostly only reduce issues, not the gamut.

Eventhough ten years old, this video is still valid. There are some new developments, like Apple now using Display P3 as a colorspace on some devices. To not disrupt behavior, it is downwards compatible with good old sRGB, but offers support for colors outside the sRGB range, which the latests iOS and Mac displays are capable of. Unless you control the workflow, so for instance you use a profiled printer yourself or a cailbrated monitor with greater than sRGB range, sRGB will still give you the most consistent and predictable colors. When the output device on which the photo is shown/printed does support more than sRGB, and the subject contains colors outside sRGB, you can then obtain these colors by using AdobeRGB. On most printers, you will have a hard time spotting the difference between a properly managed AdobeRGB print and sRGB print. In fact, I would say that in more than 90% of the cases you would not be able to distinguish the two. But for the other 10%, provided you have profiled your printer and your printer-ink-media combination supports a larger gamut than sRGB, if can make sense to use AdobeRGB. To complicate things, this is only true when you use relative or absolute rendering intent (see my video on rendering intent). If you use Perceptual, all colors will be scaled from source to destination profile, so for instance the reddest red in your sRGB photo will be scaled to the reddest red of your printer (profile). But the downside of Perceptual is that all colors are scaled to the output balloon. The larger the gamut of the profile you use, the larger the step between two subsequent RGB color values is, which is where 16 bit ( or more than 8 bit) can become useful. By having more bits, the step size is reduced, just like it would be when using sRGB instead of AdobeRGB. Pro Photo still is a color space you should only use if you are certain AdobeRGB will not have enough gamut to contain the colors in the photo. In all the software I create, sRGB is still the default as it is still the thing that shows the same colors on most output devices. Compare AdobeRGB to having a 5760 dpi option in the latest Epson printers; theoretically it's 4 times sharper than 1440 dpi (or 16 if you consider both x and y axis) but in practice, it's almost impossible, to spot the difference. But to a consumer, 5760dpi sounds much better. Or how an 8K TV sounds a lot sharper than HD, whilst many sources are only HD and hardly any 8K, so effectively you're seeing exactly the same in 95% of the cases. It's funny how nothing has fundamentally changed; better specs in marketing communication still convince the consumer.

@@boudewijnkrijger346 Thank you so much for the time and effort spent helping my initial foray on this topic. Most of it made sense to me, but I did get a bit lost in the center. I will certainly watch your video on "rendering intent" and will likely chime in as I learn a bit more - and narrow my questions a bit. I am trying to build an understanding from the ground up on this, and my journey has just begun, but in 12 hours I already feel a bit more educated and dangerous. I get the consumer hype vs. reality issues. It's hard for the average consumer to understand the nuances, and advertising sure exploits that (i.e. gluten free, Omega 3-6-9-12, 8K). I don't have the time or energy to explore anything in depth except that which is important for my understanding of what I'm doing. I appreciate you dissecting this issue the way you did, and I look forward to having a better discussion when I'm more educated! Thank you again!

Hi Oleg, what you are referring to is a simulation profile. Some software, like photoshop, is capable of simulating a profile like a newspaper print. That requires the monitor to be profiled and a profile of the newspaper press - ink - paper combination. So yes, it is possible, but not by creating a monitor only.

It depends on the colors used and the display they are viewed on. If the PDF contains Spot colors, they could very well be outside of sRGB range. If the display used is a fairly standard one, its color range will not exceed sRGB. If an image is never printed, using a wider gamut than sRGB is perfectly fine, but realize that not all displays can show all these colors. To add to the confusion, Apple is now adapting to the P3 profile, which far exceeds sRGB. So on a new iPad Pro, you can see colors that never were visible on an older iOS device. One thing is certain; if you don't know on which display the image will be viewed/printed, sRGB will often be safest.

I get your point. As long as your work is for your viewing pleasure, that's fine. But the web supports sRGB only or so I hear. And as he mentioned, papers don't have the wider gamut of adobe RGB either. So, he's anybody else gonna view that?

Marcela Hinnant - Yes, that is kind of right... but You can set your camera to sRGB, Adobe RGB or to RAW. sRGB and Adobe RGB is for JPG and your camera will spice up your photos for you. If you set your camera to RAW (kind of like Pro Photo) you get ALL information from the sensor to work with in your computer to spice up your photos the way you like.

Your TV/monitor too should support Adobe RGB. They're expensive and not very common.

Not so much the print technique, but the quality of the supplies matters; on a newspaper you will never see anything outside sRGB, nor on plain paper inkjet. But on a high quality offset print, or a 12 color photo paper inkjet you can print colors outside sRGB. But these would be uncommon colors, so not skin tones or the average photo.

@@ColorPlazaTV thanks

In most cases not, because the majority of the devices out there are not capable of displaying anything outside the gamut of sRGB. Recent phones can, but those are also equipped with all kinds of corrections for blue light, and in most cases aren't the most stable in color.

Well, not entirely: you can use AdobeRGB just fine if you know your workflow can cope with it. So if your monitor can show most of AdobeRGB's gamut, and your printer can cope with AdobeRGB as a source profile, you can print colors outside the sRGB gamut. But that will be less than 5% of all photo's on which you might see a difference when compared to sRGB side by side. So basically, there is nothing wrong with sRGB and using a profile with a larger gamut can lead to issues if you don't control the workflow from start to finish.

ColorPlaza TV I see,thank you for explaining it further. I just purchased an used late 2015 iMac with the 27 inch 5k display and I looked in the screen/display settings and it does have the AdobeRgb option,I switched back & forth between the A.rgb and srgb and the adobe colors do look much better. I did more research after I read your reply and you’re right,I do could print in adobe rgb but apparently most pro labs only print on srgb so it depends which lab or printer I choose to print. I work mostly with Raw files so I suppose it doesn’t matter till I convert them to jpegs to post on my media websites or save for printing on later date. It’s puzzling why would most labs only print on srgb when AdobeRgb has more color range which I imagine,make better prints. I have a question a bit off topic,how do you go about checking if your colors are calibrated correctly? I know there’s tools you can buy online but I was wondering if there’s a way to check if your computer is color calibrated without paying $150 for a device.

TPerera : there are precisely zero monitors that can show the full pro photo gamut. Even the ones that claim they can show AdobeRGB gamut should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if you do have a monitor that can show colors outside sRGB, what is the point if others cannot? There is plenty of gamut in sRGB and anyone telling you you need pro photo is not well informed. AdobeRGB is the only valid alternative if you have very specific images with colors outside sRGB

Thanks for clarifying my doubts. i do really appreciate your help. Truly, your vidS have been of great help to me...and so well explain!!!

yes, but i think I understand what he means. You need some ambient light to see pure printed black on paper with your eyes, make sense ?

That's an interesting question; advantage of more bits in Raw files. In a way, this is comparable to the size of a colorspace; the more bits, the better, as more steps can be defined in between, making for smoother gradations. Imagine having only 1 bit; then a pixel is on or off, and colors are limited to 8; RGB,CMY, Black & White. More bits do not give you more better colors, but allow for more shades. The human eye is pretty bad at seeing the difference between two colors that are almost the same color, unless that color is grey (along the L axis of the LAB model) in other words; for very low saturated colors. Saturated color may just as well be defined using less bits, as the human eye is incapable of seeing the difference between two 14 bits (or 12 bits for that matter) colors. Like sRGB suffices in 95% of the images, so does 8 bit for 95% of the images. The only advantage of using more bits is that it allows for more accurate calculations when you are still editing the picture; compare it to a calculator having more decimals; the more it has, the more accurate it becomes. That said there is no disadvantage to using more bits, other then that files increase in size. So if you have more bits available; use them. When you want to store the final images they can be saved with less bits, even 8 bit for most images. The images on which you will most likely see advantages of more bits are those with color gradations using colors that are close; te more bits you have, the less banding you will get. I might do a video on bits to explain this topic a bit more comprehensive.

If your monitor truly only shows 66% of sRGB, I suggest you get a new one, as the sRGB standard was made to be the average of what a monitor in the late 90's could show. When colors outside the accurate range of a monitor are shown on a poor monitor, you will simply see the color it can show. This color is likely to be less saturated than it should show if the monitor would have a larger gamut. Even though Manufactures sometimes claim they can show full range sRGB and even 99% of AdobeRGB, no monitor technically can do this, as both sRGB and AdobeRGB translate the RGB value 0,0,0 (no red, no green, no blue) to LAB 0,0,0 and no monitor can show an L value (Luminance) of 0, as that is basically absolute black, and I yet have to see a monitor that is a black hole ;-)

It does not. This video uses BT.709 primaries. Now if you were to watch it on modern tablet it will have fake DCI-P3 gamut. But it is just what I said: fake. Vivid mode, lol. Even more modern devices do have Natural mode that is 100% of sRGB and will show DCI-P3 /Prophoto correctly by color managing to display icc profile. bt.2020 too and BT.2100.

You only use CMYK colorspace just before printing to a device that is CMYK driven, so basically not any printer, but a press. CMYK colorspaces are usually device specific and never ever intended to use for image retouching. You can use soft proofing using the CMYK profile for your press. There are "standardized" CMYK profiles, but those are never perfect, as a conversion from that profile to the actual output device is still going to be needed. If you are driving CMYK devices (so not your average printer, as those are all driven in RGB and converted to the printers 4-12 inks by the driver) only then you use CMYK profiles.

I have several printers less than one year old, and even the 12 color printer does not exceed AdobeRGB color gamut, not even on the most glossy paper there is can the entire AdobeRGB gamut printed. In fact, many printers internally map from sRGB to the available inks by default. Sure, you can print a color that is outside sRGB, but 99% of the colors fit inside sRGB.

@@ColorPlazaTV Did I sound like a nob. I am a bit on the scale and did not mean to. I was not criticising the vid. This is not me being confrontational just factual. I have no intention to be an internet troll. It may be just terminology and different definition on words. All RGB colour spaces have the same number of Hue's (colours) its the breadth of saturated tints shades and tones that changes in the larger colour gamut volumes. As most know Pro photo has more saturated hue and volume esp. in blue/ultraviolet etc it does not have more colour. I know you know this its just semantics but it can be very confusing to many. The Printers that I refer to are very expensive they are pro printers in the best business. They cost half a million I do not refer to the good to very good printers that many may have at home or in a small business. Even if they do cost thousands and are new and are called pro printers. I also stated that they can print colours outside RGB not that they can print the entire spectrum of colours of RGB (its all semantics so dont worry).sRGB has 100% of the colours as explained above R255 G0 B0 is 100% saturation is identified the same in all colour spaces. Pro photo is mapped with the same numbers. The difference between Hue and saturation can be confusing to many. It does not mean Pro Photo has more colours. Red is red no matter how much tint or shade is added. Colour (hue) profiles or ICC profiles contain the mapping information of a colour space. and colour (hue) spaces are two very different things. Colour (hue) space is a colour (hue) gamut from the electromagnetic spectrum remember that all colour (hue) spaces have the same number of colours (hue) they just have less or more saturated tints shades and tones. Not to be contradictory or inflammatory but sRGB is a small colour volume and most saturated tints shades and tones fit outside of it. A Printer of pro companies can and should take files in Adobe RGB. sRGB is becoming legacy and with internet browsers now recognising colour profile sRGB even for the net is becoming legacy. Anyways it all depends on the subject. A white cat in the snow will be just fine in sRGB as would an over case day at the beach, but a busy market in India with vibrant saturated colours will not fit in an sRGB gamut. Its all very complicate as you well know and almost impossible to explain with out righting a book. Thank you for your time and your videos. I do have to say that it is my humble opinion that your statement, 99% of the colours fit inside sRGB is confusing to many. That is not a criticism and I wish you well. Live long and prosper.

@@elmafudd9703 Feedback is always welcome. You're absolutely correct that not more hues are available in any other color space than sRGB, just more saturated versions. Pro Photo to me is a fairly useless colorspace as its gamut exceeds every device you can view or print on. Saying Pro Photo is best is like saying a map of the universe is best. That's not the case if you're trying to find your way around town; then a city map (sRGB) is much more useful. I'd like to know which printers you are referring to that far exceed printers like the Canon Pro 1000 with its 12 inks. I have not seen them, but would love to know which ones you are referring to. You are correct that some vibrant colors can exceed the gamut of sRGB, but the ability of the human eye to distinguish one saturated color from an even more saturated color is limited. The gamut of AdobeRGB exceeds that of many monitors and printers, so you will be using colors that possibly cannot be accurately shown or printed. So only if you know very well what you're doing in terms of color management and have the proper gear for it, it makes sense to use AdobeRGB. I stick to my guns when I say that >90% of the images do not exceed that of the average screen, which is what sRGB gamut reflects.

Only very few printers will come close to AdobeRGB range and then only on high gloss media, and ProPhoto should only be used by those that understand what they are doing; It's like giving a map of the galaxy to someone looking to navigate from Paris to Rome; maybe not impossible, but not the best way to do it. 99% of all pictures do not even exceed sRGB color space, so you are not "restricting" yourself when you use it. The only reason some photographers use ProPhoto is that they think it is for Professionals. I personally think ProPhoto is pretty much useless, also for editing, as it can make a small change in RGB values have a huge consequence in color. If you cannot see the colors you're using (Which is often the case when using ProPhoto), the chances of you making the right corrections are slim.

@@ColorPlazaTV you will find many epson pro inkjets come very close to adobe rgb as do canons ipf range, prophoto is better as you eliminate the chances off too many errors plus srgb is too restrictive in green and cyan ranges of cmyk and many cmyk colour standards are wider than srgb . Yes if youre producing something of a more restricted gamut i agree but many colour standards are above srgb

That is correct; only when you process your Raw files you will be using an ICC profile. Raw files contain all data captured by your camera and can be processed to a colorspace of your own choice.

Nothing has fundamentally changed in digital color, so everything in this video is as valid as it was when it was made. If you are suggesting people try using CMYK at home, you clearly need some additional education, as no digital printers at home function on a CMYK basis. More "smoothness" when using AdobeRGB is equally an indication you don't fully grasp what it means when the same number of bits suddenly address a larger gamut; that can never result in increased smoothness. ProPhoto will forever be an overkill, as it will never practical. It's like a map of the galaxy to travel the world; useless.

@@ColorPlazaTV Thanks for the heads up. Sure I'm not an expert in your field, but what I've learned well in my life is, don't trust experts too much. Security experts will tell you your account is safe, ecologists will tell you CO2 is killing the planet, doctors will tell you herbal medicine is bogus, biologists will tell you you're a monkey fully described by your DNA, physicists will sell you relativity, big bang and dark matter... etc. etc. With all due respect I cannot totally exclude a digital print expert might be a bit indoctrinated by the industry. Models and numbers are one thing and actual perception is another. So, my call for personal hands-on experience still stands too. It doesn't hurt to try and see for yourself.

@@awandererTJ I fully agree it never hurts to get hands-on experience. My video is based on over 25 years of professionally using in alphabetic order Calcomp, Canon, ColorSpan, Epson, HP and LaserMaster printers ranging from cheap A4 printers to 64" production beasts. No manufacturer is sponsoring me, so I always try to be objective.

@@ColorPlazaTV Never meant to question _your_ expertise. (I do question the very institute of expertise though.) And your video is actually very good. It is clear, reasonable, well pronounced. Yet I as a photographer with my particular printer, my inks, my papers, my pictures, my software, my monitor, my camera, my lenses, my guts, I still feel better in Adobe RGB color space all across the workflow than in sRGB. I don't suggest it for others and I might fail a blind test. And I don't publish to the Web. It's just me. Otherwise, especially if someone is looking for a straight fail-proof solution, you are right on the spot.

@@awandererTJ I think he recommended using sRGB for the last step, exporting for printing. But in the edit pipeline it's better to have more bits and room for changing exposure and applying effects. And only before exporting changing to sRGB to get an actual idea of what will the printed paper be capable of showing. What's important is his explanation for such recommendation.