NEC 2690WUXi - can it handle regular sRGB?

Started Oct 1, 2007 | Discussions thread
Tamlin_WSGF Forum Member • Posts: 83
Re: Ken Rockwell's take on aRGB

Tom_Bruno wrote:

If you've read messages in this thread and are going, "Huh? What's
sRGB? What difference does it make? Do I have to know this?" etc,
here's a quick intro to the subject.

Ken Rockwell, who people at DPR love to hate, has a page on the
basics of sRGB versus aRGB. He says that the difference DOES matter,
and that unless you're a graphics pro (which some people here are)
that sRGB is the way to go.

If you know nothing about color spaces, and can ignore Rockwell's
braggadocio for a minute or so, read this for a quick, easy intro:

I disagree and Kenrockwell have hopefully changed his mind now 1 year later. sRGB is the safest, this I agree upon, provided that you have no color management. The difference DOES matter still. But, sRGB is something I would never use unless I have to (web or exchange pictures where recipient is limited to sRGB). I would never buy a sRGB photo from a photographer if I have options. With aRGB or above, I get aRGB, sRGB and CMYK all in one. 16.7M colors is a big crayon box. Spreading them over a larger color space is more visible and effective, then having some smaller gradients within a smaller color space as sRGB. Especially when getting the pictures in 10bit -> 16-bit is aRGB useful. You can edit the pictures in aRGB and save them for both CMYK and sRGB afterwards. Then its only to pull out the format you want for the spesific target.

As of today, there is not a single public print service in my surroundings that doesn't offer aRGB prints (and also their printer+paper profile). The cheapest of printers are all CMYK which an aRGB compatible screen can view without being "out of gamut". Its not that expensive anymore to get a aRGB printer either. Though sRGB IS the standard for internet, it also is the lowest common colorspace. A photographer should capture and preserve as much colors as possible, since you can use them now even as a private person. aRGB is no longer too expensive outside of the pro circle.

Eizo calls aRGB "de facto standard for professional color processing."

Others are looking at gamuts beyond aRGB:

For us PC users, Vista have improved color management, the newest office is color aware, Firefox 3 is fully color aware and more will come.

Internet explorer for MAC have been color aware for years and the moment they will implement this in the PC version, anyone will have a color aware browser available.

Photographers can show their pictures in full glory and green will look more green and less lime with having their showcases in aRGB instead of sRGB.

There is less hazzle with having sRGB as workflow, this is true, but there is much to gain if you have aRGB instead and a proper color management in my opinion. Saves you a headacke if a commercial agency suddenly asks you for the same picture in aRGB.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow