should i be using adobeRGB?

you're overcomplicating this.
Convert to srgb for web, proof using color managed software and your monitor profile
Convert to cmyk for prints, softproof using fogra shit or a profile supplied by your print service
Use argb or profoto as intermediate

>>3142346

yeah ive been looking into the color proofs in photoshop

so I should just shoot argb and just export it to whatever colorspace i need?

>>3142347
Yes
Unless you have a fantastic 100%argb monitor there should be close to no visible difference in between properly converted color spaces if you got your color management right

>>3142346
>>3142349
Wait I dunno get it.
Should I use aRGB as my monitor profile or just set my image editing program to display as aRGB?

>>3142342

Most printing shops use cmyk, so even if your monitor had a great adobergb capability it WOULD be pointless unless you yourself had an adobergb printer. You really won't be losing out with srgb trust me.

>>3142361
if you have an argb monitor then both
color managed software like photoshop needs to know exactly what's going on

>>3142366
Where can I find out whether it is aRGB monitor? I dont think it is.
https://www.cnet.com/g00/products/samsung-cf390-series-c24f390fhn-led-monitor-curved-full-hd-1080p-24/specs/?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F
Should I just set my editing software to aRGB? Will the colour I see change when editing in aRGB but exporting to sRGB?
I mostly put it on Flicker or social media anyway.
I noticed that whene diting in aRGB but exporting to sRGB my images get turned all redder and contrastier, while images I edited in sRGB look greenish and less contrasty when viewing them under aRGB. Especially people look sicklish and weird that way.

Shoot in AdobeRGB
Edit in AdobeRGB
Export in sRGB
Archive in ProPhotoRGB

>>3142379
Just archive in the format you shoot. Archiving in PPRGB gives no advantage over the orignal color space.

>>3142379
>>3142379
>Shoot in AdobeRGB
Does this apply to RAW (.RW2)?
>Edit in AdobeRGB
Even with an sRGB Monitor?
>Export in sRGB
Wont that transition fuck up the colours, greens and reds most noticeably?
>Archive in ProPhotoRGB
Again, does this apply to RAW?

>>3142382
no, jpeg only
no
no, if properly converted
no

>>3142342
What's the bit depth on your screen? What's the bit depth of your pictures?

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-31 16-00-42.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>3142410
>no, if properly converted
This is what happened when I set the display profile in Dakrtable to aRGB but export it into sRGB. I guess this is because I don't own an incredibly expensive aRGB monitor?
And unless I'm a professional making serious cash with this, I shouldnt even invest in one either?

>>3142411
>>3142378
looks like a bog standard 8bit (probably even 6+frc) standard gamut sRGB monitor

so don't touch aRGB, it will fuck up everything. edit to taste viewing sRGB, export sRGB
print using soft-proofs and deliver as profiled CMYK

>>3142413
yes, the right is the correct output, left is a borked preview because your monitor can't display aRGB so it's just truncated and therefore in that case desaturated
sRGB is absolutely fine for anything web, and unless you need to print a lot on all kinds of different formats and devices with absolute crical color having an exact and hardware calibratable professional monitor is pretty useless
just get used to what your monitor does, optimize it the best you can (maybe consider a i1 or similar to soft calibrate it to proper wb and gamma on srgb target) and be done with it

>>3142417
>(maybe consider a i1 or similar to soft calibrate it to proper wb and gamma on srgb target)

And what would that be?

File: xrite_i1display-pro.jpg (28KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 700x350px

>>3142447
xrite i1

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	700
Image Height	350
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:09:30 11:57:20
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	700
Image Height	350

>>3142342
I use adobeRGB in camera, gives more color information and the colors don't saturate so easily.
Then I export in sRGB after post processing.

File: IMG_1871.png (34KB, 441x450px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 441x450px

What about white balance?

>>3142616
what about it?

>>3142614
>post processing jpgs

File: CIE1931xy_gamut_comparison.svg.png (150KB, 512x544px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 512x544px

>>3142342
raw files don't have a "color space" in the same way that sRGB and AdobeRGB are standardized color spaces, real camera color space exceeds these actually. If you want to work with the most colors, you work in ProPhotoRGB, then export your final jpeg files in sRGB.

if you export the jpeg without setting the color space to sRGB, it's going to look shitty on some devices/browsers. I made this mistake once, I exported a jpeg without changing the color space and it looked perfectly fine on my PC, but when I put it on my phone, the colors were all fucking weird.

that color space setting in your camera is only for jpegs and adding an underscore to filenames (for your jpeg archiving convenience, nothing more).

I personally leave the color space setting at sRGB since I post-process RAW files, not jpegs. why would I want adobeRGB jpegs when I can have prophotoRGB from raws?

>>3142342
Short answer no long answer yes
It will be simpler to just use sRGB
>>3142365
Most prints can't even do sRGB, much less aRGB
>>3142382
Color profiles never apply to RAW's, they apply to them after exporting/converting
>>3142448
Recent Spyders are almost as good for cheaper, of course you would use DispCal instead of their shit tier software but the same applies to the X-Rite's
>>3142616
D65 (6500K) for anything computer/video, D50 (5000K) for prints