Any benefit converting sRGB to Adobe RGB 1998

[Dennis Jourdan]

My photos are used primarily in print production scenarios and I have been working with Adobe RGB 1998 as my color profile. I recently read that most digital cameras (including the Fuji S2) embed an sRGB profile into the file.

If a camera saves a file with an sRGB profile, is there any benefit to then bring it into Photoshop and work on it with an Adobe RGB 1998 profile?

Aren't the values that were part of the broader gamma already gone?

Thanks for your help!

[Josh Conley]

I was told to convert by my printing lab, and that sRGB is normally off a little. That is what I know.

[brent bertram]

Dennis,
In truth, even though the camera imbeds the sRGB tag in its EXIF info, the actual color gamut of digicams is somewhat larger than sRGB ( closer to AdobeRGB ). I generally ignore the EXIF info and assign the AdobeRGB profile, but for some images ( generally depends upon lighting ), I'll softproof the image in various colorspaces, and pick the one which seems to require the least editting. Seems to me, the less editting I must do on an image, the better off It'll be.

:-)

Brent

[Gernot Hoffmann]

Dennis,Brent,

if a camera delivers sRGB data then this means, that the numbers
RGB are related to physical colors by the sRGB coordinates.

If these data are CONVERTED to Adobe RGB(98) then the numbers
will change but the colors are still the same.
Now what´s the benefit then ?

There is a set of unused PHYSICAL colors, especially in the green
direction. This can be made available by the further image processing,
but unfortunately we can´t SEE these additional colors on the monitor.

Therefore it´s not quite clear, whether the CONVERSION really leads
to considerable improvements.

It´s probably better to generate the data in Adobe RGB(98) in the
camera, because then the better greens are already in the file.

The explanation shouldn´t be based on wrong sRGB coding, IMO.

Best regards --Gernot