At 12:02 PM -0700 1/11/06, Andrew Rodney wrote:
>I found this "interesting" and thought I'd see what others think of this
>by WILL CROCKETT UPDATED January, 2006.
>The so called "native" color space, meaning the volume of color that all
>DSLR's can actually record is very close to the sRGB space - certainly
>smaller than Adobe RGB. When you set a DSLR to capture in the Adobe RGB
>space, it doesn't capture more color at all. In fact, it just uses the same
>color info and stretches it out into the Adobe RGB space, and struggles to
>The entire piece is here (you need to make a free account and log in):
I'll be gentle, and simply say that this statement runs counter to my
I have many examples of raw images that clip when brought into even
Adobe RGB. Dark yellow-green vegetation is a prime culprit -- most
RGB spaces are very deficient in dark, saturated colors in general
simply because of their characteristic shape.
>A link goes to a page that also states:
>FACT ONE: there are no printers with a color space (aka output space) that
>is larger (holding more volume of data) than sRGB.
Probably true, but not particularly relevant. I don't know of ANY
printers that can't produce a yellow and a cyan that lie way outside
sRGB. As in many other things, size isn't what matters-it's how the
two participants (in this case, source space and destination space)
work together. sRGB is a particularly poor match to the gamuts of
most printing devices.