Thanks useful information: 
I wanna spend my 2 bobs worth here too!
Best colourspace to shoot in camera is the one you work with the most.
Shooting raw and setting coloursapce is ultimately futile, unless your software is set to use the colour space set in camera(that's how I set up my software).
I shoot sRGB, because the vast majority of my images go to the interweb, and sRGB is the default colourspace for that purpose.
Yes!!.. aRGB is better, but then you have to convert, reconvert and all manner of similar PITA process steps.
This system is dependent on a few other aspects of your software too tho.
First of all, Adobe software doesn't directly handle and save your raw images, unless you convert them to something like DNG(or maybe PSD or whatever).
I don't use Adobe software, and my Nikon specific software handles, edits and saves the original raw file.
So, if I use Adobe, I should in effect set the working colour space to the highest possible as I edit, as I'm most likely going to work on the raw file(indirectly) and then most likely save in some bitmap file type, where colourspace is finally determined on the edited file.
So doing that, it's definitely best recommended to use the highest quality colour space, and then convert downwards if needed.
With Nikon software on Nikon raw files(NEF), after editing the file, it stays in the NEF format(hence always in raw) and the colour space is of no consequence at all. I can convert to <whatever> in a whim or for a given purpose, and that also means upwards in quality, say from sRGB to ProPhoto, without any loss of quality or colour. The file is always in the raw format, until conversion to a bitmap format(jpg/tiff/etc).
So, in camera colour space setting is only really there for use when shooting in raster/bitmap file types such as tiff or jpg.
Many photographers shoot in that manner, so it makes sense to have that feature available.
If the camera was only capable of shooting in the raw format, then having a colour space setting is a waste of firmware space. The raw converter on the computer handles that data set, and can make any changes at the operator sees fit(to the raw file).
There is one caveat on colour space and raw files, and that's the thumbnail.
Setting the colour space in camera, also determines that setting for the embedded thumbnail for the raw file. Once set, it's set, and is limited to the conversion processes that affects all bitmap images.
What that means: if you shoot in sRGB and then convert the raw file to aRGB or ProPhotoRGB, you will see some strangeness in the embedded jpg file with respect to colour.
Once again, I did this(for testing purposes only of course!), and the anomalies are much more obvious on the sRGB->ProPhoto raw files, compared to the sRGB-> aRGB raw files.
AND this only applies to the thumbnail image, when viewing the raw file via the embedded thumbnail in your image viewer.
That I know of, Lightroom doesn't display the raw file in a preview mode using the embedded preview image, but some image software do.
Programs like FSViewer, IDImager, and ViewNX do, and when I change the raw file from sRGB to anything higher in quality, I can see that the preview image has been affected. Note this is only the thumbnail image in the raw file that is affected.
This is convoluted to explain, but I'll try.
In ViewNX2, on a raw file I changed from sRGB to ProPhoto, I can see that the thumbnail image in the thumbnail strip is definitely pale/grey/lacking colour and so forth, but when I click the thumbnail image, the display of the raw file is correct(and hence different to the thumbnail). So the thumbnail has been affected by the extrapolation from sRGB to ProPhoto(but the raw file is good).
The same image in FSViewer, I see the same paleness to the thumbnail image, and I click on the thumbnail and the display of the 'raw' file is the same pale dull flat greyness, and you'd be tempted to delete it. This is because I have FSViewer set to display the raw file via the embedded jpg image, and not the raw file directly (Why??.. speed!!!)
I have the same set up for IDImager(which is my catalog software). This way the software doesn't have to render each raw file as you navigate around the folder, makes for very fast navigation when there are lots of raw images.
It's easy and trivial to reset the raw file back to sRGB if this is an issue, or to set the software to view raw files directly, and not via the embedded preview image.
Just something to note.
So, ultimately the colour space is only important when you convert the raw file to a bitmap image.. and you'll probably have your software configured to do this seamlessly for you as you work, edit and then save anyhow.
So if you upload a lot to the web, and if you edit the raw files directly, then forget the colour space in camera.
In 200K images I've only just taken the plunge and printed an image at a high quality printing facility(btw, Prism Digital Imaging just down the road from me), and this is the only file that I've ever converted to aRGB(from sRGB), as they asked for aRGB TIFF file for best quality.
No problems in doing so, other than.. the expected 'shift in colour' you may sometimes get in the green channel. The aRGB colour space is basically only richer in green colour data, so if there is vivid greens in your image, you may see a shift in conversion from sRGB to wider gamut colour spaces. In fact you should see more wild shifting if converting to ProPhoto RGB as the gamut is so much wider than sRGB.
(NOTE, where I said I converted a raw file from sRGB->ProPhoto, I was referring to the Kodak ProPhoto colour space which is set at Gamma 1.8.... hence the flat lifeless grey dull result. This was only for testing, to see what it was all about.)
Have never tried the Windows specific ProPhoto colour space, and for the reasons Richard(Hall) gave!! Why would you risk over editing an image and not being able to see, in a WYSIWYG manner, the out of gamut colour losses. On an sRGB monitor, if you push your editing steps to extremes and your working in the higher colour space, your monitor may not be able to display the true colour of the file, ie. as the software 'understands it'.
If you want the highest colour space gamut achievable in your images, then forget about colour spaces, and concentrate on shooting, editing and saving your raw images, in a raw format.
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
Threadstarter
Originally Posted by arthurking83
