I have a wide-gamut screen and I am wondering which final colour space my pictures should have. I mainly look at the pictures on my screen.
Limiting the colour space to sRGB would not use the full capabilities of my screen. However, 16bit files seem to be too large for the final pictures so only 8bit jpgs are practical to quickly go through the collection. I found some people stating that 8bit are not to coarse for AdobeRGB. So 8bit AdobeRGB jpgs should be fine for my purpose. Do you agree?
Of course, I have to be careful when sharing the pictures, always adding a comment that people should use a proper viewer.
Or do you think that AdobeRGB is just not worth the effort and potential hassle?
In Raw Therapee, RTv4_Medium corresponds to AdobeRGB, right?
For sharing, sRGB is the de facto color profile. AdobeRGB is fine for personal use. My camera is really old and it still has an option to save AdobeRGB JPGs.
Yes, but setting up a colour managed system is more than just using a proper viewer.
Then I’d say enjoy it and have adobeRGB jpegs (but ensure your colour set-up is ok).
And sRGB ones for general sharing.
You mention RT and 16bit. My RT only outputs 8bit jpegs, does jpeg support 16 bits (I’m not sure…)
I guess you’re keeping your raw files so does the space of an extra jpeg output matter much?
No, jpegs can only handle 8 bit as far as I know. While space in general is not an issue here, 16 bit tiffs or pngs are much larger. Also my tests of these files with digikam were not so successful so I will stick with jpegs.