Talk:Adobe RGB color space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconColor Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Science Start‑class
WikiProject iconAdobe RGB color space has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science (Physics). If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Link to AdobeRGB(1998) Spec[edit]

I added a direct link to the spec (PDF) to a new "References" paragraph. Glennrp 03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color space recommendation[edit]

I've removed the following line:

"Critiques claim that most digital photographers are better off using standards sRGB[1]."

The quote is from Ken Rockwell, who is not a well respected source of photographic opinions, and certainly not an expert in color space (search his name in

A well respected color space expert like Bruce Fraser ( will instead recommend that wide color spaces like Adobe RGB or even the wider ProPhoto RGB be used so to minimize any loss of color when editing and correcting an image. Conversion to sRGB should occur only at the last step, and only if the output is for a computer screen (web). For printing, other color spaces are preferable (Adobe RGB). This assumes of course that the original photos are shot in a wide gamut space like that available in RAW format, which is becoming the norm for serious amateurs and professionals. Bernardd 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Well, there's a trade-off here. If we use only 8 bits of color information per channel (as in a jpeg), then a wider gamut means less distinctions between colors can be stored. --jacobolus (t) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The quote is from Ken Rockwell, who is not a well respected source of photographic opinions, and certainly not an expert in color space"
He is a source of photographic opinions, though whether he is a well-respected source, I would have thought, is up to individual opinions. His claim to expertise in color spaces is that he designed the first dedicated color space conversion processor while working for TRW LSI, not to mention that he is a prolific photographer to whom color is the main focus of his work. I agree that his opinions about color spaces are not generally echoed by most others, but is this dissenting opinion not worthy of at least being noted? I find the arguments about him not being well respected to be subject to individual bias, and the argument that he is not an expert in color space misleading if not downright untrue; even if his claim about designing the first color space conversion chip is false, I would still describe him as a professional photographer to whom color is the main focus of his work. If nothing else his view on use of color spaces is likely to be relevant to any photographers wanting to obtain the same sort of results as him. That said, whether or not such information is relevant to an article on Adobe RGB is another question - it probably isn't. mmj (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason for improvement[edit]

After reading this article I still don't understand *why* Adobe RGB is "improving upon the gamut of the sRGB color space": how does it achieve it? The article says that it uses a Gamma value of 2.2 throughout its range, which sounds like a simplification but cannot by itself explain to me why it encompasses more color range or anything. The sole reason I can understand this to happen right now is if the digital resolution is limited, e.g. to 8 bits per color channel; but the article doesn't mention the bit depth *at all*. So, either I'm missing something, or the article isn't complete. Pflanze2 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it does actually use 563/256 gamma and not piecewise transfer like sRGB and BT.709. (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe RGB color space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adobe sRGB[edit]

Comparison of raster graphics editors#Color spaces currently contains a redlink to “Adobe sRGB”. Is it safe to assume that that's the same as “Adobe RGB color space”? Is that a likely error, so that we should create a redirect for that name? (Special:WhatLinksHere/Adobe sRGB only has this one.) ◄ Sebastian 20:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was just a typo. I fixed it. 2A00:1370:812D:D57A:20DC:6193:B451:D9D3 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]