For years I did the wrong things when choosing camera capture options with respect to color profile (sometimes called color space) and with respect to post-processing. Here's a good link about choosing a monitor:

http://thedigitalcamera.net/be...ing-and-photography/


The options shown in the chart are not the only options of course, but it's a very good description of why the different options exist, whether you plan on hooking it up to your laptop or having it as your only (or second) monitor for a desktop.

For the most part I started out thinking that I should choose the Adobe RGB option as the color profile option in my camera. I thought if I didn't do this I would "lose" important color information in the file. Wrong. The RAW file (or NEF for Nikons) is not a photograph, it's just computer data. The color profile can be changed to any of a vast number of color spaces in almost all post-processing software, with no "loss" of information. If you shoot jpeg's then you will probably want the conversion to sRGB to be done by the camera, internally, since that is most likely the profile where it will be used. Besides, the image you look at on the LCD on the back of the camera is a jpeg in sRGB, nothing else.

But 99.9% of my pictures are never printed, and those I do work on are for web posting or e-mails to family and friends. All web browsers and almost all screens can only show sRGB color profiles. And almost all the print options, like photo books, are for photos in the sRBG color space.

Moral of the story, I set the color profile in my camera to sRGB (and not Adobe RGB), meaning that it is already in the color space most of my photos need to be viewed. I can always change it in post if I decide to use a printer with a wider gamut or have it printed by a professional service, assuming they want it in anything besides sRGB. Besides, unless I have a wide gamut screen I'm not going to see the full spectrum of colors anyway. If you want to get really serious about printing enlargements you need access to a wide gamut screen, whether it's yours or your custom print company's.

Just sayin.

Good points Wink. I shoot JPEG + RAW and post edit on the RAW after making a backup of the pictures that I want to "work" on. I only use JPEG for a quick view. Since I don't go to print (digital marketing only) I don't sweat the colors too much as everyone's monitor will render differently.

JPEG is a digital compression algorithm and every camera image processing software must compile the RAW image to render a "picture" in JPEG. Therefore, every JPEG will look a little different from camera processor to camera processor and of course each brand of sensor "sees" colors differently. RAW however, is WYSIWYG.

Even among video cards and monitor combinations, colors and saturation will be displayed differently. Just like every make and model of TV monitor interprets colors differently. In fact, few folks ever bother to color correct their TVs so "color" is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Same applies with computer monitors and video cards. I use an Nvidia GeForce GT 710 graphics card and a Dell Ultra Sharp monitor. The colors are much more realistic than what they appear like on a laptop regardless of RAW or JPEG.

In regards to JPEG, remember that your desktop/laptop processor and post editing software is many times more powerful than what is carried onboard your camera. Your desktop/laptop processor will do a much better job of compiling your post edited RAW picture into JPEG than your camera.

So at the end of the day, edit with RAW until you are happy with how it renders on your monitor. Everyone else's mileage will vary...