In ACR, there are several choices, the widest one being prophoto, I think. Apparently, though, it's too wide for most (all?) displays, and certainly too wide for any printer, so... I've kinda been thinking of getting used to Adobe RGB, which is still too broad for many (most?) displays, and most (all?) printers.

Thing is... if the wide gamuts are impossible to duplicate on display, and even more so on a printer, why do we even have them?

Thoughts?

< 4:25AM gamut philosophy belch

I don't know anything about ARC or it's gamuts, but I thought the point of Adobe RGB was for printing? It can't be displayed right, but when you print it you should see the extra colors showing up there. If not there wouldn't be a point.

ACR = Adobe Camera RAW, their RAW converter. I know that monitors have to be profiled for Adobe RGB to show all the gamut's colors (otherwise they're reported to look dull).

I can vouch for things looking dull as Adobe RGB on non calibrated monitors...
And I never new ACR was the adobe raw converter... That's what I use when I do shoot RAW.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I can vouch for things looking dull as Adobe RGB on non calibrated monitors...
And I never new ACR was the adobe raw converter... That's what I use when I do shoot RAW.

That's what I figured. Just an unfamiliar acronym for an everyday tool

you calling me a tool?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

you calling me a tool?

Nice!