Look, the article is filled with complete nonsense and if you wish to go through them piece by piece, let's do so. I've 'cherry picked' a few sentences which anyone who has a clue about color management (and I figured you did), could point out is factually wrong including:
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography
What is real
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
Nonsense. Leading cause? Let's not even go into display calibration, in Ken's mind, sRGB doesn't require it.
Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself.
So again, handing off Adobe RGB to someone else doesn’t count, silly.
Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.
Sure, blame Adobe RGB and not the non color managed app. You do realize that sRGB outside an ICC aware app has no guarantee of being seen correctly?
sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet.
Pure nonsense. Certainly for print (and I'm counting ALL possible print work).
Use sRGB and you'll get great, accurate colors everywhere all the time.
Again not true. No further comment necessary it's such a silly statement painted with such a wide brush.
sRGB uses ITU BT Rec. 709 primaries and a gamma of 2.2, same as most kinds of HDTV.
For the guy who 'invented some color invention' I couldn't find reference to, he's off a bit (Rec 709 doesn't use the same "gamma" encoding).
Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file.
Squeezes color thus they are duller? Come on.
If you have the right software to re-expand the colors…
Re-expand the colors?
Web browsers don't have, and print labs rarely have, the right software to read Adobe RGB
My web browser does, my labs do. Everything
exported from Aperture is Adobe RGB (1998) as one example.
Adobe RGB may be able to represent a slightly larger range of colors, but no screen or print material I've used can show this broader range…
Slightly larger range of colors? According to ColorThink, Adobe RGB has a gamut volume of 1,207,502 while sRGB has a gamut volume of 832,478. No screen or print can show it? You are actually buying that?
Worse, if you're the sort of vacuum-operating geek who wants to shoot Adobe RGB because you read about it in a magazine article, did you realize that because the colors are compressed into a smaller range that there is more chroma quantization noise when the file is opened again?
Not even worth a comment!
Keeping people lost and confused sells more magazines and more new equipment, which supports magazine advertising. That's why you see so many articles on Adobe RGB elsewhere.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black (confuse then ask for money). Is this guy serious? No, some just don't get his sense of humor. If you believe that, I have ocean front properly to sell you in New Mexico.