sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic

[mouse]

I will say this:  he (Gary Fong) does make good flash diffusers.

Indeed they are good.  But rather expensive considering that you can make one yourself for nearly nothing, from a plastic milk container or a piece of Tupperware.

[ripgriffith]

The worst part is not being wrong but not accepting when you're proven wrong and assume a defensive position.

I quite recently ran into this from a well-known blogger and reviewer who titled a review "A must-have item" (not an exact quote, but close enough), then proceeded to heap praise upon this item and then casually mentioned that he had, in fact, not seen or used the item in question, but based his praise on the fact that he knew this guy and all his other items were really really good.  I called him out on this, that this was off an ad than a review; his response was very defensive and a little nasty; I called him out on that and found myself banned for life from his website.

[garyfong]

Hi everybody.  I saw a direct link to this forum, and saw your comments, and thought I would address them.

If you look at the context of the video, I am explaining why people find that as soon as they switch their cameras to the AdobeRGB color space, their colors appear lifeless and dull.  In the beginning of the video, one of the first things that I express is, "AdobeRGB is superior - IF you have the equipment that can exploit it".  I then go on to explain that the majority of the wet process printers (RA-4) and web browsers are all within the narrow gamut of sRGB.

For those of you who do not know my background, I was a professional wedding photographer for 20 years, and shot over 1,000 weddings.  I then went on to start a photo lab called, "Pictage, Inc." with one of the first Fuji Frontier printers.  We were the first company to have to crack open the hood and tone down the saturation and up the midrange tones because the stock Frontiers were too hot.  We literally had techs from FujiFilm in West Hollywood over at the lab every day to help me dial it in.  Eventually, we got it all dialed in, and went on to become the largest online pro photo lab in the USA, going from six people to 170 employees before we sold it for $29 Million.  

During this time, I was involved in testing and prototyping the Fuji S3 and S4.  I shot the national ad campaigns before that.  And prior to buying my Fuji Frontier, I spent time in Rochester with Kodak, aiding their engineers and testing the prototypes of what became Portra film.  I then went and did a number of national platforms for Kodak, and Hasselblad, and appeared in Hasselblad's ad campaigns.

So I intimately know color management as we were the first on the horizon when the world switched to digital.  The Fuji Frontier was the bridge technology, scanning negative film to digital (sRGB width) files, which then were stored and printed on RA-4 process printers.  We had C-41 film developers, as well as our Frontiers, so I had to learn everything about color management.  We had to bullseye our RA-4 output to adjust our chemistry to keep everything balanced.  Back then, we used densitometers before the concept of Spiders was even a fantasy.

So when I do a video aimed at helping the enthusiast understand a very basic misunderstanding about color space, I used metaphors like "Muffin tops" and "wide rainbows" to help people understand color clipping - a very widely experienced phenomenon among people who read that AdobeRGB is better, switch to it, then are disappointed in their color.  To help illustrate this, I showed a completely red and violet square, side by side, and used my apple monitor profile to simulate color clipping.  By switching my monitor from sRGB to AdobeRGB, I forced the monitor to "expect" a wider gamut, thereby showing only the middle of the width.  

So when Andrew Rodney went on the attack, accusing me of not knowing color management, and then going on to literally say on his Google+ page that my misunderstandings were possibly because I was having problems reading english (an obviously cheap and racist remark), I could not be ok with this.  Not only is he being unfair and petulant, he is accusing me of a lot of wrongdoing.  He accuses me of trying to mislead people for financial gain.

It is not of any benefit to me if people shoot sRGB or AdobeRGB.  I do not sell educational products about color management like Mr. Rodney does.  The reason I'm doing this is because I spend a lot of time internationally giving workshops and seminars simply to learn the needs of photographers, so I can stay in touch with what my customer's needs are, and to understand what hinders them from improving their photography.

Despite the cheap shots I've seen here about my "tupperware", my products are the market leader, are carefully researched and tested, have a ten year history of use worldwide acceptance.  You'll see my products in use at press events, magazine shoots and by NASA.  Jay Meisel, Greg Gorman and many other legendary photographers use my lighting accessories.  My Lightsphere was named Popular Photography's Product of the Year in 2010.  I have had the good fortune of, well, good fortune, so I don't need to make money off of misleading people for whatever motive in misleading them about color management.  

I had a lengthy phone conversation with Will Crockett today, who originally was poked at the beginning of this thread.  I have known of Will Crockett's deep knowledge of color printing because he was giving nationwide tours for FujiFilm back when I purchased my $240,000 Fuji Frontier.  The management at Fuji hand picked Will because of his knowledge and popular method of teaching.  He gave me quite the education of Andrew Rodney, and we will be doing a Skype video to clear up the confusion stirred up by Mr. Rodney (and others) for a YouTube video.

Mr. Rodney is critical of my neophyte misunderstanding of color, yet I know it very well.  Mr. Rodney is not a professional photographer, and AdobeRGB did not take over the sRGB world in print volume worldwide, as Adobe wished it would.  It does have a wider gamut but nobody will dispute that the equipment that exploits it is pale in comparison to sRGB equipment worldwide.  And, nobody can dispute that if a typical photographer shoots JPG and uploads directly to the web or goes to wet process will need to change the color profile of an AdobeRGB file to sRGB for optimal display for common browsers.  

I had a student at one of my workshops insist that AdobeRGB was better than sRGB, and I agreed with him.  And I asked him to show us one of his prints, and the students commented that the red umbrella appeared dull.  I then went on to explain how color clipping occurs, and this student got very angry.  He said he much preferred the color of the AdobeRGB, and when I turned the paper over, it said, "Fuji Crystal Archive" - a wet process RA-4 printer paper used then exclusively by the Fuji Frontiers.  I pointed out why the other students found his colors to be dull, and he became very angry.  He absolutely insisted that his print had better color, so be it.

Color is subjective, but the application of the use of the most proper color space is not.  You can create stunning prints with AdobeRGB and a continuous color management workflow that preserves it from generation to generation.  And I am sure that those of you who do this from beginning to end earn the pride of enjoying your enhanced color.  But you are not everybody, and the person who buys the Digital Rebel is at risk of reading experts decry that AdobeRGB is always better.  It's not.  Not in a hybrid workflow that starts with a wide gamut and ends with a narrow one.

This has gotten so intensely blown out of proportion that I am proud to announce that we will be doing a series of Skype interviews with top experts in photography and color management to address this.  

I am super thankful to Will Crockett for giving me the run through about Rodney Andrew.  Yes my responses have been very blunt, but it's because it is really something to see this kind of criticism when it is unfounded and unwarranted.  And I am dedicated to bringing out clarity, and truth, especially about the history and background of Rodney Andrew.

To the moderators, please review your TOS, because I feel like a lot of these potshots in this thread violates it.  And for the record, while I am of chinese descent, I do not speak chinese.  English is my first language, and I can read it just fine.

Gary Fong
CEO Gary Fong Inc.

[Schewe]

And yet, it appears Gary is aming for those folks living under a rock based on this video and replies to those who don't agree with him completely. That's what kind of pisses me off about his MO. He's looking for those beginners or rock duellers to feed upon.

So, Gary is a snake oil salesmen preying on the ignorant. His video is a train wreck which I did not find in the least bit funny. It was really sad that some yahoo can post this kind of craps on the uneducated public and not get called on the carpet…

Against my better judgement (let idiots entertain themselves), I did make a comment on the video. In the event it get's yanked, here it is…

Jeff Schewe 9 minutes ago
 
So, not for nothing but changing the monitor profile from sRGB to Adobe RGB is useless when comparing color spaces. There are tools for comparing gamut plots to show the differences between color spaces, but diddling your display profile isn't one of them.

Quick test, take an ARGB image and do a Convert to Profile command to sRGB…do you see any change? You may with some  colors that are outside of sRGB but it will be subtle. But NOTHING like what the presenter is trying to show by misusing the display profile.

Point of fact, RGB color spaces use only Relative Colorimetric rendering intents and will introduce gamut clipping, but you can download a beta sRGB profile that allows for using a Perceptual rendering intent when preparing images for the web or photo lab.(http://www.color.org). It allows transforming from ARGB to sRGB with a perceptual rendering thus ensuring you don't clip useful colors…

Personally, I think it's rather sad when presenters foist misinformation on people who don't know any better. I'm sure he means well, but this video is a train wreck. But hey, if you want to "believe" what he says, go right ahead. Personally I use the only working space that can contain (without clipping) all the colors your camera can capture (in raw)….ProPhoto RGB. Course, I kinda know what I'm doing…

Your turn Gary…wanna go head to head with me?
Show less

[Schewe]

By switching my printer monitor from sRGB to AdobeRGB, I forced the monitor to "expect" a wider gamut, thereby showing only the middle of the width. 

So, what exactly is a "printer monitor"? Seriously I would like to know…

No dooode you totally blew the demo. That is the reason for the ridicule…using the display profile to "prove" that sRGB and ARGB are different is ignorant. Try it yourself…take an image in ARGB and do a Convert to Profile to sRGB…what do you see? Almost no difference…why? Because Photoshop (and Lightroom) are pretty good at transforming color (and sRGB is the most you can see unless you are using a wide gamut display–which I suspect you aren't using). What you think you proved is a total red herring…(read my comment regarding using the beta sRGB and Perceptual rendering intent).

To the moderators, please review your TOS, because I feel like a lot of these potshots in this thread violates it.

You're new around here huh bud…(the 1 post count is a dead giveaway). Grow a thick skin if you want to live in LuLa waters (and don't cry to daddy cause he don't care). Actually, in reading the thread, I think you've received now where near the ridicule you deserve…but I'll try to take a more Buddhist approach and just say you are very much in need of some help and assistance to grasp a better understanding of the issues.

I don't disagree with the premise that if you don't know what you are doing, use sRGB…but you could have gotten that across in 15 seconds (without the faulty hand waving). It would have been useful to actually do some education of the real issues instead of spreading FUD. For that, you are being castigated with cause.

[fdisilvestro]

Gary Fong:

You might be a successfull business man and your products look nice (I cannot comment on them since I have not used them yet) but the videos and especially the following comment:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum. Why do people who know nothing about photography try to act like experts?

Just show that you are wrong about color management. Continuing with your defensive attitude with the expert audience of this forum (don't count me as an expert) can only damage your reputation.

Regards,

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Well, more like if you, your buyer, your printer or anyone else involved doesn't know about colour management, use sRGB.

On the other side, if you printer doesn't manage colours he may also loose a lot of other points. Color management allows prints to judged on screen, called softproofing, but with improper color management that information is lost.

There is a change right now, with 4k monitors comes a new much wider colour gamut, so some screens are sRGB and some much wider gamut, so correct tagging of the images are more important than ever.

Best regards
Erik

Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.

* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."

[Tony Jay]

I finally watched the video in question to see what all the fuss is about.

I have to agree with the consensus that trying to solve a misunderstanding by simplifying things to the point of plain inaccuracy is, to put it mildly, crazy.

As one with a solid, and hopefully still growing, grasp of colour management and also one who does teach on the subject I cannot agree to limiting the colour gamut on input because the output gamut is limited in some way. I spend a lot of time teaching people not to limit the gamut of an image on input into Lightroom, ACR, or Photoshop or whatever other image editing software one is using but rather to use the largest gamut that is rational. In most cases this is ProPhotoRGB - especially if one is shooting RAW. If I shot JPEGS then I would probably use AdobeRGB.
Whether the gamut of the monitor that one is viewing images for editing purposes is very limited (sRGB) or somewhat limited (AdobeRGB or an approximate thereof) is absolutely neither here nor there.
The place to limit the gamut of an image is at the output stage, sRGB for nearly all electronic viewing devices and as large as possible gamut for printing (my printer can reproduce a colour gamut that is arguably a bit larger than AdobeRGB but some printers do less).

The explanation of how the gamut differs between sRGB and AdobeRGB is not just wrong but mischievous. Check the 3D gamut plots of the two colourspaces - in this case a picture literally speaks a thousand words. This kind of misinformation can totally torpedo future attempts to teach colour management appropriately.

In broadest terms the proposal that using sRGB for output (print or screen) has certain merit for beginners but that is not the end of the story.
Learning colour management and softproofing images is the correct way forward.
This is the way for any photographer to get excellent colour and excellent colour reproduction.
Frankly Gary Fong's video, by not even addressing any real colour management principles, is to put it diplomatically, counterproductive.

Tony Jay

[Simon Garrett]

Gary,

When you post a video that is so utterly, hopelessly incorrect then you're going to get a bit of ridicule on any forum, and certainly this one, particularly when your video is linked to a commercial operation.  

It's quite common for people to say things that are slightly incorrect about colour, and people often give poor or even misleading analogies.  But your video isn't even close.  It completely misrepresents the nature of colour spaces and colour gamuts.  Worse than that: when people pointed it out your mistake, you simply dug in and refused to admit that you could be wrong.  

You posted irrelevant references to colour space definitions: these are correct, but do not prove your point because you have not understood how colour spaces are represented in RGB values in coming to your mistaken view of gamut clipping.  

Andrew Rodney has written what is probably still the best book on colour management for photographers - he really knows what he's talking about - and all you do it nit-pick his replies.  

Jeff Schewe may have a sharp tongue at times, but he also knows his stuff.  

If you're smart, you might want take note, for there's none so blind as those that will not see.  

[David Good]

Just out of curiosity I viewed the two linked videos, briefly. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. He is obviously preaching to new comers to the industry but he's not doing them any favors. The likes of the Lula community are not the ones to take him very seriously.

As for his light sphere container it certainly does scatter light very well in all directions (if that's what you want ).

[garyfong]

It is of course, best to have as much data as possible for future options later.  What if you are a newer photographer that switches the menu function from a to s?  That person will experience duller colors in a majority of common web browsers and wet process output.  Undeniable.

If the person goes back to sRGB, the colors go back to what they had.  Undeniable.

If the person shoots in AdobeRGB, or parses to it, they have to convert to sRGB if it is going on the web or wet print at most places.  That's undeniable also.  Many, many of those people are trying to enjoy photography and will never pick up LR.  So before you go and say, "well, then, let them fry" remember that people want to love photography.  A camera is a major investment in this economy.  Discouraging from the get-go by telling them for all images, do the A to S conversion for the uses most people do.  I feel as if they go there, there will be a whole lot of you arguing about the simplicity of their workflow.

I deal with the photography public.  I spoke at the Salon De La Photo last year in Paris to tens of thousands of photographers.  Even with the newest equipment, a praciticaly unanimous buying public existed within the sRGB workflow sphere.  Someone here was right - I could've said in 15 seconds the sRGB vs AdobeRGB mantra - if sticking to web or wet process, use s.  Inkjet, 4 color press, sophisticated lab equipment, capture in A.  But do not capture in A and go to S.  Simple message.

People do not remember without explanations that have to be simple for the newest student.  Yes, this bristles with the people who spend a lot of time teaching about color management (seems like this is a forum for instructors, if I'm not wrong) yet have achieved a level that most people don't and won't have the time for, and - undeniably - would be happy enough with straight sRGB to web (high majority of photo enthusiasts) and the next smaller group would actually have prints made at an sRGB-RA/4 system - get this - not knowing how to submit a file with a matching profile before giving it to the lab.

Mostly, it's the following is undeniable.  Photographers en masse express in sRGB down the chain and those would benefit by not switching their camera to AdobeRGB - which is what this video addresses in a simple way using metaphors like "muffin top" and "wide rainbows" as well as changing a monitor display profile to show color clipping.  It was meant to be simple, and at the beginning of the video I said this is one of the most hotly debated topics, so I knew to leave the comments in for people to sample what happens here, in DPReview, at conventions, etc.

The elite are unhappy that their refined techniques are not adopted by all to produce the greatest results.  The neophytes will never make an AdobeRGB print or purchase a wider gamut display.  They will get very acceptable results with sRGB.  And, by the way, most of the younger photographers or newer ones wind up buying Instagram-looking photoshop actions and torch the midtones anyway.  So much for your enhanced color detail.

I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic.  I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better.  At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.

We plan on mentioning this thread, and some of your names and opinions as topics of discussion. Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them.  Not what was better.  I make that clear in the beginning.

My team is very excited to do our interview/documentary on this dispute.  Your contributions are valuable when the discussion is just this - a discussion.

[ripgriffith]

I deal with the photography public.  I spoke at the Salon De La Photo last year in Paris to tens of thousands of photographers.  Even with the newest equipment, a praciticaly unanimous buying public existed within the sRGB workflow sphere.  Someone here was right - I could've said in 15 seconds the sRGB vs AdobeRGB mantra - if sticking to web or wet process, use s.  Inkjet, 4 color press, sophisticated lab equipment, capture in A.  But do not capture in A and go to S.  Simple message...

Mostly, it's the following is undeniable.  Photographers en masse express in sRGB down the chain and those would benefit by not switching their camera to AdobeRGB -

WOW!  Tens of thousands of photographers... practically unanimous buying public... undeniable... photographers en masse... etc.  Golly-gee, how can you argue with all that? 

Back home in Texas, when I was a kid, we had boots with what were called roping heels: high heels with a deep taper so that they could really dig into the dirt when you had a calf on the end of your rope. You just couldn't be dragged anywhere by that calf.  Now it seems to me, Gary, with that calf being a metaphor for accuracy, you are surely wearing some serious roping heels  on your boots.

[Chris_Brown]

The elite are unhappy that their refined techniques are not adopted by all to produce the greatest results.

Mr. Fong, there are no "elites" here, just people who ask questions, want to improve their skills, ask for critiques, and share accurate information. There are a few who go to the mat to defend their premise, but they are not elite. Some have authored popular books, some are highly successful photographers, and a lot are wading into the water of digital photography.

The reason you're getting blowback is because the information in your video is wrong. And when noobs watch it, they will be misled. This is an egregious error on your part, and you deserve to take heat for it.

The neophytes will never make an AdobeRGB print or purchase a wider gamut display. They will get very acceptable results with sRGB.

You assume that the neophytes don't desire a better post-production system, and I think this is a false assumption. As noobs get more involved in photography, they naturally become curious about a better workflow. They may not buy an Eizo monitor and Canon iPF 8400, but they are all curious about the state of the art.

[fdisilvestro]

Do not confuse photographers with camera owners.

No matter if you tried to give a simple explanation, if you say: "Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum" you are clueless about color management
I give you that for the novice it is better to stay in sRGB, but what you are trying to do is to keep people in the ignorance
Several forum members have tried to correct you, some polite others less polite, but your arrogance and pride are beyond belief

I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better.  At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.

This will really be a disservice to them

Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them.  Not what was better.  I make that clear in the beginning.

Who do you think you are to decide what is better for someone else?  let's them make that decision, after they learn. Keep using sRGB until you really understand color management and can make informed decisions? Yes, but spreading nonsense and misleading information is not the right thing to do.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... You assume that the neophytes don't desire a better post-production system, and I think this is a false assumption. As noobs get more involved in photography, they naturally become curious about a better workflow. They may not buy an Eizo monitor and Canon iPF 8400, but they are all curious about the state of the art.

Yours is just as false.

[Alan Goldhammer]

While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says.  For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it."  These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting.  LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists.  Many go beyond just the mainstream programs and use a variety of plugins and experiment with other software to get optimal results from the images we capture.  We can all chuckle at the errors in the presentation but at the end of the day, the Internet will reign supreme in terms of allowing anyone the freedom to make a fool of him/herself.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says.  For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it."  These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting.  LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists...

+1

[Eyeball]

I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic.  I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better.  At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.

We plan on mentioning this thread, and some of your names and opinions as topics of discussion. Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them.  Not what was better.  I make that clear in the beginning.

My team is very excited to do our interview/documentary on this dispute.  Your contributions are valuable when the discussion is just this - a discussion.

Not much doubt now that this was "troll marketing".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A couple of years ago, Canon had a promotion for their printers, where they offered a free 8x10 if you send them a file. They said you can send them sRGB or aRGB. Knowing, at the time, that "sRGB is good for web, aRGB better for inkjets," I sent them aRGB. See what I got back:

[digitaldog]

If you look at the context of the video, I am explaining why people find that as soon as they switch their cameras to the AdobeRGB color space, their colors appear lifeless and dull.

That is simply wrong!

In the beginning of the video, one of the first things that I express is, "AdobeRGB is superior - IF you have the equipment that can exploit it".  I then go on to explain that the majority of the wet process printers (RA-4) and web browsers are all within the narrow gamut of sRGB.

That too is pathetically wrong. You seem to have totally missed an important step known as converting to an output color space. Pretty shocking!  

For those of you who do not know my background, I was a professional wedding photographer for 20 years, and shot over 1,000 weddings.

Bla,bla and more. What does that have to do with your inaccuracies and misunderstandings as presented in the two video's about color management?
I know a lot of professional photographers who understand and can explain basic color management and the topic you butchered in your two videos. You sir are not one!

In less than a week that your new video has been up, there have been more than a dozen different people, on YouTube and here that have told you the content, message and method you used is wrong. You've argued with each. One was actually a software engineer! But heck, you're a professiona photographer; BFD! You're wrong. You haven't had a single peer come to your side to suggest you got the videos right, not one. How do you explain that Gray? Dozens point out your flaws, most being patient and doing nothing more than trying to explain the correct fundamentals and you get pissy, insulting and hostile. For the rest of the LuLa gang, Gary found a piece I did as well as Michael's on ETTR and got it totally wrong, accused me of suggesting people should underexpose. When I told him he has issues comprehending English, he pulls out the race card, calling me a racist! That's how pitifully silly his arguments are. Talk about a car wreck.   

So when Andrew Rodney went on the attack, accusing me of not knowing color management, and then going on to literally say on his Google+ page that my misunderstandings were possibly because I was having problems reading english (an obviously cheap and racist remark), I could not be ok with this.  Not only is he being unfair and petulant, he is accusing me of a lot of wrongdoing.  He accuses me of trying to mislead people for financial gain.

You were not attacked. You were told by myself and others you got it wrong. Anyone who wishes can go to your video site and see the progression of posts from myself and others and how we initially tried to help you, told you not to take it personally, referenced other data points to asisit you in getting the facts straight. You would have none of it and you sir were the attacker. It's absurd that you would say otherwise but that's your MO. It's rather pathetic. As seen here, let alone on the YouTube site, you have a terrible time comprehending the written word.

It is not of any benefit to me if people shoot sRGB or AdobeRGB.  I do not sell educational products about color management like Mr. Rodney does.

Wrong again. But why let facts get in the way of your dribble.

Despite the cheap shots I've seen here about my "tupperware", my products are the market leader, are carefully researched and tested, have a ten year history of use worldwide acceptance. You'll see my products in use at press events, magazine shoots and by NASA.  Jay Meisel, Greg Gorman and many other legendary photographers use my lighting accessories.  My Lightsphere was named Popular Photography's Product of the Year in 2010.  I have had the good fortune of, well, good fortune, so I don't need to make money off of misleading people for whatever motive in misleading them about color management.  

NONE of that has anything to do with the misinformation about color management Gary, none!

I had a lengthy phone conversation with Will Crockett today, who originally was poked at the beginning of this thread.  I have known of Will Crockett's deep knowledge of color printing because he was giving nationwide tours for FujiFilm back when I purchased my $240,000 Fuji Frontier.  The management at Fuji hand picked Will because of his knowledge and popular method of teaching.  He gave me quite the education of Andrew Rodney, and we will be doing a Skype video to clear up the confusion stirred up by Mr. Rodney (and others) for a YouTube video.

Great, two legends of color management misinformation. I can't wait to see it.

Mr. Rodney is critical of my neophyte misunderstanding of color, yet I know it very well.

You don't show it!

 Mr. Rodney is not a professional photographer, and AdobeRGB did not take over the sRGB world in print volume worldwide, as Adobe wished it would.

Again, that I once was and am no longer making a living making images has nothing to do with your misinformation of color management. I know you want to make it about me. Based on the dozens and dozens of posts here and on your two video's from people telling you that you are wrong seems to continuously escape you.

I am super thankful to Will Crockett for giving me the run through about Rodney Andrew.  Yes my responses have been very blunt, but it's because it is really something to see this kind of criticism when it is unfounded and unwarranted.  And I am dedicated to bringing out clarity, and truth, especially about the history and background of Rodney Andrew.

Gary, you clearly have no idea what peer review is or looks like. That's kind of a shame. But the biggest shame is the thousands of people you say you've taught color to who are getting such terrible advise and teachings. You should not be proud of that achievement, just the opposite!