You can also use AdobeRGB with Farbfeld, but from my experience, those photographers shooting and printing in AdobeRGB with late CMYK export have Photoshop/PhotoRAW as their pipeline.
If you fuck one thing up trying to handle AdobeRGB in farbfeld, everything is fucked up, but that happens anywhere.
On the other hand, most photographers shoot their stuff in sRGB (for a fact, because sRGB is by far the most widespread). I don't want to insult the professionals or something, I'm just acknowledging the fact that for the 1% using AdobeRGB there's no reason to complicate the format.
Re:Farbfeld – A suckless image format
by liquidmetal on Friday January 15, 2016 @09:16AM
(#10909393)
The fact that this file format doesn't enclose the AdobeRGB vs sRGB information is a deal breaker.
A lot of computer vision research datasets uses a similar file format - so I can see its use there. But things like movie creation, publishing, etc will probably never adopt this.
Indeed. I'll reiterate - it's vital that images have a known color space. Even if OP just states that farbfield is sRGB, it'll help. Otherwise, you've only got a 3D matrix, rather than an image.
You can assume that most people are using sRGB colourspace for now, but it may not be true in the coming years, especially with UHD TV being officially specified and adopting Rec. 2020 colourspace: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160104006605/en/UHD-...
The author clearly has very limited experience of professional printing.
Images aren't just used by photographers. They're used by graphic designers, digital artists, and other people who need a consistent wide-gamut colour space.
sRGB is not that colour space.
Referring to a couple of ancient Ken Rockwell blog pages as "proof" is simply uninformed and amateurish.