not really, I was just making the point that Adobe 1998 is not for printing, printing color mode is CMYK. If you are working on a print project, you convert it in PS to CMYK before doing anything else. Your camera (or raw converter) setting being Adobe 1998 or sRGB do not make any visible difference in practice. After the transition, you check the tones of your blues and cyans and adjust accordingly. If you are sending your files as RGB to the printer, they specify if they want it as sRGB or Adobe RGB and Adobe seems to be more common. Keep in mind that you will not get an exact color match between the design and print (especially cyan tones) if you submit as RGB (regardless of it being sRGB or Adobe RGB.)

For web use only, although Adobe 1998 has a wider gamut, the colors would look slightly more washed out compared to sRGB. I think the difference is trivial, I believe sRGB is better but I use Adobe purely out of laziness as my whole network is already setup that way.

Sorry for confusing you even more  

--------------------------------------------------------------
FotoIE

ThorstenM wrote: Because I shoot everything raw, it doesn't really matter which colourspace I have set on my camera's as that's a decision that I can take later during my raw conversion, although I've set the cameras default colourspace to be Adobe RGB

 

Ditto!!!

If you are shooting jpg and you do a lot of post processing probably you will be better of shooting on rgb to be able to do sutil color corrections, because you wont be able to change colors that you didn't have in the first place if you shot on srgb. Then you can save a copy in 8 bit format for screen display.
Prints never look the same in paper as in the screen, so is a bit of trial and error untill you can make the screen look like the print -I usually have two files one in srgb to show to the client and one in rgb for the actual print-, after you find the right parameters is just a matter of consistency.
Then again, everyone does what is better for their workflow.