[Kombisaurus]

I do 95% of my photoshopping in 16-bit anyway - I love the way you can get full use of the RAW format even after the RAW conversion and can pull detail out of the shadows and highlights without the posterisation or clipping of an 8-bit image. The same advantages would also apply when converting between colour spaces.
Most of my PSD files end up between 50 and 100mb each, but disk space and backup media are cheap and only getting cheaper in the future.

But I can see your point about sRGB vs AdobeRGB. Anything that ends up as JPG will need to be converted to sRGB anyway for decent viewing on the web, so unless I'm going to make use of the larger gamut then I should be asking myself why not just start off with sRGB? Maybe I should just try both for a while and see? If I can't see a difference in my prints then I might as well pick sRGB for simplicity.

And while I've had the most problems with the cyans and my current printer, I understand that the areas of gamut that sRGB is limited by don't occur often in nature or my work. That Canon ICC Guide I linked to in the 2nd link of my original post had sample pictures highlighting areas of cyan that sRGB would clip, but the actual print differences were barely noticable - and this was with images designed to highlight the limitations of sRGB.

Now that I've found a workflow that gives me results I'm happy with, I guess I can experiment a bit with trying to simplify or streamline it without compromising the images.

And thanks for the link to that article - it explains the differences and advantages and disadvantages of each intent very well.

wow.. after initially thinking this was the most boring and tedious subject ever, I'm actually finding it quite interesting now. Its like a quest to find a system that can guarantee a perfect colour match every time. *sigh* maybe that says more about me than the subject though.. That I'm becoming even nerdier!