Hey Nature Guy, just wanted to chime in here and tell you how refreshing and informative it is to have discourse on here with someone who actually has an idea about colour space.
I think that there are a few schools of thought here. People who want their colours to look 'good' and people who need their colours to be 'accurate'.
I'm a studio product photographer, so colours are critical and the image use is an important part of the process. My x-rite color passport is always at the ready, my screens calibrated monthly, and my lightroom/capture one profile standard is ALWAYS prophotoRGB. Always. ALWAYS!
I dont see how working with anything less than the widest possible colour gamut is beneficial. As for Rockwell suggesting that sRGB is essentially a translatable colorspace...
That, Ken, is utter bollocks. You mentioned suffering a slight desaturation through sRGB conversion, that is exactly correct. Its a 'safe' colorspace, a median for most modern screens, and for that reason, images will suffer. I cant believe Ken said that, Jesus Christ.
As for Adobe RGB. My RAW, digital, 'Final' TIFF/PSD's will be saved as prophotoRGB. If the image is to be printed, the substrate will be considered. For a book? I'll likely be converting the image to a 300% ECI colorspace for export, maybe FOGRA39. To get there, I'll first convert the image to AdobeRGB 1998 where i'll review the image on my EZIO and maybe apply a few tweaks after seeing how the image translates to a more limited gamut for less coverage. Once happy, then i'll apply the desired CMYK profile or custom PDF settings from my printer...
You're right though, Color management is lost on so many, and its just fucking crucial to have a grasp of it. My advice to anyone would be to grade your monitor, work/export in the widest gamut possible (Pro Photo PGB) for all of your raw/edits and then really think about how you need to export your final images from those master files