On 1/18/2017 4:25 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The problem is not the monitor's wide gamut, it's what
you set your software to use! Do yourself a favor and
ignore everything on this topic except for one sentence:
"Set everything to sRGB." That will save no end of
problems, and you won't lose a thing either.

that is the worst advice *ever*.

setting everything to srgb when one has a wide gamut display is stupid.

might as well just buy a cheap srgb display and save money.

it's a bit like buying a 4k tv and watching 1080p (or worse, 720p)
content. the higher quality is wasted.

If you are doing layouts for a magazine, where they will
put your image on the top of the page an another image
from a different source on the bottom of the page, will
you ever want to use a higher gamut than sRGB. Those
two images need to match exactly! Imagine a Nikon
advertisement with two different shades of yellow on two
different pages. Nikon would have a fit and some ad
agency would lose a contract...

few people do layouts for magazines so that can be ignored, but for
those who do, the magazine will specify exactly what they want. some
might want srgb but not all of them do.

So you actually know what the OP does.


If you print for hanging on the wall or to post images
to the Internet, sRGB is perfect. If you set everything
you have, from the camera to the editor and viewers, to
sRGB you won't have a problem.

only if you want substandard results.

So says the individual who has proven that his images all have excellent
tonal ranges.



for those who print images, there is no reason whatsoever to dumb
everything down to srgb because all but the ****tiest printers can beat
srgb. this is even more noticeable with a modern dci-p3 display and a
high end printer with 16 bit print drivers.

for those who post images, there's also no reason since browsers are
colour managed and dci-p3 displays are rapidly becoming the standard.



--
PeterN