Does anyone have experience of High Gamut monitors?

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:17:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.



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.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:25:24 -0500, 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.

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.

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.

As far as I know, the only browser which is completely color managed
is Fire Fox. IE certainly isn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:48:58 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As things stand at the moment there seem to be a variety of problems
using 4k monitors for photo editing.

no there aren't, nor are there problems with 5k displays.

There is an interesting discussion of this on
http://www.color-management-guide.co...hy.html#taille
or http://tinyurl.com/j5g4nh3
It's too long for me to quote the relevant part.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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

As far as I know, the only browser which is completely color managed
is Fire Fox. IE certainly isn't.

on macs and ios devices, colour management happens at the system level,
which means *every* app is colour managed, browsers or otherwise. even
app icons are colour managed.

on windows, several browsers are colour managed, including firefox and
opera.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As things stand at the moment there seem to be a variety of problems
using 4k monitors for photo editing.

no there aren't, nor are there problems with 5k displays.

There is an interesting discussion of this on

http://www.color-management-guide.co...photography.ht
ml#taille
or http://tinyurl.com/j5g4nh3
It's too long for me to quote the relevant part.

that's a poorly written and way too long article, however, since you
cited it, you must have missed this part:

Mac OS 10.11 El Capitan and Windows 10 are now compatible with 4K.
You'll have the possibility to choose the percentage of enlargement
of texts in display preferences. Works perfectly now.

note the last sentence.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:17:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.

As usual, in this case nospam is spouting spam. Nonsense about
something he does not understand.




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.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.

As usual, in this case nospam is spouting spam. Nonsense about
something he does not understand.

as usual, floyd is spouting ad hominem attacks.

i understand colour management *very* well and what you wrote is pure
rubbish.

using srgb everywhere is fine if all you want is average quality with
minimal fuss. however, for those who want the best possible quality,
it's the *wrong* choice, particularly with today's wide gamut devices.
any colour management expert will tell you that.

On 1/19/2017 12:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:17:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.


Nope! If small family snaps are all that is needed sRGB is fine.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.

Nope! If small family snaps are all that is needed sRGB is fine.

is that all you shoot with your d800?

On 1/19/2017 5:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


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.

Come now Peter! You seem to want to pick a fight with nospam even when
he is talking sense.

Nope! If small family snaps are all that is needed sRGB is fine.

is that all you shoot with your d800?


You wouldn't know the difference.
Besides, your lack of posting images tells us tons about what you think
of the quality of your work.



--
PeterN