Does anyone have experience of High Gamut monitors?

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.

more attacks.

stick to the topic or stfu.

On 1/19/2017 5:47 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.

more attacks.

My oh my, looks like a sensitive nerve has been struck.


stick to the topic or stfu.


The topic is your competence to comment on the subject. It is really
simple to prove your ability, but you have chosen not to. Therefore,
your qualifications are fair game for comment.
Make you a deal, though, I will refrain from personal attacks, for so
long as you agree to refrain from personal attacks on anyone else in
this group, and stick to your agreement.


--
PeterN

On 19/01/2017 12:36, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

That's the nub of my problem. Prints are the final destination of my
best images and my Epson P800 can utilise better gamut than sRGB's.

yep.

Only a very limited range of saturated colours corresponding with the
ink colours fall outside sRGB.
/Usually/ when there are some saturated colours falling outside sRGB,
but falling within the gamut of the printer, there are plenty of other
colours in the image which are out of gamut for the printer.
Maximum gamut for the P800 will be on gloss media - on matte / fine art
papers, gamut is considerable reduced.

http://davidnaylor.org/temp/all16777216rgb.png
(full ~16.8 million colours in one image).
Download that, open in photoshop, use proof setup to load printer ICC
profiles for your paper stock, then view gamut warning.
(Also use "view - proof colours" to see how the printer will render the
colours)

Despite claims by printer makers that they "exceed sRGB" and cover xx%
of aRGB - they don't even cover all of sRGB. It's marketing BS.

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.

more attacks.

My oh my, looks like a sensitive nerve has been struck.

perhaps it struck one of your nerves. certainly not one of mine.

i'm just making an observation of your repeated attacks, as has eric.

stick to the topic or stfu.


The topic is your competence to comment on the subject. It is really
simple to prove your ability, but you have chosen not to. Therefore,
your qualifications are fair game for comment.

nope. the topic is colour management. period.

if you think what i or anyone else has said is incorrect, then explain
why you think it's incorrect, with a detailed explanation and/or
credible references to back up your claims.

on the other hand, if all you have are attacks, then stfu.

Make you a deal, though, I will refrain from personal attacks, for so
long as you agree to refrain from personal attacks on anyone else in
this group, and stick to your agreement.

i do not attack unless attacked first, which is what you've done here
and in many, many other threads.

In article , Me
wrote:


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.

That's the nub of my problem. Prints are the final destination of my
best images and my Epson P800 can utilise better gamut than sRGB's.

yep.

Only a very limited range of saturated colours corresponding with the
ink colours fall outside sRGB.

limited or not (and it's not), keeping everything at srgb will produce
lower quality results than using a wider gamut. simple as that.

that's why nearly every pro photographer does *not* use srgb if they
want the best quality results.

/Usually/ when there are some saturated colours falling outside sRGB,
but falling within the gamut of the printer, there are plenty of other
colours in the image which are out of gamut for the printer.
Maximum gamut for the P800 will be on gloss media - on matte / fine art
papers, gamut is considerable reduced.

http://davidnaylor.org/temp/all16777216rgb.png
(full ~16.8 million colours in one image).
Download that, open in photoshop, use proof setup to load printer ICC
profiles for your paper stock, then view gamut warning.
(Also use "view - proof colours" to see how the printer will render the
colours)

it's easier to generate a gradient in lab space from within photoshop.

Despite claims by printer makers that they "exceed sRGB" and cover xx%
of aRGB - they don't even cover all of sRGB. It's marketing BS.

it's not marketing bs and comments like that show a misunderstanding of
colour management.

because printers are cmyk and displays are rgb, the gamuts *intersect*.

https://blog.fotolia.com/us/files/2016/02/Confronto-Gamut-01.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../CIE1931xy_gam
ut_comparison.svg/512px-CIE1931xy_gamut_comparison.svg.png

because of that, there are colours you can see on your display but
cannot print and colours you can print but cannot see on your display.

not surprisingly, wide gamut displays cover more of what can be printed
than srgb displays.

since not everyone prints, printing isn't the defining factor. why
should someone who has a dci-p3 display use an srgb workflow? that's
stupid, especially with dci-p3 displays becoming commonplace.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:31:17 +1300, Me wrote:

On 19/01/2017 12:36, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

That's the nub of my problem. Prints are the final destination of my
best images and my Epson P800 can utilise better gamut than sRGB's.

yep.

Only a very limited range of saturated colours corresponding with the
ink colours fall outside sRGB.
/Usually/ when there are some saturated colours falling outside sRGB,
but falling within the gamut of the printer, there are plenty of other
colours in the image which are out of gamut for the printer.
Maximum gamut for the P800 will be on gloss media - on matte / fine art
papers, gamut is considerable reduced.

http://davidnaylor.org/temp/all16777216rgb.png
(full ~16.8 million colours in one image).
Download that, open in photoshop, use proof setup to load printer ICC
profiles for your paper stock, then view gamut warning.
(Also use "view - proof colours" to see how the printer will render the
colours)

Despite claims by printer makers that they "exceed sRGB" and cover xx%
of aRGB - they don't even cover all of sRGB. It's marketing BS.


I know that image. I tried it on a 3800 some years ago and still have
it somewhere in my collection.

I know that the P800 printer will not print all colours but that's no
reason for not printing those colours outside sRGB that it can print.
Like the 3800, the P800 can use an Adobe RGB color space. So too can
my new monitor (yes, I bought a Dell PU2516D) display 100% Adobe RGB
so I see no reason to pinch down to sRGB expect for display over the
Internet.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:51:10 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

In this case I agree with him. I have just given my reasons in another
post for not using sRGB for editing screen or printer when intending
printed output.




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.


.... and my new Dell PU2516D monitor can handle 100% of dci-p3. I don't
know how relevant that is to my printer. I suspect 'not much'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:39:33 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

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.

But Floyd wrote about

"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."

.... and nospam replied "only if you want substandard results."

nospam is quite correct unless you intend to hang your 'small family
snaps' on the wall.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/19/2017 5:47 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.

more attacks.

My oh my, looks like a sensitive nerve has been struck.


stick to the topic or stfu.


The topic is your competence to comment on the subject. It is really
simple to prove your ability, but you have chosen not to. Therefore,
your qualifications are fair game for comment.

It is not generally possible to determine the ability of a
photographer or the quality of a print from an sRGB image passed over
the Internet. That's why this discussion has been about color spaces
for printed output.

Make you a deal, though, I will refrain from personal attacks, for so
long as you agree to refrain from personal attacks on anyone else in
this group, and stick to your agreement.

Would you consider setting him an example?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:31:44 -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...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.

I cited that article so you could get in your usual plug for Apple :-)

However most of us are in the Windows world and that particular text
does not apply (yet?).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens