Does anyone have experience of High Gamut monitors?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


I have multiple different papers, all on 24" rolls. I
prefer canvas and have both Canon and Red River rolls.
I use Epson for luster, glossy, semimatte and matte
papers.

Canvas is generally the only "Fine Art" paper I use, but
for special purposes will order up whatever a customer
wants. Usually for special order papers I'll use Epson.
An example would be the higher priced Epson canvas
papers such as Exhibition Canvas Satin or Exhibition
Canvas Glosss.

No wonder you can't tell one color space from another!

Obviously you are so clueless there is no way to even
talk about it. The fact that I can and do print on a
dozen or so different high quality papers actually means
nothing at all about a discussion of color space.

Of course it means something!

Even without changing printers and inks, each of those different media
have different color gamuts and few will have the ability to match
AdobeRGB. If they didn't have different gamuts you wouldn't need to
select their particular print profile when using them.

Logic never was your best foot forward, eh?

Someone with a broader experience base makes it very
likely they have a better chance of having been able to
compare differences in colorspace than those with
significantly less of a base, such as you and nospam for
example...

that someone sure as hell isn't you.

It is exactly that type of logic that suggests neither
of you understand colorspace well enough to make valid
observations.

while i can't speak for eric, i can assure you i'm *very* knowledgeable
about colour management and colour space, having written a couple of
photoshop plug-ins (mac/win) as well as native apps (mac).

all you've done is pretend you know everything (which you clearly do
not) and spout insults. you're a total farce.

keeping everything in srgb may be easier (which apparently is all you
can manage), but it's *not* the way to get the best results.

So other than claim you know everything, and again
spouting insults, did you have anything to say that
logically connected to this topic?

i've done neither.

you are delusional.

False proclaimation that denys what you just said, and
then more Ad Hominem...

more bull**** from you.

you've yet to discuss the actual topic. you've provided no facts. all
you've done is brag that you have an eizo display, an epson printer and
various papers, which somehow makes you the expert. you're a joke.

We all do feel sorry for you.

doubtful, not that it matters.

however, what is very clear is that everyone is laughing at you and
your ignorant comments and repeated ad hominem attacks.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

When you construct a print from RGB colors you have access only to
colors within the three-pointed three-color RGB triangle. This is fine
for an RGB printer but Epson has far more colors than this available.
Basically, they have colours which can be generated from within an
eight-pointed eight-colour polygon. LR and PS know nothing about these
which is why Epson says 'leave it to the printer'. I posted an article
about this when I first got the P800 and the results can be
astonishing.


Very true. It seems to me that one should be able to see pretty close
to the printed colors. I have heard that soft proofing accomplishes
this. Yet, if you leave color management to the printers, will one be
able to see the final image onscreen?
I am asking seriously.

If you relinquish color management to the printer you are waiving all
the work you had done in software, and you are rolling the dice with
regard to print results matching your intentions worked for in LR or PS
Soft proofing is the best compromise in making final tweaks before
producing a print.

I don't think that can be quite right. The work you have done in the
software manifests itself in the image you see on your screen and this
is the image you feed to the printer. At this point you can choose
between the computer managing the mixing of the colors of the printing
process via an ICC profile or the computer managing the mixing of the
printing process. Either way you are not losing "all the work you had
done in the software".

it's not right.

the conversion can be done by the app or by the printer. which one is
better is up for debate. just don't do both.

On 2017-01-22 19:57:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:10:36 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2017-01-22 07:48:49 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:33:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2017-01-22 03:06:53 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:21:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2017-01-22 01:05:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:18:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:


No wonder you can't tell one color space from another!

Obviously you are so clueless there is no way to even
talk about it. The fact that I can and do print on a
dozen or so different high quality papers actually means
nothing at all about a discussion of color space.

Of course it means something!

Even without changing printers and inks, each of those different media
have different color gamuts and few will have the ability to match
AdobeRGB. If they didn't have different gamuts you wouldn't need to
select their particular print profile when using them.

With the variety of papers I use from Red River, Ilford, and Epson, to
get good consistant results I have to use specific printer/paper icc
profiles. Red River and Ilford provide specific profiles, whereas Epson
seems to provide profiles of a more generic type. Whenever I neglect to
match an icc profile to the paper used results can be less than
consistant. That said, when properly profile matched and proofed, the
prints I produce have been, to my eye, and the eye of most recipients
of my prints, exceptional and true to my intention. I rarely print from
JPEG and sRGB as all my work is done in Lightroom and Photoshop using
ProPhoto RGB.

When you use Epson P600 (if I remember correctly) do you manage
colours in LR or PS, or do you have the printer manage colors?

My Epson photo printer is an R2880, I haven't had a need to upgrade to
one of the newer printers yet. There has been no deterioration in
performance in the 9 years I have owned it. I probably would have
prefered to have bought an R3880 back then, but the print quality from
either of those is identical, just an ink cartridge capacity difference.

Yep. I thought you had previously said you had a later model printer.
Never mind.

I would still have my 3800 if half the print head hadn't died. It was
going to cost nearly the price of a new printer to replace it and P800
was just arriving ...

I have been fortunate not have had any clogged print heads/ink jets.

This was an electronic failure. :-(


I manage color in LR or PS. The Epson drivers (for Mac anyway) have no
provision for using printer/paper specific icc profiles.

Don't you have to set the paper type in the print setup page at the
same time as you specify the page size?

That is the basic paper type setting in the page setup dialog, but not
a specific paper. For example, if I print on Red River Polar Pearl
Metallic, I set that paper type in the page setup dialog to "Premium
Photo Paper Glossy", but in the LR Color Management panel on the right
in the Print Module I set the profile to "RRPolPearlMetallic
EpR2880.icc".

OK, so LR is managing colors.

Yup!

As for paper size, I keep a supply of 8.5x11, 11x14, 11x17, and 13x19
in different premium papers, and a supply of 4x6, and 5x7 Epson Photo
Glossy for casual prints.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/screenshot_344.jpg

In any case, Epson's advice with the newer printers is to let the
printer manage colours. Which is basically why I asked the question.

Is Epson expecting you to use nothing but their paper with their newer
printers?
If not how are you supposed to apply paper/printer specific icc profiles?

I don't know how this gets on with non-Epson papers but I now
understand what Epson is doing with their own papers.

By "this" I assume you are referring to a P800.

When you construct a print from RGB colors you have access only to
colors within the three-pointed three-color RGB triangle. This is fine
for an RGB printer but Epson has far more colors than this available.
Basically, they have colours which can be generated from within an
eight-pointed eight-colour polygon. LR and PS know nothing about these
which is why Epson says 'leave it to the printer'. I posted an article
about this when I first got the P800 and the results can be
astonishing.

That doesn't make sense when the R2880 and R3880 are eight color/ink
printers which produce "astonishing" results when matching
printer/paper icc profiles are used. Further Both Red River and Ilford
have produced P800 icc profiles for all their papers, including their
"fine art" papers.

I don't actually know but I suspect they can only use a triangular
color space. However it may be possible that LR/PS have the ability to
handle more complicated color spaces.

I suspect that might be a distinct possibility considering one starts
with ProPhoto RGB and they have the capability to use printer/paper
specific profiles.

How does Epson handle printing to a third party premium/"fine art"
paper when they do not have a specific profile for metallic, canvas,
rag or other fiber papers.

Once again I don't know but they certainly don't have a color space
built into the printer driver. I have used papers where the
instruction has been to describe them as an Epson paper but I haven't
done that on the P800.

I have absolutely no experience with the P800 so I can only speak for
what I do with my R2880.

In the past I have found that whenever I let the printer handle color
management I NEVER get the result I am aiming for, but I do get very
inconsistent and disappointing results.

That was my experience in the past too, but not with Epson papers on
the P800. Quite the reverse in fact.

Since I don't have a P800 to play with so as to make a comparison....


Any of my images intended for online sharing are exported from
Lightroom as JPEG's in sRGB, the conversion and resizing is done in the
Lightroom/PS export dialog.

The exception being prints of convenience produced for my iPhone with
my Epson XP-610 Artisan all-in-one, which is not a high quality photo
printer, but does an adequate job for 4x6 and 5x7 non-critical stuff.
That is usually printed on appropriately sized generic Epson photo
paper with just the paper settings from the Epson driver.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-01-22 20:17:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 09:12:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 17:03:40 +0000, PeterN said:

On 1/22/2017 2:48 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


snip

When you construct a print from RGB colors you have access only to
colors within the three-pointed three-color RGB triangle. This is fine
for an RGB printer but Epson has far more colors than this available.
Basically, they have colours which can be generated from within an
eight-pointed eight-colour polygon. LR and PS know nothing about these
which is why Epson says 'leave it to the printer'. I posted an article
about this when I first got the P800 and the results can be
astonishing.


Very true. It seems to me that one should be able to see pretty close
to the printed colors. I have heard that soft proofing accomplishes
this. Yet, if you leave color management to the printers, will one be
able to see the final image onscreen?
I am asking seriously.

If you relinquish color management to the printer you are waiving all
the work you had done in software, and you are rolling the dice with
regard to print results matching your intentions worked for in LR or PS
Soft proofing is the best compromise in making final tweaks before
producing a print.

I don't think that can be quite right. The work you have done in the
software manifests itself in the image you see on your screen and this
is the image you feed to the printer. At this point you can choose
between the computer managing the mixing of the colors of the printing
process via an ICC profile or the computer managing the mixing of the
printing process. Either way you are not losing "all the work you had
done in the software".

There is something about what you have written there which doesn't read
right, especially when it comes to the printer managing color which you
have not addressed.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/22/2017 1:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


I would be very skeptical about claims that one needs Windows 10 to
handle 4k displays, because that is managed by the graphics card, and
all that is required is a driver compatible with an older version of
Windows. Such things do exist; there are many for Windows Vista and
7, for example.

it may be possible if you hunt for the appropriate drivers and any
other support software that may be needed, but that's a hassle and not
everyone will bother (or even know where to look).

with win10, support is built in, so other than the occasional edge
case, it will work out of the box.

Windows 10 is *not* required for 4K displays.

i didn't say win10 was required. i said it works out of the box without
any fuss.

Since this is not an
OS-level issue,

it absolutely is an os issue. without os level support, it's *not*
going to work unless the app explicitly supports it, which is not
likely.

most people who have done graphics using a PC will not
find it difficult to get the requisite drivers for their specific
graphics card.

some might not, but most will since most users are *not* geeks,
particularly those who do graphics for a living.



My daughter who uses a PC, and is a creative director, uses Windows 7 at
home and a Mac in her office, has no graphics issues. And since she
works from home several days a week, she regularly transfers files
between her two machines.

Does she use 4k screens?


No. Very little of her work is for print.

Then I don't think this relates to the possible problems of using 4k
screens. Does it?


It certainly does, as collaboration is a big factor.

collaboration has nothing to do with using a 4k display.

Also, I should have mentioned that the amount of her work for printing
is sold by her agent. Her share ranges from $50 for an 8x10 up to $750.
The agent charges a lot more as the agent needs a profit. My daughter
really doesn't care what the agent's share is.

even more irrelevant.


Right. Processing for print is irrelevant.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I would be very skeptical about claims that one needs Windows 10 to
handle 4k displays, because that is managed by the graphics card,
and
all that is required is a driver compatible with an older version
of
Windows. Such things do exist; there are many for Windows Vista and
7, for example.

it may be possible if you hunt for the appropriate drivers and any
other support software that may be needed, but that's a hassle and
not
everyone will bother (or even know where to look).

with win10, support is built in, so other than the occasional edge
case, it will work out of the box.

Windows 10 is *not* required for 4K displays.

i didn't say win10 was required. i said it works out of the box
without
any fuss.

Since this is not an
OS-level issue,

it absolutely is an os issue. without os level support, it's *not*
going to work unless the app explicitly supports it, which is not
likely.

most people who have done graphics using a PC will not
find it difficult to get the requisite drivers for their specific
graphics card.

some might not, but most will since most users are *not* geeks,
particularly those who do graphics for a living.



My daughter who uses a PC, and is a creative director, uses Windows 7
at
home and a Mac in her office, has no graphics issues. And since she
works from home several days a week, she regularly transfers files
between her two machines.

Does she use 4k screens?


No. Very little of her work is for print.

Then I don't think this relates to the possible problems of using 4k
screens. Does it?


It certainly does, as collaboration is a big factor.

collaboration has nothing to do with using a 4k display.

Also, I should have mentioned that the amount of her work for printing
is sold by her agent. Her share ranges from $50 for an 8x10 up to $750.
The agent charges a lot more as the agent needs a profit. My daughter
really doesn't care what the agent's share is.

even more irrelevant.

Right. Processing for print is irrelevant.

it is for the topic being discussed, which has nothing whatsoever to do
with printing.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:48:49 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:33:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 03:06:53 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:21:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 01:05:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:18:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

If not how are you supposed to apply paper/printer specific icc profiles?

I don't know how this gets on with non-Epson papers but I now
understand what Epson is doing with their own papers.

When you construct a print from RGB colors you have access only to
colors within the three-pointed three-color RGB triangle. This is fine
for an RGB printer but Epson has far more colors than this available.
Basically, they have colours which can be generated from within an
eight-pointed eight-colour polygon. LR and PS know nothing about these
which is why Epson says 'leave it to the printer'. I posted an article
about this when I first got the P800 and the results can be
astonishing.

I've just downloaded an uptodate driver and Epson seems to have
slightly changed their tune. Meantime the following article throws an
interesting light on the subject.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...0-printer.html
or http://tinyurl.com/gkwaar4

I will return with more information if I find any.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-01-22 23:35:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:48:49 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:33:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 03:06:53 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:21:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 01:05:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:18:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

If not how are you supposed to apply paper/printer specific icc profiles?

I don't know how this gets on with non-Epson papers but I now
understand what Epson is doing with their own papers.

When you construct a print from RGB colors you have access only to
colors within the three-pointed three-color RGB triangle. This is fine
for an RGB printer but Epson has far more colors than this available.
Basically, they have colours which can be generated from within an
eight-pointed eight-colour polygon. LR and PS know nothing about these
which is why Epson says 'leave it to the printer'. I posted an article
about this when I first got the P800 and the results can be
astonishing.

I've just downloaded an uptodate driver and Epson seems to have
slightly changed their tune. Meantime the following article throws an
interesting light on the subject.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...0-printer.html
or

http://tinyurl.com/gkwaar4

I will return with more information if I find any.

That was very interesting especially when it came to the color
management question. It seems that he got better results with printer
management with MacOS, though he hedged by saying there were times that
better results could be obtained by using computer control and matched
profiles. Also that with MacOS he was able to obtain a wide gamut with
printer management. What was interesting was that with Windows and
printer color management there was no wider gamut available than sRGB,
so for Windows users he recommends using software color management with
appropriate profiles.

My current experience on this Mac with the R2880 is, my best, and most
consistant results come with assigning color management to LR or PS
with a matched profile, so I am not going to fix things which ain't
broke.

The bottom line, it seems to me is that for that reviewer, the P800
produces perceptibly better prints than the Rx880 printers, but those
differences are subtle. Both you and he seem to be very happy with the
performance of the P800, and that is a good thing.
For now my R2880 has not faltered, and the P800 or P600 are going to be
worthy replacements when my workhorse R2880 is put out to pasture.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:49:55 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

For the last several years I have relied on an (almost) matched pairs
of Dell 2410 monitors - and now one has died. Not really surprising,
considering it was +8 years old, but it was a bloody good monitor. I
am now faced with the task of replacing it.

I don't want to just replace it as it would amount to no more than
installing 8 year old technology and I have been frantically beating
around the bush trying to decide what to do. I am considering all
kinds of options but I don't want to go into them now. One possibility
which is raising sweat to my brow is the use of a high gamut monitor
such as the Dell Ultrasharp 25 UP2516D
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-...remiercolor-up
2516d/apd/210-agjq/monitors-monitor-accessories
or http://tinyurl.com/hdpepts

My reading on the subject suggests that monitors such as this can have
problems with non-color-managed applications such as many that can be
found on the Internet and can also create problems when editing images
in all kinds of software. I would like to know if anyone has had any
experience with such monitors and what their comments may be. Should I
consider them and, if so, with what caveats in mind?

I have an US and is reluctant to get another. Got you plleeeease test
this one for me?

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-benq-sw320-32-inch-adobe-rgb-monitor/

Sorree - out of my price range. :-(

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


I have multiple different papers, all on 24" rolls. I
prefer canvas and have both Canon and Red River rolls.
I use Epson for luster, glossy, semimatte and matte
papers.

Canvas is generally the only "Fine Art" paper I use, but
for special purposes will order up whatever a customer
wants. Usually for special order papers I'll use Epson.
An example would be the higher priced Epson canvas
papers such as Exhibition Canvas Satin or Exhibition
Canvas Glosss.

No wonder you can't tell one color space from another!

Obviously you are so clueless there is no way to even
talk about it. The fact that I can and do print on a
dozen or so different high quality papers actually means
nothing at all about a discussion of color space.

Of course it means something!

Even without changing printers and inks, each of those different media
have different color gamuts and few will have the ability to match
AdobeRGB. If they didn't have different gamuts you wouldn't need to
select their particular print profile when using them.

Logic never was your best foot forward, eh?

Someone with a broader experience base makes it very
likely they have a better chance of having been able to
compare differences in colorspace than those with
significantly less of a base, such as you and nospam for
example...

that someone sure as hell isn't you.

It is exactly that type of logic that suggests neither
of you understand colorspace well enough to make valid
observations.

while i can't speak for eric, i can assure you i'm *very* knowledgeable
about colour management and colour space, having written a couple of
photoshop plug-ins (mac/win) as well as native apps (mac).

all you've done is pretend you know everything (which you clearly do
not) and spout insults. you're a total farce.

keeping everything in srgb may be easier (which apparently is all you
can manage), but it's *not* the way to get the best results.

So other than claim you know everything, and again
spouting insults, did you have anything to say that
logically connected to this topic?

i've done neither.

you are delusional.

False proclaimation that denys what you just said, and
then more Ad Hominem...

more bull**** from you.

you've yet to discuss the actual topic. you've provided no facts. all
you've done is brag that you have an eizo display, an epson printer and
various papers, which somehow makes you the expert. you're a joke.

We all do feel sorry for you.

doubtful, not that it matters.

however, what is very clear is that everyone is laughing at you and
your ignorant comments and repeated ad hominem attacks.

Again, nothing from you but proclamations and Ad Hominem.

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