Does anyone have experience of High Gamut monitors?

On 2017-01-22 02:21:01 +0000, Savageduck said:

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 deteriation 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.

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

My LR print dialog can look something like this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/screenshot_344.jpg


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 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 deteriation 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 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?

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.


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,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:20:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 06:44:26 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:10:54 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:03:41 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
actually are different, simply because that difference
is not important and is very slight.

the difference is much more than slight, although some people might not
care. after all, there are those who think srgb is the best.

It is very obvious that neither Eric or nospam have any
idea what difference there actually is, or when it would
even exist. There is a big difference between reading
that there is some difference and actually having seen
two prints side by side.

there is a big difference between talking out your ass, as you do, and
actually understanding and using colour management to obtain the best
quality results.

the difference in images with an srgb workflow versus a wide gamut
workflow when viewed on a wide gamut display and/or printed is very
easily noticed by pretty much anyone for most images.

You are giving away the fact that you have read where
there is a difference, but have never actually looked at
either a comparison on a high quality monitor, nor
looked a side by side prints.

I use an Eizo CG-247 monitor for image editing, and
print with an Epson SP7890. I know exactly how little
difference there is in reality, not just by reference to
marketing blurbs or Web BS.

What paper are you printing on?

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...

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

I suppose being short of facts leaves you no choice but to bluster.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:34:32 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 01:10:02 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:48:19 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

A clarification ...

I'm sorry Eric, you do not know what you are talking about.

Process it *correctly* two times. Once in an Adobe RGB
color space and once in an sRGB colorspace. Because
there are hardly any colors in the image that are not
available in sRGB, *it can be made to look almost exactly
the same.*

Granted that if you view the Adobe RGB image using sRGB
it will look dull, and if you view the sRGB print using
using Adobe RGB it will look more vivid. Which proves
only that different processing looks different!

I don't edit for viewing. I edit for printing.

You edit the image while viewing it on a monitor.

It's too early for me to have finalised my thoughts on this matter
but, if I'm going to print I will now use the AdobeRGB colour space
*** when viewing the image *** for editing. If I'm preparing an image
for the web I will still output sRGB and review it on my surviving
Dell2412 which does not have full AdobeRGB capability.

Note: LR is optimized for using ProPhoto RGB, not AdobeRGB, regardless
of the specs of your display, and regardless of you being capable of
detecting differences between ProPhoto RGB, AdobeRGB, or sRGB. There is
a good case for soft proofing in the LR Print Module to make fine
adjustments to the print output, at least that has worked well for me.

Yep. ProPhoto is LR's working space which it exports to whatever is
the color space of the screen you are staring at. No matter what color
space your screen uses, it is smaller than ProPhoto and LR has to
compress ProPhoto to suit. AdobeRGB needs less compression and if that
is what your screen is capable of displaying you will see a wider
range of colors than if you are using sRGB. If your screen allows you
to see all (or most) of AdobeRGB and your printer (with paper) has a
gamut wider than sRGB then there is no reason for sRGB to enter into
your workflow.

I only process RAW files with LR, or TIFs, when external
editors/plugins such as PS, NIK, ExposureX, or On1 are used.

I only produce sRGB JPEGs via the LR export dialog when they are needed
for online sharing.

That's what I do too. But if you are going to print in other than sRGB
you have to tell the printer of the larger color space. I could do
that with the 3800 and I presume you can with the 2880.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:35:49 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/21/2017 5:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:04:13 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/21/2017 3:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
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?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.


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".

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?


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 03:20:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:34:32 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-22 01:10:02 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:48:19 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

A clarification ...

I'm sorry Eric, you do not know what you are talking about.

Process it *correctly* two times. Once in an Adobe RGB
color space and once in an sRGB colorspace. Because
there are hardly any colors in the image that are not
available in sRGB, *it can be made to look almost exactly
the same.*

Granted that if you view the Adobe RGB image using sRGB
it will look dull, and if you view the sRGB print using
using Adobe RGB it will look more vivid. Which proves
only that different processing looks different!

I don't edit for viewing. I edit for printing.

You edit the image while viewing it on a monitor.

It's too early for me to have finalised my thoughts on this matter
but, if I'm going to print I will now use the AdobeRGB colour space
*** when viewing the image *** for editing. If I'm preparing an image
for the web I will still output sRGB and review it on my surviving
Dell2412 which does not have full AdobeRGB capability.

Note: LR is optimized for using ProPhoto RGB, not AdobeRGB, regardless
of the specs of your display, and regardless of you being capable of
detecting differences between ProPhoto RGB, AdobeRGB, or sRGB. There is
a good case for soft proofing in the LR Print Module to make fine
adjustments to the print output, at least that has worked well for me.

Yep. ProPhoto is LR's working space which it exports to whatever is
the color space of the screen you are staring at. No matter what color
space your screen uses, it is smaller than ProPhoto and LR has to
compress ProPhoto to suit. AdobeRGB needs less compression and if that
is what your screen is capable of displaying you will see a wider
range of colors than if you are using sRGB. If your screen allows you
to see all (or most) of AdobeRGB and your printer (with paper) has a
gamut wider than sRGB then there is no reason for sRGB to enter into
your workflow.

I only process RAW files with LR, or TIFs, when external
editors/plugins such as PS, NIK, ExposureX, or On1 are used.

I only produce sRGB JPEGs via the LR export dialog when they are needed
for online sharing.

That's what I do too. But if you are going to print in other than sRGB
you have to tell the printer of the larger color space. I could do
that with the 3800 and I presume you can with the 2880.

Since my R2880 never prints JPEGs, and my print output to the R2880 is
directly from LR or PS in ProPhoto RGB, and my color management for the
R2880 output is never handled by the printer I never think sRGB for
that printer.

On the other hand, non-critical prints made on the Epson XP-610 are
usually JPEG and sRGB so the Epson driver manages paper and color
management.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/21/2017 3:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
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.

Even under Windows10, graphics are dependent on drivers for the graphics
card. There have been several instances where the drivers did not work
with the OS' automatic update, and that required the user to do the same
thing that they've had to do for decades: get updated drivers from the
card manufacturer, roll back the OS update to a previous version, or worse.

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.

I was specifically referring to OS versions OTHER than Windows10.

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.

Wrong. People using Windows to do graphics for a living have always had
to know how to manage their systems. It's not a big deal. That may
change with the next generation of graphics users, but considering how
this whole topic began, it's far too soon to think that's the current
state of user knowledge.

--
best regards,

Neil

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

the difference is much more than slight, although some people might not
care. after all, there are those who think srgb is the best.

It is very obvious that neither Eric or nospam have any
idea what difference there actually is, or when it would
even exist. There is a big difference between reading
that there is some difference and actually having seen
two prints side by side.

there is a big difference between talking out your ass, as you do, and
actually understanding and using colour management to obtain the best
quality results.

the difference in images with an srgb workflow versus a wide gamut
workflow when viewed on a wide gamut display and/or printed is very
easily noticed by pretty much anyone for most images.

You are giving away the fact that you have read where
there is a difference, but have never actually looked at
either a comparison on a high quality monitor, nor
looked a side by side prints.

I use an Eizo CG-247 monitor for image editing, and
print with an Epson SP7890. I know exactly how little
difference there is in reality, not just by reference to
marketing blurbs or Web BS.

What paper are you printing on?

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?

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

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:20:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 06:44:26 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:10:54 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:03:41 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
actually are different, simply because that difference
is not important and is very slight.

the difference is much more than slight, although some people might not
care. after all, there are those who think srgb is the best.

It is very obvious that neither Eric or nospam have any
idea what difference there actually is, or when it would
even exist. There is a big difference between reading
that there is some difference and actually having seen
two prints side by side.

there is a big difference between talking out your ass, as you do, and
actually understanding and using colour management to obtain the best
quality results.

the difference in images with an srgb workflow versus a wide gamut
workflow when viewed on a wide gamut display and/or printed is very
easily noticed by pretty much anyone for most images.

You are giving away the fact that you have read where
there is a difference, but have never actually looked at
either a comparison on a high quality monitor, nor
looked a side by side prints.

I use an Eizo CG-247 monitor for image editing, and
print with an Epson SP7890. I know exactly how little
difference there is in reality, not just by reference to
marketing blurbs or Web BS.

What paper are you printing on?

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...

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

I suppose being short of facts leaves you no choice but to bluster.

You seem to be the one entirely short on facts Eric.

I answered your question, and you went off on a tangent.

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