Does anyone have experience of High Gamut monitors?

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...or-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 :-)

i didn't plug apple and you might want to re-read it one more time.

note the first sentence:
Mac OS 10.11 El Capitan and Windows 10 are now compatible with 4K.

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

of course it apples.

for proof, look no further than the microsoft surface studio, which at
4500x3000 is actually better than 4k.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:31:53 -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...or-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 :-)

i didn't plug apple and you might want to re-read it one more time.

note the first sentence:
Mac OS 10.11 El Capitan and Windows 10 are now compatible with 4K.

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

of course it apples.

for proof, look no further than the microsoft surface studio, which at
4500x3000 is actually better than 4k.

... and we are all using Microsoft Surface Studios?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/19/2017 9:00 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Please show us where in the discussion there was a reference to fine art
photography. I am not claiming that the sRGB gamut is not a smaller
gamut than RGB. I usually work in ProPhoto RGB. Although I cannot prove
it, I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of people would have
difficulty distinguishing the two if they were hanging side by side. I
do not think that an untrained eye certainly would know what to look for.

--
PeterN

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 22:35:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/19/2017 9:00 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Please show us where in the discussion there was a reference to fine art
photography.

I think that's up to you, seeing that you are the first to raise the
topic.

I am not claiming that the sRGB gamut is not a smaller
gamut than RGB. I usually work in ProPhoto RGB.

Me too, but you can't view your prints in a monitor in ProPhoto. Nor
can you usually print them in that color space.

Although I cannot prove
it, I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of people would have
difficulty distinguishing the two if they were hanging side by side.

I've been grappling with an image from my D70 days and have taken
advantage of my new monitor to review it in Adobe RGB. Also, because I
can now see what I am doing, I have printed it in that color space.
You would have to be (color?) blind to not see the difference.

I do not think that an untrained eye certainly would know what to look for.

Maybe not, but I would be astonished if they could not see it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

PeterN wrote:
On 1/19/2017 9:00 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Please show us where in the discussion there was a
reference to fine art photography. I am not claiming
that the sRGB gamut is not a smaller gamut than RGB. I
usually work in ProPhoto RGB. Although I cannot prove
it, I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of
people would have difficulty distinguishing the two if
they were hanging side by side. I do not think that an
untrained eye certainly would know what to look for.

You are absolutely corrent. Worse, even a trained eye
cannot see a difference that is not there, and very few
prints would actually be different. The vast majority
of people would not see a difference between prints that
actually are different, simply because that difference
is not important and is very slight.

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.

It is not a difference that would ever be noticed for
Fine Art printed 24x30, as an example.

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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

note the first sentence:
Mac OS 10.11 El Capitan and Windows 10 are now compatible with 4K.

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

of course it apples.

for proof, look no further than the microsoft surface studio, which at
4500x3000 is actually better than 4k.

... and we are all using Microsoft Surface Studios?

it's proof that win10 supports 4k or better.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

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.


Please show us where in the discussion there was a
reference to fine art photography. I am not claiming
that the sRGB gamut is not a smaller gamut than RGB. I
usually work in ProPhoto RGB. Although I cannot prove
it, I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of
people would have difficulty distinguishing the two if
they were hanging side by side. I do not think that an
untrained eye certainly would know what to look for.

You are absolutely corrent. Worse, even a trained eye
cannot see a difference that is not there, and very few
prints would actually be different. The vast majority
of people would not see a difference between prints that
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.

more importantly, whether anyone else can see a difference doesn't
matter. what the creator wants is what matters.

It is not a difference that would ever be noticed for
Fine Art printed 24x30, as an example.

nonsense. it absolutely is noticeable.

the fact is that an srgb workflow produces substandard results. simple
as that.

On 2017-01-20 15:12:34 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:41:36 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Please show us where in the discussion there was a reference to fine art
photography.

I think that's up to you, seeing that you are the first to raise the
topic.

I'm diverting the discussion here, but I have no idea what "fine art
photography". What makes one photograph "fine art" and another
photograph not?

Is it the subject matter? Is a photograph of a line of trees
reflected in the water of a lake "fine art" because of the subject
matter, the composition, the processing style, or what?

It takes a photographer who has decreed him/herself to be an "artist"
rather than a photo journalist, wedding photographer, street
photographer, or family documentarian, and who has the chutzpah to
engineer a show at a fashionable gallery to exhibit his/her
photographic "fine art".

....or it is the photographic work of a photographer labeling his/her
consistantly gross technical screwups as an artistic expression, and
"fine art".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-01-20 16:15:39 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:43:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-20 15:12:34 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:41:36 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Please show us where in the discussion there was a reference to fine art
photography.

I think that's up to you, seeing that you are the first to raise the
topic.

I'm diverting the discussion here, but I have no idea what "fine art
photography". What makes one photograph "fine art" and another
photograph not?

Is it the subject matter? Is a photograph of a line of trees
reflected in the water of a lake "fine art" because of the subject
matter, the composition, the processing style, or what?

It takes a photographer who has decreed him/herself to be an "artist"
rather than a photo journalist, wedding photographer, street
photographer, or family documentarian, and who has the chutzpah to
engineer a show at a fashionable gallery to exhibit his/her
photographic "fine art".

OK. I photograph people, buildings, vehicles, non-human animals and
other creatures, and anything that I think can result in an
interesting composition. If I'm not hung in a gallery, then none of
my stuff is "fine art"?

Welcome to the club. My subjects are all targets of opportunity
including landscapes, buildings, street scenes, people, vehicles,
aircraft, animals, birds, and miscellaneous curiosities. I am not the
individual who decides if any of my work is "fine art" or not.

There was also the second paragraph of my response, but if you choose,
photographic "fine art" could be created by declaration of the
photographer, or gushing admirers regardless of being hung in a gallery.

After all there is the old saw, "art is in the eye of the beholder".
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/20/2017 10:12 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:41:36 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Please show us where in the discussion there was a reference to fine art
photography.

I think that's up to you, seeing that you are the first to raise the
topic.

I'm diverting the discussion here, but I have no idea what "fine art
photography". What makes one photograph "fine art" and another
photograph not?

Is it the subject matter? Is a photograph of a line of trees
reflected in the water of a lake "fine art" because of the subject
matter, the composition, the processing style, or what?


I would not be so bold as to even attempt a universal definition of
"fine art." For that I refer you to the dictionaries and court
decisions. However, I will just give an example. The family and "I've
been there" images on my wall are not fine art. The ****arro, (not
Camille,) and Buster Keaton images are.



--
PeterN