Posted by Peter Cross on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Time to get a new monitor. I have an old (but flat screen) HP monitor. I've upgraded my computer (Puget Systems) and software (Lightroom 5) so the monitor is next. The question is do I need a High Gamut one? I know they're supposed to show the most colors and are better for calibrating but do I need one? I've been shooting for maybe 5 years as a hobby and doubt it will go beyond that. I shoot with a Canon 60D and have some good (but not great lenses) except for the EF 70-200 f/4L. I'll probably print some images but don't expect to be selling very many. But who knows, time may change that. What are the pros and cons of High vs Lower?
Thanks for your time in sharing your wisdom.
Peter
Posted by David Bostedo on January 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM
I'd say get a wide-gamut monitor, profile it, and use properly color managed apps, and there isn't really a downside.
For most folks, the issue with wide-gamut monitors is that images in web browsers (and any non-color managed applications) can look wrong - usually overly saturated or contrasty. But for color managed apps - including web browsers that read and handle image color spaces correctly - there's really no issue. You will be able to see images tagged with wider and narrower spaces correctly, and untagged will be handled as sRGB, which they almost always are.
Now browsers are a bit finicky - Firefox is the only one that handles all color management correctly I think, though Chrome and Safari are close. If you're dedicated to IE, then I'd suggest you think about switching.
Also, if you don't calibrate your monitor, you probably don't need to worry about wide-gamut. But otherwise, I say go for it.
I agree with David. Go with a wide-gamut monitor and a decent colorimeter and software for calibration/profiling. Since you say you'll be printing, a color managed system will pay big dividends in terms of savings on ink and paper and lack of frustration.
I suggest that you do your editing work in a wide-gamut color space such as Adobe RGB and allow Photoshop to control colors when you print. You can always convert an image file from the wide-gamut space to sRGB for the Web.
I am a big proponent of the NEC monitors that support their SpectraView calibration system. It's the easiest, and most accurate system I've seen at that price point. The NEC PA -series screens bundled with SpectraView and colorimeter aren't inexpensive, but they give the best bang for the buck when accurate color is critical to one's work.
--P
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM
A calibrated WG monitor is a joy to look at and does make for great printing when using 16-bit drivers. You do have to adjust to the fact, like David said, that IE and Windows itself are not color-managed for whatever ridiculous reason. If you post an image in NPN and look at it in IE the image will look grossly red-saturated. Also, your icons in Windows Explorer and even your desktop wallpaper do NOT respect the color profile that you will create with a colorimeter, so expect the same red hue in those situations. Not a huge deal, but something to note.
BTW, if you end up buying a Dell WG monitor and plan to use a colorimeter, make sure that, after you do the standard thing of hitting "Reset to Factory Settings" before calibration, that you go to the on-screen menu and change the colorspace to Custom Color before you use the colorimeter. The Factory Reset on Dell Monitors doesn't clear the colorspace, it loads a default one, and if you don't switch the monitor to Custom Color, your calibration against that default profile will look pretty bad. NEC monitors probably don't have that scenario, but the Dells do. Just FYI!
Posted by David Mayhew on January 27, 2014 at 11:41 AM
I also have a Dell monitor and am happy with it. At the time of buying I believe Dell was making the monitors for Mac, though I might be wrong.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 27, 2014 at 2:10 PM
Peter,
While I agree with most all the points about reasons why one should get a wide gamut monitor, I'll offer a few other points to consider.
First, there's a difference between "need" and "want." Of course a wide gamut monitor displays a gazillion more colors, 100% of the Adobe 1998 RGB and Prophoto color spaces. According to my Spyder4Pro calibrating system, my HP LED monitor can only display 81% of the Adobe 1998 color space. Having said that, you don't need a wide gamut monitor to produce quality images for the web and print. In fact you'll probably spend more time and trouble getting your colors and contrast right because of the huge color space available, and lack of color space on the vast majority of output devices. I know you said you might not be printing right away, but I'm pretty sure most all printers can't even come close to reproducing a ProPhoto color space (I could be wrong though.)
The second thing is this notion about color managed apps and browsers. Yes, it is very true that IE is not a color managed browser and others like Chrome and FF can differentiate and display properly different color profiles. Having said that, the overwhelming percent of the viewing public (and we're talking about those viewing our websites that aren't togs or NPN members reading this discussion....) do NOT have wide gamut monitors, do NOT calibrate their monitors and a large percentage of the viewing public still use browsers like IE (although IE's presence is clearly shrinking,) that don't have color management. I mention this because I continue to be perplexed by comments like, "This image is best viewed in a color managed browser like FF or Chrome." Is it the responsibility of the viewing public to buy and calibrate wide gamut monitors or be forced to use one browser or another? Or is it the responsibility of the single photographer to create and save their image so that it looks the best for ALL viewers? It would be like telling someone who bought your print not to hang it in a room with fluorescent light, or require them to buy spot lighting with a 6500degK for proper color rendition. No, it's up to you to make sure your print looks good under most all lighting conditions. You take the print outside on the patio, in the front room with window light and your office lit by daylight cfl's, etc.
I agree with everyone that it's a mystery and a shame that all browsers aren't color managed (the same or at all,) but it's reality. Hopefully that will change in the future. But for now, the best way to ensure your images look the best in ALL browsers is by making sure you're saving your jpg images with the sRGB color space embedded. This, IE understands. Think about this point too. You're working in a large color space with working images in the hundreds of megabytes or even more than a gigabyte in size. We then COMPRESS them to these tiny 1200px image files, squeezing all the image and color data to less than 500k. What do you think happens to all those gazillions of color bits? They get compressed with PS's jpg's algorithms. Even if you retain the Adobe 1998 or Prophoto color profile when converting and resizing to a web-jpg, that image no longer contains all that color information you had when processing your image. In fact, there might even be a greater risk in getting whacked out colors when compressing the image for the web.
One last point, and I think this is the most important one. This isn't directed towards you Peter, as I don't know you and have no idea where you are at in terms of your PS skills and experience. The trouble I see is that folks get themselves set up with all the best equipment, high end monitors, printers, calibration systems, etc. etc., but still don't quite have the image processing skills to really take advantage of that stuff. It's one thing to have a photographer with years of image processing experience who then upgrades to a wide gamut monitor, vs someone with less experience doing the same thing. If one feels comfortable with their own image processing and can produce high quality work for the web, then they may be ready for that big color space. Image processing is a skill that develops over time and lots of poorly processed images. In my opinion, image processing is the key and the biggest variable in determining how images look on the web and in print.
There's a great deal of experience, expertise and respect for those togs who highly recommend a wide gamut monitor; but IMHO, the skill level is such that it's not such a rough transition to the wide gamut. But for many others, it adds a level of complexity that may actually hinder someone's ability to progress in their image development skills.
Sorry for the novel, just my thoughts. Heck, if I had deep pockets, I'd spend a couple grand on a high end monitor.
Lon
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 27, 2014 at 2:48 PM
Good novel Lon, good points.
One thing, if you process a jpeg to look great in color-managed Chrome or FF, then that means the colors are as close to accurate as possible. That means it'll display as best as possible in IE on somebody's normal monitor, it'll just look like garbage on a WG monitor. I used to worry about all that, what people are using browser-wise and monitor-wise, until I realized that regardless of what people use on this planet, they are accustomed to their screen for ALL of the viewing they do, so we might as well deliver the most accurate image we can to their world. Their eyes and monitor and perception will take it from there.
I get what you were trying to say in the last thought, and it's an important point (sort of talking to you and Peter here). A few years ago had I gotten a WG monitor I probably would have gotten completely frustrated, not understanding what all the weird color issues I was now facing, and probably would have ended up setting the thing on sRGB because it "looked the best". I totally agree that you do need a handle on the whole concept of color management to understand what's in front of you, and at first it's a mouthful, but then it gets easy, you just need to stay committed to it by calibrating at least once every 2-3 months and making sure you set your default programs to color-managed apps. For instance, if you quickly want to view a JPEG, make Windows Photo Viewer that ships with Win 7 and Win 8 your default app for JPEGs, that app is color-managed where our beloved klunky Office Photo Viewer is not. Things like that.
When I was preparing for the Photoshop cert exams (have done CS5, CS6 and CC) they did cover this subject in some detail but sort of convoluted, so I wouldn't necessarily seek Adobe's advice on the subject. To be honest I found Tim Grey's 2006 book Color Confidence 2nd Edition to be the best written but easiest-to-ingest book on the topic. It's 8 years old but still very relevant. JSYK, Amazon has the 1st and 2nd editions sort of mixed up, so you'll see reviews from 2004 on a book that was published in 2006, lol. The link I provided is the right one and you can get used copies pretty cheap. The Kindle price is what the paperback used to sell for, $25-$28 and that price hasn't come down because it's still a big seller, but good ol' paper version used is a bargain.
Posted by Peter Cross on January 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM
Thanks for all of the great input guys. A world of knowledge is evident. I was struggling with the "Want vs. Need" issue and I think this helped me clarify that to the point where it's probably a want. I don't really think my technical skills are to the point where I would be getting the extra benefit a wide gamut monitor provides. I'm starting to get some decent images but my processing skills are still very much basic. That being said, it looks like a better non-WG monitor is what I NEED. Any suggestions on what features I should be looking for in that regard and any specific recommendations for monitors. I do calibrate my monitor and soon will also do a color profile for the camera as well.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 27, 2014 at 5:31 PM
Hey Paul, thanks for the response. I agree, to an extent with "...we might as well deliver the most accurate image we can to their world." My personal philosophy which in large part I picked up from Tony Kuyper, is that I want to process, create and present my images so they are "the best that they can be." that of course doesn't cover "accurate" nor how they may look on anyone else's computuer/monitor/browser setup. Although it's sad and unfortunate, the best way to ensure consistent presentation of our work on the web is to save with sRGB profile. I'm not saying that's the best - of course it's not, it's the smallest color space and not the best, but it is the best way to make sure that IE users have the best experience possible and even the FF users on calibrated $2,000 wide gamut monitors will also enjoy viewing your images. The least common denominator.
I was just recently chatting to another member about the "accurate" issue when it comes to monitor calibration. IMHO, the ONLY true meaning of accurate color is relative to YOUR calibrated system, and no one elses. Let me explain. Monitor calibration isn't a fixed process, we as users must make decisions on how the "calibration" process is going to happen. We can choose "defaults" like a color temp of 6500K or a brightness value of 120, gamma 2.2, etc. We can also choose to calibrate the monitor TO a temp of 5000, 5800, 6500, 9300 or even 6357, right? So I calibrate mine to 5800 because I personally think 6500 is too cool (but wait, isn't that daylight temp? ;-) ) So I calibrate and set/measure the RGB settings in order to produce the desired color temp. When it's all done, I can claim my monitor is calibrated and my colors are 100% accurate - for my monitor and my chosen settings. If then you have calibrated your monitor on a Mac system to a temp of 6500, brightness or gamma to 2.0, I would expect that my image would look different on your system as compared to mine. What or who is accurate now?
Which brings us to your statement, " Their eyes and monitor and perception will take it from there. " This is another variable that really puts a kink in this whole browser color managed issue and image/color accuracy. I'm pretty sure most of us with normal vision still have sensitivities and/or strong responses to various colors. Some folk can't see/recognize magenta, or perhaps a red tint in deep shadows. Blue/cyan is interpreted widely. And we all could be on accurately calibrated systems.
Whether we use Color Vision's Spyder2,3 or 4Pro, X-Rite i1Display Pro, Preston's NEC calibration system or some other even more expensive and involved monitoring equipment, my calibrated monitor is now only accurate relative to color numbers with my monitor, graphics card, etc. etc. 255, 255, 255 in only white to me and only relative to the color temperature I selected during the calibration process.
Ok, so I'm getting down in to the weeds, so I'll quit while I'm behind. ;-) In the end, I totally agree we should strive to produce the most accurate images that are the best that they can be. But we still can't guarantee who they will look elsewhere in cyberspace. And at least for me I choose to present my images so they look the best for most viewers and not require them to calibrate their monitors or use specific browsers. But that's just me.
Good stuff!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 28, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Hey Lon, I have the answer! Let's just shoot Black & White!
Peter, I even wonder myself if a good IPS panel monitor that isn't WG would be just dandy to keep things simple. IMO there is NOTHING wrong with getting a really decent non-WG monitor that has a reputation for good color and is an IPS-panel monitor, those always look better. Hopefully some folks can throw out their suggestions for a monitor that would work. One that I use at work and never disappoints is the Dell UltraSharp U2412M. It's on sale right now for $289 which is a good price. The beauty of this monitor besides the IPS panel technology is that it's 1920x1200 resolution. For 24" monitors those are becoming harder to find, most are 1920x1080, and believe me, that extra 120 pixels on the vertical side is great real estate for photo editing, Most 24's are 1920zx1080 because that's HD video resolution and it displays a movie edge-to-edge when full screen, at least a standard 16:9 movie. Anyway, HP and NEC make great monitors too so check them out. I've always used Dell UltraSharps because if you hunt long enough you usually get a good deal (like this sale going on), plus Dell's come with a 3-year No Dead Pixel Guarantee. You get a stuck pixel and they replace the monitor. Just FYI, over the last 9 years I've owned the 1905, 2405, U2711, two U2412M's and now my main monitor for almost two years is the U3011 and I have never had a stuck pixel on any monitor. Always buy them from Dell or Amazon and you will have the latest firmware revision of the monitor, be wary of third party sellers. If you ever do buy a Dell monitor from Amazon, hop on a chat with Dell afterwards and have them transfer the warranty into your name. They do the same as Apple does with iPads, they activate the warranty when sending to the third party dealer and it's up to you to get it in your name. Dell is always kind enough to give you the full three years (and they usually tack on a month or two extra) when you contact them. Just stuff to note.
Discussion
9 repliesThanks for your time in sharing your wisdom.
Peter
For most folks, the issue with wide-gamut monitors is that images in web browsers (and any non-color managed applications) can look wrong - usually overly saturated or contrasty. But for color managed apps - including web browsers that read and handle image color spaces correctly - there's really no issue. You will be able to see images tagged with wider and narrower spaces correctly, and untagged will be handled as sRGB, which they almost always are.
Now browsers are a bit finicky - Firefox is the only one that handles all color management correctly I think, though Chrome and Safari are close. If you're dedicated to IE, then I'd suggest you think about switching.
Also, if you don't calibrate your monitor, you probably don't need to worry about wide-gamut. But otherwise, I say go for it.
I suggest that you do your editing work in a wide-gamut color space such as Adobe RGB and allow Photoshop to control colors when you print. You can always convert an image file from the wide-gamut space to sRGB for the Web.
I am a big proponent of the NEC monitors that support their SpectraView calibration system. It's the easiest, and most accurate system I've seen at that price point. The NEC PA -series screens bundled with SpectraView and colorimeter aren't inexpensive, but they give the best bang for the buck when accurate color is critical to one's work.
--P
BTW, if you end up buying a Dell WG monitor and plan to use a colorimeter, make sure that, after you do the standard thing of hitting "Reset to Factory Settings" before calibration, that you go to the on-screen menu and change the colorspace to Custom Color before you use the colorimeter. The Factory Reset on Dell Monitors doesn't clear the colorspace, it loads a default one, and if you don't switch the monitor to Custom Color, your calibration against that default profile will look pretty bad. NEC monitors probably don't have that scenario, but the Dells do. Just FYI!
While I agree with most all the points about reasons why one should get a wide gamut monitor, I'll offer a few other points to consider.
First, there's a difference between "need" and "want." Of course a wide gamut monitor displays a gazillion more colors, 100% of the Adobe 1998 RGB and Prophoto color spaces. According to my Spyder4Pro calibrating system, my HP LED monitor can only display 81% of the Adobe 1998 color space. Having said that, you don't need a wide gamut monitor to produce quality images for the web and print. In fact you'll probably spend more time and trouble getting your colors and contrast right because of the huge color space available, and lack of color space on the vast majority of output devices. I know you said you might not be printing right away, but I'm pretty sure most all printers can't even come close to reproducing a ProPhoto color space (I could be wrong though.)
The second thing is this notion about color managed apps and browsers. Yes, it is very true that IE is not a color managed browser and others like Chrome and FF can differentiate and display properly different color profiles. Having said that, the overwhelming percent of the viewing public (and we're talking about those viewing our websites that aren't togs or NPN members reading this discussion....) do NOT have wide gamut monitors, do NOT calibrate their monitors and a large percentage of the viewing public still use browsers like IE (although IE's presence is clearly shrinking,) that don't have color management. I mention this because I continue to be perplexed by comments like, "This image is best viewed in a color managed browser like FF or Chrome." Is it the responsibility of the viewing public to buy and calibrate wide gamut monitors or be forced to use one browser or another? Or is it the responsibility of the single photographer to create and save their image so that it looks the best for ALL viewers? It would be like telling someone who bought your print not to hang it in a room with fluorescent light, or require them to buy spot lighting with a 6500degK for proper color rendition. No, it's up to you to make sure your print looks good under most all lighting conditions. You take the print outside on the patio, in the front room with window light and your office lit by daylight cfl's, etc.
I agree with everyone that it's a mystery and a shame that all browsers aren't color managed (the same or at all,) but it's reality. Hopefully that will change in the future. But for now, the best way to ensure your images look the best in ALL browsers is by making sure you're saving your jpg images with the sRGB color space embedded. This, IE understands. Think about this point too. You're working in a large color space with working images in the hundreds of megabytes or even more than a gigabyte in size. We then COMPRESS them to these tiny 1200px image files, squeezing all the image and color data to less than 500k. What do you think happens to all those gazillions of color bits? They get compressed with PS's jpg's algorithms. Even if you retain the Adobe 1998 or Prophoto color profile when converting and resizing to a web-jpg, that image no longer contains all that color information you had when processing your image. In fact, there might even be a greater risk in getting whacked out colors when compressing the image for the web.
One last point, and I think this is the most important one. This isn't directed towards you Peter, as I don't know you and have no idea where you are at in terms of your PS skills and experience. The trouble I see is that folks get themselves set up with all the best equipment, high end monitors, printers, calibration systems, etc. etc., but still don't quite have the image processing skills to really take advantage of that stuff. It's one thing to have a photographer with years of image processing experience who then upgrades to a wide gamut monitor, vs someone with less experience doing the same thing. If one feels comfortable with their own image processing and can produce high quality work for the web, then they may be ready for that big color space. Image processing is a skill that develops over time and lots of poorly processed images. In my opinion, image processing is the key and the biggest variable in determining how images look on the web and in print.
There's a great deal of experience, expertise and respect for those togs who highly recommend a wide gamut monitor; but IMHO, the skill level is such that it's not such a rough transition to the wide gamut. But for many others, it adds a level of complexity that may actually hinder someone's ability to progress in their image development skills.
Sorry for the novel, just my thoughts. Heck, if I had deep pockets, I'd spend a couple grand on a high end monitor.
Lon
One thing, if you process a jpeg to look great in color-managed Chrome or FF, then that means the colors are as close to accurate as possible. That means it'll display as best as possible in IE on somebody's normal monitor, it'll just look like garbage on a WG monitor. I used to worry about all that, what people are using browser-wise and monitor-wise, until I realized that regardless of what people use on this planet, they are accustomed to their screen for ALL of the viewing they do, so we might as well deliver the most accurate image we can to their world. Their eyes and monitor and perception will take it from there.
I get what you were trying to say in the last thought, and it's an important point (sort of talking to you and Peter here). A few years ago had I gotten a WG monitor I probably would have gotten completely frustrated, not understanding what all the weird color issues I was now facing, and probably would have ended up setting the thing on sRGB because it "looked the best". I totally agree that you do need a handle on the whole concept of color management to understand what's in front of you, and at first it's a mouthful, but then it gets easy, you just need to stay committed to it by calibrating at least once every 2-3 months and making sure you set your default programs to color-managed apps. For instance, if you quickly want to view a JPEG, make Windows Photo Viewer that ships with Win 7 and Win 8 your default app for JPEGs, that app is color-managed where our beloved klunky Office Photo Viewer is not. Things like that.
When I was preparing for the Photoshop cert exams (have done CS5, CS6 and CC) they did cover this subject in some detail but sort of convoluted, so I wouldn't necessarily seek Adobe's advice on the subject. To be honest I found Tim Grey's 2006 book Color Confidence 2nd Edition to be the best written but easiest-to-ingest book on the topic. It's 8 years old but still very relevant. JSYK, Amazon has the 1st and 2nd editions sort of mixed up, so you'll see reviews from 2004 on a book that was published in 2006, lol. The link I provided is the right one and you can get used copies pretty cheap. The Kindle price is what the paperback used to sell for, $25-$28 and that price hasn't come down because it's still a big seller, but good ol' paper version used is a bargain.
I was just recently chatting to another member about the "accurate" issue when it comes to monitor calibration. IMHO, the ONLY true meaning of accurate color is relative to YOUR calibrated system, and no one elses. Let me explain. Monitor calibration isn't a fixed process, we as users must make decisions on how the "calibration" process is going to happen. We can choose "defaults" like a color temp of 6500K or a brightness value of 120, gamma 2.2, etc. We can also choose to calibrate the monitor TO a temp of 5000, 5800, 6500, 9300 or even 6357, right? So I calibrate mine to 5800 because I personally think 6500 is too cool (but wait, isn't that daylight temp? ;-) ) So I calibrate and set/measure the RGB settings in order to produce the desired color temp. When it's all done, I can claim my monitor is calibrated and my colors are 100% accurate - for my monitor and my chosen settings. If then you have calibrated your monitor on a Mac system to a temp of 6500, brightness or gamma to 2.0, I would expect that my image would look different on your system as compared to mine. What or who is accurate now?
Which brings us to your statement, " Their eyes and monitor and perception will take it from there. " This is another variable that really puts a kink in this whole browser color managed issue and image/color accuracy. I'm pretty sure most of us with normal vision still have sensitivities and/or strong responses to various colors. Some folk can't see/recognize magenta, or perhaps a red tint in deep shadows. Blue/cyan is interpreted widely. And we all could be on accurately calibrated systems.
Whether we use Color Vision's Spyder2,3 or 4Pro, X-Rite i1Display Pro, Preston's NEC calibration system or some other even more expensive and involved monitoring equipment, my calibrated monitor is now only accurate relative to color numbers with my monitor, graphics card, etc. etc. 255, 255, 255 in only white to me and only relative to the color temperature I selected during the calibration process.
Ok, so I'm getting down in to the weeds, so I'll quit while I'm behind. ;-) In the end, I totally agree we should strive to produce the most accurate images that are the best that they can be. But we still can't guarantee who they will look elsewhere in cyberspace. And at least for me I choose to present my images so they look the best for most viewers and not require them to calibrate their monitors or use specific browsers. But that's just me.
Good stuff!
Peter, I even wonder myself if a good IPS panel monitor that isn't WG would be just dandy to keep things simple. IMO there is NOTHING wrong with getting a really decent non-WG monitor that has a reputation for good color and is an IPS-panel monitor, those always look better. Hopefully some folks can throw out their suggestions for a monitor that would work. One that I use at work and never disappoints is the Dell UltraSharp U2412M. It's on sale right now for $289 which is a good price. The beauty of this monitor besides the IPS panel technology is that it's 1920x1200 resolution. For 24" monitors those are becoming harder to find, most are 1920x1080, and believe me, that extra 120 pixels on the vertical side is great real estate for photo editing, Most 24's are 1920zx1080 because that's HD video resolution and it displays a movie edge-to-edge when full screen, at least a standard 16:9 movie. Anyway, HP and NEC make great monitors too so check them out. I've always used Dell UltraSharps because if you hunt long enough you usually get a good deal (like this sale going on), plus Dell's come with a 3-year No Dead Pixel Guarantee. You get a stuck pixel and they replace the monitor. Just FYI, over the last 9 years I've owned the 1905, 2405, U2711, two U2412M's and now my main monitor for almost two years is the U3011 and I have never had a stuck pixel on any monitor. Always buy them from Dell or Amazon and you will have the latest firmware revision of the monitor, be wary of third party sellers. If you ever do buy a Dell monitor from Amazon, hop on a chat with Dell afterwards and have them transfer the warranty into your name. They do the same as Apple does with iPads, they activate the warranty when sending to the third party dealer and it's up to you to get it in your name. Dell is always kind enough to give you the full three years (and they usually tack on a month or two extra) when you contact them. Just stuff to note.
Was that enough long-winded info???