Author Topic: Do you use a wide gamut monitor for editing photos? (Read 18009 times)

KB · « **on:** November 26, 2016, 00:35 »

I'm considering buying a new (32") monitor. I edit for stock in ProPhoto RGB, usually upload in aRGB, and use a wide gamut (99.5% adobe RGB) monitor. But I wonder if I'm in the minority or not.

Do you usually edit in a wide gamut (aRGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc.)? Do you use a wide gamut monitor?

jarih · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2016, 01:58 »

All editing in wide data space always:
- 16 bit
- ProPhotoRGB (or AdobeRGB)

After that jpg export to low data space:
- 8 bit
- sRGB

I use wide gamut monitor, Eizo ColorEdge.

dinostock · « **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2016, 02:07 »

I shoot in sRGB (RAW), ediit in sRGB, and I dont know what wide gamut is. (so I guess my monitor is sRGB as well).

gyllens · « **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2016, 02:25 »

I also use an Eizo ColourEdge wide gaumont monitor. Using Prophoto and adobe RGB depending on certain criteria. Uploading in 8 bits and sRGB. calibrating it with colourmonkey and an X-rite.

Chichikov · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2016, 02:55 »

Eizo CG2420
I ~~plan~~ dream to buy the CG318-4K

Editing in ProPhoto RGB
Exporting for web in sRGB

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2016, 09:40 »

OK, I'm an ignoramus. But as far as I can make out, there's no practical benefit from using wide gamut screens and working in Adobe RGB when your customers don't. In fact, there was a lot of discussion about how awful Adobe RGB looks on commonplace screens and browsers.
The whole monitor/browser/gamut/Adobe RGB thing is very complicated, but for me just using an ordinary monitor seems to work in providing people with what they expect after seeing the images in their browsers.

gyllens · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2016, 09:55 »

It depends. If you get a creative buyer which often happens type art-director, designer or an ad-agency or graphic artist working with the pictures he bought you can bet your life he/she is using nothing but a wide gaumont monitor and of course working in adobe-rgb as a standard rule.

Ptophoto retains the wider colour-scope when you later tranfer it to adobe-rgb. Almost all graphic people still work in adobe-rgb with final outcome/result.

KB · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2016, 10:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2016, 09:40

OK, I'm an ignoramus. But as far as I can make out, there's no practical benefit from using wide gamut screens and working in Adobe RGB when your customers don't. In fact, there was a lot of discussion about how awful Adobe RGB looks on commonplace screens and browsers.

The theory I've heard and had been working with is, when you edit in 16-bits and use a wide gamut color space, then convert to 8-bits (and either aRGB or sRGB), you are less likely to get banding and other artifacts. And, obviously, if you UL in aRGB as I have been doing, you can actually see the image as it exists in aRGB. UL'ing in aRGB but using an sRGB gamut monitor sounds like a bad idea. (If you do UL to aRGB then presumably the site that you are UL'ing to converts the image to sRGB for display on the web, but maintains your original aRGB file and that is what buyers receive.)

Clearly I'm not alone in this belief, but it does seem that I'm in the minority. Since currently there is such a large price premium to pay for a 4K, 32" wide gamut monitor, given the ever decreasing royalties from stock that I've been experiencing, it seems it really doesn't make sense. Except, as a contributor I've always tried to provide the very best quality I can, so it does bother me to remove what has long been a big part of my work flow. Obviously I'm trying to convince myself it's ok, and the poll results do seem to support that so far.

Thanks for the posts so far, and to all of you who have voted in the poll.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2016, 11:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2016, 09:40

OK, I'm an ignoramus. But as far as I can make out, there's no practical benefit from using wide gamut screens and working in Adobe RGB when your customers don't. In fact, there was a lot of discussion about how awful Adobe RGB looks on commonplace screens and browsers.
The whole monitor/browser/gamut/Adobe RGB thing is very complicated, but for me just using an ordinary monitor seems to work in providing people with what they expect after seeing the images in their browsers.

What he said. I've never heard I lost a sale because I didn't edit in 16 bit or uploaded aRGB. I used to upload aRGB at IS, but dropped that complexity when I went Indy.

flywing · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2016, 11:59 »

Editing in a very wide gamut space (such as ProPhoto RGB) needs to be done in 16-bit unless the image will be prone to banding.
Wide gamut space doesn't help prevent banding but editing in 16-bit does.

You upload in aRGB... Which agency do you upload to? If it is SS, they clearly say every image will end up in sRGB there. I'm not sure what they do with non sRGB images (convert or assign). If it's assign then your images won't look right. Hope they're smart enough to convert them.

BTW, I edit in 16bit sRGB with a standard gamut display. But yeah I would love to have a wide gamut display.

gyllens · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2016, 12:03 »

For this type of micro-stock its like walking out with a HD5 and phaseone back: total overkill! considering we are uploading Jpg's at best quality I agree with Sean here it isnt a must do.

gyllens · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2016, 12:05 »

Quote from: flywing on November 26, 2016, 11:59

Editing in a very wide gamut space (such as ProPhoto RGB) needs to be done in 16-bit unless the image will be prone to banding.
Wide gamut space doesn't help prevent banding but editing in 16-bit does.

You upload in aRGB... Which agency do you upload to? If it is SS, they clearly say every image will end up in sRGB there. I'm not sure what they do with non sRGB images (convert or assign). If it's assign then your images won't look right. Hope they're smart enough to convert them.

BTW, I edit in 16bit sRGB with a standard gamut display. But yeah I would love to have a wide gamut display.

SS will automatically convert every single image to sRGB whatever space its been edited in. The whole point of a wider space got to do with printing really.

stockastic · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2016, 12:10 »

Working with raw files and a wider gamut, you'll see color problems (banding, saturation) that you wouldn't otherwise see; you're making your photos as good as they can be today, even if they aren't seen that way online and won't be for years. And it matters more for prints.

KB · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2016, 12:53 »

Quote from: flywing on November 26, 2016, 11:59

Wide gamut space doesn't help prevent banding but editing in 16-bit does.

You upload in aRGB... Which agency do you upload to?

Thanks, that's good to know, as that's what I intended to do even if I move to a "narrow" gamut monitor.

I UL to iStock, Alamy, and FAA. FAA is my main concern, but I've noticed my recent ULs there don't match what I see on my display, so that's already messed up as is. My older ULs match fine. (All were UL'd using aRGB.)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2016, 17:05 »

Quote from: KB on November 26, 2016, 12:53

I UL to iStock, Alamy, and FAA. FAA is my main concern, but I've noticed my recent ULs there don't match what I see on my display, so that's already messed up as is. My older ULs match fine. (All were UL'd using aRGB.)

Alamy used to ask for Adobe RGB but then they changed their minds and stated a preference for sRGB.
Your problem with FAA used also to be a problem with Alamy, and makes using A-RGB a complete farce - you are providing a better quality image at considerable expense and it is being shown to buyers as being worse quality than it would if you uploaded as sRGB. So it makes it less likely to sell.
Why buy expensive equipment if all it can do is reduce your sales?
(sorry about the initial misattribution of what I'm saying to KB due to an editing accident..... then I messed it up again but hopefully now it will display correctly)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2016, 17:15 »

By the way, isn't it just a mistake to edit in wide gamut on an sRGB screen? Doesn't it mean you are making changes that you can't see but users with wide gamut equipment will be able to see?

There are a lot of white flowers that are strongly marked in the ultra-violet region, because insects can see a wider spectrum than we can. It strikes me that editing an A-RGB image on an sRGB screen must be like a human trying to edit in ultra-violet for the benefit of insects.

But I might be wrong. Info from those who fully understand this issue would be helpful.

KB · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2016, 17:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2016, 17:05

Alamy used to ask for Adobe RGB but then they changed their minds and stated a preference for sRGB. Your problem with FAA used also to be a problem with Alamy,

Thanks, I had no idea that Alamy no longer recommends uploading in aRGB. In the past, I recall that I had noticed a mis-match with some of my images on Alamy compared to what I see from my computer, but I'd always just ignored it.

Quote

By the way, isn't it just a mistake to edit in wide gamut on an sRGB screen? Doesn't it mean you are making changes that you can't see but users with wide gamut equipment will be able to see?

I would love to get an answer to this from someone who really understands this stuff (if there is such a person here -- gyllens?)

I've had the same concern about editing in ProPhoto RGB, which is a larger color space than my wide gamut monitor can fully display. Though I have always looked at my final image in PS after converting to aRGB, and have never noticed any change in color after the conversion. But perhaps the file needs to be re-loaded in order to see that? I admit to never having tried that.

flywing · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2016, 17:49 »

A benefit of editing in ProPhoto RGB even though the display you're using is standard gamut or limited to aRGB is in printing. Because even aRGB doesn't cover some colors a good printer (especially inkjet type) can produce. In a way, you use the printer as a display and use it to full potential.

samards · « **Reply #18 on:** December 01, 2016, 07:13 »

I always edit in wide gamut, ProPhoto, than I'm sure that if there is banding or any other artifact - that's my mistake, and not of my equipment.

I'm not sure for 32 inch monitor (unless you do 4K) - I guess that fonts will be really tiny and difficult to see... I've just bought EIZO ColorEgde 27inch, it's a great device, specially ColorNavigator calibration software - so easy to use and with accurate result. Still think that even on 27 inch (2500x1400 res) fonts are too small. Or maybe that's only windows.

spike · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2016, 12:00 »

I have one 4k wide gamut monitor and a 1080p standard gamut monitor. Both calibrated.

For micro, I work in ProPhoto and 16 bits, and export to sRGB.
For other stuff, I work in ProPhoto and 16bits, and export to whatever space is necessary, mostly aRGB.

Needless to say, I shoot raw.

I don't see the point in pre-converting to sRGB, you just get a smaller color space to begin with and less leeway in editing. The output can always be sRGB, so not sure why one wouldn't edit in a wider color space.

KB · « **Reply #20 on:** December 01, 2016, 13:06 »

Quote from: samards on December 01, 2016, 07:13

I'm not sure for 32 inch monitor (unless you do 4K) - I guess that fonts will be really tiny and difficult to see... I've just bought EIZO ColorEgde 27inch, it's a great device, specially ColorNavigator calibration software - so easy to use and with accurate result. Still think that even on 27 inch (2500x1400 res) fonts are too small. Or maybe that's only windows.

I agree, for me I find text size needs to be about 92-94 PPI in order to be comfortably readable. I can certainly read smaller, but for hours at a time, bigger is better.

For a 32" 4K monitor, I would have to use scaling of 150% in order to get the text size down to that range. (Without scaling, it would be close to 140 PPI, and at 125% scaling 110 PPI -- which is borderline acceptable for me.) In which case, I've decided, I could just as easily get a 1440p monitor (2560x1440), because that's exactly what 4K scaled to 150% displays at on a 32".

Even on a 27" 1440p (your Eizo Coloredge), the text is a bit too small for me. It's again at around 110 PPI, similar to 4K on a 32" scaled at 125%.

So I've been looking at 32" 1440p displays, but just as with the 32" 4K, there doesn't seem to be any out there that get consistently good reviews (other than NEC & Eizo which are both out of my price range).

In the end, I think I'm going to just stick with what I have now. It's a 24" HP LP2475w (wide gamut) at 1920x1200, and what's wrong with that?

flywing · « **Reply #21 on:** December 01, 2016, 14:48 »

Quote from: spike on December 01, 2016, 12:00

I don't see the point in pre-converting to sRGB, you just get a smaller color space to begin with and less leeway in editing. The output can always be sRGB, so not sure why one wouldn't edit in a wider color space.

Most of my works rely on image manipulations. There are many times I need to do strong adjustments and use multiple layers with different blending modes.

Color conversion is never perfect. And those small imperfections can accumulate and visibly shift the final result. Some set of adjustments can cause banding in a color space but not in another. A combinations of blending modes can look very different between color spaces.

I've decided that it's useless to edit my aRGB images under sRGB preview (Photoshop's soft proofing) in order to make it look good in sRGB but may not look as good in aRGB. And if I want to have the both versions look good in their own color spaces, I will have twice the work to do. So I decided to work in 16-bit sRGB.

Of course, this issue is rarely a problem in natural shots. I agree there are advantages in editing in a wide gamut space for this kind of image.

BOWRA · « **Reply #22 on:** December 01, 2016, 14:56 »

I have just purchased the BenQ SW2700 27 inch monitor for photographers. It covers 99% Adobe RGB and is truly amazing for 650 USD

ccbcc · « **Reply #23 on:** December 16, 2016, 05:05 »

I suffered a wide gamut display for many years (Dell 3008), and now I finally have a sRGB display again. So many problems and irritations. I now have the same gamut as my customers, which makes live so much easier. It also makes my products better because I there is no more guessing. You never know which programs support color profiles. Adobe software is messy with that. Videoplayers all think differently, and so do encoders.
Run while you can!!

gyllens · « **Reply #24 on:** December 16, 2016, 07:51 »

No matter what you edit in, 4K, prophoto etc etc its useless if your customers dont. To edit in prophoto and then convert to aRGB means you retain the colours from prophoto but of course the conversion in itself will adjust to argb.

For the purpose of stock photography its probably best to stick with argb which is the industry standard.

A 4K monitor calibrated with an external calibrator will make sure the print/screen versions should match 100%. Our end product is the final print thats what its all about a perfect match.

I find lots of rubbish talks about this and personally I find just as good print match using an Eizo colourEdge monitor as a 27 inch iMac. The actual calibration is the important issue.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Do you edit in wide gamut? Do you display in wide gamut?

Author Topic: Do you use a wide gamut monitor for editing photos? (Read 18009 times)

KB

jarih

dinostock

gyllens

Chichikov

BaldricksTrousers

gyllens

KB

Sean Locke Photography

flywing

gyllens

gyllens

stockastic

KB

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

KB

flywing

samards

spike

KB

flywing

BOWRA

ccbcc

gyllens

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors