Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Hendrik, Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

  

wide gamut
  
 
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · wide gamut


http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130419_3-color-gamut-of-fruit.html

and you should see what happens to something as simple as a red rose. It is impossible to photograph a red rose in sRGB. For years I wonder what the heck I was doing wrong that purple petunias and roses always looked nothing like in real life. Why glorious brilliant bands of color in sunsets never showed up in my photos. Why red leaves either looked dull or one shade flat. And then I got a wide gamut monitor a couple years back and realize that I hadn't been doing a single thing wrong! All my pics were proper. It was sRGB that was the beast!


And some more examples (also the bad thing is these examples are more clear if you already own a wide gamut monitor and already know what you are missing and somewhat less effective if you only have sRGB monitor):
If you have a wide gamut monitor set to wide gamut mode and use say Firefox browser you should see that this image (hosted by Zenfolio where they do not allow wide gamut, nor did (does?) Smugmug) looks like the reds are clipped and many of the leaves are like a single shade without much detail since many of the shades on the red leaves were too intense for the sRGB gamut:






so it looks a bit duller and less detailed than say this one (hosted by Flickr where they allow wide gamut) where the colors of leaves fit inside the ProphotoRGB gamut and inside the native gamut of most wide gamut monitors:






And same for this pair where first it is clipped to sRGB by Zenfolio:






And then allowed to be seen in full glory in wide gamut on Flickr for the times you want that and trust the viewer and/or tell them how to handle non sRGB images:






(If you don't have a wide gamut gallery you won't be able to tell what I am talking about since by definition you can't see any colors beyond sRGB on it. So they will look the same regardless of the host (unless you use Chrome which has no color-management and then the Flickr ones will looks dull and ugly). On a wide gamut monitor if you use IE it automatically converts all images to sRGB and then ignores the monitor profile so IE displays ANY and ALL on the web from text to colors to images of any gamut WRONG on a wide gamut monitor in wide gamut mode, they all look radioactive. I don't think anyone ever used IE if they are running in wide gamut mode. It does makes wide gamut hosted images look reasonably fine on a regular monitor though, basically every browser at least does that these days other than Chrome (the single worst browser for photo lovers to use). But even on a regular monitor IE doesn't really get ANY images correct unless you can a fancy monitor with full 3D internal LUT and calibration since it ignores monitor profiles and doesn't make any corrects for errors in your monitor and it doesn't remap tone responses (for instance many people calibrate their monitor to gamma 2.2 but sRGB images don't actually use gamma 2.2 but something special it is close to gamma 2.2 but different, so if you use IE to view images on a monitor that has been calibrated to gamma 2.2 you will see crushed dark tones and slightly overblown contrast and potentially slightly overblown saturation and highlight curves will be slightly off too so nothing will look quite like it did when the person was editing the photo in Photoshop, which is fully color-managed and compensates for tone curve differences).)





Sep 05, 2013 at 05:41 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · wide gamut


WTF?


Sep 06, 2013 at 05:33 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · wide gamut


+1 @ gamut ... still looking for a 95% anti-glare gamut laptop display that meets my other laptop goals. Would like to find a 14", but I haven't yet found one with 95% gamut anti-glare display (and quad CPU).


Sep 06, 2013 at 01:36 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · wide gamut


It seems to me that if your primary goal is printing, you aim for images that fill or nearly fill your printers gamut. If you are processing for web, its an sRGB uncalibrated non color managed world on over-bright tiny size monitors. Might as well post black and white.

My monitor does not display sRGB without going out of calibration mode and into a simulated sRGB mode. Sometimes I am sorry I ever got it, and should have stayed my old Trinitron.



Sep 06, 2013 at 07:45 PM
aubsxc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · wide gamut


You can have my old Trinitron for the cost of shipping, if you want it



Sep 06, 2013 at 09:16 PM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · wide gamut


ben egbert wrote:
My monitor does not display sRGB without going out of calibration mode and into a simulated sRGB mode.


Why is that such a problem for you? Do you use a lot of non-color-managed applications? It shouldn't be a problem for web viewing since a color-managed browser like Firefox will take care of the color space conversion for you.



Sep 06, 2013 at 09:29 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · wide gamut


Eyeball wrote:
Why is that such a problem for you? Do you use a lot of non-color-managed applications? It shouldn't be a problem for web viewing since a color-managed browser like Firefox will take care of the color space conversion for you.


I use chrome for other reasons but I have Safari loaded which is color managed. But we have to post sRGB don't we?

For personal use, I keep my screensavers in monitor profile. I leave my print tiffs in 16 bit Prophoto. But for web, I convert to sRGB, not because of my limits, but because of the web itself and the users who are using non calibrated sRGB monitors and viewing in non color aware browsers.

It does not bother me when I view somebody elses image because its criminal to comment on color on web images.



Sep 06, 2013 at 10:34 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · wide gamut


Paul Mo wrote:
WTF?



Huh? What is so hard to understand?



Sep 07, 2013 at 04:25 AM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · wide gamut


ben egbert wrote:
I use chrome for other reasons but I have Safari loaded which is color managed. But we have to post sRGB don't we?

For personal use, I keep my screensavers in monitor profile. I leave my print tiffs in 16 bit Prophoto. But for web, I convert to sRGB, not because of my limits, but because of the web itself and the users who are using non calibrated sRGB monitors and viewing in non color aware browsers.

It does not bother me when I view somebody elses image because its criminal to comment on color on web images.


It just seemed like in your earlier post you were lamenting that your monitor was wide-gamut (with the reference to your old CRT) and I wasn't sure why (and I'm still not really sure). It seemed like you felt forced in some instances to have to put the monitor into sRGB mode and that was kind of a pain. I was curious under what conditions you felt it necessary to use the monitor in sRGB mode ( there are some - games for instance - but I was wondering what your case was).

As far as browsers go, Firefox has on advantage over Safari in terms of its optional ability to color manage images without embedded color spaces. It assumes sRGB in those cases and converts appropriately for wide-gamut. You might want to try that if you get tired of seeing some web images out of whack on your monitor.

Regarding using sRGB for web display, I think you are correct; the best way for the largest target audience is still to produce sRGBs with the embedded colorspace. A wide gamut monitor is a little over-kill right now if that is all you are going to do. Wide-gamut I think is either for your own enjoyment or to help with editing where you will be sending the image to another wide-gamut device (a good inkjet, for example).



Sep 07, 2013 at 01:04 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · wide gamut


Eyeball wrote:
It just seemed like in your earlier post you were lamenting that your monitor was wide-gamut (with the reference to your old CRT) and I wasn't sure why (and I'm still not really sure). It seemed like you felt forced in some instances to have to put the monitor into sRGB mode and that was kind of a pain. I was curious under what conditions you felt it necessary to use the monitor in sRGB mode ( there are some - games for instance - but I was wondering what your case was).

As far as browsers go, Firefox has on
...Show more

Well when somebody says your colors are off, or you are too saturated, it would be nice to be able to see whats he is talking about. That means you need to have the same crummy system, browser and brightness and calibration he has. Thats when I need sRGB, but of course thats only one of the many variables.


This post shows just one of the issues, Prophoto shows the real image, sRGB scrunches it down and reassigns colors.

But of course what happens when you scrunch 5000 pixels into 850? The web is a very bad place to show hi rez images, thats what I am saying.



Sep 07, 2013 at 01:42 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · wide gamut


ben egbert wrote:
But of course what happens when you scrunch 5000 pixels into 850? The web is a very bad place to show hi rez images, thats what I am saying.


That's why I try to post 1600x when I can (and get away with 1100x in landscape forum here).
Can't wait for the quad HD wide gamut monitors, none yet announced, but it can't be more than three years away at most. sRGB quad HD are already arriving.



Sep 09, 2013 at 03:14 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · wide gamut


skibum5 wrote:
That's why I try to post 1600x when I can (and get away with 1100x in landscape forum here).
Can't wait for the quad HD wide gamut monitors, none yet announced, but it can't be more than three years away at most. sRGB quad HD are already arriving.


I suspect many landscape forum guys spend a lot of time on the road judging by how often they show wide ranging locations. This means they probably do lots of work from a laptop and a low bandwidth connection.

I take my laptop with me on trips and even do some test processing but I never post from a laptop image.

I wish I had a rig I could take into 4wd country and live out of for weeks at a time. My trips are few and far between and I always wait until I am home to work the images.

Even then I process for large prints not for web, and I think it shows when I post, but I can't see it as other do.



Sep 09, 2013 at 02:32 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · wide gamut


ben egbert wrote:
I suspect many landscape forum guys spend a lot of time on the road judging by how often they show wide ranging locations. This means they probably do lots of work from a laptop and a low bandwidth connection.


I guess but does it make sense to target the viewing audience for those viewing under very poor conditions (lo-res, small gamut (many tablets and laptops are actually FAR sub-sRGB gamut even), poorly calibrated)? Landscape photos perhaps scream for larger sizes more than any. Many entire classes of nature photography, especially texture and detailed based shots, don't even work, so you end up with 100% grand scenic vistas and nothing else posted.



Sep 09, 2013 at 09:47 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · wide gamut


skibum5 wrote:
I guess but does it make sense to target the viewing audience for those viewing under very poor conditions (lo-res, small gamut (many tablets and laptops are actually FAR sub-sRGB gamut even), poorly calibrated)? Landscape photos perhaps scream for larger sizes more than any. Many entire classes of nature photography, especially texture and detailed based shots, don't even work, so you end up with 100% grand scenic vistas and nothing else posted.


You are preaching to the choir. I have no idea how to reach such an audience that has controlled large size viewing.

When I was in Camera club in Spokane, they showed images on a projector at 1024 wide and it had lousy color casts. But we also showed prints, I only ever entered prints. In Salt Lake, they did not have prints and again showed at 1024 on a projector. I eventually dropped out of that club.

I use 1600 at home on a good monitor and use my monitor profile. My view is 18 inches wide which is less than my display but still a decent size. But this is already 5 years old and will soon be old hat.



Sep 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM





FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password