skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · $699: Dell announces pricing on the 28" UHD monitor | |
Bifurcator wrote:
Yup, that's the anal I was talking about.
Yup because a deep, dark violet petunia turning into a light pink flower or dark, gray flower is just what you want!
All of those differences are addressed with PP and none of them carry to other devices.
You can't make colors that don't exist, exist, through PP. Sometimes you can shift colors around a relative way to mask it a bit, but only so far.
And why does the monitor not count?? 99.9% of images ONLY ever get seen on a monitor. And once we get into 4k-8k monitors, they become a much better viewing method. The new 4k monitors already show all the old 8MP and under DSLR images as crisply as any print (and with more colors and more dynamic range).
And it's not true that it doesn't carry over to any other device. Printers have many colors that sRGB doesn't have (vice-versa is also true though, interestingly enough).
How many internet viewers have both a browser which correctly uses something like ProPhoto and also a wide gamut display? Maybe a one-hundredth of one percent? ...Show more →
Eventually they will and for now? So what? Because 95% of people don't have something you can't make use of it yourself? 99.9999999% of people will never seen a single one of your printouts. But you don't complain about how stupid it is to own a printer do you?
And among photo people I'd say more than 1/100th of 1% have wide gamut now, even if a majority still don't.
And do you think this will help in printing? A. no almost never!
...Show more →
1. printing isn't everything
2. it actually can help with printing at times, which is more often than never
Gamut maps are useful critters!
As you can see, even an 8 color Canon PRO9000 MK II printer with a good gamut can't cover the sRGB, aRGB and ProPhoto color spaces. Thus if a monitor displays a true sRGB color space the printer still can't reproduce all the colors accurately and then there is the issue of transmitted light from a monitor which will not match the reflected light of a print, just physicis. Also the different viewing lights; daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, xenon, etc. affect the prints colors.
...Show more →
Noticing everything they say is useful too. And 3D gamut maps are even far more useful critters. You should notice that while modern inkjets still can't print many colors that are in even sRGB they also CAN print MANY colors that are NOT in sRGB but that can be seen on a wide gamut monitor.
[quote
Maybe you barely ever shoot such things, ...Show more →
Those are exactly the kinds of things I shoot… 
Then I guess you fall into the just don't care bucket, which is fine. But saying that people who do care and do easily notice it as a bunch of 100% bull shitters is somewhat less fine.
Yup, they're too silly to take seriously… not! And that's not what I said. There are arenas where such is are actually needed. I doubt more than about 1% of the folks here are in that arena though they often convince themselves they are and that wide matters… Maybe if I took a poll 80% of people would say as you yourself do, that wide is very important and a highly color accurate monitor makes all the difference to them. But about 95% of those people would be totally fooling themselves, as it just doesn't!
Says you, based upon nothing.
And it's pretty ridiculous to even phrase it in terms of serious real pros vs hobbyists. What the heck does that have to do with anything? First, something pros actually care less about things since all that counts is bang per buck and you can get away with a lot. Second, it's pretty ridiculous to think that pros have magical eyes that can notice when extra colors in wide gamut but that mere, lowly, hobbyists, not even the ones who convince themselves they are on the higher plane of existence of a serious (oooooooh!!! how impressive let us all bow down before you serious pros!!!), eyes simply can't.
Your monitor wasn't setup correctly - this includes controlling your video card - not just the controls on the monitor itself.
1. if you are running a cable box or blu-ray player or what not into an HDTV there is no video card LUT to adjust
2. the video card LUT only lets you change the tone response curve and white balance you can't change primary locations or primary luminance or saturation tracking or stuff like that even when you are using a PC
And when set right no, no one can tell a wide from a sRGB panel simply by looking - all other things being equal.
that's not true, because for years I could tell that some of my shots just never looked right
Maybe if compared side-by-side or immediately one to the other.
not just maybe in that case, but 100% for sure with ease providing the image has enough colors, enough out of gamut, many won't, but it's very easy to find many that will
But even then it's a self contained difference with no barring on the general practice and process of photography. Colors to a large degree are subjective and tho so many have been mindfucked into believing they need wide displays it really is just a bunch of hooey (exceptions previously noted)!
with those meaningless exceptions just happening to be many of the coolest photographic subjects of course, as even you admitted....
But that's true switching between any two different models even when both are wide gamut. 
If they have primaries with similar spectral spikes and both have fancy internal LUTs or can be calibrated and profiled very well, then no.
If the calibration stuff holds then it's greatly minimized.
There can be a bit of the metamerism issue with the spectral spikes in some cases
.
I'm using the term bullshit subjectively not objectively and not personally. Just as some people claim it's needed I'm claiming that those claims in general, are indeed bullshit for the vast majority of photogs and even most of the elitists. Not the people making the claim, just the general claims themselves. I'm sure the mindfuck is quite deep and maybe even permanent with most folks who believe these things - but they aren't to blame for that IMO.
you are assuming a lot
and I know plenty of people who had a MF in the opposite direction, myself included, when I finally bothered to get a wide gamut monitor and saw the difference
I don't think I've ever seen an example of this - ever. Where are you reading that you see this? Most people who pay the premiums for what today is a very tiny advantage in better lenses, bodies, and gear also apply the same logic to their monitors.
I see it all the times in the forums, people with many thousands and many tens of thousands of equipment still running older and far sub 1920x1200 monitors (dare to post an image larger than a postage stamp on quite a few of the forums here and you'll head will get bitten off fast). And you see people saying all the time, what super great photo monitor can I get. I want to keep my budget for the screen under $200. And then you look at their equipment list and it's all 1DX and 5D3 and 24 T&S II and 400 2.8 IS II and the fanciest flash known to man and so on, but then it comes to the monitor and they complain if someone suggests they so much as buy a calibration probe. I mean not always and certainly not with everyone by any means, but I see it often enough to have noticed. I'm not the only one either. On another website, someone even started a thread about this very topic.
In fact this is probably the source of the very problem of which I speak. There really is an edge in higher end and more expensive acquisition and print gear. And the tendency to think this carries over to their monitor is pretty common. And within reason it does to some degree. The problem is that it's only "better" in a tiny tiny fraction of shots and that "better-ness" begins and ends with the monitor itself - it doesn't help the shot, and it doesn't help the print. The only thing it can actually help is color matching. Like where you absolutely have to match multiple sources of broadcast footage for compositing and stuff like that.
...Show more →
What good is the vague notion of the shot in digital form? You need something to, you know, SEE the shot.
And yeah a printer can be one way to see a shot, but it's a very slow, expensive way to see a shot and many shots don't get printed. Sometimes it's nice to see some of the colors and dynamic range that can't be printed too.
And with 4k+ monitors arriving all the moreso.
Please remember and please use the proper context in which I said "100%". "…when we begin talking about hobbyists, forum posters, and mom&pop photographers" Ring any bells? 
Yes, we know, in your mind, only the most serious, elite pros has any use for wide gamut or a fancy monitor or both. No simple peon hobbyist or run of the mill forum poster possibly could.
|
