skibum5 wrote:
I don't see what the point of your always trying to talk down wide gamut and get on anyone who brings up calibration of screens or wide gamut or color science.
Maybe wide gamut ate your pizza .
Man, this landscape forum is a bit nuts in that "wide gamut" is almost like the worst swear word in the world here, even though if there is any forum where that should not be the case, it should be here.
Talking about I'd bet you $10,000 Ansel Adams would be ing at the anti-wide gamut brigade (and he mostly shot B&W ).
Yeah of course sRGB can be sharp, BUT if an sRGB image happens to contain an area that clips then those areas will obviously lack detail and potentially even take on a soft look unless you mess around doing special processing on those areas (which also make the image look different than intended- color tone shifts, artificially reduced saturation, altered brightness).
Shoot a Pileated Woodpecker and the crest may lack detail in sRGB, pop over to wide gamut and the same shot and has a crisp, sharp, crest filled with fine feather detail.
Notice how the plants here with the intense glow all seem to be like made out of pixels of the exact same color, in prophotoRGB I'd bet they'd be made out of a bunch of different colors and appear to show a lot more detail.
What is so wrong with pointing out that this image has some beautiful colors getting clipped by sRGB. Since when is sRGB the end and be all of everything?
Do you realize that the industry has a roadmap where they hope to stop all production of non-wide gamut monitors by 2018 or 2020 at the latest? They want all screens to be 4k+, wide gamut and HDR by 2025 and all wide gamut and HDR by 2020. I'm not sure the HDR part will make it that soon.
sRGB was never some magical ideal choice, it even clips some colors people use to shoot with film
Fact is this image would show at least some more detail posted in ProphotoRGB (even though some parts are a touch soft, at least on the second one, in a non-clipped area). ...Show more →
Ha ha.... Well, now you have me hungry for Pizza, so you did accomplish something here.
My take is we are being sold a bill of goods. It's just the manufacturers, who are manufacturing an implied need, when truly we are fine just as we are. Wide Gamut? 4k monitors? So they make the colors more vibrant, so what? Most of them stop looking realistic to me the colors and light are popping too much.
So everyone gets sold on this wide gamut and 4k monitors... guess what? 2 years from now the manufacturers will be pushing extra-wide gamut and 16k monitors. With the promise that they will show even more colors, and the displays will look even more life like.... then guess what?? another 2 years down the road it will be the ultra-wide gamut and 32k monitors...
I am not much for peer pressure, or being manipulated by others. So the "perceived" need that is being manufactured by companies just so they can sell more TV's and monitors? I for one am not falling for it... but then, that's me...
JimFox wrote:
Ha ha.... Well, now you have me hungry for Pizza, so you did accomplish something here.
My take is we are being sold a bill of goods. It's just the manufacturers, who are manufacturing an implied need, when truly we are fine just as we are. Wide Gamut? 4k monitors? So they make the colors more vibrant, so what? Most of them stop looking realistic to me the colors and light are popping too much.
So everyone gets sold on this wide gamut and 4k monitors... guess what? 2 years from now the manufacturers will be pushing extra-wide gamut and 16k monitors. With the promise that they will show even more colors, and the displays will look even more life like.... then guess what?? another 2 years down the road it will be the ultra-wide gamut and 32k monitors...
I am not much for peer pressure, or being manipulated by others. So the "perceived" need that is being manufactured by companies just so they can sell more TV's and monitors? I for one am not falling for it... but then, that's me...
I hate to say it but it the marketing guys were actually late to the game when it came to wide gamut, it was pushed by real people.
I and plenty of others were begging for retina tablets and high PPI monitors for years and yet the markets only caught on relatively recently.
IMO it's a sad when some go around claiming it's all a bunch of marketing BS nonsense.
Can you honestly deny that this photo here isn't clipping quite a lot in sRGB? So how can you say sRGB is enough? Is a red rose or a purple petunia or a pileated crest or an emerald fake nonsense? None of those fit into sRGB. sRGB only encompasses a small portion of what the human eye can see. Granted that said, many shots fit entirely or reasonably into sRGB, but it's not hard to find those that don't and it's often the best subjects: fall foliage, intense evening lighting on anything, sunsets/sunrises, flowers, brilliant birds.
What about the guy in the PP forum here who was going crazy with his bird shots, getting mad that all his detail was clipped away and nothing looked like what he saw in the forest. It turned out to all be just sRGB clipping and nothing more and he had been tearing his hair out trying to figure out new ways to expose or PP or what new sensor to buy.
They don't just make them more vibrant they make them more realistic and truer. But I guess you have a beef with how nature makes many flowers look? Bad nature, how dare they make those dumb red roses so intense! Bad nature for making that sunset too garish! Bad bird, how dare you look so ridiculous and colorful!
And how is 4k a scam? Why would 8k be a scam? With 8k you get instant free 'prints' of all your D800 and under class cameras. Is printing above 3x5" a scam? Is printing at more than 80PPI a scam? If not then why the heck are those things suddenly scams for displays? Especially since only some minute fraction of shots taken ever get printed.
Why did we ever go beyond VHS? DVD, blu-ray, HD broadcast all a scam??
You wish we still had bleary old 1990s quality TV?
Why is it OK to spend $10,000 on this fancy lens for a bit better micro-contrast or all this money on that Nikon sensor with more DR or whatnot and on all this fancy printing paper and advanced inks and so on and then when it comes to displays, heaven forbid!!!! Let us just stick with 640x400 and sRGB and 8bits and low DR displays forever! Why care what the images you spend so much time taking, processing, spending money on actually look like other than the very few that most people ever get around to/can afford to print at size?
Even if you don't care a whit about 4k and seeing detail in your images or seeing the colors as shot, why this active push by some to try to quiet and shhhh down those talking about such technology? Why is it great to be educated about everything BUT display technology?
Why is it good to hope that people still get confused and think that current DSLR sensors clip red and perhaps chase after some new sensor hoping for more red when their current sensor captures the red just fine as is. Why is it so bad for anyone to learn that the old myth about DSLR sensors clipping red is false and it's sRGB that clips the reds?
And yeah pizza sounds great right about now, time to go!
If it was mine I might would work at getting the sky / land and the bottom left / right luminances a little more balanced. But certainly not a deal breaker.
.
I'd bet you $10,000 Ansel Adams would be 
