extremely affordable 4k (aka UHD) 28" displays coming as companion to your MP or rMBP

Started Jan 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
elliotn Senior Member • Posts: 1,714
Re: extremely affordable 4k (aka UHD) 28" displays coming as companion to your MP or rMBP

noirdesir wrote:

elliotn wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

elliotn wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

elliotn wrote:

I couldn't care less about 10bit and wide gamut is over-rated.

As is retina or cameras with more than 8 MP or CDs over cassette tapes ...

The two important things for me are viewing angle and screen uniformity.

And I have yet to see an example where wide-gamut lead to a smaller viewing angle or screen uniformity.

Sure. I have a wide gamut monitor, because the best quality monitors (Nec, Eizo) happen to be wide gamut. But for my purposes the wide gamut is wasted - my pictures don't contain the highly saturated colours that a wide gamut monitor is capable of displaying. I'd be fine with sRGB gamut.

Because you shoot only jpeg and your camera is set to produce sRGB jepgs? Or are you sure that the spectral sensitivity curves of your camera's Bayer filters (+spectral range of the sensitivity of the actual silicon behind those filters) don't allow for a discrimination of colours outside of the sRGB gamut?

No. I shoot raw with a D800, and of course it can capture colours outside the sRGB gamut - saturated sunsets, neon fashions, psychedelic candy. My point is that these are not my subjects, and I don't want to see those AdobeRGB colours in my prints. I'm coming from a background in colour negatives and c-type prints. I like that retro colour palette and it is well contained within sRGB.

And that assumes that boosting colours in post always leads to results that you find unpalatable (because any images which some good starting colour purity can be made to contain colours approaching the limits of the working colour space by increasing saturation).

Not sure what you mean. But my vibrance and saturation sliders in ACR/Lightroom are nearly always negative.

Really, softproof your images to sRGB and see whether there zero differences to the un-softproof images, because if there are differences that means that your original image contained colours beyond the sRGB gamut.

There is a difference between saying that a larger gamut is not one of your priorities and saying that you would not, everything else equal, prefer a larger gamut.

Sure. Every now and again I'll photograph something which does have extremely saturated colours (typically interiors or textiles), and my client will want to see those colours in a final print (Epson). On these rare occasions the wide gamut of my monitor is useful.

All I'm saying is that wide gamut is not that important unless you're really into strongly saturated colours. Most images, or at least most of my images, sit comfortably within the sRGB space.

Your general requirements are quite special. Somehow they feel like a B&W photographer saying he or she couldn't care less about good colours without mentioning that this is because he or she is almost exclusively shooting B&W.

But I still question the wisdom or utility of limiting yourself to only seeing the sRGB gamut. For once, stylistically it is not much different from the gamut your monitor can display, sRGB won't look muted to most people, you can still have very strong colours and generally colourful images. It's not like limiting yourself to the palette Polaroid could produce, or even what colour film did in the eighties. If some of your images have a few spots with colours beyond sRGB (eg, even a small flower), you won't see that until you print, ie, you don't even know about it most of the time.

But most importantly, you limit all your viewing of not only the images you produce but everything else, ie, everything created by others to sRGB. It's one thing to prefer images with less saturated colours, it's another thing saying that this preference would be a good reason to see other people's work also limited to sRGB. Instead of switching your whole monitor to sRGB, just switch it to sRGB for your own work only. If one wants to limit oneself to the capabilities of a certain output media (for you roughly colour negative or cibachrome colours), using softproofing in raw converters (and in other image editors alternatively switching the working space) would be the most straightforward solution. Whereas now, you essentially software everything, including the work of others to sRGB.

To summarise, it is one thing to prefer more muted colours, to concluding that one only rarely profits from a wide gamut monitor and another thing to almost out of spite then limit the monitor to a narrower gamut. It sounds like because you did not want to pay for a wide gamut in your monitor (since you care little about the saturated colours) but had to as their was no 'narrow gamut' monitor with the other high-end characteristics you wanted for your monitor, you are now making a statement by not using the wide gamut if you can avoid it.

You've misunderstood me. There's no spite. I run my Eizo in its default wide gamut mode - I never use its sRGB mode.

All I'm saying is that my work doesn't contain the saturated colours that would benefit from a wide gamut display.

As for other people's work, my workstation is just for my own work. If you mean looking at other people's work online, then my experience using the wide-gamut Eizo is entirely negative - psychedelic colours which are surely not the artist's intention. For web browsing I prefer the narrow gamut of my Macbook Air.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow