Summary of HDR stills

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up.... That is an absolute certainty that you can take to the bank. I'm astounded that you would say otherwise.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

I'm avoiding it because I use software that has UI scaling issues,

Click to expand...

What software and what OS? I'm curious. I have zero scaling issues with 4 and 6K on Windows (unless I click on view at 100% res in DPR).

Member said:

and in any case I don't look at photography on a screen except to edit.

Click to expand...

Really? You don't know what you are missing. You don't look at any of the stuff we p[ost here on DPR or Flickr or anywhere? Geeez. You don't see much photography. Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off. You don't enjoy looking at your own raw files after editing them?

Click to expand...

There are more photobooks published now than ever before. Thousands every year. Paris Photo is busier than ever. Exhibitions are still a thing.

Click to expand...

What does photobooks and large print exhibitions have to do with this monitor HDR still discussion? I spend a lot of time in galleries and exhibitions, and I love big prints. That has absolutely nothing to do with buying a pro 4K monitor, which every GFX and Hassy photographer should do in order to enjoy their own their own raw files to the greatest extent possible. Progress man.... If you are "avoiding" 4K, that won't last long, just like with TVs. You won't have much choice. Enjoy. Don't fight it Adam.

I also wanted to comment on your remark on another part of this thread that "pro" photographers often post at lower res so why worry about a high-res monitor? My reply is that even low-res web shots look better on these new tech higher end monitors of several types for many reasons and advancements I won't bother to list here, and 4K and above always wins no matter what. Plus, those photographers are doing the opposite of what I do. They are protecting their work and want people to pay for the high-res digital image, not just a print. It often has nothing to do with printing. They used to post stuff at higher res with watermarks, but now watermarks can be easily removed so they post images at carefully crafted smaller sizes so that people can't download them and use them as a strong base for further resizing, editing or printing.

I do the opposite because I want people to "steal" my work. I post MF and high-res FF images at full size and very high quality and thousands of them have been downloaded at full quality original for various purposes - printing, advertisements, books, posters, brochures, magazines, articles, church publications, and prints for walls. The only entities who don't are the stock agencies because they can't and two have tried to buy my entire Flickr output and want me to commit to shooting for them. No happening. Plus, if someone wants the raw I give it to them.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

but I'm sure it is for many, and in that scenario if you value colour accuracy and panel uniformity over extra pixels then this is the way to go.

Click to expand...

You can have both of course. The pro 4K monitors are far better in that regard than the no 4K. Plus, I disagree that less than 4K is ever the way to go in photography unless you absolutely can't afford it, which is a hard sell for anyone who has bought the stuff we talk about on tuis forum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

DMillier said:

Adam Kingston said:

DMillier said:

My wife is very keen on her over-priced apple stuff and she has one of these. I believe this phone has the XDR HDR capable screen which might make it the only device in the house capable of displaying these HDR sample images properly.

I know nothing about iPhones, except I find the UI incomprehensible (to an Android user). How would I use my wife's phone to view the samples? I presume I'd have to set it up in some particular way?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 12 is only capable of 625 nits max for static/non-video content, but I may be wrong. It maxes out at 1200 watching HDR video content but I never noticed it work for HDR stills.

What happens when you tap on these images:

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/10/10/hdr-explained

It may be that you'd need to use an alternative to Safari, which appears to lack HDR support. Device/software support for HDR is very patchy and unsatisfactorily communicated, but presumably that will change.

Click to expand...

I tried it with Safari and Chrome. Nothing significant appeared to happen.

Click to expand...

The difference is obvious when I've tried this with the Display Pro (1600 nits) and Alienware (1000 nits) so you'd know if it was happening. I don't believe there are any settings on the 12 that would enable this as it's my understanding that it's always-on and will respond to HDR video content. You should be able to view HDR content via the Youtube app, if you can find some.

I imagine his comment about photobooks was a counter to your "Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off." Photobooks show that people enjoy prints and provide a method of producing and viewing them on a larger scale than making individual prints.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

DMillier said:

I imagine his comment about photobooks was a counter to your "Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off." Photobooks show that people enjoy prints and provide a method of producing and viewing them on a larger scale than making individual prints.

Click to expand...

Photobooks are popular now because people with phone cameras can print them easily and it is fun.

I don't do it, but easily could because Teresa will let me have a normal size printer.

At that size, my 6K screen wins every time.

Greg7579 said:

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up.... That is an absolute certainty that you can take to the bank. I'm astounded that you would say otherwise.

Click to expand...

EIZO make some of the highest performing colour-accurate screens available. Two of their screens are 4K UHD. Six are 2K or <2K. The idea that a $2500 screen isn't professional enough or that the colour precision is somehow lacking due to an absence of pixels is ridiculous.

I'm not disputing that higher resolution screens will dominate in the future or that they offer nothing, I'm explaining that they offer no tangible benefit to me and only downside because I'm using legacy software that either has UI scaling issues or no UI scaling whatsoever.

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

I'm avoiding it because I use software that has UI scaling

issues,

Click to expand...

What software and what OS? I'm curious. I have zero scaling issues with 4 and 6K on Windows (unless I click on view at 100% res in DPR).

Greg7579 said:

and in any case I don't look at photography on a screen except to edit.

Click to expand...

Really? You don't know what you are missing. You don't look at any of the stuff we p[ost here on DPR or Flickr or anywhere? Geeez. You don't see much photography. Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off. You don't enjoy looking at your own raw files after editing them?

Click to expand...

There are more photobooks published now than ever before. Thousands every year. Paris Photo is busier than ever. Exhibitions are still a thing.

Click to expand...

What does photobooks and large print exhibitions have to do with this monitor HDR still discussion? I spend a lot of time in galleries and exhibitions, and I love big prints. That has absolutely nothing to do with buying a pro 4K monitor, which every GFX and Hassy photographer should do in order to enjoy their own their own raw files to the greatest extent possible. Progress man.... If you are "avoiding" 4K, that won't last long, just like with TVs. You won't have much choice. Enjoy. Don't fight it Adam.

I also wanted to comment on your remark on another part of this thread that "pro" photographers often post at lower res so why worry about a high-res monitor? My reply is that even low-res web shots look better on these new tech higher end monitors of several types for many reasons and advancements I won't bother to list here, and 4K and above always wins no matter what.

Click to expand...

Again - I have absolutely no interest in how photography looks on my screen except that I would like my own editing workflow to benefit from colour accuracy. I do not look at photography on a screen. I am not unusual in this respect.

Greg7579 said:

Plus, those photographers are doing the opposite of what I do. They are protecting their work and want people to pay for the high-res digital image, not just a print. It often has nothing to do with printing. They used to post stuff at higher res with watermarks, but now watermarks can be easily removed so they post images at carefully crafted smaller sizes so that people can't download them and use them as a strong base for further resizing, editing or printing.

I do the opposite because I want people to "steal" my work. I post MF and high-res FF images at full size and very high quality and thousands of them have been downloaded at full quality original for various purposes - printing, advertisements, books, posters, brochures, magazines, articles, church publications, and prints for walls. The only entities who don't are the stock agencies because they can't and two have tried to buy my entire Flickr output and want me to commit to shooting for them. No happening. Plus, if someone wants the raw I give it to them.

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

Greg7579 said:

but I'm sure it is for many, and in that scenario if you value colour accuracy and panel uniformity over extra pixels then this is the way to go.

Click to expand...

You can have both of course. The pro 4K monitors are far better in that regard than the no 4K. Plus, I disagree that less than 4K is ever the way to go in photography unless you absolutely can't afford it, which is a hard sell for anyone who has bought the stuff we talk about on tuis forum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

I imagine his comment about photobooks was a counter to your "Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off." Photobooks show that people enjoy prints and provide a method of producing and viewing them on a larger scale than making individual prints.

Click to expand...

Photobooks are popular now because people with phone cameras can print them easily and it is fun.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about man.

Steidl did put out that iDubai book of Joel Sternfeld's I guess.

Greg7579 said:

I don't do it, but easily could because Teresa will let me have a normal size printer.

At that size, my 6K screen wins every time.

Click to expand...

Adam Kingston said:

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

I imagine his comment about photobooks was a counter to your "Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off." Photobooks show that people enjoy prints and provide a method of producing and viewing them on a larger scale than making individual prints.

Click to expand...

Photobooks are popular now because people with phone cameras can print them easily and it is fun.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about man.

Steidl did put out that iDubai book of Joel Sternfeld's I guess.

Click to expand...

Some do not realize that there is a massive difference in the quality of photobooks. On the one hand, there is Blurb for us mortals; on the other hand, there are books from Friedlander and others who hand-select their printers.

Every serious photographer should have at least a couple of high-quality photo books.

Member said:

Member said:

I don't do it, but easily could because Teresa will let me have a normal size printer.

At that size, my 6K screen wins every time.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Or my plan which is to print my photos on my own printer and hand bind them into photobooks.

DMillier said:

Or my plan which is to print my photos on my own printer and hand bind them into photobooks.

Click to expand...

I think that is the best quality that I could get. What do you use for hand binding?

Adam Kingston said:

Greg7579 said:

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up.... That is an absolute certainty that you can take to the bank. I'm astounded that you would say otherwise.

Click to expand...

EIZO make some of the highest performing colour-accurate screens available. Two of their screens are 4K UHD. Six are 2K or <2K. The idea that a $2500 screen isn't professional enough or that the colour precision is somehow lacking due to an absence of pixels is ridiculous.

I'm not disputing that higher resolution screens will dominate in the future or that they offer nothing, I'm explaining that they offer no tangible benefit to me and only downside because I'm using legacy software that either has UI scaling issues or no UI scaling whatsoever.

Click to expand...

You are stuck at less than 4k because you choose to use old software for whatever reason, but you are deluding yourself if you think it looks as good as a 4k pro monitor.Notveven close. But that is OK because you don't like looking at images on screens except to.prepate them for print. Fine.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

I'm avoiding it because I use software that has UI scaling

issues,

Click to expand...

What software and what OS? I'm curious. I have zero scaling issues with 4 and 6K on Windows (unless I click on view at 100% res in DPR).

Member said:

and in any case I don't look at photography on a screen except to edit.

Click to expand...

Really? You don't know what you are missing. You don't look at any of the stuff we p[ost here on DPR or Flickr or anywhere? Geeez. You don't see much photography. Only look at prints huh? That is really old-school but getting really hard to pull off. You don't enjoy looking at your own raw files after editing them?

Click to expand...

There are more photobooks published now than ever before. Thousands every year. Paris Photo is busier than ever. Exhibitions are still a thing.

Click to expand...

What does photobooks and large print exhibitions have to do with this monitor HDR still discussion? I spend a lot of time in galleries and exhibitions, and I love big prints. That has absolutely nothing to do with buying a pro 4K monitor, which every GFX and Hassy photographer should do in order to enjoy their own their own raw files to the greatest extent possible. Progress man.... If you are "avoiding" 4K, that won't last long, just like with TVs. You won't have much choice. Enjoy. Don't fight it Adam.

I also wanted to comment on your remark on another part of this thread that "pro" photographers often post at lower res so why worry about a high-res monitor? My reply is that even low-res web shots look better on these new tech higher end monitors of several types for many reasons and advancements I won't bother to list here, and 4K and above always wins no matter what.

Click to expand...

Again - I have absolutely no interest in how photography looks on my screen except that I would like my own editing workflow to benefit from colour accuracy. I do not look at photography on a screen. I am not unusual in this respect.

Click to expand...

Color accuracy is a given now at much less expensive levels at 4k and up. Saying you aren't using 4k because of color accuracy concerns is a way outdated take. No worries. Use whatever monitors suit you for whatever reason. I just hope others here who might not know as much about this read my remarks here and make good decisions because monitors matter now more than ever because of what is now available.

Member said:

Member said:

Plus, those photographers are doing the opposite of what I do. They are protecting their work and want people to pay for the high-res digital image, not just a print. It often has nothing to do with printing. They used to post stuff at higher res with watermarks, but now watermarks can be easily removed so they post images at carefully crafted smaller sizes so that people can't download them and use them as a strong base for further resizing, editing or printing.

I do the opposite because I want people to "steal" my work. I post MF and high-res FF images at full size and very high quality and thousands of them have been downloaded at full quality original for various purposes - printing, advertisements, books, posters, brochures, magazines, articles, church publications, and prints for walls. The only entities who don't are the stock agencies because they can't and two have tried to buy my entire Flickr output and want me to commit to shooting for them. No happening. Plus, if someone wants the raw I give it to them.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

but I'm sure it is for many, and in that scenario if you value colour accuracy and panel uniformity over extra pixels then this is the way to go.

Click to expand...

You can have both of course. The pro 4K monitors are far better in that regard than the no 4K. Plus, I disagree that less than 4K is ever the way to go in photography unless you absolutely can't afford it, which is a hard sell for anyone who has bought the stuff we talk about on tuis forum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Color accuracy is a given now at much less expensive levels at 4k and up.

Click to expand...

Color accuracy is not binary. Neither is it scalar.

Greg7579 said:

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res

Click to expand...

Not my experience, and better looking depends on the application for which you're using the monitor.

Greg7579 said:

and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up....

Click to expand...

Not "of course". Not even universally true. There are excellent Eizo monitors of less than 4K resolution.

darinb said:

Just a footnote. Apple’s Safari will support HDR in a few weeks, with the new OS. I suspect then, when 95% of the browser market supports HDR, that you’ll start seeing more and more of it on the web. There’s already a ton on Instagram.

Click to expand...

With the present plethora of HDR standards, device independence is getting thrown overboard.

JimKasson said:

darinb said:

Just a footnote. Apple’s Safari will support HDR in a few weeks, with the new OS. I suspect then, when 95% of the browser market supports HDR, that you’ll start seeing more and more of it on the web. There’s already a ton on Instagram.

Click to expand...

With the present plethora of HDR standards, device independence is getting thrown overboard.

Click to expand...

We need to have that divergence reigned in. However, if you control the output device (your own display), it is manageable.

JimKasson said:

--
https://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Color accuracy is a given now at much less expensive levels at 4k and up.

Click to expand...

Color accuracy is not binary. Neither is it scalar.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean, but most "pro" and even the newest best 4K gaming monitors now have amazing degrees of color accuracy, or broad gamut, or quality or whatever you want to call it for everyone but the absolutely most demanding productivity pros at a much cheaper and more available levels than ever before.

I read tons of monitor reviews and one thing I have noticed in the past year is that more and more monitors, even the new gaming monitors are being praised by very demanding and knowledgeable reviewers that I trust as having amazing color accuracy and specs that would satisfy almost any professional photographers in editing or viewing and previously was only available on high-end pro (not gaming) monitors.

That is a very good thing. I just read a review yesterday of a new 4K gaming monitor that was 240 Hz that had these types of high-end color specs (but it was OLED). Astounding at 240 Hz for pro gamers....

darinb said:

boastar said:

For people working towards printing, selling prints, publishing books etc. i think it is better not to use any HDR functionality in photos that will have the function of a preview of your work. Be it at your own website, or on any social media. Because, your prints can never look like it, and buyers could be feeling misled, be disappointed.

Contrast is hard capped by „paper white:max ink density“. For glossy something around 300:1, for matte 150:1. Allready far exceeded by good ips panels. So if you’re working to print in any way, HDR isn’t only unnecessary, it’s counterproductive.

Click to expand...

I think what is happening isn't that there will be a choice to shoot in SDR vs HDR. I think it will be one file that works for both--as we have it now, in fact. Right now there's no good technology to make an SDR image automatically derived from HDR look good--which is strange when you think about it. Hasn't this been what has been happening with RAW all along? In any event, it will simply be a choice for the photographer what output they are targeting.

Certainly, putting a glowing HDR with four stops of highlight headroom on a web page for collectors to click "buy now" for a physical print would be a little strange (and misleading). That would be as goofy as putting up a super low contrast version of the print you are trying to sell.

But as you imply, the HDR image (one which takes advantage of that extra headroom) is a different thing than the SDR image. I think they will point the way to the electronic image becoming a separate "thing" from the printed image (and its cousin, the SDR image).

Prints will be prints, and the CMYK reproductions of those images will remain (printing technology never really got past the four-color process, except in niche areas). SDR, as a standard, can't but fade away as fewer and fewer monitors are SDR (this will take a while, of course).

As for the photo art world, you misjudge their level of dexterity in this regard. You will recall during the NFT craze how many "name" photographers, galleries, and museums found a reason to love the electronic block-chained image when there was buyer willing to pay. All we need is something like an NFT wallet so collectors can collect HDR images. I'm readying my HDR Bored Apes collection as we speak.

For books, once the PDF file format is updated for HDR (they are supposedly working on it) or some other document type appears, e-books with HDR images (and video) will get quite a bit more interesting, especially as the AVIF file type minimizes the size penalty.

Interesting times!

Click to expand...

I didn’t mean to imply that there would be a choice. It’s really all just raw files anyways.

My family owns two galleries, in two european countries. I’m involved with one, so I know the art world quite well. The „nft craze“ had nothing to do with the type of art i was talking about. In these circles there is a contrarian movement away from digital.

The low res files on artists homepages have to be seen in context. High profile artists are very often plagiarized. They also don’t have to make a name for themselves any more. These factors are understood. That’s why the low res previews are accepted, even encouraged. Only if you purchase the print, you’ll be able to fully enjoy the artwork. Gives it more exclusivity. Not that I like this concept, but that’s how it works.

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res

Click to expand...

Not my experience, and better looking depends on the application for which you're using the monitor.

JimKasson said:

and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up....

Click to expand...

Not "of course". Not even universally true. There are excellent Eizo monitors of less than 4K resolution.

Click to expand...

Of course there are. But our images displayed on them look far better on the 4K version of those monitors. You know this James because you started using 4K monitors even before I did many years ago when they were very expensive and had scaling problems that don't exist today.

It is astounding to me that we are even having this discussion. It pops up from time to time because some people must think that having a good pro 4K monitor is an afront to the art of photography or printing.... Makes zero sense to me.

But hey - don't listen to me on this even though I've been saying it for 5 years. LOL....

SrMi said:

DMillier said:

Or my plan which is to print my photos on my own printer and hand bind them into photobooks.

Click to expand...

I think that is the best quality that I could get. What do you use for hand binding?

Click to expand...

I've not done it yet, but my daughter makes blank notebooks she sews and binds herself. My thinking is to do something similar using double sided matte printing paper. I'm going to start by copying what she does then working up to using printing paper. It'll need working out how to layout the pictures so the pages all face the correct way.

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Adam Kingston said:

The Alienware is a new line and the 4K models are also 1000 nit, with the same implementation of HDR. Their output of HDR content is identical, except more pixels and a curved screen.

Click to expand...

No it's not. The output of 4K is always better looking than any monitor of lower res

Click to expand...

Not my experience, and better looking depends on the application for which you're using the monitor.

Greg7579 said:

and that includes HDR. Color specs have nothing to do with it because the best pro monitors are of course all 4K and up....

Click to expand...

Not "of course". Not even universally true. There are excellent Eizo monitors of less than 4K resolution.

Click to expand...

Of course there are. But our images displayed on them look far better on the 4K version of those monitors. You know this James because you started using 4K monitors even before I did many years ago when they were very expensive and had scaling problems that don't exist today.

It is astounding to me that we are even having this discussion. It pops up from time to time because some people must think that having a good pro 4K monitor is an afront to the art of photography or printing.... Makes zero sense to me.

But hey - don't listen to me on this even though I've been saying it for 5 years. LOL....

Click to expand...

So you have, Greg, vociferously. And I think you are correct, higher resolution looks better than lower resolution.

But the question is how much better and is it worth throwing away a perfectly good monitor to get a 4k. I would say the answer is no, it isn't. Get a 4k or better when you next need to replace a monitor, but don't expect magic.

A 50% increase in pixels from 1440p makes a modest improvement, but you make it sound like the difference between a 320px Youtube video to a 4k Youtube video in one bound. It is not; you will see something that is 'noticeable', but that is all. A bit like the difference between 50MP FF and 50MP medium format. Is there a difference? Probably, just. But you like to portray it as an enormous difference. and it just isn't. And no, this isn't denying there is any difference, it's being realistic. Improvements come in little incremental steps, not giant leaps. They add up over time to something worthwhile, but this idea that upgrading one step provides some kind of incredible improvement isn't credible.

The biggest improvement I've experienced is going from no TV at all to a 4k screen. But I can say that it wasn't such a big improvement that going from a 4k screen back to no TV at all wouldn't be even better. Perhaps I should be impressed more by incremental improvement, but I'm not.

DMillier said:

SrMi said:

DMillier said:

Or my plan which is to print my photos on my own printer and hand bind them into photobooks.

Click to expand...

I think that is the best quality that I could get. What do you use for hand binding?

Click to expand...

I've not done it yet, but my daughter makes blank notebooks she sews and binds herself. My thinking is to do something similar using double sided matte printing paper. I'm going to start by copying what she does then working up to using printing paper. It'll need working out how to layout the pictures so the pages all face the correct way.

Click to expand...

Let me know how it works out. We should have a thread about photo books .