Some examples that show why a wide gamut monitor matters:

[bronxbombers4]

EDIT: note that these are all posted in ProphotoRGB (a non color-managed browser may make them look faded out and odd which is not what I'm trying to get at, that is a totally different issue)

If you view some of these in regular gamut they will look HORRENDOUS! No detail, clipped, weird colors, awful. Viewed on a wide gamut monitor the colors tones are detailed, no clipping, so rich, different shades entirely in some cases, vastly different looking.

very hideous and radically clipped with extreme color shade alterations as well (it may be hard to believe, but these truly don't show clipping and actually look normal on a wide gamut display):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2901/14013483405_de524e157b_b.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2934/14010260202_1cbd970bb7_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5321/14010268171_576e0449fc_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5027/14010253162_d41e09542c_b.jpg

maybe not quite hideous in sRGB, but VERY lacking and a bit clipped:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2908/14033464893_f354f166b3_b.jpg

somewhat lacking and clipped:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7356/14013459855_2271aa7568_b.jpg

not hideous or apparently clipped and yet in reality quite lacking and a rather different and much less intense shade of red:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/14033451053_70ee95866e_b.jpg

 

[bronxbombers4]

a couple more good examples.
MAJOR clipping and detail loss and major tone shift:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/13784870863_9fe0db61f4_b.jpg

MAJOR clipping and detail loss:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7385/9561638390_04cf8d4d9c_b.jpg

 

[olakiril2]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

Look here: http://davidjohnstone.net/blog/2013/06/be-careful-when-buying-a-wide-gamut-monitor

sRGB space is more than enough for most of the people that do photography.

 

[Sean Nelson]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors.

This is exactly why I stick with standard monitors - so that I don't have problems showing my photos to friends on my smart phone or television, or e-mailing or sharing photos with others. You can't count on anyone else to have a wide gamut monitor, so it's always seemed to me that they're only suitable for hermits.

 

[Andr3w]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

Look here: http://davidjohnstone.net/blog/2013/06/be-careful-when-buying-a-wide-gamut-monitor

sRGB space is more than enough for most of the people that do photography.

I agree. managing two versions (one print, one screen) of all your photos is a lot of work. More people have seen my work online than in person, so I stay focused on generating sRGB files that work for both print and screen. It's not how many crayons you have in the box, it is how well you put them to use.

 

[bronxbombers4]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

They demonstrate exactly what the problem of NOT getting a wide gamut monitor is. It's impossible to shoot some subjects and make them look like they did in real life.

Look here: http://davidjohnstone.net/blog/2013/06/be-careful-when-buying-a-wide-gamut-monitor

That is a very out of date article. IE, Chrome, Safari and Firefox all handle wide gamut images on sRGB screens these days.

sRGB space is more than enough for most of the people that do photography.

umm the whole point of my post is that is not really true. If you shoot sunsets, fall foliage, flowers, etc., sRGB really is NOT enough. Especially not for flowers or fall foliage under evening sunlight.

 

[bronxbombers4]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors.

This is exactly why I stick with standard monitors - so that I don't have problems showing my photos to friends on my smart phone or television, or e-mailing or sharing photos with others. You can't count on anyone else to have a wide gamut monitor, so it's always seemed to me that they're only suitable for hermits.

Nothing prevents you from doing sRGB previews on a wide gamut monitor.

And at least you can see things as they were instead of going crazy for years wondering why no matter how you tried to light or expose flowers they never looked like in real life.

Look at how much you miss when you use sRGB and clip away TONS and TONS of information that your camera captured.

I've never begun to understand why, of all people, photographers seem to be the single biggest Luddites when it comes to seeing proper color these days.

 

[bronxbombers4]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

Look here: http://davidjohnstone.net/blog/2013/06/be-careful-when-buying-a-wide-gamut-monitor

sRGB space is more than enough for most of the people that do photography.

I agree. managing two versions (one print, one screen) of all your photos is a lot of work. More people have seen my work online than in person, so I stay focused on generating sRGB files that work for both print and screen. It's not how many crayons you have in the box, it is how well you put them to use.

--
www.fallingrunphotography.com

It's not possible to show those images as they look like in real life in sRGB so yeah it can be about how many crayons you have in your box.

It's crazy that photographers will spend hundreds on a tripod and tens of thousand on lenses and bodies and thousands on filters, but then nobody seems to give a care in the world as to actually seeing what they shoot. Just clip away half the colors you shot? Who cares?! No big deal!

 

[Pictus]

sRGB is poor and outdated... nt

 

[BG454]

sRGB is poor and outdated... nt

Which is why it is used universally.

(BTW "nt" means No Text so why did you add text?)

 

[Ron AKA]

When the internet becomes 10 bit Adobe RGB then it will become popular. Until then just a curiosity.

 

[The Sage Knows]

It's crazy that photographers will spend hundreds on a tripod and tens of thousand on lenses and bodies and thousands on filters, but then nobody seems to give a care in the world as to actually seeing what they shoot. Just clip away half the colors you shot? Who cares?! No big deal!

Not only do my photographer friends not bother with a monitor to see images from their thousands of dollars of camera gear in all their glory, but they don't even bother to spend the $250 on a hardware calibrator to make even their sRGB monitor show sRGB properly!

 

[Sean Nelson]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

They demonstrate exactly what the problem of NOT getting a wide gamut monitor is. It's impossible to shoot some subjects and make them look like they did in real life.

A wide gamut monitor can't show some subjects like they are in real life, either. It expands the window a bit, but its dynamic range is still way less than what our eyes can perceive.

 

[Pictus]

Which is why it is used universally.

Floopy disks were universally...

(BTW "nt" means No Text so why did you add text?)

The last time I tried to post without any TXT in this forum was not possible, so I simple copy/paste the title.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

sRGB is poor and outdated... nt

Which is why it is used universally.

(BTW "nt" means No Text so why did you add text?)

The term "universally" has nothing to do with quality or excellence and more to do with the lowest common denominator.

 

[malch]

You can't count on anyone else to have a wide gamut monitor, so it's always seemed to me that they're only suitable for hermits.

That's pretty funny and I agree with you to a good extent. I don't think any of the friends or relatives I share my images with have a wide-gamut display.

However... wide-gamut displays do make sense for those who focus on print media and have wide-gamut printers. That's probably not a tiny number of pro and serious-amateur photographers.

 

[bronxbombers4]

When the internet becomes 10 bit Adobe RGB then it will become popular. Until then just a curiosity.

You don't need 10 bits for it at all.

And it won't change to AdobeRGB it will simply change to color-managed.

Which it actually, other than for tablets, already is. IE, Safari, Chrome, Firefox won't choke on wide gamut images on a standard gamut monitor and Safari, Chrome, Firefox can actually make use of them on a wide gamut monitor.

Plus don't you care to see you images that need the extra colors with the extra colors?

 

[bronxbombers4]

You can't count on anyone else to have a wide gamut monitor, so it's always seemed to me that they're only suitable for hermits.

That's pretty funny and I agree with you to a good extent. I don't think any of the friends or relatives I share my images with have a wide-gamut display.

However... wide-gamut displays do make sense for those who focus on print media and have wide-gamut printers. That's probably not a tiny number of pro and serious-amateur photographers.

What about looking at your own images on screen??

Plus most of the better monitors are wide gamut these days anyway.

And the only reason a large majority of photographers don't have wide gamut is attitudes like this.

People use to go crazy about K64 vs Fujichrome and this and that color and no it's like nobody cares about actually viewing images.

People go crazy over every DxO mark sensor spec and then 60% sRGB vs 167% sRGB, who cares.

 

[bronxbombers4]

I had a wide gamut monitor and as much as I enjoyed looking photographs with it, it was a pain in the ass when developing photographs for general monitors. Your examples illustrate exactly what the problem is.

They demonstrate exactly what the problem of NOT getting a wide gamut monitor is. It's impossible to shoot some subjects and make them look like they did in real life.

A wide gamut monitor can't show some subjects like they are in real life, either. It expands the window a bit, but its dynamic range is still way less than what our eyes can perceive.

True enough, but at least it helps for some stuff.

 

[bronxbombers4]

sRGB is poor and outdated... nt

Which is why it is used universally.

(BTW "nt" means No Text so why did you add text?)

Every desktop based browser can handle wide gamut images without choking at this point and three of the main four can even make use of the extra colors if you have a wide gamut monitor.

640x400 used to the web page standard too, now nobody designs web pages targeted at 640x400