Some examples that show why a wide gamut monitor matters:

[Pictus]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

 

[CAcreeks]

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

Very interesting links! The second one is the most convincing, although the WebKit logo does not respond to clicking Display P3. Too bad you didn't post this excellent info on a current thread that didn't start off in such a silly manner.

My Dell monitor shows a difference between sRGB and better color spaces. Does this mean that my monitor shows colors outside the sRGB gamut? I need to try this on my laptop.

I'm looking forward to buying a P3 monitor before I die. I'll give Adobe RGB a pass for this lifetime.

 

[Pictus]

My Dell monitor shows a difference between sRGB and better color spaces. Does this mean that my monitor shows colors outside the sRGB gamut? I need to try this on my laptop.

You can check in 3D by loading your monitor profile(V2 not V4) to https://www.iccview.de/

 

[Austinian]

I'm looking forward to buying a P3 monitor before I die. I'll give Adobe RGB a pass for this lifetime.

One of our UHD TV/monitor's native gamut is 91% of DCI-P3, 88% of Adobe RGB, 100% of sRGB. Switching between its various gamuts on test images, the differences were real and noticeable, but IMHO not terribly major from a photographic POV. Heresy in some quarters, I know.

 

[Chris Noble]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

 

[Billiam29]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

The Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) video below contains a comparison of the gamuts of some real world images plotted against sRGB. It clearly shows DSLRs capturing colors outside of sRGB in common everyday scenes. I've linked to the time at which the gamut comparisons start.

 

[Chris Noble]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

The Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) video below contains a comparison of the gamuts of some real world images plotted against sRGB. It clearly shows DSLRs capturing colors outside of sRGB in common everyday scenes. I've linked to the time at which the gamut comparisons start.

Yes, cameras can capture a wide range of colors, including imaginary ones beyond our perception. And Andrew shows this using ProRGB, a gamut with two imaginary primaries. My point is different: if you output the image of a natural scene, processed using an end-to-end color-calibrated workflow, the perceptible difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is not worth the bother.

But this is all a matter of opinion. Use whatever monitor you enjoy.

 

[IanYorke]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

The Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) video below contains a comparison of the gamuts of some real world images plotted against sRGB. It clearly shows DSLRs capturing colors outside of sRGB in common everyday scenes. I've linked to the time at which the gamut comparisons start.

Yes, cameras can capture a wide range of colors, including imaginary ones beyond our perception. And Andrew shows this using ProRGB, a gamut with two imaginary primaries. My point is different: if you output the image of a natural scene, processed using an end-to-end color-calibrated workflow, the perceptible difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is not worth the bother.

But this is all a matter of opinion. Use whatever monitor you enjoy.

I agree. If you are printing then you can see a difference. The question is what is that difference worth? If you process an image within sRGB and obtain a photo which you like what does it matter whether scientifically some of the original colours were out of gamut?

Unless you are a forensic scientist you are after an aesthetically pleasing image and are free to use whatever colour Pallette you like. The extreme case is of course black and white. Nobody looks at a black and white photo and says "shucks they have lost a lot of gamut"

Also, to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Ian

 

[digidog]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Hold on....

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

Hold on....

Your idea of accurately displayed color is equally wrong but we can go there after your readers learn what you’ve written about color gamut of images should be ignored.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut.

The nonsense stems from your keyboard sir.

If that’s true (it is not), can you explain the colorimetry based gamut maps of ACTUAL images in this video?

Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut

A pretty exhaustive 37 minute video examining the color gamut of RGB working spaces, images and output color spaces. All plotted in 2D and 3D to illustrate color gamut.

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov

Low Res (YouTube):

Or to save some time, explain the color gamut of just TWO actual photos vs. sRGB:


Solid is sRGB color gamut. What falls outside from the image clips!


Solid is sRGB color gamut. What falls outside from the image clips!

A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Rubbish, proved to be rubbish with two simple examples.

The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management and color gamut, is that those who have it are so eager to share it!

Please stop sharing incorrect and unproven statements.

Not sure why you felt the need to provide incorrect text to an original post made April 26, 2014 (3 years!) other than for others to come here and call you out for misstatements and a misunderstanding of color color; feel better now that you have colorimetric facts as seen in just two examples to disprove your writings?

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

The Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) video below contains a comparison of the gamuts of some real world images plotted against sRGB. It clearly shows DSLRs capturing colors outside of sRGB in common everyday scenes. I've linked to the time at which the gamut comparisons start.

Yes, cameras can capture a wide range of colors, including imaginary ones beyond our perception.

Some cameras can capture “imaginary colors“ outside the spectral locus however every attempt is usually made to filter those out.

And Andrew shows this using ProRGB, a gamut with two imaginary primaries. My point is different: if you output the image of a natural scene, processed using an end-to-end color-calibrated workflow, the perceptible difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is not worth the bother.

Zero bother.

Always encoded in the largest color space your raw processor supports! No downside, but a possible downside to using a smaller color gamut for encoding that can clip captured colors you can output!

sRGB urban legend Part 1

In this 30 minute video I'll cover:

Is there benefit or harm using a wider color gamut working space than the image data?

Should sRGB image data always be encoded into sRGB?

What are RGB working spaces and how do they differ?

What is Delta-E and how we use it to evaluate color differences.

Color Accuracy: what it really means, how we measure it!

Using Photoshop to numerically and visually see color differences when using differing working spaces.

Using ColorThink Pro and BableColor CT&A to show the effects of differing working space on our data and analyzing if using a smaller gamut working space is necessary.

Appendix: testing methodology, how differing raw converters encode into working spaces, capturing in-camera JPEG data and color accuracy.

Low resolution (YouTube):

High resoution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMyths.mp4

But this is all a matter of opinion. Use whatever monitor you enjoy.

It should be an opinion that’s based on (in this discussion) sound colorimetry one can prove; you haven’t.

And then there’s at least this for those of us using an Adobe raw processor that DOES use a very wide gamut processing color space (based on ProPhoto RGB):

Listen to Chris or Adobe who wrote the application?

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

And often on this subject! Notice zero colorimetric proof; can he even plot the color gamut of images and if so, prove his point?

He probably has no idea that the Cyan patch of the very, very old Macbeth ColorChecker falls out side sRGB color gamut.

Why he decided to resurrect a three year old post to illustrate his misunderstandings of color gamut is beyond me!

I suppose he’s getting his info from this site; here’s a hilarious article that gets virtually everything wrong and unfortunately people will accept and pass on here and elsewhere:

http://www.proglobalbusinesssolutions.com/5-tips-for-perfect-photo-printing-in-photoshop/

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-versus-photographic-colors.html

As your own link shows, the only actual image that exceeds sRGB does so "By doing a + 12 Saturation adjustment on both images, the areas of color clipping become obvious..."

The other examples are from a test pattern where one of the swatches is outside the sRGB gamut.

The Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) video below contains a comparison of the gamuts of some real world images plotted against sRGB. It clearly shows DSLRs capturing colors outside of sRGB in common everyday scenes. I've linked to the time at which the gamut comparisons start.

Yes, cameras can capture a wide range of colors, including imaginary ones beyond our perception. And Andrew shows this using ProRGB, a gamut with two imaginary primaries. My point is different: if you output the image of a natural scene, processed using an end-to-end color-calibrated workflow, the perceptible difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is not worth the bother.

But this is all a matter of opinion. Use whatever monitor you enjoy.

I agree. If you are printing then you can see a difference. The question is what is that difference worth? If you process an image within sRGB and obtain a photo which you like what does it matter whether scientifically some of the original colours were out of gamut?

Is there a reason to clip colors you’ve captured and can print? I think that’s a better question to ask.

Unless you are a forensic scientist you are after an aesthetically pleasing image and are free to use whatever colour Pallette you like. The extreme case is of course black and white. Nobody looks at a black and white photo and says "shucks they have lost a lot of gamut"

That’s not the goal! Further, if you did encode into a wide gamut space and convert to B&W, no issues. Convert to the output color space (be it print or for the web; sRGB), no problem!

Also, to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain

But thanks for making up a metric you just pulled out of your (you know what) from the unreality universe of alternative facts.

 

[Iliah Borg]

to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Even if so, how does it matter?

Suppose 99.999% of all the music is reproduced through a pair of crappy earbuds connected to a $0.5 player chip, where the difference difference between a 128 kbps and a 320 kbps recording, let alone a 128 kbps and a lossless recording is impossible to notice. Should the master be also recorded at 128 kbps?

Suppose, again, 99.999% of monitors are sRGB. That's today. What about in 15 years?

 

[IanYorke]

to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Even if so, how does it matter?

Suppose 99.999% of all the music is reproduced through a pair of crappy earbuds connected to a $0.5 player chip, where the difference difference between a 128 kbps and a 320 kbps recording, let alone a 128 kbps and a lossless recording is impossible to notice. Should the master be also recorded at 128 kbps?

Suppose, again, 99.999% of monitors are sRGB. That's today. What about in 15 years?

 

[Pictus]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

And often on this subject! Notice zero colorimetric proof; can he even plot the color gamut of images and if so, prove his point?

He probably has no idea that the Cyan patch of the very, very old Macbeth ColorChecker falls out side sRGB color gamut.

Here in Brazil we have a bird named "Saíra Sete Cores"(Tangara seledon), but
we should change the name to "Out of Gamut Bird".

To a more mundane stuff, today(wrong date in the EXIF raw) I took a photo of
a yellow leaf lit by the sun and it is out of sRGB gamut...



The same leaf in the shadow is not.
Visually comparing the sRGB/ARGB versions to the real thing, the sRGB version
is not equal and the ARGB is almost equal, just a bit more saturated than the
real thing when using the default ACR settings...
For anyone interested here the RAW file.

 

[digidog]

to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Even if so, how does it matter?

Suppose 99.999% of all the music is reproduced through a pair of crappy earbuds connected to a $0.5 player chip, where the difference difference between a 128 kbps and a 320 kbps recording, let alone a 128 kbps and a lossless recording is impossible to notice. Should the master be also recorded at 128 kbps?

Suppose, again, 99.999% of monitors are sRGB. That's today. What about in 15 years?

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Chill. My point was that people rave about their Images and the fact that some of them could look slightly different if printed or viewed on a large gamut monitor is actually not significant

You own such a wide gamut display? Define not significant (for those of us who wish to see colors outside sRGB).

Some people rave about McDonalds hamburgers and Spam and eggs; doesn't mean its something I'd eat by choice nor does it dismiss the rubbish Chris posted about color gamut (images and sRGB)!

Your analogy with music is flawed because you are not comparing similar situations. sRGB is a standard, you have no standard for headphones just different grades.

At one time, horse shoes were the standard accessary for a mode of transportation. Leaving the Amish aside, not too useful today.

As a side issue in Hifi dynamic range used to be considered vital but these days the source recordings are all Compressed to hell to make them have more "impact" so they sound good on cheap headphones.

Not my area of expertise but ALL recordings fall into that camp (the MacDonalds syndrome of sound)? Difficult to believe but if you’ve got some outside references to back that up, I’ll have learned something about ‘modern’ sound recordings.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Iliah Borg]

to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Even if so, how does it matter?

Suppose 99.999% of all the music is reproduced through a pair of crappy earbuds connected to a $0.5 player chip, where the difference difference between a 128 kbps and a 320 kbps recording, let alone a 128 kbps and a lossless recording is impossible to notice. Should the master be also recorded at 128 kbps?

Suppose, again, 99.999% of monitors are sRGB. That's today. What about in 15 years?

Chill.

Seriously?

My point was that people rave about their Images and the fact that some of them could look slightly different if printed or viewed on a large gamut monitor is actually not significant.

It is your point, other people may not share it, as you rightfully mentioned.

Your analogy with music is flawed because you are not comparing similar situations. sRGB is a standard,

De facto it is not a standard. There are no less then 9 different sRGB profiles used in different products, watch this: http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Have you ever read IEC 61966-2-1:1999? Do you know how Simplified sRGB that is used in many products deviates from sRGB and why?

You think a monitor claiming to be sRGB is indeed following "the standard"?

you have no standard for headphones just different grades.

As a side issue in Hifi dynamic range used to be considered vital but these days the source recordings are all Compressed to hell to make them have more "impact" so they sound good on cheap headphones.

"source recordings are all Compressed to hell" Ugh. Sounds like a compressed version of a conspiracy theory

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[digidog]

to put it into some kind of perspective, there is the reality that 99.999% of all photos are viewed within sRGB.

Even if so, how does it matter?

Suppose 99.999% of all the music is reproduced through a pair of crappy earbuds connected to a $0.5 player chip, where the difference difference between a 128 kbps and a 320 kbps recording, let alone a 128 kbps and a lossless recording is impossible to notice. Should the master be also recorded at 128 kbps?

Suppose, again, 99.999% of monitors are sRGB. That's today. What about in 15 years?

Chill.

Seriously?

My point was that people rave about their Images and the fact that some of them could look slightly different if printed or viewed on a large gamut monitor is actually not significant.

It is your point, other people may not share it, as you rightfully mentioned.

Your analogy with music is flawed because you are not comparing similar situations. sRGB is a standard,

De facto it is not a standard. There are no less then 9 different sRGB profiles used in different products, watch this: http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Have you ever read IEC 61966-2-1:1999? Do you know how Simplified sRGB that is used in many products deviates from sRGB and why?

You think a monitor claiming to be sRGB is indeed following "the standard"?

Perhaps he and Chris are working with a circa 1993-ish CRT with P22 Phosphors

you have no standard for headphones just different grades.

As a side issue in Hifi dynamic range used to be considered vital but these days the source recordings are all Compressed to hell to make them have more "impact" so they sound good on cheap headphones.

"source recordings are all Compressed to hell" Ugh. Sounds like a compressed version of a conspiracy theory

He’ll prove it’s true as I asked.... But let’s not hold our breath!

 

[Iliah Borg]

Your analogy with music is flawed because you are not comparing similar situations. sRGB is a standard,

De facto it is not a standard. There are no less then 9 different sRGB profiles used in different products, watch this: http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Have you ever read IEC 61966-2-1:1999? Do you know how Simplified sRGB that is used in many products deviates from sRGB and why?

You think a monitor claiming to be sRGB is indeed following "the standard"?

Perhaps he and Chris are working with a circa 1993-ish CRT with P22 Phosphors

Having it in the viewing conditions prescribed by that standard.

So many myths

I'm having two prints in a booth, one on Galerie Premium Gloss, the other on Galerie Prestige Smooth Gloss (11 and 12 mil). The second one is visibly better. But the difference is definitly smaller than between sRGB and Adobe RGB versions of the same image on my EIZO.

 

[naththo]

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.

I'm sorry you're going crazy.

Anyone can move sliders around in PP to push accurately-displayed colors outside the sRGB gamut. Garish saturation, HDR.... It proves strictly nothing.

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

Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut. A sliver of neon-glowing greens, that occur on the leaves of plants growing under the deep-shade canopies in jungles. Nothing in flowers, sunsets, skintones and the like. Wide gamut is strictly for graphic artists who like to play with "unnatural" colors.

Chris Noble you are wrong.

And often on this subject! Notice zero colorimetric proof; can he even plot the color gamut of images and if so, prove his point?

He probably has no idea that the Cyan patch of the very, very old Macbeth ColorChecker falls out side sRGB color gamut.

Here in Brazil we have a bird named "Saíra Sete Cores"(Tangara seledon), but
we should change the name to "Out of Gamut Bird".

To a more mundane stuff, today(wrong date in the EXIF raw) I took a photo of
a yellow leaf lit by the sun and it is out of sRGB gamut...



The same leaf in the shadow is not.
Visually comparing the sRGB/ARGB versions to the real thing, the sRGB version
is not equal and the ARGB is almost equal, just a bit more saturated than the
real thing when using the default ACR settings...
For anyone interested here the RAW file.

Last night I was editing Kite Festival photos, when I was using ACR photoshop. Then I came across one thing, red was terribly clipped in bright daylight but exposure was perfect. You would never be able to recover clipped red from Sony A7, impossible.