Some examples that show why a wide gamut monitor matters:

[digidog]

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

 

[digidog]

Chris Noble wrote: Nonsense. There are almost no naturally-occurring colors outside the sRGB gamut.

Except when there are! Trip this week to Chicago, where unlike Santa Fe, they have a spring with lovely flowers provided raws that indeed provide colors that are naturally occurring outside sRGB gamut.


Flowers shot on 5DMII raw. The above is of course rendered and uploaded HERE in sRGB.


Solid plot: sRGB. JUST ONE angle showing colors of above flowers that easily fall outside sRGB Gamut.

Colorimetric proof the text above in red is rubbish, provided without a lick of testing and based on assumptions.

EDIT, update. Here’s the raw rendered into Adobe RGB which clips colors. It illustrates two facts lost on Chris:

1. There’s a reason our cameras allow rendering of a JPEG into Adobe RGB (1998)!
2. There’s colors from the raw to Adobe RGB (1998) that of course, fall outside sRGB, disputing Chris idea that almost no naturally-occurring colors fall outside the sRGB gamut.
3. It illustrates that Adobe RGB (1998) has too small a color gamut for working from raw data as of course, Adobe suggests as well:

Black plot is sRGB. OF COURSE we find colors from naturally-occurring images outside the sRGB gamut.

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

 

[krisbg]

Hello!

Let me resurrect this ancient thread.

So, I understand completely the need for using ProPhoto RGB as a working space and to use as wider gamut monitor as possible. I still have one concern in that regard though: that need is mainly for people, who want to preserve in their prints the more saturated colors, which only ProPhoto RGB could provide, but what about the opposite point of view - if we аrе aesthetically satisfied with what we see on our sRGB or Adobe RGB monitor, and don't want any additional saturated colors, which might ruin more muted, pastel-tone images? Is it possible that, when using ProPhoto RGB as working space, what we see on the screen will not match the print, and more unwanted saturated colors could show up on the print? I guess the answer might be to post-process in ProPhoto RGB and at the end, before converting to an output profile (no matter whether we will do it ourselves or the printer will do that conversion), as an intermediate step to convert to the working space of which our monitor is capable (sRGB or Adobe RGB), so we make sure we send for printing exactly what we see? When we want on the other hand to print the extra colors, which ProPhoto RGB could provide, but still have control, I guess the only way would be through making test prints, and people as me who don't have a printer, or have a print lab, which is distant both physically and in terms of not being cooperative to make too much tests, we are cursed to work "blindly" with the extra colors?

And one more question: for web publishing purposes is there some standard process, which could make a photo, viewed on an sRGB monitor, to look closer to how the same photo would look on an Adobe RGB monitor? I guess the simple answer would be "no", due to the very fact that sRGB cannot provide same saturation levels as Adobe RGB, but what about the colors, which are inside sRGB and still could be slightly increased in saturation, and their hue tuned slightly, without falling outside Adobe RGB? Having in mind the numbers, with which the pure green, pure red and pure blue for both working spaces are defined, is there a set of hue and saturation corrections which we could apply to and image to make it look closer to how it would look on an Adobe RGB capable display? Apologies if this questions is so silly, as it looks to me even before posting it.

 

[Iliah Borg]

if we аrе aesthetically satisfied with what we see on our sRGB or Adobe RGB monitor, and don't want any additional saturated colors, which might ruin more muted, pastel-tone images?

If those saturated colours are present in the scene, and you don't want them than mute them. Clipping such colours by automatic conversion to a smaller gamut working space is one of the ways to mute colours, but it lacks any control over muting and may result in posterization.

Is it possible that, when using ProPhoto RGB as working space, what we see on the screen will not match the print

It's the same deal with any working colour space, sRGB included. A few things to check:

• - the printer profile is correct,
• - the monitor is calibrated and profiled,
• - viewing conditions are satisfied,
• - colour management is through and through,
• - one follows best practices (soft proofing and numbers check among those).

as an intermediate step to convert to the working space of which our monitor is capable (sRGB or Adobe RGB), so we make sure we send for printing exactly what we see?

I don't know of any printer capable of reproducing full sRGB or Adobe RGB gamut. On the other hand, pretty much any printer is capable of reproducing colours that are outside of Adobe RGB gamut.

we are cursed to work "blindly" with the extra colors?

Soft proofing and checking numbers...

is there some standard process, which could make a photo, viewed on an sRGB monitor, to look closer to how the same photo would look on an Adobe RGB monitor?

Colour management.

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

 

[krisbg]

Thank you for taking the time to reply!

I have some additional questions:

1. For Web proofing how should I proceed? My ViewSonic VP2785-2K monitor, which according to the specs supports 114% Adobe RGB and 154% sRGB, has the option to switch between Adobe RGB and sRGB. Should I use that one directly or leave the monitor always in Adobe RGB, and use the soft proofing in PhotoShop, using Internet Standard RGB profile for proofing? I get different results in both cases - if I switch to sRGB from the monitor menu, brightness is reduced too much and the colors look too dull, so it is almost impossible to compensate that with any additional post-process adjustments to the photo, while if I leave the monitor at Adobe RGB setting, and use PhotoShop soft proofing, colors and brightness are much better, but I am not sure which of the two approaches is closer to a real sRGB-only device, and also, when doing it with the PS soft proofing, there is almost no difference between the original and proofed images looked side by side, which is also strange. My monitor has never been calibrated, since it was bought, and I use the standard ICC profile, which came with the ViewSonic monitor driver, color management is turned on in Windows and that profile is selected as the default for the monitor. If I turn off the color management in Windows, colors look even a tad better, and to achieve the same looking colors with color management turned on, I have to bump a little the saturation and vibrance of the image, shift it slightly toward reds and deepen slightly the blacks. I am still not sure though whether to use monitor's sRGB switch or PS soft proofing with sRGB. Or maybe the third option would be exactly to have the same image open in another application with Windows color management turned off, and to open it also in PS with Windows color management turned on, and that way to try to achieve the look of the non-color managed image?

Additionally, I guess I should leave always Preserve RGB Numbers switch in the custom proofing settings turned off, since when it is turned on, the colors look horrible?

2. For proofing for printing to a specific printer and specific paper, should I have two different profiles for the printer and paper, or I should have one profile, created for the combination of printer and paper? If I am not able to obtain such a combined profile, which would be better to use for soft proofing - the printer profile or the paper profile?

 

[IanYorke]

Thank you for taking the time to reply!

I have some additional questions:

1. For Web proofing how should I proceed? My ViewSonic VP2785-2K monitor, which according to the specs supports 114% Adobe RGB and 154% sRGB, has the option to switch between Adobe RGB and sRGB. Should I use that one directly or leave the monitor always in Adobe RGB, and use the soft proofing in PhotoShop, using Internet Standard RGB profile for proofing? I get different results in both cases - if I switch to sRGB from the monitor menu, brightness is reduced too much and the colors look too dull, so it is almost impossible to compensate that with any additional post-process adjustments to the photo, while if I leave the monitor at Adobe RGB setting, and use PhotoShop soft proofing, colors and brightness are much better, but I am not sure which of the two approaches is closer to a real sRGB-only device, and also, when doing it with the PS soft proofing, there is almost no difference between the original and proofed images looked side by side, which is also strange. My monitor has never been calibrated, since it was bought, and I use the standard ICC profile, which came with the ViewSonic monitor driver, color management is turned on in Windows and that profile is selected as the default for the monitor. If I turn off the color management in Windows, colors look even a tad better, and to achieve the same looking colors with color management turned on, I have to bump a little the saturation and vibrance of the image, shift it slightly toward reds and deepen slightly the blacks. I am still not sure though whether to use monitor's sRGB switch or PS soft proofing with sRGB. Or maybe the third option would be exactly to have the same image open in another application with Windows color management turned off, and to open it also in PS with Windows color management turned on, and that way to try to achieve the look of the non-color managed image?

Additionally, I guess I should leave always Preserve RGB Numbers switch in the custom proofing settings turned off, since when it is turned on, the colors look horrible?

2. For proofing for printing to a specific printer and specific paper, should I have two different profiles for the printer and paper, or I should have one profile, created for the combination of printer and paper? If I am not able to obtain such a combined profile, which would be better to use for soft proofing - the printer profile or the paper profile?

The Viewsonic VP2785 uses hardware calibration so the profile is stored in the monitor. I think that you have to restart Windows in order for it to register the change in profile.

The best option is to always use wide gamut and soft proof for smaller gamut uses.

Ian

 

[krisbg]

Thank you! My monitor is currently connected to the PC only with the DisplayPort cable - do I need the USB connection as well, if the profile has to go to the monitor? Currently it seems that I only need to restart an application, so it catches whether color management is toggled in Windows 10, no need to restart the whole OS.

Using the wide gamut in the monitor and soft proofing doesn't show any change in the proofed image. May I assume that's normal?

 

[IanYorke]

Thank you! My monitor is currently connected to the PC only with the DisplayPort cable - do I need the USB connection as well, if the profile has to go to the monitor? Currently it seems that I only need to restart an application, so it catches whether color management is toggled in Windows 10, no need to restart the whole OS.

Using the wide gamut in the monitor and soft proofing doesn't show any change in the proofed image. May I assume that's normal?

I am not sure, you may be right it only needs to restart the application, I was trying to remember there was an issue.

You will see a difference if you soft proof if any colours in the original colour space are outside the destination space. There is normally a toggle in the software to indicate with a grey overlay out of gamut colours. What software do you use for soft proofing?

Ian

 

[krisbg]

I use Photoshop for soft proofing and gamut warning.What still bothers me we the soft proofing an gamut warning approach is that the image looks slightly different than if I remove the monitor profile in Windows and turn off color management.

Also I watched some videos, stating that the gamut warning is buggy and for example if in proof setup you choose the same profile as the working profile, it still will show some out of gamut warning where it shouldn't because the source and destination color space are equal, but that might have been in the past as in CC 2023 it works properly and doesn't show any gamut warning.

 

[Iliah Borg]

What still bothers me we the soft proofing an gamut warning approach is that the image looks slightly different than if I remove the monitor profile in Windows and turn off color management.

Turning off colour management in Photoshop isn't possible (since v. 5.5).

I wonder what's the purpose of removing monitor profile.

Also I watched some videos, stating that the gamut warning is buggy

 

[krisbg]

What still bothers me we the soft proofing an gamut warning approach is that the image looks slightly different than if I remove the monitor profile in Windows and turn off color management.

Turning off colour management in Photoshop isn't possible (since v. 5.5).

I wonder what's the purpose of removing monitor profile.

I mean removing the manufacturer profile for my monitor from Windows color management and turning off Windows color management. I was thinking that way I was going to work in sRGB, as Windows will default to sRGB profile, but in that case actually all colors are more saturated due to the lack of proper translation of sRGB to Adobe RGB, so that part of what I wrote is wrong and would not work.

I found one more way to proof in sRGB though, and it is by turning Custom Color to On and Color Temperature Control to Off through AMD graphic card settingds, so now again I am wondering which of the three methods to proof against sRGB is best - through AMD settings, by monitor settings, or through soft proofing in Photoshop?

Also I watched some videos, stating that the gamut warning is buggy

Yes, this is the video. I have the feeling though that since it was created, the gamut warning might have been fixed, as when I soft proof against the working profile in PS there are no more out of gamut warnings, as stated in the video

 

[Iliah Borg]

What still bothers me we the soft proofing an gamut warning approach is that the image looks slightly different than if I remove the monitor profile in Windows and turn off color management.

Turning off colour management in Photoshop isn't possible (since v. 5.5).

I wonder what's the purpose of removing monitor profile.

I mean removing the manufacturer profile for my monitor from Windows color management and turning off Windows color management.

I was thinking that way I was going to work in sRGB, as Windows will default to sRGB profile, but in that case actually all colors are more saturated due to the lack of proper translation of sRGB to Adobe RGB, so that part of what I wrote is wrong and would not work.

I found one more way to proof in sRGB though, and it is by turning Custom Color to On and Color Temperature Control to Off through AMD graphic card settingds, so now again I am wondering which of the three methods to proof against sRGB is best - through AMD settings, by monitor settings, or through soft proofing in Photoshop?

The effort should be towards correct and solid colour-managed workflow, regardless of video cards. If you don't have a device to calibrate and profile the monitor, visual soft proofing is close to useless.

Also I watched some videos, stating that the gamut warning is buggy

Yes, this is the video. I have the feeling though that since it was created, the gamut warning might have been fixed, as when I soft proof against the working profile in PS there are no more out of gamut warnings, as stated in the video

You can ask Andrew if he has any amendments:

Loading…

www.digitaldog.net