Adobe RGB monitor usage?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
MarkMyWords Forum Member • Posts: 72
Adobe RGB monitor usage?

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

Ron Poelman
Ron Poelman Veteran Member • Posts: 7,824
Re: Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB
4

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

Nailed it.
Not much point in producing stuff people can't see.

-- hide signature --

Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

 Ron Poelman's gear list:Ron Poelman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony SLT-A57 NEX5R A3000 +26 more
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 26,852
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
6

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing?

No. The general practice is to convert to sRGB before posting. The wider is the monitor gamut the better, because wider gamut allows to convert to sRGB in a more controlled fashion.

Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours.

It may be a matter of the colour management setup.

Adobe RGB intended for printing?

No. Printer profile is intended for printing.

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

300 cd/m² and 1000:1 contrast is disappointing?

-- hide signature --
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
1

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

Search DPR forum for color management, calibration, output profiles. You'll find threads with very good information on the topic.

The most important thing is that your software workflow should be color managed. This funky name says that the software is aware of: your monitor profile (usually profiled using a colormunki or equivalent at least), the working profile (as you edit images, what gamut is used?), the input profile (eg. your camera profile, tone curve, etc if it has) and then the output profile (which it's your choice).

So if I take a picture now, I know when I load into RawTherapee how the input will be processes depending on the camera I have, and if I want to use embedded profile, tone map, etc. [I am talking RAW, not sure how it works with JPG, probably simpler], my Display Profile is DCP6500 [custom made that I select from a drop down, after having created one with free software, that knows exactly what I see and how it translates to sRGB, etc], I will know my working profile is ProPhoto [this means it's a huge gamut, even if some colors are not able to be represented in my monitor], and when I save for web, I usually leave sRGB as output profile. I also know all the apps I use to make modifications are color managed. And since most browsers are color managed (some may require activating that?) I can also publish a JPG in the web with AdobeRGB as embedded profile. This means, a viewer with sRGB monitor using a color managed browser that reads the jpg, would know it was AdobeRGB, and would display properly even if they have sRGB, and if managed, and they have some gamut (say 98% AdobeRGB and they are using a monitor with the proper profile) they will display it as best as it can.

If you keep the RAWs, you can become more sophisticated in the future, when you get a ProPhoto monitor (fictional example), even if right now, you aren't sure what you are doing too well. Since all this I mention is about non RAW outputs.

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

Yes, 1:1000? I have an LCD by sharp in my Dell XPS. It has a beautiful gamut, covering about 99% of AdobeRGB, and 97% of DCP 6500 (Apple), and it's profile is that even some colors outside those gamuts can be displayed.

What I did is buy a $70 colorimeter (ColorMunki Smiles?), used a very powerful open source profiler that's also easy to use (but, it has so many options or the outputs are a bit technical...I just let it generate and manage the profiles), I had to uninstall all Dell color management stuff (really...was lowering the bit depth), then enable color management in my apps (RawTherapee, etc). Make sure they all use the correct calibrated monitor profile. Then review what was going on when I load a RAW in RT (many options), then ensure all apps really are using the display profile, then when I export a JPG be aware of what output profile I am choosing. So I did some tests after all this, and many of my images that some fel dull, or in forums where there's C&C, where they provided suggestions as in saturation, etc., I saw these again, now managed, and realized how dull they looked, and reopened the RAWs until now they looked well -now for real- and it was revealing. I've been posting this that others see brutally differently. I was also having them be too dark, or desaturated to avoid clipping ...but that clipping was mostly my previous low coverage monitor. So, the images came alive again. Then I explored seeing in my broswer the same images, under different profiles in 3 displays: iPhone, the low coverage one, and the wide gamut. After all that hassle with color management, they mostly look similar with the main difference being the profession that the different monitors have to make when one posts a picture in a wider gamut that the display can't render. But at least, properly done, that display knows what I intended, and tries to best represent what it can. As opposed to not knowing and displaying obliviously something that was not intend ended and completely off with regards to all variables.

I don't think AdobeRGB is used for "printing". I think there's a PRINTER PROFILE, which may vary by process. Adobe is used a lot by graphic designers of all sorts, and when it needs printed, it will translated using the printer profile and proofed before printed.

OP MarkMyWords Forum Member • Posts: 72
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

Iliah Borg wrote:

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

300 cd/m² and 1000:1 contrast is disappointing?

Demonstrably, yes.

Alongside the Huawei, with dark high contrast scenes, the Dell presents what appears to be almost a different image. It never achieves convincing blacks or anywhere near the contrast punch of the Huawei (which incidentally is rated at 450 nits maximum brightness and 1500:1 contrast ratio).

Looks like just looking at a spec sheet is misleading...

OP MarkMyWords Forum Member • Posts: 72
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

Iliah Borg wrote:

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing?

No. The general practice is to convert to sRGB before posting. The wider is the monitor gamut the better, because wider gamut allows to convert to sRGB in a more controlled fashion.

Yep - LR export seems to have sRGB conversion selected by default, which I've been using after editing in RAW. Presumably this conversion boosts the saturation of colours to approximate the wider gamut?

My problem occurred when using paint.net, and saving to jpeg. Colours on iPhone were dulled down badly, presumably because it didn't apply sRGB conversion to compensate for reduced display range?

OP MarkMyWords Forum Member • Posts: 72
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

fferreres wrote:

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

Search DPR forum for color management, calibration, output profiles. You'll find threads with very good information on the topic.

The most important thing is that your software workflow should be color managed. This funky name says that the software is aware of: your monitor profile (usually profiled using a colormunki or equivalent at least), the working profile (as you edit images, what gamut is used?), the input profile (eg. your camera profile, tone curve, etc if it has) and then the output profile (which it's your choice).

So if I take a picture now, I know when I load into RawTherapee how the input will be processes depending on the camera I have, and if I want to use embedded profile, tone map, etc. [I am talking RAW, not sure how it works with JPG, probably simpler], my Display Profile is DCP6500 [custom made that I select from a drop down, after having created one with free software, that knows exactly what I see and how it translates to sRGB, etc], I will know my working profile is ProPhoto [this means it's a huge gamut, even if some colors are not able to be represented in my monitor], and when I save for web, I usually leave sRGB as output profile. I also know all the apps I use to make modifications are color managed. And since most browsers are color managed (some may require activating that?) I can also publish a JPG in the web with AdobeRGB as embedded profile. This means, a viewer with sRGB monitor using a color managed browser that reads the jpg, would know it was AdobeRGB, and would display properly even if they have sRGB, and if managed, and they have some gamut (say 98% AdobeRGB and they are using a monitor with the proper profile) they will display it as best as it can.

If you keep the RAWs, you can become more sophisticated in the future, when you get a ProPhoto monitor (fictional example), even if right now, you aren't sure what you are doing too well. Since all this I mention is about non RAW outputs.

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

Yes, 1:1000? I have an LCD by sharp in my Dell XPS. It has a beautiful gamut, covering about 99% of AdobeRGB, and 97% of DCP 6500 (Apple), and it's profile is that even some colors outside those gamuts can be displayed.

What I did is buy a $70 colorimeter (ColorMunki Smiles?), used a very powerful open source profiler that's also easy to use (but, it has so many options or the outputs are a bit technical...I just let it generate and manage the profiles), I had to uninstall all Dell color management stuff (really...was lowering the bit depth), then enable color management in my apps (RawTherapee, etc). Make sure they all use the correct calibrated monitor profile. Then review what was going on when I load a RAW in RT (many options), then ensure all apps really are using the display profile, then when I export a JPG be aware of what output profile I am choosing. So I did some tests after all this, and many of my images that some fel dull, or in forums where there's C&C, where they provided suggestions as in saturation, etc., I saw these again, now managed, and realized how dull they looked, and reopened the RAWs until now they looked well -now for real- and it was revealing. I've been posting this that others see brutally differently. I was also having them be too dark, or desaturated to avoid clipping ...but that clipping was mostly my previous low coverage monitor. So, the images came alive again. Then I explored seeing in my broswer the same images, under different profiles in 3 displays: iPhone, the low coverage one, and the wide gamut. After all that hassle with color management, they mostly look similar with the main difference being the profession that the different monitors have to make when one posts a picture in a wider gamut that the display can't render. But at least, properly done, that display knows what I intended, and tries to best represent what it can. As opposed to not knowing and displaying obliviously something that was not intend ended and completely off with regards to all variables.

I don't think AdobeRGB is used for "printing". I think there's a PRINTER PROFILE, which may vary by process. Adobe is used a lot by graphic designers of all sorts, and when it needs printed, it will translated using the printer profile and proofed before printed.

Thanks for this detailed response - you've around the block with this I'll investigate monitor calibration as a next step I think.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 26,852
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
2

MarkMyWords wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

300 cd/m² and 1000:1 contrast is disappointing?

Demonstrably, yes.

I'm not sure you are not overlooking some other factor(s), like monitor settings, colour management, viewing conditions, or dynamic contrast. Maybe Dell tech. support can help you figuring that out?

Alongside the Huawei, with dark high contrast scenes, the Dell presents what appears to be almost a different image. It never achieves convincing blacks or anywhere near the contrast punch of the Huawei (which incidentally is rated at 450 nits maximum brightness and 1500:1 contrast ratio).

Looks like just looking at a spec sheet is misleading...

I know this monitor not just from specs.

-- hide signature --
StarPortraits
StarPortraits Regular Member • Posts: 393
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

Unless you are doing it for printing demands then stay away from adobe rgb Years ago I was into the adobe rgb thing. Calibrating monitors and all. Enough to make things confusing and awful. I just went all out to default srgb. Never had a problem since. It is like said what the rest of the world uses.

 StarPortraits's gear list:StarPortraits's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD +1 more
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 26,852
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
5

MarkMyWords wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing?

No. The general practice is to convert to sRGB before posting. The wider is the monitor gamut the better, because wider gamut allows to convert to sRGB in a more controlled fashion.

Yep - LR export seems to have sRGB conversion selected by default, which I've been using after editing in RAW. Presumably this conversion boosts the saturation of colours to approximate the wider gamut?

Working colour space in Lightroom has ProPhoto RGB gamut. Internal colour transforms are more or less optimized for Adobe RGB gamut.

My output colour space in a raw converter is always set to the widest sensible (it is ProPhoto in Lightroom / Adobe CameraRaw). I can alway convert to the necessary colour space in Photoshop, at a later stage, with the full control over the conversion, from fully automatic single-click operation to meticulous manual pre-adjustment of the image to compensate perceptually for the gamut compression.

My problem occurred when using paint.net, and saving to jpeg. Colours on iPhone were dulled down badly, presumably because it didn't apply sRGB conversion to compensate for reduced display range?

That's a typical effect when an application (paint.net in your case) is not colour-savvy and assumes some colour space (usually sRGB) for an input file and / or the output file doesn't have a proper colour space tag and / or embedded profile.

Check what your version of paint.net is doing in terms of colour management. This https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/114683-paintnet-42-is-now-available/?tab=comments#comment-560297 doesn't sound encouraging.

-- hide signature --
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

MarkMyWords wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing?

No. The general practice is to convert to sRGB before posting. The wider is the monitor gamut the better, because wider gamut allows to convert to sRGB in a more controlled fashion.

Yep - LR export seems to have sRGB conversion selected by default, which I've been using after editing in RAW. Presumably this conversion boosts the saturation of colours to approximate the wider gamut?

My problem occurred when using paint.net, and saving to jpeg. Colours on iPhone were dulled down badly, presumably because it didn't apply sRGB conversion to compensate for reduced display range?

iPhone has a wide gamut display, a very high quality screen, so the problem is at the time of exporting, not at all causes by iPhone having a smaller gamut. Actually, if it had a very narrow gamut, and was color managed (as iPhone is) this would boost saturation, the opposite of what you think happens.

jeffnles1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,462
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

I don't necessarily know if this is the "right" thing or not.  When posting to web, or social media or any other digital publishing, I use sRGB.  When I'm sending off to have prints made or publishing one that will be printed, I use AdobeRGB.

I've heard that was best but honestly, don't know if there is a better solution or not.  Interested in hearing the discussion here.

Jeff

 jeffnles1's gear list:jeffnles1's gear list
Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Sigma 1.4x EX DG Tele Converter Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Tokina 11-20mm F2.8 +3 more
Ron Poelman
Ron Poelman Veteran Member • Posts: 7,824
Have you compared the results in Print ?

jeffnles1 wrote:

I don't necessarily know if this is the "right" thing or not. When posting to web, or social media or any other digital publishing, I use sRGB. When I'm sending off to have prints made or publishing one that will be printed, I use AdobeRGB.

Jeff

Labs vary obviously, are they coming out the same or are the Adobes being preserved ?

-- hide signature --

Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

 Ron Poelman's gear list:Ron Poelman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony SLT-A57 NEX5R A3000 +26 more
jeffnles1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,462
Re: Have you compared the results in Print ?

Ron Poelman wrote:

jeffnles1 wrote:

I don't necessarily know if this is the "right" thing or not. When posting to web, or social media or any other digital publishing, I use sRGB. When I'm sending off to have prints made or publishing one that will be printed, I use AdobeRGB.

Jeff

Labs vary obviously, are they coming out the same or are the Adobes being preserved ?

I've used MPix, WHCC and a couple others.  Honestly, the colors look right so I guess they come out OK.  I do wildlife photography and nature photography.  As long as the colors are close and look natural it's really hard to tell.  Portraits where you need an exact match of a person's skin tone I'm sure is far more critical.

Jeff

 jeffnles1's gear list:jeffnles1's gear list
Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Sigma 1.4x EX DG Tele Converter Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Tokina 11-20mm F2.8 +3 more
graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 6,630
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
1

You have some contradictory statements here.

MarkMyWords wrote:

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

There are print colors outside the range of sRGB. A few in the case of a printing press, but if you are talking about pro photo inkjet printers, now a lot of colors are outside sRGB and a few are outside Adobe RGB. If I want people to see as many colors as possible in a print, I edit in Adobe RGB or bigger. I actually edit photos in ProPhoto RGB.

Next error, already mentioned, is that the iPhone X is NOT sRGB, but wide gamut P3. Much closer to Adobe RGB. Any difference is not because of the gamuts but because of the specs for the display profile + adjustments. For example, what white point is your monitor set to vs the iPhone X? And is the iPhone X using True Tone or Night Shift post adjustments which are additional color-altering steps?

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

This is also a contradiction. Part of the stated rationalization here for ignoring color spaces larger than sRGB is that "why bother if other people won't see it." But if you're going to print, the contrast ratio of ink on paper is often 250:1 or less, so why care about anything more? The only reason you care about 300:1 contrast ratio or more is for viewing on superbright devices turned up all the way.

This is the best advice in the whole thread:

fferreres wrote:

The most important thing is that your software workflow should be color managed. This funky name says that the software is aware of: your monitor profile (usually profiled using a colormunki or equivalent at least), the working profile (as you edit images, what gamut is used?), the input profile (eg. your camera profile, tone curve, etc if it has) and then the output profile (which it's your choice).

Absolutely true. Color management is the key to it. All of the concerns in the first post are not a problem at all for the posters in this thread who understand how color management works. We know that large gamuts are useful for preserving quality, so we don't want to pre-limit quality by working in sRGB all the time. We know that differences between devices are resolved by conversions using color profiles. We don't have to worry about the differences because we know how to deal with them. For example:

If you edit in one gamut but need to output for another gamut in a color-managed medium, you could leave it in the original gamut but make sure to embed the profile, so that color management on the destination will do the conversion on the fly.

If you edit in one gamut but need to output for another gamut displayed in a non-color-managed medium, you convert to the output gamut so that the the gamut is what the destination assumes. Since you know the destination won't recognize color profiles.

If two devices display different colors, to make them the same you not only have to calibrate and profile them, but the same target settings must be used. This may be impossible if one of the devices does not fully support color management, or if their capabilities are different. In that case you can assume sRGB...not to expect perfection, but just to get it looking as good as possible under the circumstances.

OP MarkMyWords Forum Member • Posts: 72
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

graybalanced wrote:

You have some contradictory statements here.

<good stuff snipped>

Appreciate the comprehensive info...but maybe work a little on the bedside manner.

graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 6,630
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
2

MarkMyWords wrote:

graybalanced wrote:

You have some contradictory statements here.

<good stuff snipped>

Appreciate the comprehensive info...but maybe work a little on the bedside manner.

Can you be more specific about that? Honest question. No rude language was used, no personally oriented comments. Maybe you took exception to me calling the original post's reasoning containing "contradictions," but that is a strictly factual statement, not anything personal. It was just a fact-based critique...probably far less harsh than any of us would receive at a photographic critique of our portfolios.

Also, we are not next to a bed.

sirhawkeye64 Senior Member • Posts: 3,746
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?

MarkMyWords wrote:

I have a Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D monitor with 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB. The extended colour gamut is very noticeable...unsurprisngly.

Is the general practice to use the monitor in sRGB mode for digital publishing? Most of the world doesn't have the Adobe RGB colour range. For example, my iPhone X displays quite differently to the monitor configured in Adobe RGB, e.g. substantially dulls/normalises some colours. Adobe RGB intended for printing?

As an aside, the UP2516D monitor has a disappointing contrast ratio (with no amount of adjustment) - my Huawei Matebook Pro much better for example.

I'm not an expert in this area, but everyone I've talked to has said for editing to use sRGB (or ProPhoto RGB) as Adobe RGB colors will look more dull overall, even though the color gamut is bigger.

With today's printers supporting sRGB and other color profiles, I think the use of Adobe RGB has become more of a preference than a necessity, more so than it was in the past maybe. I think in the past, if you were doing print work, most everyone worked in Adobe RGB. But I think times have changed, especially at the consumer/enthusiast level to a point where you can use either one and you're probably fine.

I'm sure there's a more technical explanation to differentiate the two, but my understanding is it's not widely used as much anymore, and most people (particularly hobbyists) use sRGB or ProPhoto RGB.

The biggest important thing, though, is to have a properly calibrated monitor, no matter what color space you're working in.

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Fujifilm X-T30 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +19 more
graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 6,630
Re: Adobe RGB monitor usage?
1

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

I'm not an expert in this area, but everyone I've talked to has said for editing to use sRGB (or ProPhoto RGB) as Adobe RGB colors will look more dull overall, even though the color gamut is bigger.

That's only true if the photo is seen in a non-color-managed environment and the profile is not embedded. If the image is exported and viewed correctly, the disadvantage mentioned does not exist, you get a wider range of colors instead.

It can still be true where non-color-managed web browsers and applications are used, but that has been declining in recent years. Things are changing.

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

With today's printers supporting sRGB and other color profiles, I think the use of Adobe RGB has become more of a preference than a necessity, more so than it was in the past maybe. I think in the past, if you were doing print work, most everyone worked in Adobe RGB. But I think times have changed, especially at the consumer/enthusiast level to a point where you can use either one and you're probably fine.

That's not true either. Printer gamuts have been steadily getting bigger, at least for the Epson and Canon photo quality pro printers popular in this crowd. Already bigger than sRGB, and today with some colors outside Adobe RGB.

Also, it's no longer true that most devices are sRGB. All Apple screens today, whether Mac, iPhone, or iPad, are wide gamut Display P3. So is Microsoft Surface, the desktops at least. Many PC screens have gone wide gamut, like Dell (90% P3) and Razer laptops. The screens on the high end Samsung devices are wide gamut, and that is probably true for other premium Android devices.

sRGB is rapidly turning into the 1990s anachronism that it is. Yes, it's safe to use it, but we have lost the reason that it is because sRGB matches most device screens, because that is no longer true.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads