Could use some opinions and help with printing and screen workflow

[timatkins]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

(Or should I admit defeat and just use the Acer for editing my prints and the MSI for painting reference?)

thanks everyone!

Www.timothyatkins.com

 

[ColourPhil]

You don't say if you are using Soft Proof in PS, and if so to which (Printer) Profile?

Photoshop Soft Proofing & Viewing Images

Photoshop soft proofing, or viewing images using Colour Managementand ICC Profiles, an Introduction. Use in conjunction with monitor calibration

www.colourphil.co.uk

Also, your monitor settings and if you have printed a 'Standard' image to test them?

 

[timatkins]

You don't say if you are using Soft Proof in PS, and if so to which (Printer) Profile?

https://www.colourphil.co.uk/photoshop-proof-colour.shtml

Also, your monitor settings and if you have printed a 'Standard' image to test them?

'Thanks for the link! The softproofing i do is in the printer window, just before hitting print. Il start doing it via the view menu instead from now on!

Ive also never set the PS colorspace to anything but srgb. Now if im using Adobe rgb images ill switch to that!

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

Some thoughts:

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

* Second, the monitor does not have "98% AdobeRGB (after calibration)"; it has whatever gamut it is physically capable of displaying (probably at least somewhat affected by the brightness and contrast settings), possibly 98% Adobe RGB; but calibration can't increase that, only decrease it. Some monitors have 'sRGB' and/or 'Adobe RGB' modes, but--and I could be missing something here--I think for the large majority of people, using them is a mistake. IMO the best practice is to get the monitor to 'native' gamut or similar, calibrate and profile for that, and get what you get in terms of gamut.

* Third, the MSI monitor appears to be a gaming monitor, not a photography / design / art monitor, and I would not be shocked to learn that it has some feature or function--maybe able to be turned off, maybe not--that is designed to increase the 'wow' or 'pop' factor for gaming at the expense of accuracy for other uses. Maybe look at the settings on that.

 

[timatkins]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

Some thoughts:

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

* Second, the monitor does not have "98% AdobeRGB (after calibration)"; it has whatever gamut it is physically capable of displaying (probably at least somewhat affected by the brightness and contrast settings), possibly 98% Adobe RGB; but calibration can't increase that, only decrease it. Some monitors have 'sRGB' and/or 'Adobe RGB' modes, but--and I could be missing something here--I think for the large majority of people, using them is a mistake. IMO the best practice is to get the monitor to 'native' gamut or similar, calibrate and profile for that, and get what you get in terms of gamut.

* Third, the MSI monitor appears to be a gaming monitor, not a photography / design / art monitor, and I would not be shocked to learn that it has some feature or function--maybe able to be turned off, maybe not--that is designed to increase the 'wow' or 'pop' factor for gaming at the expense of accuracy for other uses. Maybe look at the settings on that.

Cheers, Yes i mention I have Win 10 next to where my laptop specs are stated.

I found there have been no problems for the computer switching profiles when changing between monitors. Ive checked every time under Color management, and will continue to check

Regarding not having a 98% adobe rgb after calibration, the spyder color checker says it does, and the review i posted says it does. THat is is intended for gaming is neither here nor there, it has the gamut it has. All of its bells and whistles have been turned off and the monitor reset before calibrating.

Most likely the monitor came with the adobe gamut "tuned down" from the factory as to not be "too" saturated when gamers use it out of the box. That was the biggest complaint in other reviews, that it was oversaturated. When I bought it with the old firmware the feature of an sRGB mode wasn't implemented. the latest firmware has this but Flashing the firmware required a GC with a display port which i didn't have. No matter since i calibrated it.

I actually managed to get prints that i was happy with after fiddling about with it most of the day yesterday. a lot of ducks have to be in a row but i think i figured out the workflow.

1.Make sure monitor has correct profile loaded and that PS's color setting is set to adobe rgb.

1 Edit from RAW.

2. export as 16 bit tiff to adobe rgb.

3. print

Most important thing was of course to always keep check of what color space I was working in, and stick to it. I learnt a lot!

 

[gscotten]

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

I have been running multiple calibrated monitors on Windows since 2012 (Windows 7) and have never had or even heard of that problem. I have used DispCal/Argyll as well as Colormunki software and they automatically set the profile for each monitor properly. It is also easy to select alternative profiles if you want to. I run three monitors.

I have never used the Spyder software, so perhaps that is where your reports came from.

 

[Box Brownie]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

Some thoughts:

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

* Second, the monitor does not have "98% AdobeRGB (after calibration)"; it has whatever gamut it is physically capable of displaying (probably at least somewhat affected by the brightness and contrast settings), possibly 98% Adobe RGB; but calibration can't increase that, only decrease it. Some monitors have 'sRGB' and/or 'Adobe RGB' modes, but--and I could be missing something here--I think for the large majority of people, using them is a mistake. IMO the best practice is to get the monitor to 'native' gamut or similar, calibrate and profile for that, and get what you get in terms of gamut.

* Third, the MSI monitor appears to be a gaming monitor, not a photography / design / art monitor, and I would not be shocked to learn that it has some feature or function--maybe able to be turned off, maybe not--that is designed to increase the 'wow' or 'pop' factor for gaming at the expense of accuracy for other uses. Maybe look at the settings on that.

Cheers, Yes i mention I have Win 10 next to where my laptop specs are stated.

I found there have been no problems for the computer switching profiles when changing between monitors. Ive checked every time under Color management, and will continue to check

Regarding not having a 98% adobe rgb after calibration, the spyder color checker says it does, and the review i posted says it does. THat is is intended for gaming is neither here nor there, it has the gamut it has. All of its bells and whistles have been turned off and the monitor reset before calibrating.

Most likely the monitor came with the adobe gamut "tuned down" from the factory as to not be "too" saturated when gamers use it out of the box. That was the biggest complaint in other reviews, that it was oversaturated. When I bought it with the old firmware the feature of an sRGB mode wasn't implemented. the latest firmware has this but Flashing the firmware required a GC with a display port which i didn't have. No matter since i calibrated it.

I actually managed to get prints that i was happy with after fiddling about with it most of the day yesterday. a lot of ducks have to be in a row but i think i figured out the workflow.

1.Make sure monitor has correct profile loaded and that PS's color setting is set to adobe rgb.

1 Edit from RAW.

2. export as 16 bit tiff to adobe rgb.

3. print

Most important thing was of course to always keep check of what color space I was working in, and stick to it. I learnt a lot!

According to the MSI specs on the monitor it is not aRGB compliant.

https://www.msi.com/Monitor/Optix-M...09*MTcxOTg1OTAzNi4xLjAuMTcxOTg1OTAzNi4wLjAuMA..

However, it does say....

DCI-P3 / sRGB

97% / 147%

Now quite what sRGB 147% means because I thought that sRGB in monitor terms was an expression of the Gamut it covers in regard to the "standard" sRGB gamut.

Now, again AFAIK aRGB is a much larger gamut than sRGB but if they are saying 147% that expanded sRGB(?) gamut does not necessarily mean it fully covers the aRGB gamut. Afteral if it did why would they not declare it so in the specifications?

I can only surmise because it's target market is video gaming the panel native may not include some of the colours within the aRGB gamut!

I hope someone with more science knowledge of this can throw some light on this?

PS I always feel I have more to learn, so if I needed corrections so be it

 

[timatkins]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

Some thoughts:

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

* Second, the monitor does not have "98% AdobeRGB (after calibration)"; it has whatever gamut it is physically capable of displaying (probably at least somewhat affected by the brightness and contrast settings), possibly 98% Adobe RGB; but calibration can't increase that, only decrease it. Some monitors have 'sRGB' and/or 'Adobe RGB' modes, but--and I could be missing something here--I think for the large majority of people, using them is a mistake. IMO the best practice is to get the monitor to 'native' gamut or similar, calibrate and profile for that, and get what you get in terms of gamut.

* Third, the MSI monitor appears to be a gaming monitor, not a photography / design / art monitor, and I would not be shocked to learn that it has some feature or function--maybe able to be turned off, maybe not--that is designed to increase the 'wow' or 'pop' factor for gaming at the expense of accuracy for other uses. Maybe look at the settings on that.

Cheers, Yes i mention I have Win 10 next to where my laptop specs are stated.

I found there have been no problems for the computer switching profiles when changing between monitors. Ive checked every time under Color management, and will continue to check

Regarding not having a 98% adobe rgb after calibration, the spyder color checker says it does, and the review i posted says it does. THat is is intended for gaming is neither here nor there, it has the gamut it has. All of its bells and whistles have been turned off and the monitor reset before calibrating.

Most likely the monitor came with the adobe gamut "tuned down" from the factory as to not be "too" saturated when gamers use it out of the box. That was the biggest complaint in other reviews, that it was oversaturated. When I bought it with the old firmware the feature of an sRGB mode wasn't implemented. the latest firmware has this but Flashing the firmware required a GC with a display port which i didn't have. No matter since i calibrated it.

I actually managed to get prints that i was happy with after fiddling about with it most of the day yesterday. a lot of ducks have to be in a row but i think i figured out the workflow.

1.Make sure monitor has correct profile loaded and that PS's color setting is set to adobe rgb.

1 Edit from RAW.

2. export as 16 bit tiff to adobe rgb.

3. print

Most important thing was of course to always keep check of what color space I was working in, and stick to it. I learnt a lot!

According to the MSI specs on the monitor it is not aRGB compliant.

https://www.msi.com/Monitor/Optix-M...09*MTcxOTg1OTAzNi4xLjAuMTcxOTg1OTAzNi4wLjAuMA..

However, it does say....

DCI-P3 / sRGB

97% / 147%

Now quite what sRGB 147% means because I thought that sRGB in monitor terms was an expression of the Gamut it covers in regard to the "standard" sRGB gamut.

Now, again AFAIK aRGB is a much larger gamut than sRGB but if they are saying 147% that expanded sRGB(?) gamut does not necessarily mean it fully covers the aRGB gamut. Afteral if it did why would they not declare it so in the specifications?

I can only surmise because it's target market is video gaming the panel native may not include some of the colours within the aRGB gamut!

I hope someone with more science knowledge of this can throw some light on this?

PS I always feel I have more to learn, so if I needed corrections so be it

Hello yes, it does cover 98% of the AdobeRGB gamut after calibration, thats what Spyder X software tells me after I calibrate it, and thats what the reviews say, (AFTER calibration). I dont think they use the AdobeRGB in marketing bc it doesn't mean anything to gamers (but 147% sRGB does)

It really is the least expensive wide gamut monitor you can buy, if you can calibrate it.

 

[Box Brownie]

Ive been trying accumulating so much information about colorspaces etc that my process is getting muddied and confusing., there are so many variables. I could use some fresh eyes and brains!

m a painter and I use photography as reference in my work. (I work from the screen) Its important that the ref is as true to life as possible. I also do prints of my work, so its important that I can edit on the screen and get what I see at the printout.

My gear is a

Camera: Sony a7r iv

Monitors : MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD Review - RTINGS.com

Acer B7 B277U review: One solid screen | ITPro

Printer: Epson P900

Scanner Plustek A320E (Vuescan so that I can get RAW files and use the color checker passport as ref in LR)

Color calibration : Spyder X Elite, Color Checker Passport 2 for photographing art and using for scanner.

Laptop: Legion 7, 32 gb ram, 16 gb 3080, Ryzen 7 5800x, Win 10

I recalibrate once a month. I use Display Cal for the MSI as the proprietary Spyder software doesn't recognize the MSI, but I don't really see a difference after calibration. It works fine on the Acer though.

I edit and paint in a room where ambient light is a dim and balanced 5700k.

My workflow is that i shoot in RAW, edit in Camera raw (PS) and then export a 16bit tiff to PS for final touches and then I print. Ive been using the Acer for a year and pretty much what I see on the screen is what I get at the printer. I print in RGB, no CMYK conversion.

I just got the MSI, a great bang for the buck 98% AdobeRGB (after calibration) but what I see on the screen does not match at all what I get at the printer. The prints are much less saturated. I set the monitors to quite a low brightness. When I switch between the 2 screens the pic looks great on the ACER, and prints like it, but if i change to the MSI, the photo looks way more saturated and quite horrible. It stil prints good though.

Id like to know where in my workflow Ive gone wrong, right now im not sure. What have I not thought of or perhaps overlooked?

Some thoughts:

* First and foremost, I don't see where you said you're running Windows or Mac OS. Certainly with Windows, I've heard that there are difficulties / obstacles to simultaneously running two calibrated and profiled monitors. In other words, I understand there are at least difficulties telling windows, 'Use this one ICC profile for monitor 1 and that other ICC profile for monitor 2.' Assuming that's still the issue that I understand it at least once was, one workaround would be to use two of the same model of monitor, bought at the same time and used the same amount, so that one ICC profile should be very close for both of them.

* Second, the monitor does not have "98% AdobeRGB (after calibration)"; it has whatever gamut it is physically capable of displaying (probably at least somewhat affected by the brightness and contrast settings), possibly 98% Adobe RGB; but calibration can't increase that, only decrease it. Some monitors have 'sRGB' and/or 'Adobe RGB' modes, but--and I could be missing something here--I think for the large majority of people, using them is a mistake. IMO the best practice is to get the monitor to 'native' gamut or similar, calibrate and profile for that, and get what you get in terms of gamut.

* Third, the MSI monitor appears to be a gaming monitor, not a photography / design / art monitor, and I would not be shocked to learn that it has some feature or function--maybe able to be turned off, maybe not--that is designed to increase the 'wow' or 'pop' factor for gaming at the expense of accuracy for other uses. Maybe look at the settings on that.

Cheers, Yes i mention I have Win 10 next to where my laptop specs are stated.

I found there have been no problems for the computer switching profiles when changing between monitors. Ive checked every time under Color management, and will continue to check

Regarding not having a 98% adobe rgb after calibration, the spyder color checker says it does, and the review i posted says it does. THat is is intended for gaming is neither here nor there, it has the gamut it has. All of its bells and whistles have been turned off and the monitor reset before calibrating.

Most likely the monitor came with the adobe gamut "tuned down" from the factory as to not be "too" saturated when gamers use it out of the box. That was the biggest complaint in other reviews, that it was oversaturated. When I bought it with the old firmware the feature of an sRGB mode wasn't implemented. the latest firmware has this but Flashing the firmware required a GC with a display port which i didn't have. No matter since i calibrated it.

I actually managed to get prints that i was happy with after fiddling about with it most of the day yesterday. a lot of ducks have to be in a row but i think i figured out the workflow.

1.Make sure monitor has correct profile loaded and that PS's color setting is set to adobe rgb.

1 Edit from RAW.

2. export as 16 bit tiff to adobe rgb.

3. print

Most important thing was of course to always keep check of what color space I was working in, and stick to it. I learnt a lot!

According to the MSI specs on the monitor it is not aRGB compliant.

https://www.msi.com/Monitor/Optix-M...09*MTcxOTg1OTAzNi4xLjAuMTcxOTg1OTAzNi4wLjAuMA..

However, it does say....

DCI-P3 / sRGB

97% / 147%

Now quite what sRGB 147% means because I thought that sRGB in monitor terms was an expression of the Gamut it covers in regard to the "standard" sRGB gamut.

Now, again AFAIK aRGB is a much larger gamut than sRGB but if they are saying 147% that expanded sRGB(?) gamut does not necessarily mean it fully covers the aRGB gamut. Afteral if it did why would they not declare it so in the specifications?

I can only surmise because it's target market is video gaming the panel native may not include some of the colours within the aRGB gamut!

I hope someone with more science knowledge of this can throw some light on this?

PS I always feel I have more to learn, so if I needed corrections so be it

Hello yes, it does cover 98% of the AdobeRGB gamut after calibration, thats what Spyder X software tells me after I calibrate it, and thats what the reviews say, (AFTER calibration). I dont think they use the AdobeRGB in marketing bc it doesn't mean anything to gamers (but 147% sRGB does)

It really is the least expensive wide gamut monitor you can buy, if you can calibrate it.

 

[timatkins]

You can turn the hdr off, and it does have an srgb mode in the newer firmware. I think you pretty mich misintrrpreted the review. Its says its not great for srgb bc that will be oversaturated (like all srgb content on a Adobe rgb setting). Calibration is "not needed" but that depends. For a game, probably not, for photoediting, absolutley you calibrate. , hdr is not good because there is barely any difference from sdr. Thats fine with me, its only for editing my reference material.

"The MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD has the largest color gamut we’ve ever seen and near-perfect out-of-box accuracy. sRGB content will be oversaturated though, and HDR doesn’t do anything for image quality"

--
Www.timothyatkins.com