Wide gamut displays – think twice

[Paddy C]

I've owned an NEC MultiSync LCD 2690WUXI for almost three years now.

And I just spent the last day and a half (or so) coming to grips with using an aRGB monitor to create for an sRGB space (the web, most people's screens). I've finally got things in order.

Of course I was aware of these issues as soon as I got the screen but for some reason didn't think a lot about them. I guess because I haven't done a lot of web work over the past three years I just ignored them.

At any rate, I know members here will be concerned with monitor quality/issues of colour and work flow. So I'll just say that if you are in the market for a new panel, think very carefully before buying a wide gamut display. It seems there may be some advantage in some circumstances, but I haven't been convinced from what I've read and if I was to go back in time three years one of the many things I would do would be to buy a "regular" panel.

 

[Ranchu]

Thank you for the tip. I've never had one of those, but I've always been skeptical. The saturation isn't that much of a concern it seemed to me, what I want is accuracy near neutral, which srgb does fine. Can you tell more about your experience and how you set up the monitor? Was it too bright? Thank you!

 

[Pablito]

I completely agree with Paddy C.
I have a NEC wide gamut display and the color rendition is much too saturated, even after being calibrated with a ColorMunki. My cheaper "regular" Dell is more accurate for when I'm printing. I am a photographer, not an imaging specialist and I can't for the life of me set up the NEC so the image is not oversaturated.

 

[Tim Gray]

I just got one (PA241) and it's great. When I edit my photos, I leave it in wide gamut mode. When I export for the web, I convert the photos to sRGB. When I'm not using the monitor for photo editing, I just pop open SpectraView (or Multiprofiler if you don't have SpectraView) and toggle over to sRGB mode.

Am I missing something?

 

[tlitody]

Most print output of photographs is sRGB. So you don't need an Adobe 1998 monitor most of the time. Problem is that if you are using Adobe 1998 output from your camera, then you can never see it without some clipping if you are using an sRGB monitor. This is easily resolvable by using sRGB output from your camera.
I spoke with a technician from Matrox a while back. His attitude was that most modern lcd montors simply don't need calibrating for the vast majority of people. If you work solely in the default sRGB then most output will be fine. Only when you start farting about with colour profiles and calibration from standard do people start running into problems.

 

[Ranchu]

That's true if you don't print, your monitor will be pretty much the same as any other uncalibrated monitor - D65 and BRIGHT. I do somewhat agree with the Matrox guy though, it is quite possible to twist a monitor so far from it's 'natural' state with calibration that it's just a big mess. If your prints don't match your monitor though, you'll likely try to make the monitor and the print match the file...

 

[Paddy C]

It depends on what you are using your computer/monitor for. I just thought I would mention it because when I researched monitors before making my purchase I never read any warnings about wide gamut displays. They were there, I just didn't find them.

Keep in mind that I'm speaking from a design perspective not solely a photography perspective.

In short, most of the world (web, OS, Word, etc.) is operating in the un-colour-managed sRGB space. A wide gamut monitor works in the aRGB, colour-managed space. The result is that, without making some changes, you will be seeing thinks differently. And if working on web sites you will potentially be creating images and graphics that will won't appear to most people as you intended.

A wide gamut display will show colour in an un-managed space as very saturated and bright. This cannot be "fixed" in some cases and does not represent a fault of the monitor.

Firefox 3 can be configured to run as colour managed. I just set this today and the result is wonderful. The web through Firefox now looks for me like it does for everyone else (ie in the sRGB space). But this is the only browser that can be so configured currently.

In order to get my web designs in Photoshop to output to this space I've created a colour setting file that allows me to work in sRGB while using photoshop. The critical part here (and contrary to one article I read) is to set working RGB to sRGB, not monitor or calibrated profile. The other critical thing is that Photoshop's Proof Colors should be disabled.

I can't comment on whether aRGB is useful for photographic work and printing. Some say it is and some say it really isn't. There seems to be no clear answer and I don't have experience in this area.

I mention all of this simply because wide gamut seems like a great idea, but I'm not convinced that it is of real benefit to the vast majority of users (a sentiment I've come across from different sources as I've looked into the matter).

Tim, I'm unaware of a simple way to toggle the sRGB mode. I work all day on my computer doing design work as well as occasional photo work. This involves a lot application switching and using an sRGB simulation mode is not practical nor really desirable.

 

[Ranchu]

In order to get my web designs in Photoshop to output to this space I've created a colour setting file that allows me to work in sRGB while using photoshop. The critical part here (and contrary to one article I read) is to set working RGB to sRGB, not monitor or calibrated profile. The other critical thing is that Photoshop's Proof Colors should be disabled.

Good tip, that makes sense (I think!). Photoshop will compensate for your monitor's characteristics, and you can still see if you're clipping srgb. If I'm understanding it correctly!

 

[Trooper]

Most print output of photographs is sRGB. So you don't need an Adobe 1998 monitor most of the time. Problem is that if you are using Adobe 1998 output from your camera, then you can never see it without some clipping if you are using an sRGB monitor. This is easily resolvable by using sRGB output from your camera.
I spoke with a technician from Matrox a while back. His attitude was that most modern lcd montors simply don't need calibrating for the vast majority of people. If you work solely in the default sRGB then most output will be fine. Only when you start farting about with colour profiles and calibration from standard do people start running into problems.

Someone else has the same opinion.

I'm convinced. I figure when I need to shoot Adobe someone will tell me. Until then, RFF and Facebook work fine with sRGB.

 

[Tim Gray]

Some monitors have the ability to toggle into an sRGB mode, like the NEC PA series. Works pretty well in my experience (so far). I'm usually in sRGB, and I flip into wide gamut when I'm editing photos, which is usually only on some evenings.

I really don't understand the sentence, "This involves a lot application switching and using an sRGB simulation mode is not practical nor really desirable." If you were doing all web work, you'd never have to switch the monitor into wide gamut mode. Calibrate it in sRGB mode just stay there all the time. Switching applications has no bearing on this.

Question, why would you ever set your working space to a monitor profile, calibrated or not? AdobeRGB or sRGB are legitimate working space profiles. If you are going to web and your working space is AdobeRGB, be sure to convert your file to sRGB. If you are only EVER going to web, then it makes sense to use sRGB as your working space and skip AdobeRGB completely.

 

[tlitody]

That's true if you don't print, your monitor will be pretty much the same as any other uncalibrated monitor - D65 and BRIGHT. I do somewhat agree with the Matrox guy though, it is quite possible to twist a monitor so far from it's 'natural' state with calibration that it's just a big mess. If your prints don't match your monitor though, you'll likely try to make the monitor and the print match the file...

Default colour on modern monitors is so good these days that all you need to do is adjust brightness and contrast which you can do by eye and get good results. How many people actually need exact colour matching. Very very few and those that do such as when doing product photography, can usually set colour manually to match known existing colours. For example, if you were photographing a box of cereal from a major manufacturer, the colour values for existing printing would be known and its easy to adjust to those colour values without them looking the same on a display. i.e. you don't have to do it by eye. You only need screen matching if you are working by eye rather than by colour matching by measurement. Those that do need exact will do it by measurement.

 

[Ranchu]

Default colour on modern monitors is so good these days that all you need to do is adjust brightness and contrast which you can do by eye and get good results. How many people actually need exact colour matching. Very very few and those that do such as when doing product photography, can usually set colour manually to match known existing colours.

I think you're right. I have a spyder elite which cost me a decent amount of rolls of film, but the monitor I'm on now I set with Apple's visual monitor calibration. I'm pretty good at matching the brightness and color patches, the granularity of the calibration could be improved, though. I think the onlty thing that matters with a *well behaved* monitor might be a consistent neutral, but the overall brightness of the display is impossible to set specifically without a calibrator, and I think that's a critical element. Need to have one for crt's too, imo. I like those the best.

 

[craygc]

I also use an NEC LCD 2690WUXi2 Monitor and understand exactly what you're saying. However, this range of monitors has been specifically designed for colour managed environments/workflows and was never aimed at providing accurate colours outside of that - and it does this very well. I will admit that the reds in icons and so forth on the monitor are a little overly saturated though :bang:

Even with colour managed web browsers, it can still have issues when images don't have profiles embedded; and until the last release of Firefox (at least on the Mac) the colour management engine had been screwed up for about the previous 4 updates, which was frustrating and I had to use Safari if I wanted accurate colours.

Again, one very good argument for regular monitor calibration, regardless of how good you think modern monitors are out of the box or eye-balled, is that they all drift over time. I found this out the hard way years ago when using an non-calibrated Apple Cinema display and thought my images looked good so why calibrate. Over months or a year or two I began to not like the appearance of many images and thought it was just my personal taste changing. Nah, it was a drifting monitor, so I was continually screwing around with images because the monitor was inconsistent - in my opinion, for the amount of effort involved in achieving a final image, a calibrated monitor is well worth it. And for accurate photo work, the NEC wide gamut monitors using SpectraView II to calibrate is unbeatable

...I'm pretty good at matching the brightness and color patches...

The problem with this eye-balling approach is that it is impossible to be consistent. The human eye is not that good.

 

[Ranchu]

The problem with this eye-balling approach is that it is impossible to be consistent. The human eye is not that good.

I'm not sure calibrators are either, they may be consistently inaccurate. It's basically a digital camera, and I haven't found skin tones to be very good on many of them. Plus, it's reading the light emitted by a fluorescent tube. My eyeball knows what skin tones look like in the real world - accurate- , I don't see why it would suddenly be unable to discern color or brightness differences on a monitor. The Apple thing works by matching neutrals, which isn't *that' difficult. I'm not moving the primaries around, I don't think I could do that accurately.

 

[Tim Gray]

My eyeball knows what skin tones look like in the real world - accurate- , I don't see why it would suddenly be unable to discern color or brightness differences on a monitor. The Apple thing works by matching neutrals, which isn't *that' difficult.

The real issue with this is that your gray that you see in your photo might not actually a real neutral gray. And this might drift over time. Judging skintones by eye is great too, unless you monitor is adding too much magenta to them systematically, and you are adjusting it out, leaving everyone greenish.

Sure, calibrators might be not 100% up to spec, but assuming the calibrator isn't drifting as well, at least its giving you a *consistent* target. That being said, a lot of decent monitors are pretty good out of the box. And a lot of laptop screens stink.

The other nice thing about calibrating your monitor is when you are working outside of a closed loop system. If you know just how to adjust your photos on screen so they match prints from your printer, that's all good and fine. If you want to send some out to be printed elsewhere, you might have to start all over. If you are working in a color managed workflow, you *should* be able to just ship your images off to different printers and get back reasonably well-matched photos.

 

[Paddy C]

Some monitors have the ability to toggle into an sRGB mode, like the NEC PA series. Works pretty well in my experience (so far). I'm usually in sRGB, and I flip into wide gamut when I'm editing photos, which is usually only on some evenings.

I believe my NEC does, but it is not an easy "on/off" type switch (at least that I can see). It seems to require turning the monitor off and then turning it on again while holding down another key. This enables you to access a special menu where you can select sRGB simulation.

I really don't understand the sentence, "This involves a lot application switching and using an sRGB simulation mode is not practical nor really desirable." If you were doing all web work, you'd never have to switch the monitor into wide gamut mode. Calibrate it in sRGB mode just stay there all the time. Switching applications has no bearing on this.

In the course of an hour I might switch between Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, and a web browser multiple times. It's a rare day (or even half day) when I have the opportunity to work only on a web project without interruption.

Question, why would you ever set your working space to a monitor profile, calibrated or not? AdobeRGB or sRGB are legitimate working space profiles. If you are going to web and your working space is AdobeRGB, be sure to convert your file to sRGB. If you are only EVER going to web, then it makes sense to use sRGB as your working space and skip AdobeRGB completely.

I don't know why you would set working RGB to your monitor profile either, but that's what was recommended in one article (note that this article was about designing for the web and had nothing to do with wide gamut displays). The author seemed to think it was beneficial to disable colour management as much as possible. I disagree.

Working in aRGB and then converting to sRGB is not a good idea when designing for the web. If you are selecting say a red background colour for a web site while working in aRGB on a wide gamut monitor and then convert it to sRGB, chances are the colour you wanted will now look relatively desaturated. The conversion introduces unpredictable shifts in colour. This is why it is better to adopt an sRGB workflow whenever designing/editing for the web and/or other screens.

Note that in many photographs these shifts will be less visible and less bothersome. They become much more of an issue with solid colour and matching CSS declared colours.

 

[Tim Gray]

I believe my NEC does, but it is not an easy "on/off" type switch (at least that I can see). It seems to require turning the monitor off and then turning it on again while holding down another key. This enables you to access a special menu where you can select sRGB simulation.[\QUOTE]

It's much easier with the new NEC monitors. You either select the mode through the menu button, or just select it via a program. Takes about 15 secs.

In the course of an hour I might switch between Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, and a web browser multiple times. It's a rare day (or even half day) when I have the opportunity to work only on a web project without interruption.

Ok, so just leave it in sRGB mode all the time. I don't see what the issue is? That's essentially what you are doing anyway by having a non-wide-gamut monitor. Except it might not even reproduce all of sRGB.

It's what I do. I leave it in sRGB mode 90% of the time. The web looks correct, as does everything else on my system which isn't properly color managed. I only switch to wide-gamut mode when I am editing photos for 'fine art'. While these often get converted to sRGB for flickr and suck, that's not their final destination; print is.

The added bonuses of using a monitor like this in this manner is that you get one that reproduces 100% of sRGB when calibrated for sRGB, is calibrated (assuming that that works the way it should), has built in compensation for uneven illumination on the screen, and can toggle over to wide-gamut when you need it for a specific job.

I will be honest, I waffled over picking up a monitor for all the reasons discussed in this thread until the new NEC PA monitors came out. It seems like these monitors finally worked out some of the compromises of using a wide gamut monitor in a manageable way, and at a price point that was attainable by a hobbyist. I'd recommend the PA241, even without Spectraview and the color sensor, to most photographers. Toggle between AdobeRGB or sRGB from the Multiprofiler application as needed and you are good to go. And if you never come out of sRGB mode, that's fine too, there are still several features that are very useful and make it a super normal-gamut monitor.

Working in aRGB and then converting to sRGB is not a good idea when designing for the web.

Yup. That's why I said:

If you are only EVER going to web, then it makes sense to use sRGB as your working space and skip AdobeRGB completely.

For my photos though, the web is a secondary output. I'd rather keep them in a wider gamut space because those spaces cover some of the gamut of many printers that sRGB doesn't.

 

[Paddy C]

It's much easier with the new NEC monitors. You either select the mode through the menu button, or just select it via a program. Takes about 15 secs.

That's nice. I'll continue to look into it but I don't think that option is available for the monitor I own.

Ok, so just leave it in sRGB mode all the time. I don't see what the issue is? That's essentially what you are doing anyway by having a non-wide-gamut monitor. Except it might not even reproduce all of sRGB.

That is an option, assuming my monitor is capable of simulating sRGB well. From what I was able to read there seemed to be a general consensus that the 2690 and 3090 are not that good when they simulate sRGB. I don't know and it's another thing I'll have to look into some more when time permits.

It's what I do. I leave it in sRGB mode 90% of the time. The web looks correct, as does everything else on my system which isn't properly color managed. I only switch to wide-gamut mode when I am editing photos for 'fine art'. While these often get converted to sRGB for flickr and suck, that's not their final destination; print is.

The added bonuses of using a monitor like this in this manner is that you get one that reproduces 100% of sRGB when calibrated for sRGB, is calibrated (assuming that that works the way it should), has built in compensation for uneven illumination on the screen, and can toggle over to wide-gamut when you need it for a specific job.

I will be honest, I waffled over picking up a monitor for all the reasons discussed in this thread until the new NEC PA monitors came out. It seems like these monitors finally worked out some of the compromises of using a wide gamut monitor in a manageable way, and at a price point that was attainable by a hobbyist. I'd recommend the PA241, even without Spectraview and the color sensor, to most photographers. Toggle between AdobeRGB or sRGB from the Multiprofiler application as needed and you are good to go. And if you never come out of sRGB mode, that's fine too, there are still several features that are very useful and make it a super normal-gamut monitor.

This seems like a good solution. I wasn't aware of this series. Unfortunately not available at the time I bought mine. And mine is still running great and I'm not keen to replace it as I don't have the money to do so at the moment. NEC doesn't even sell the 2690 now. But interestingly, the 3090 has the same sRGB "feature" listed as your PA241.

 

[Ranchu]

The real issue with this is that your gray that you see in your photo might not actually a real neutral gray. And this might drift over time. Judging skintones by eye is great too, unless you monitor is adding too much magenta to them systematically, and you are adjusting it out, leaving everyone greenish.

Yes, but I'm talking about matching neutrals by eye in the visual calibrator. If I'm accurate at it, my monitor won't be adding too much magenta. Unless my monitor is inherently magenta. I had one of those, and the spyder elite didn't fix it completely. Helped, but not enough to make the monitor usable.

Sure, calibrators might be not 100% up to spec, but assuming the calibrator isn't drifting as well, at least its giving you a *consistent* target. That being said, a lot of decent monitors are pretty good out of the box. And a lot of laptop screens stink.

One day I think I'll run the Apple thing three times in a row and compare the profiles generated in colorsync. Then I'll see how consistent I am. Kind of grueling though.

The other nice thing about calibrating your monitor is when you are working outside of a closed loop system. If you know just how to adjust your photos on screen so they match prints from your printer, that's all good and fine. If you want to send some out to be printed elsewhere, you might have to start all over. If you are working in a color managed workflow, you *should* be able to just ship your images off to different printers and get back reasonably well-matched photos.

This makes sense, and of course is the reason color management was developed. The monitor errors may have more of an impact than calibration errors though, *within reason*.