Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitors sRGB versus aRGB  (Read 29757 times)
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« on: January 18, 2008, 12:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

I'm a new member to this forum, so first off, hello!

I'm looking for real use feedback on using wide gamut aRGB monitors such as the high end Eizo's and particularly the NEC 2690, which I am about 98% ready to buy. My only concern is how much of an issue there is in working on narrow gamut images - Andrew Rodney the Digital Dog uses the example of a bride in a white dress - on these monitors.

How much of an issue do you find this is - in real world use - working in Photoshop and Lightroom, especially if you are pulling curves and doing quite extreme colour treatments?

I work predominantly in the aRGB space, delivering Tiff files profiled to aRGB to advertising, editorial and corporate clients (though I often frequently also deliver jpgs converted to sRGB for web use now as well) and starting to make fine art prints on an Epson 3800. PS CS2, Lightroom, Mac OSX 4.11, G4 box and MacBook Pro, dying Lacie CRT 19" montor - in other words only a laptop screen and a CRT with fading luminance if I do need an sRGB monitor to work alongside a wide gamut one.
My budget for 2008 only allows me to buy one monitor this year so my choice really is going to have to be one wide gamut monitor (NEC 2690) or one sRGB monitor (probably the NEC 2490).

Thanks for any thoughts you may have!

nick
Logged
Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2008, 09:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

You would not be looking a this monitor?   http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=22420

I have the 2690 and wish I could add something to the discussion but to tell you the truth unless I had an sRGB lcd next to it to compare too I could not tell the difference at the moment.  This is my first lcd and I only do printing for myself.  Not as involved as you are.  What concerns would there be with narrow gamut images?  The only thing that I have noticed at the moment are files looking red that have been downsized using 'save for web' in PS.  I went back to using Save As.   This is a general discussion I would like to get more info on also.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 09:20:51 AM by Craig Murphy » Logged

CMurph
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2008, 12:58:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Craig,

I don't have the budget, desktop real estate or need for the 30" version right now. I'm imagining that in 12 months time I'll probably go for a dual monitor set-up that may or may not include an sRGB monitor, depending on what I can find out.  
I find it quite interesting that there is really so little talk - or any that I could easily find anyway - about how using these wide gamut monitors effects our real world workflow. The main issue I have heard of is the example of the white dress image, a low gamut image where changes made to similar colours, say with curves adjustments, becomes problematic as what is seen on screen is not necessarily what is "really" happening or even that those changes may be hard to see. I've seen suggestions to use  2 monitors, one wide gamut, one sRGB, but of course budgets and circumstances don't always allow for such solutions. Unfortunately, being a right brain type, a lot of the technical discussion that others are able to engage in unfortunately goes right over my head. I try to keep up with it, but sometimes I find that real use responses are a much better guide. As I have seen hardly any major complaints on the forums about the wide gamut monitors, I think I'm going to assume that the issues are there, but are reasonably easily dealt with.

PS I think the save for web issue you are seeing may (or may not) be a different issue. There's some profile choices and viewing options that may be effecting things there.
Logged
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2008, 04:01:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I am also interested in this discussion and seem to behind the curve when it comes to understanding monitors. If anyone knows of websites where I could learn more or quality reviews/articles I truly would appreciate it? Thanks Jeff
Logged
AndreG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2008, 07:08:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

Last weekend, I just received an EIZO CG241W. I had two Samsung's 19in. LCD before until one died after 5 years of constant duty. The difference was stunning. The monitor was very bright with stunning colors. There's a huge notice to reduce the intensity to protect your eyes in the delivery box.

The monitor has a automatic dimming switch. I have set to 65% in a dim room. Much kinder to my eyes and it assure's a constant level viewing. But there again, I can't say for sure, if I am doing this right. The EIZO documentation is very poor some written in Japanese.

Yes, I my view there is a noticible difference between aRGB and sRGB. I find it easier to view the minute modifications in Lightroom and Photoshop compared to old sRGB Samsung's (1000$ units) particularly for soft proofing.  

The difference was minute between the printing calibration and the Web. But with the Eizo, this has changed quite a bit. There is a difference and should be. The Gamut are different particularly more so if you work on a PC. The IE7 does not take the sRGB Gamut into consideration.

It seems to be a well kept secret. I am still searching for articles from the Gurus on the subject. This said, I am not so sure of my printing calibration of the new screen. Yes, I know have two setting's one for sRGB (no calibration) and aRGB calibration for printing until the Web move's up to aRGB Gamut.

After such an affirmation, it's time to point out that I am not positive that my  calibration is right.  


CALIBRATING

Eizo documention suggest D65 120 cd/m2.

I used Gretag McBeth Eye-One Match with a Eye On Display 2 to calibrate my old monitors without complaints, life was good with minute differences.

With the EIZO, I tried the Eye-One Match, ColorNavigator CE (Comes with the Eizo) and Color Eyes. Color Eyes responds far better. I have tried calibrating as suggested D65 120/cd  L* but with a distinct red cast.  A calibration of D50, L*, 110 cd/m seems a better match for my Epson 3800.

If I repeat back to back calibration with the same values they dont come out the same, close but not the same. I am still trying to get it right. I sure would like to see a screen shot of a ColorEyes calibration done on a CG241W to confirm the calibration. The screen is new and I should way till it stabilize. I would like to point out that support questions set to Eizo have yet to materialise.

I would also to point out that I am not condoning a product but just stating what I am observing and do not want to start a calibrating war. The support of ColorEyes is exemplary. The new screen and new Gamut just forced me to move up to a new level of understanding of Color Management. I have yet to be confortable and assimilated the new material.

Yes, to answer Nick's question, on my part, I do notice a difference the two Gamuts and in my view I should if not, what a waste of money.

The question on the table: are others observing this also ?
Logged

NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2008, 03:29:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Pratic,

Thanks so much for your feedback. From all that I've heard elsewhere, that's a beautiful monitor you've got there. I have seen some discussions about calibrating it elsewhere. Unfortunately I don't have them bookmarked as it's out of my budget this year. I might have seen something on the AppleLists>colorsync forums. They can be quite techy and discuss such things in detail. I'm sure a good Google search will help.
Have you had the chance to do much Photoshop work with the new monitor? Particularly on low gamut images, say an overcast snowy landscape or a foggy morning, something without saturated colors. How about a clean skin tone like a close up portrait lit with natural overcast light? How do the skin tones on the cheek react if a curve is applied to expand contrast? Can you see what is happening to adjacent colors?
I guess what I'm asking is: are you still able, or maybe better able now, to work VISUALLY on your images in PS / LR on the wide gamut monitor? Or are you finding that with certain images (low gamut) that you need to check the numbers in the info palette more than you used to?

Thanks!
Logged
AndreG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2008, 06:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nick,

Thank you for the reference, I will search for it.

Before I continue, I am not a Guru in the matter so please take my observations with a grain of salt. I only can share what I see and I am experiencing with this new monitor.

I shoot only in RAW with a DSM2. At first the color seemed so saturated and bright it cautioned me to try all three calibration software that I own. Still, the colors are more saturated and warmer. There is a noticeable difference in my case between an aSRGB and a sRGB. I have yet to conduct to shoot a Gretag Color Chart and check it's accuracy.

« I guess what I'm asking is: are you still able, or maybe better able now, to work VISUALLY on your images in PS / LR on the wide gamut monitor? Or are you finding that with certain images (low gamut) that you need to check the numbers in the info palette more than you used to? »

It is a resounding YES to your question if I can work more visually rather than by the numbers. I still verify the info palette but to confirm and yes, I am now able to view to a greater extent the details in the shadows areas.

I cannot go further till I get the time to work seriously in PS and LR. At first glanced, in LR, I have to readjust the photos to the new monitor.

What surprised me most was Softproofing. Comparing the same image with different personalized print profiles. In the past, I had to toggle a lot to visualize the differences, not now! The minute shades are now very noticeable. Some might think, his old monitor was good for the dump. Not quite, it's a 1000$ monitor. Working two monitors side by side I can still compare to the old.  

To conclude, time will tell if my calibration results are good by confirming them by printing when time allows.

André
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2704


« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2008, 06:45:35 AM »
ReplyReply

This is all pertinent up to a point Would a print printed using an image that was edited with the old monitor and a print printed editing with the new monitor not come into the equation using the same printer otherwise there can't be a legitimate comparison
Logged

NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2008, 10:37:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Stamper, I'd say you are part way right. Final image is of course important, but so is the process to get there. Creativity is in the journey, not the destination. I'm quite sure someone with good skills could come up with essentially identical prints / files with either monitor type, what I am interested in is how these wide gamut monitors effect the process of getting there. Do they make it easier, harder, are they better if you are doing minimal post work - say you are working mostly from a Raw converter like LR without getting into PS - what are they like when you are pushing the boundaries in PS with curves and hue/saturation shifts??? My guess, because I haven't had the opportunity to work on one of these yet, is that it generally becomes visually easier to work on a lot of images (as Andre suggests), but some of the tech gurus out there (Digital Dog etc) have cautioned that certain images (low gamut) may actually become harder to work on, visually. What I am interested in is, how much harder and how does that effect my workflow? As I have seen little chatter on the forums complaining about wide gamut monitors, I am assuming the pros outweigh the cons.  


Quote
This is all pertinent up to a point Would a print printed using an image that was edited with the old monitor and a print printed editing with the new monitor not come into the equation using the same printer otherwise there can't be a legitimate comparison
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
BoBLL7
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2008, 06:23:35 PM »
ReplyReply

NickJB:

I also did extensive research on the NEC's 2490 and 2690, especially about the sRGB vs AdobeRGB dilemna.

This is what I found that cover all you need to know :
Extensive thread on 2490 and 2690

On page 2, an engineer from NEC, manager of the OEM product design & development, contributed to the thread. Also, page 7 has is conclusion.

I'll hope you'll find valuable infos there, as I did. I finally bought one of the NEC screens... the one that suited my needs.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 06:23:58 PM by BoBLL7 » Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2008, 07:16:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
NickJB:

I also did extensive research on the NEC's 2490 and 2690, especially about the sRGB vs AdobeRGB dilemna.

This is what I found that cover all you need to know :
Extensive thread on 2490 and 2690

On page 2, an engineer from NEC, manager of the OEM product design & development, contributed to the thread. Also, page 7 has is conclusion.

I'll hope you'll find valuable infos there, as I did. I finally bought one of the NEC screens... the one that suited my needs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read that thread with some interest - although I have to say I think some of the logic being applied for choosing an SRGB gamut monitor is flawed.

Fundamentally [correct me if I am wrong]- its ideal to have a monitor that is capable of displaying a color space = to or greater than that of the images you wish to view. Since this isnt possible with todays monitors and photographs in the Pro Photo space as an example the next best thing is to have monitor that displays as largae a color space as possible. is it not?

The only arguement I can see for selecting a monitor with a small color space like SRGB is because you need to compromise between image editing on the display and other software apps that are not color managed or color aware that cause issues with large gamut monitors.

If you are processing images for the web on the 2690 ARGB gamut monitor - lets say working on a 16 bit Tiff in Pro Photo RGB in CS3 and u want a web version - all you need to do is 'convert to profile' SRGB to dumb down the image and assign the SRGB profile for the web. If you click save for web I am pretty sure it automatically converts the image to the SRGB color space. Now you have used a rendering intent to deal with the out of gamut colors outside the SRGB space and either clipped them or compressed them into SRGB space. The image on screen is now in the SRGB space.

Am I missing something here?

Edit - As a 2690 Spectraview II owner I have found that operating with this monitor to be an absolute joy - and its much easier to see subtle shading and detail in processing than before. I have had no issues when converting to SRGB space for web and then viewing the imges on other monitors. I should add. softproofing and choosing a rendering intent is much easier on this monitor - the differences are clearer and easier to see than my previous screen.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 07:23:21 PM by Josh-H » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2008, 07:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

If an image fall in a smaller gamut than Adobe RGB (1998) (or the 93% of Adobe RGB of the NEC you mention), then you do want a smaller gamut display IF you're working on subtle colors.

The wider the display gamut, the farther apart the colors in a smaller color space are. This doesn't mean you can't work on smaller gamut images, but the differences in say R124/G45/B78 and R124/G45/B78 are harder to see.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2008, 08:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If an image fall in a smaller gamut than Adobe RGB (1998) (or the 93% of Adobe RGB of the NEC you mention), then you do want a smaller gamut display IF you're working on subtle colors.

The wider the display gamut, the farther apart the colors in a smaller color space are. This doesn't mean you can't work on smaller gamut images, but the differences in say R124/G45/B78 and R124/G45/B78 are harder to see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yoh Dog,

Just come back from PMA Today-- the new EIZO CG301W on stand states 97% Adobe RGB Coverage
Put some of my p45 files on it --Oohhhhh yummy! better than my Apple 30

Price -- Gulp!--$5200USD

Des
Logged
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2008, 08:32:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello,

Last weekend, I just received an EIZO CG241W. I had two Samsung's 19in. LCD before until one died after 5 years of constant duty. The difference was stunning. The monitor was very bright with stunning colors. There's a huge notice to reduce the intensity to protect your eyes in the delivery box.

The monitor has a automatic dimming switch. I have set to 65% in a dim room. Much kinder to my eyes and it assure's a constant level viewing. But there again, I can't say for sure, if I am
With the EIZO, I tried the Eye-One Match, ColorNavigator CE (Comes with the Eizo) and Color Eyes. Color Eyes responds far better. I have tried calibrating as suggested D65 120/cd  L* but with a distinct red cast.  A calibration of D50, L*, 110 cd/m seems a better match for my Epson 3800.

The question on the table: are others observing this also ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi,

At PMA today the EIZO rep said that the Full Japanese Color Calibration Kit/Hardware plus the existing Software exJapan was too costly to implement in the US  shipped versions.
hence as most users had their own Hardware --they deemed it a no no addition.

Great Monitors though--the new 30' is amazing.

Des
Logged
BoBLL7
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2008, 09:59:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Josh-H :

You are exactly right in all your statement. As long a you are operating in color-managed apps, the wide gamut is a no brainer. The choice for me to go with a sRGB monitor, is because for now this monitor must also have a «versatile» usage, ie (word twist here) Internet explorer and others day-to-day non color-managed apps.

So, for me, stepping from a 19" CRT with phosphor passing away to a 24" LCD sRGB, is a kind of «small step for man, huge step for mankind ;-)

But I understand, and everyone's choice would be, to go upon your main usage of the monitor. The 2690 is ideal in a specific AdobeRGB environment; the 2490 is the one for the versatile usage, or the «non-sure I'll mainstream the usage of this monitor to photos and printing exclusively».

I can be wrong, but anyhow, both are tremendous displays, and still, your assesments are right : you can color-convert aRGB image into sRGB with no problem, But when you have to comments on pictures on the web, you dont have the real picture IF you are using IE with a wide-gamut monitor.

But there's hope! Sooner then later, browsers will be color-management aware.... Like some already are.

regards,

BobLL7
Logged
nik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2008, 12:38:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Nick,

Probably of bigger concern is that you use aRGB and print to an epson 3800. I'd suggest mapping from RAW into a bigger colorspace like ProPhoto (lightroom's default), in 16bit and then print to your printer from photoshop. Right now you're limiting the capability of your printer as it's able to print colors that are outside the aRGB space.


Some sites that may be of interest regarding color management in general;

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Answers

http://www.josephholmes.com/links.html

and of course, www.digitaldog.net

-N
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2008, 08:11:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yoh Dog,

Just come back from PMA Today-- the new EIZO CG301W on stand states 97% Adobe RGB Coverage
Put some of my p45 files on it --Oohhhhh yummy! better than my Apple 30

Price -- Gulp!--$5200USD

Des
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At $1200 and "4%" less 4 inches smaller, you can get an NEC 2690. They have a 30" as well, don't know the price but it ain't $5K!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2008, 10:20:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They have a 30" as well, don't know the price but it ain't $5K!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171496\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, got some pricing, its $2199, supposed to ship in March.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2008, 12:15:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that link Bo. That was a very good thread, especially as at last I saw why people are complaining about the wide gamut monitors. It's not because the wide gamut monitors were problematic, it's because they wanted to use them to browse websites..... well, yeah, not what they are made for (OK I'm being a little facetious!!). Helped a lot.
Andrew, is there a way to tell if an individual image is wide or narrow gamut? I only ever shoot RAW - well apart from "happy snaps" on a P+S but that doesn't count - and using the Nikon D2X I set the camera to capture in aRGB. Still even with this workflow, shooting a snowy field on a foggy day is going to result in a low gamut image, correct? The thing I don't properly understand is that invariably one part of an image can be low gamut, but another part wide gamut. In that snowy field could be a model wearing a very brightly coloured dress, lit with strobes to pump saturation and colour variation. So now we have wide and narrow gamut in the same image. This is a simplistic example of course because all images have a range of closely matching values and wider spaced ones. Obviously you're not going to be looking at the close matching values on an sRGB monitor and the widely spaced values on an aRGB monitor. Is this once again a case of making a creative decision about what part of the image is the most important? If so, great! I can easily make creative decisions, it's the technical ones that get tricky.
I think I need to stop with the theory and get on with buying and using the 2690!!

cheers!

nick    

Quote
I also did extensive research on the NEC's 2490 and 2690, especially about the sRGB vs AdobeRGB dilemna.

This is what I found that cover all you need to know :
Extensive thread on 2490 and 2690

On page 2, an engineer from NEC, manager of the OEM product design & development, contributed to the thread. Also, page 7 has is conclusion.

I'll hope you'll find valuable infos there, as I did. I finally bought one of the NEC screens... the one that suited my needs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Hellstan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2008, 08:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Still hesitating between Eizo CG241 (wider format) and CG211 (better neutrality for pictures, my only  usage for it).
Any experience, anyone ?
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad