Choosing a monitor

[col]

Ultimately for me,
a beginner and uneducated,

I want to enjoy looking at images and art.
There is a huge difference between my old laptop screen @ 17" and 1 million colors
and my entry level IPS @ 24" to make the change more than worth it.
I wish I could've skipped the 8 bit screen, but $
So yeah it's pretty darn neat to see a jpeg as good as it gets.
You'll probably get other stuff later
500 isn't too much for me but 2000 is

From what you say, it appears that you shoot in sRGB JPEG, which is what almost everyone uses, except for a minority (in overall terms) of enthusiasts and professionals that shoot raw or AdobeRGB.

At the moment I gather you are quite happy with the results and, as you say, the images will look vastly better on a 24" IPS screen than on almost any laptop screen.

Just be aware that as extended gamut screens become more widely available (your IPS 24" may even be extended gamut), you will not be able to see the full range of colurs that an extended gamut monitor is capable of displaying, because the standard JPEG files are incapable of storing information about those extended colours.

If the truth be known, the difference won't be all that dramatic, certainly not as dramatic as the difference between a laptop screen and any decent desktop screen. Nonetheless, as you learn more and become more discerning, you may later regret having shot your pictures in JPEG.

The alternative is to shoot in RAW or, if your camera has the option, shoot in AdobeRGB. Unfortunately both alternatives require that you know what you are doing, and will require more messing around. To derive any benefit from an extended gamut monitor you will need to view these images (derived from RAW or shot as AdobeRGB) using colour-managed applications (which excludes anything you do now with Windows), and you will need to produce a separate sRGB image for sending to friends or over the internet. Such is the currrent messy state of hardware and software imaging technology.

So yeah it's pretty darn neat to see a jpeg as good as it gets.

Not sure what you mean by this, but hopefully it is clear from the above that the standard JPEGS that you probably use now do NOT let you see the image as good as it gets on an extended gamut monitor. Improved future technology, either in hardware of software, or "getting other stuff later" won't help as regards the standard JPEGs you are shooting now, or have shot in the past. These images are condemned forever to be limited to viewing in a restricted gamut of colours.

[Paul Sumi]

Nonetheless, as you learn more and become more discerning, you may later regret having shot your pictures in JPEG.

The alternative is to shoot in RAW or, if your camera has the option, shoot in AdobeRGB. Unfortunately both alternatives require that you know what you are doing, and will require more messing around.

This is OT but these days, storage (memory cards and hard drive) is cheap.  Just do what I do with my G10 and shoot RAW plus JPG. The best of both worlds.

Paul

[Rocco Penny]

Ummm,
I do both now quite adeptly.
Not to say I dont' have serious and compelling gaps in knowledge and execution that by definition puts me in the company of novices, and with any equipment or software or hardware,
that will be a point to remember
I by no means have enough experience or theory to know,
but
I have been printing and viewing my images,
both in the softproof state on my IPS panel profiled with an eye1display2
and by viewing prints I make too numerous to say I'm good at it just yet,(1 good 1 is worth any # of bad 1s)
1 a day for a while, now flurries of a whole roll's worth
Planning is everything,
well,
IDK for sure how to explain it,
but the jpegs I have shot in the past,(no longer doing that unless I'm tossing shots on the internet)
look better on my 24" screen than my 17" screen.
In fact, as I look on my 24" more and more,
I can't see going back to a reduced gamut
I'm telling you I can see a terrific difference between my 17 inch lcd and my 24" lcd in the native state, much more when color managed...
So yeah that's what I'm saying,
I can absolutely vouch that at least in my case, jpegs viewed on
an 8 bit IPS monitor in win 32  using color managed apps in srgb and native everything except as directed by my colorimeter in the profiling step,
looks far better to me than my old top of the line in 2004 lcd screen on my laptop.
It just does.

[col]

Ummm,
I do both now quite adeptly.

but the jpegs I have shot in the past,(no longer doing that unless I'm tossing shots on the internet)
look better on my 24" screen than my 17" screen.
In fact, as I look on my 24" more and more,
I can't see going back to a reduced gamut
I'm telling you I can see a terrific difference between my 17 inch lcd and my 24" lcd in the native state, much more when color managed...
So yeah that's what I'm saying,
I can absolutely vouch that at least in my case, jpegs viewed on
an 8 bit IPS monitor in win 32  using color managed apps in srgb and native everything except as directed by my colorimeter in the profiling step,
looks far better to me than my old top of the line in 2004 lcd screen on my laptop.
It just does.

I aplogize for assuming you were a beginner as you modestly claimed to be - you are clearly quite experienced and adept.

Laptop screens (your 17") have a much smaller gamut than desktop screens, typically around half (!) so I'm certainly not surpised that your 24" desktop looks far better than your 17" laptop.

[col]

2. I don’t know how anyone defines “the industry” or how any group can define a universally accepted color space (we can’t even agree on a universal raw file format which is far more important IMHO).

What I mean, is for a wider color space (eg Adobe Wide RGB) to become universal in use, just as sRGB is currently the defacto standard for the internet, for Windows, and for virtually every camera manufacturer.
The "industry" is every hardware product, software product or user, that creates or uses image files.
Of course, the gamut of output devices such as monitors or printers is a function of the device itself, and gamut mapping must always take place when the image data is finally sent to the output device.
However, as I see it, and as I have read, unecessary moving between different color spaces is a very bad thing, and every time you do it, some guesses have to be made, and the fidelity of the image is reduced. The step in the chain that really irks me, is moving from the wide color space of the camera, to the very narrow, almost universally used sRGB color space of the JPEG image files created by almost every camera. That seems stupid, and I believe the only reason that camera manufacturers do it, is because Microsoft set the sRGB standard, and if you want your camera to sell, then you follow Microsoft or your'e out of business. The fact is that almost everyone uses Windows, and expects the default image files from their camera to be compatible with Windows and the internet.  
 

What will likely happen is more and more displays will have a extended gamut, the price will come down and sRGB will as I hope, become extinct.

Agreed. All I'm saying, is what color space do you hope will replace the present de-facto sRGB standard if it becomes extinct as we both hope? The sad reality is that Microsoft sets this standard, and it is most unlikely IMHO that Microsoft will adopt any competing standard such as Adobe, or PhotoPro from Kodak. Nonetheless, that does not stop us from discussing what we would ideally like to see happen ....

I again repeat my disclaimer that I know little about this complex subject, and encourage the experts to expose any naive statements or factual errors.

Colin

[col]

I wrote:

Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers?

This question has still not been answered to my satisfaction. The standard was introduced 14 years ago (not that long ago) by Microsoft/HP in 1996, and described in a document entitled "A Standard Default Color Space for the Internet - sRGB", which can be found here:

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.html

So, why was a wider color space not chosen for sRGB? Why didn't they choose something more like AdobeRGB, which would have been wide enough to encompass not only the gamut of monitors in use at the time, but also wider gamut monitors that would be likely appear in the future? The point I have been trying to make for some time, is that there must have been a specific reason why they deliberately made the sRGB colour space as narrow as they did, with no "extra space" whatsoever.

On further reading, including the above document, it becomes clear to me. sRGB was deliberately designed to match the color space of monitors of the day - not a scrap wider or narrower. The advantage of doing this, is that it avoids the need for colour management processing within Windows altogether, which was more than a little bit useful for Microsoft given that even to this day, most of Windows is not colour managed!! Sure, the colour gamut of everything in the chain is reduced to the lowest common denominator of sRGB, but was considered "good enough", and the simplicity of the scheme was irresistible. It avoids the use of ICC profiles, and is certainly better than having no standard at all in a non-colour-managed environment. Thus, the very reason for introducing sRGB in the first place would have been lost if the sRGB colour space had been defined wider than the "average" monitor of the day.  

To be fair to Microsoft, the sRGB approach has been more-or-less successful, but it's usefulness has disappeared with the advent of wide gamut monitors. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the legacy of the sRGB approach, with the existence of countless billions of sRGB JPEG image files that now cannot be viewed using the full gamut of colours available on todays monitors. Worse still, sRGB persists even today as the default colour space for the out-of-camera JPEGs taken by the vast majority of consumer cameras. However, we can't have it both ways. Hopefully cameras will slowly move to encoding out-of-camera JPEGs in a wider color space, but when this happens, we will necessarily need to frig with ICC profiles and use color managed applications, which for most of us includes Windows, which as yet is not up to the task. We live and hope.

Colin  

 

From the article reference above:

HP and Microsoft propose an additional means of managing color that is optimized to meet the needs of most users without the overhead of carrying an ICC profile with the image: the addition to the OS and the Internet of support for a Standard Color Space. Since the image is in a known color space and the profile for that color space would ship with the OS and browser, this enables the end users to enjoy the benefits of color management without the overhead of larger files. While it may be argued that profiles could buy slightly higher color accuracy, we believe that the benefits of using a standard color space far out-weigh the drawbacks for a wide range of users.

... we propose a colorimetric RGB specification that is based on the average performance of personal computer displays.

[digitaldog]

Why was the sRGB space defined so damned tightly in the first place anyway, without any "extra space" whatsoever to accomodate likely gamut expansion of monitors and printers?
This question has still not been answered to my satisfaction. The standard was introduced 14 years ago...
So, why was a wider color space not chosen for sRGB?

sRGB is a theoretical color space. It was designed to mimic the behavior of a well supported type of emissive display using specific phosphors, in a specific ambient condition (reference media). Since there were no such wider gamut display technology available to the masses, there was little reason to build a spec based on something that wasn’t widely available. As the document from MS states, the idea was to be able to deal with images in a common output (an old CRT display) without needing to use an actual ICC profile of the display itself or a profile in a document. Those displays are all but gone from the planet making the assumption about their color space (in the broadest strokes) a big assumption even before we consider more modern, wider gamut technology.

[Rory]

If the extended gamut monitor is not set to sRGB, and the software is totally dumb (like any part of Windows) then the software assumes (correctly) that my image file is sRGB, but does not know that it will be sending that image data to an extended gamut monitor. Presumably then, the dumb software happily sends the image data to the monitor, identically to how it would for any other monitor. The result will be that my restricted gamut image data is mapped to the full gamut of the monitor. To Joe public the result may even look impressive, but the vivid and saturated colours being displayed will bear little resemblance to the colours in the original scene that was photographed. For anyone that cares a fig about colour fidelity, using the extended gamut of the display in this way would be a truly awful thing to do, almost a crime ....

Actually, you can start by blaming your camera, or your decision on what camera to buy.  If you truly care about colour fidelity, then shooting in-camera jpg is a bad place to start.  ALL digitals cameras shoot RAW.  However, not all digital cameras allow you to save the RAW file.  They do the conversion to JPG in-camera, and they make a number of assumptions about colour profiling, tone curves, noise reduction sharpening.  The general public does not want realistic colours, or as you put it "To Joe public the result may even look impressive, but the vivid and saturated colours being displayed will bear little resemblance to the colours in the original scene that was photographed".  I can assure you that the Canon in-camera processing is not realistic, but embellished.

Regarding wide gamut monitors, why don't you try one out.  For the type of shooting you do, I doubt you will notice much difference.

[col]

I wrote:

On further reading, it appears that the extended gamut is a complete waste of time for me (and the majority of consumers), because my JPEGS are encoded in the standard sRGB colour space. The much wider range of colours which my camera (Canon G10) is capable of recording is irreversibly thrown away when the image is stored as a JPEG.
However you look at it, colours in the original scene that were out of the sRGB gamut, cannot be displayed correctly on a wide gamut monitor, because the sRGB file simply does not contain the information about these out-of-gamut colours in the first place.

If I want to properly exploit the full range of colours that can be reproduced on an extended gamut monitor, my best and most flexible option for future photos is to shoot raw.  

However, that still leaves the unfortunate issue of thousands of sRGB JPEGs that I have taken over the last 7 years or so. Millions of people must be in the same situation, and millions more will end up in the same situation as sRGB JPEG is still the most common default camera file type today. As per my previous statements above, conventional wisdom apparently has it that an sRGB file does not contain information about the out-of-gamut colours in the first place, so that's the end of the matter, and those out-of-gamut colours cannot be displayed.

However, is that strictly speaking true?

It would be true if the out of gamut colours were simply clipped to the nearest available in-gamut colour, but that method is not usually used for photographic work. I would presume that perceptual gamut mapping is used, in which case the out-of-gamut colours are NOT lost, but are compressed into the narrower sRGB colour space, and this is a "mostly" reversible process. Some useful references re gamut mapping are :-

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...-conversion.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html

To further make the point, perceptual mapping is also known as "Maintain Full Gamut". That sets the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?

That means that it should be possible to convert my sRGB JPEGs to AdobeRGB (aRGB), for example, while mostly retaining the information about colours that were captured by the camera, but out of the sRGB gamut. Can Photoshop, for example, convert from sRGB to aRGB, mostly maintaining the full gamut as I have described? If not, then why not?

It also means, that even without me specifically converting my sRBG files to aRGB, it should be possible to open sRGB files in any intelligent software/viewer, the application should uncompress the restricted gamut of colours within the sRGB file into its wide internal working colour space, and then optimally (probably perceptually) re-map the full gamut of colours to an extended gamut monitor, or a printer, or whatever.

In other words, provided perceptual mapping is used to create the sRGB in the first place, and presumably information about the type of rendering used is tagged to the file,  then what's the problem? The application that reads the file should seamlessly take care of everything, optimally displaying the full range of colours captured by the camera on any monitor. Is this actually what happens when an sRGB file is opened and displayed by Photoshop, for example. If not, then why not?

Colin        
 

[Czornyj]

It would be true if the out of gamut colours were simply clipped to the nearest available in-gamut colour, but that method is not usually used for photographic work. I would presume that perceptual gamut mapping is used, in which case the out-of-gamut colours are NOT lost, but are compressed into the narrower sRGB colour space, and this is a "mostly" reversible process.

Read it again, it's not that simple:

This means that conversion using relative colorimetric intent is irreversible, while perceptual can be reversed.  This is not to say that converting from space A to B and then back to A again using perceptual will reproduce the original; this would require careful use of tone curves to reverse the color compression caused by the conversion.

Besides, matrix ICC profiles v2 have no perceptual rendering intent. And when you're rendering the image to narrow editing space you can clip some tones intentionally, plus there'll be further data loss caused by 8 bit pallete conversion and jpeg compression.

[col]

Read it again, it's not that simple:
This means that conversion using relative colorimetric intent is irreversible, while perceptual can be reversed. This is not to say that converting from space A to B and then back to A again using perceptual will reproduce the original; this would require careful use of tone curves to reverse the color compression caused by the conversion.

And when you're rendering the image to narrow editing space you can clip some tones intentionally, plus there'll be further data loss caused by 8 bit pallete conversion and jpeg compression.

I had already read it carefully, and I chose my words carefully as well when I used the term "mostly" reversible.

Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.

My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.

Besides, matrix ICC profiles v2 have no perceptual rendering intent.

Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.  

[Czornyj]

I had already read it carefully, and I chose my words carefully as well when I used the term "mostly" reversible.

Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.

My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.


Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.

In a real world there's no simple method to get the colors back, and even if there would be a method, the information is partially lost by 8-bit encoding and jpeg compression. Digital cameras use perceptual gamut mappings, but I belive not only each camera maker has his own gamut mapping methods, but there are also many mapping options in each camera. The perceptual rendering intent is not always available - for example there's only v2 AdobeRGB ICC profile, so you can't convert sRGB image to AdobeRGB using perceptual intent. And so or so it wouldn't reproduce the original colors.

[digitaldog]

Can you elaborate? Does that mean that digital cameras do not use perceptual gamut mapping when producing the sRGB JPEG? If not, what method do they use, and why? Do all camera makes and models use the same gamut mapping method? I have a bad feeling that the exact details might get very complicated very quickly.

They don’t use ICC profiles for such mapping so its nearly impossible to say what they use in terms of mapping and clipping as this is all very proprietary.

[crames]

Let's be realistic. The out-of-gamut colours would nearly always represent only a small part of the image, and getting them back is a luxury, not a necessity. If the out of gamut colours can be recovered even in an approximate and imperfect manner, then then that is good enough, and would presumably be better than not getting them back at all.
       
        My basic point remains valid. Depending on exactly how the camera encodes the wide gamut of captured colours into the sRGB file, it may be possible to substantially recover information about the out-of-gamut colours, which is an interesting possibility that had not been considered in the discussions to date.

       
        There used to be Print Image Matching (P.I.M) from Epson, in which compatible cameras reversibly encoded the out-of-gamut colors. There is still a P.I.M plug-in for Photoshop available from the Epson web site. The plug-in also enables EXIF PRINT. I remember the plug-in working quite well, but besides the extra gamut it performs other enhancement to the JPEGs such as saturation and contrast boosts that are not controllable (but not terrible, either, for printing snap shots).

[col]

They don’t use ICC profiles for such mapping so its nearly impossible to say what they use in terms of mapping and clipping as this is all very proprietary.

Hmmm. I think that pretty much sums up the bottom line.

Although it might in principle be possible to largely recover the out-of-gamut colours in some cases, the lack of any standardization by camera manufacturers means that, for all practical purposes, the out-of-gamut colurs in sRGB JPEGS produced in-camera are lost forever.

In other words, it remains true that the extended gamut of many of today's monitors is completely wasted when viewing sRGB JPEGs, as most camera produce by default. Sad, silly, but true.

Microsoft's future solution appears to be a very wide colour space known as scRGB, and a new JPEG standard known as JPEG-XR. However, these are still in their infancy, and may or may not eventually become universal standards.

For the foreseeable future, if you want to use the greater range of colours available from an extended gamut monitor, then you need to shoot RAW, or in AdobeRGB if supported by your camera, and use a 3rd party colour-managed application for editing and viewing your pictures.

From my point of view the topic is pretty much wrapped up, though others may enjoy debating the merits of Microsoft's new solution.

Colin  

PS. I'll probably end up buying an extended gamut monitor anyway, as the better ones tend to be, and then set it to emulate sRGB ....  

[digitaldog]

In other words, it remains true that the extended gamut of many of today's monitors is completely wasted when viewing sRGB JPEGs, as most camera produce by default. Sad, silly, but true.

One could say that using sRGB is a complete waste of the data most capture and output devices can produce. I simply don’t see how throwing the baby out with the bath water (complaining about how wide gamut displays deal with a fairly archaic and, expect for web publishing, worthless encoding color space for the 21st century).

[col]

One could say that using sRGB is a complete waste of the data most capture and output devices can produce.

I agree entirely.

I simply don’t see how throwing the baby out with the bath water (complaining about how wide gamut displays deal with a fairly archaic and, expect for web publishing, worthless encoding color space for the 21st century).

My complaint has never been with wide gamut displays. Current technology can produce wide gamut displays at low cost, which I think is great, and we can expect even lower cost and wider gamut in the future. It's just a pity that the majority of photographers (and overall, it IS the vast majority of photographers), who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG, cannot exploit the benefit of these wide gamut monitors. If you look at the bigger picture, rather than your own situation or mine, then surely you must concede there is a problem here.

[lmwacctg]

Beware of the Dell 2408WFP.  I have one I bought last August and debated returning it, but ended up living with the shortcomings it has.  The worst is that it has very uneven brightness across the screen.  The left side for 2 or 3 inches in much brighter than the center.  The right side shows similar problems, but not quite as badly.  This is a very frequent problem among many people who have bought that monitor.  Some think it is resolved by different firmware fixes.  Some know better than that.  If you go to the forums on Dell's web site and search on this, you'll find enough to probably convince you.

http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/1916...1.aspx#19400841

Just a fair warning.  Best to take that one off your list.  I use it now as a backup monitor and not on my main work machine.  There are other problems, perhaps related to operating system and graphics cards, but it often will go into standby (black screen) mode soon after booting up and/or randomly after being on some time.

Mike

______________
http://BlueRockPhotography.com

Well, I acquired a Dell 2408WFP in February 09. It has worked like a charm ever since. None of these issues have shown up for me. Profiled with my ColorMunki I am very satisfied with the results and the ability to see what will print on my Epson 2880. There are of course many other steps one needs to take  (particularly with your workstation environment and lighting), but the experts in this forum have many posts that can lead you through that. They have helped me greatly.

Good luck in your selection.

Don

[Adam L]

I have a friend who has researched monitors for me to use for my photography work.  I'm just an amateur but wanted a monitor that would accurately reproduce color.   This is his response:

Monitors:
For a LCD monitor you'll want one that has IPS LCD panel technology, these give the best picture quality.  You'll be hard pressed to find these at local stores as most places will only carry lower end LCD's that use cheap TN panel technology. All of the monitors I list below are IPS LCD's

There are 2 new monitors from HP releasing next Wednesday and shipping April 5th from what I've read. These are the ZR22w & ZR24w. MSRP should be around $289 & $425, but may be lower with EPP.  If you don't want to wait to see what reivews say about these monitors, here is what I recommend....

On a budget:
NEC EA231WMI-BK 23 (about $330 shipped)
http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product...ad-c2fa8204f2a0
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6450...screen_LCD.html
Review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm

The review also compares the LCD to 2 other models you may want to consider depending on your budget. The HP LP2475w and the Dell U2410. They are both 1" bigger and about $200 more. Each has their pros and cons, but to get a REALLY good monitor you'll need to spend a lot more.

More expensive:
 NEC LCD2490WUXi2-BK $877
http://www.nec-display.com/ap/en_display/l...90_2/index.html
http://www.amazon.com/24-1920X1200-Wide-Bl...8/ref=de_a_smtd
Review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_2490wuxi.htm

[tokengirl]

It's just a pity that the majority of photographers (and overall, it IS the vast majority of photographers), who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG, cannot exploit the benefit of these wide gamut monitors.

I suspect that most people who shoot in-camera-default sRGB JPEG don't know the difference, and they don't want to either.  Plenty of them will buy these wide gamut monitors and will be absolutely thrilled with all the extra colors they think they can see just because it says wide gamut on the box.  

For those who do care, the solution is simple: stop shooting in-camera-default sRGB JPEGS.  It is far easier to learn to process RAW files than it is to convince Microsoft and other such companies that they are doing things wrong.  Being mad at these companies will not make your photos look better no matter what monitor you buy.