Apple XDR Pro Display for Photo Editing

[TechTalk]

Another link to an article which you may find useful, this time with more photos for illustration and comparisons and fewer graphs.

http://www.astramael.com

Something to keep in mind is that these working (editing) color spaces — like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, sRGB, Rec. 709 — are all color spaces with defined gamuts which provide a common frame of reference. They are often used or referenced as standards within certain industries or among those working in creating content and producing output. They do not represent the native gamut of any particular device, however. A particular printer or monitor, for instance, will have its own color gamut which may lie within or extend outside of a working color space gamut or another device's color gamut

What Apple calls P3 (Display-P3) is an Apple creation that differs from the DCI-P3 which has been a standard color space for digital cinema production. Anyone can speculate as to why Apple created their own "P3" color space and I'll give my best guess (pure speculation). I suspect Apple sees (or at least dreams and imagines) the future of image content being predominantly viewed on Apple iPhone displays, iPad displays, or other Apple device displays and are trying to move content creators in that direction by making Apple Display-P3 the universal Apple device standard.

Apple sometimes refers to their altered version as simply "P3". I suspect that they want their altered Display-P3 version to be considered the de facto standard which creators use for editing and producing content rather than DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB. It's interesting that Apple simply ignores the fact that Adobe RGB even exists as a common working space in the photo and print world with their latest displays and selectable color modes.

[digitaldog]

Here's an article that you may find helpful...

https://creativepro.com/how-do-p3-displays-affect-your-workflow

Conrad's a good guy, but this isn't fully accurate:

Adobe RGB is generally more aligned with prepress color spaces. This isn’t surprising: Adobe RGB exists in part because Adobe wanted to have an RGB color space that included CMYK colors that fall outside of sRGB.

Adobe wanted to include SMPTE-240M in PS5, did so but screwed up some of the chromaticity values found on the web, SMPTE told them; you can't call it SMPTE-240M, it isn't that color space. They changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in PS 5.5. Yes, for prepress (and printing anything), the gamut is more aligned than sRGB would be. Adobe RGB (1998) exists in part because Adobe had to name a Working Space something they hadn't originally wanted. 

Some photo quality inkjet printers can reproduce colors that typical presses and sRGB displays cannot.

I wish he had added, there are colors defined in lowly sRGB that no printer can produce.

[TechTalk]

Conrad's a good guy, but this isn't fully accurate...

Who or what is? We all do our best, but accuracy is always a question of degree.

[digitaldog]

Who or what is? We all do our best, but accuracy is always a question of degree.

Indeed, which is why peer review is kind of useful.
"Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them". - Source Unknown
The facts are, that Adobe RGB (1998) wasn't a design or something Adobe wanted. It was a fix for a mistake. The mistake ended up not being problematic. But Adobe didn't want/design it as it exists.

[TechTalk]

...My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998)...

Your NEC display certainly has a native device gamut which can be measured and calibrated; but Adobe RGB is not a device gamut, it's a working space. Then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely.

[digitaldog]

Your NEC display certainly has a native device gamut which can be measured and calibrated; but Adobe RGB is not a device gamut, it's a working space. Then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely.

No hairs to split here.
My NEC has the Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. At least as I allow it to be so set through part of its calibration. That's exactly what I wrote.
I never said my NEC produces Adobe RGB (1998) because it doesn't by my doing. As I stated, my NEC doesn't produce Adobe RGB (1998) because it doesn't follow the Adobe RGB (1998) Working Space spec's by my doing; altering the WP, cd/m2, and contrast ratio.
There is a target for producing the color space, Adobe RGB (1998). I don't want that.
My NEC produces a color space I ask for: PA271Q 87100388TA.icc
FWIW, the RGB Working Space is called "Adobe RGB (1998)" but then again... who really wants to split hairs that finely. 

[TechTalk]

No hairs to split here.
My NEC has the Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. At least as I allow it to be so set through part of its calibration. That's exactly what I wrote.

My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998)

Your display, like all displays, does have a native gamut which is the full range of colors which that particular device is capable of producing. Native gamut is unique to a device. The display can be measured and calibrated in its native state. The display can also be calibrated to emulate something other than its native gamut, by altering its native output capacity in some manner.

Once the full native gamut is measured and that data is made available to software and/or firmware, other working space color gamuts can be emulated by the display. A working color space (like Adobe RGB) which is emulated by a device (like a display) can be calibrated to determine how much of the space and how accurately it can be reproduced from the available native device gamut.

Something to keep in mind is that these working (editing) color spaces — like Apple Display-P3, Adobe RGB, sRGB, Rec. 709 — are all color spaces with defined gamuts which provide a common frame of reference. They are often used or referenced as standards within certain industries or among those working in creating content and producing output. They do not represent the native gamut of any particular device, however. A particular printer or monitor, for instance, will have its own color gamut which may lie within or extend outside of a working color space gamut or another device's color gamut.

Indeed, which is why peer review is kind of useful.
"Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them". - Source Unknown

I think that you're one of the people that taught me the difference between a device gamut and a working space gamut back in the digital wild west of the 90s. You gave me lots of other great information at those seminars and I've been grateful ever since. But that was a long time ago, my memory may be corrupted.

Anyway... nothing and no one is 100% accurate all the time. We all need a little recalibration once in awhile, especially me.

[TechTalk]

So, let me circle back to my question. When I have calibrated/profiled my NEC PA322UHD monitor, the only settings I have selected in the Spectraview software as my "Target Settings" are (1) "Photo Editing Target", (2) WP of D65, (3) Gamma of 2.2, (4) Intensity of 120, Contrast Ratio of Monitor Default (which is the maximum contrast ratio of the monitor) and (5) Color Gamut of Native. Is it possible to create a "custom reference mode" for an Apple XDR display that will "use" these same (or similar) settings so that the monitor can be used effectively for evaluating photo edits and producing as accurate a screen to print match as I get with the NEC monitor?

Here's a link to an Apple support document which better illustrates custom reference mode settings. It shows the custom reference interface for limiting the maximum luminance for HDR and SDR display modes. Earlier, I wasn't sure how the options they offered for setting luminance function and frankly, I'm not entirely clear how the display behaves below the maximum limit you can select. I still don't see a way to fix a specific luminance setting other than in the "fine tune calibrations" white point x/y and luminance entries I pointed to in my earlier reply.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/Use reference modes with your Apple display

[digitaldog]

A device and Working Space gamut can be one in the same.
A device and Working Space can be one in the same. Not mutually exclusive.
A calibrated Radius Pressview display can produce ColorMatch RGB which is also a Working Space as one example.

[digitaldog]

My NEC may have a native calibrated gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) but it isn't producing Adobe RGB (1998) because of how I calibrate the display otherwise and for the goal, as best as possible, to match a print while soft proofing.

To split my own hairs  , my PA has the following spec's:
Adobe RGB Coverage/Size:98.5% / 114.0%

NEC states 2 sets of figures for the display gamut: "Percent Area" and "Percent Coverage". The "Percent Area" is simply the area in CIE xy of the display gamut vs the reference gamut, with no consideration of how much of the gamuts actually overlap. This value can be greater than 100%.
The "Percent Coverage" is the overlapping area of the 2 gamuts expressed as a percent of the total area of the reference gamut. The maximum possible value for this is 100%.

[hubell]

This is a fascinating discussion, and I really appreciate the input from individuals who actually know what they are talking about. As takeaways, first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)? Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching? That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?
BTW, while the title of the Topic here is specifically about the Apple XDR Pro Display, the issues addressed here are equally applicable to the new Mac Studio Display. The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.

[Jonathan Cross]

I must be thick - all this has blown my mind.  As a simple soul, the screen is viewed as transmitted light and the print as reflected light; at least that is how my school science put it.  The print view is therefore influenced by the ambient lighting, as Andrew has pointed out.  Soft-proofing is about trying to see on screen what the print will look like.  Again Andrew has written about 'Are my prints too dark?' 

It seems to me that whether softproofing works must be influenced by the softproofing algorithm. How do we know that is right for all screen, printer and paper combinations?  Does it not come into the whole debate about calibration and profiling?

And just to throw another spanner in the works, does not the optical performance of the eye and mind of the beholder influence whether she or he thinks it looks good?  Does the subjectivity of this cloud the issue?

If you think I am being stupid or simplistic, don't bother to tell me, just ignore me.  I have no desire to let this thread degenerate into impoliteness as some threads do.  I will just stop reading if that happens and certainly not rise to the bait!

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[digitaldog]

The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

[TechTalk]

This is a fascinating discussion, and I really appreciate the input from individuals who actually know what they are talking about. As takeaways, first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)? Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching? That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?
BTW, while the title of the Topic here is specifically about the Apple XDR Pro Display, the issues addressed here are equally applicable to the new Mac Studio Display. The internet is overflowing with discussions about how the new Studio Display is a less desirable (or poor) choice for someone who prints compared to other monitors that are "Adobe RGB" monitors.

Working (editing) spaces and their gamuts are essentially reference standards. They are useful in establishing a common framework for reference within an industry like prepress or cinema production. For example ISO has a set of Adobe RGB (1998) images which can be used for evaluation of output and assessing quality control in prepress and graphics production. These standards are useful for establishing working space parameters and quality control in production and for making comparisons to the standard.

So if a display, for instance, is specified as having 99% Adobe RGB gamut coverage or 93% DCI-P3; you have a reference for the color boundaries on which those specifications are based. A device, like a display (monitor), has its own separate and distinct native gamut which can be compared to standard working space color gamuts and perhaps emulate them, but isn't bound by them. A device's native (full) color gamut will generally be partly within and partly outside a range of different standard gamuts.

One practical application of all this is to allow you to compare color gamuts. You can measure for comparison something like the native gamut of a display or projector, or the output gamut of a printer using a specific paper to a known standard like DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB to see where gamut color overlaps and where it doesn't. Those standards and comparisons can be very useful in a production environment to maintain accuracy, consistency, and quality control. Some of these standards are more likely to have weight in a collaborative environment when evaluating and selecting production tools than they may have for an individual content creator. For an individual editing and printing their own images, you're the sole performer of your own songs using your own instruments. You're not composing and arranging for an orchestra with various performers and different instruments trying to get them to play in the same key. So much for the background.

[TechTalk]

To directly answer your questions...

first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)?

There really is no single correct answer here because of variables which are specific to your individual methodology and desires—thus the fuel for the fire of online debate which produces a lot of smoke. For an individual making prints of their images, ideally what you want is a monitor with enough native color gamut and enough control over its output to emulate the output from your printer with reasonable accuracy. Since that's not the answer anyone wants... my personal opinion is that in the usage I just described, Adobe RGB or P3 working spaces don't matter very much because you're working in a closed-loop environment.

Personally, I would do initial photo editing with the monitor calibrated to its full native gamut and contrast ratio and using a very large working space like ProPhoto RGB. The reason is pretty straightforward. Initially, I want to see as much of the color and tonal range of the image as possible and distill it down after I've made some initial evaluation and edits. I would then refine the initial edit using soft proofing in Photoshop to simulate the final print output using the profile for the paper and printer that I'm using. Adobe RGB or P-3 as a working space wouldn't be used or neccessary in that scenario.

In a different scenario of sending out edited images for prepress or printing, or to an art director, or video to a producer; I would likely be required to use a working space like Adobe RGB, sRGB, DCI-P3, Rec. 709, etc. to insure that everyone is working in the same standard color space. Those are working spaces that help to insure color accuracy and consistency in those environments.

So... My abridged answer is that it doesn't matter. Use whatever color space works best for your editing and printing and ignore the web and its wisdom, conventional or otherwise.

[Jonathan Cross]

Thanks TechTalk for your latest input.  I use Prophoto in LR and PS on the grounds that it is easier to slim down but not the other way.  I am also aware that the human eye can cope with about 10 million colours so 24-bit images (8 per channel) are enough though I am not sure what the black to white range of the eye is.  Jane, my wife, seems to be able to see minor colour variations much better than I.  Perhaps I will retreat to B&W images!!

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[TechTalk]

I lack writing skills, but thanks. I'm happy to at least try and blow away some of the smoke that drifts across the internet.

An interesting (to me anyway) test that demonstrates how sensitive your color perception can be to small deviations from neutral color values can be found in the Eizo online monitor test program. Try the "Color Distances" test, if you're interested. You may be able to see some pretty small differences when you barely change one of them from neutral in the color values applied.

https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/eizo-monitor-test

[TechTalk]

Second, are there adjustments in the parameters of the P3 Photography Reference Mode that can be made in the OS software that would make it more useful for screen to print matching?

The answer to that question is yes. There are just fewer of them and some aren't very user friendly. One difference in the Apple monitors and the others you're considering is flexibility and user options. The options provided by Apple are more limited or may be less user friendly to alter than in the Sharp/NEC or Eizo models you've mentioned. That doesn't preclude it from being a good choice to satisfy what you want and need from a monitor.

You can certainly use one of the Apple displays for creating, editing, and proofing images for print and other media. You'll just have less control and fewer options. Whether that's important to you, only you can decide. Clearly, there are others better at explaining this than myself. So, let me quote from an article that I linked earlier...

Fortunately, working with a P3 display is no different than correctly using an Adobe RGB or sRGB display. Color-managed applications such as Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom, and InDesign automatically use whichever display profile is selected in your Mac or Windows system preferences. A P3 display is no problem as long as the selected display profile accurately describes that display. And as long as images and other documents are tagged with an appropriate color profile, color-managed applications can reproduce colors consistently on a P3 display...

...As with Adobe RGB, working with the P3 color gamut shouldn’t complicate your workflow if it’s color-managed.

If you like what the the Apple Pro Display XDR offers (HDR and undeniably cool design) and if what it lacks (easy user calibration and flexible color settings) isn't a barrier for you, I would go for it. All the reports I've seen would suggest that it's a well calibrated display from the factory and has a wide color gamut. It also has a great contrast range, thanks to a bright backlight with full-array local dimming, for viewing HDR content.

What Sharp/NEC and Eizo offer is a wide array of configuration and calibration options to allow the user maximum control and flexibility. What they lack is HDR. They're excellent SDR monitors with support for viewing HDR content, but they're not HDR.

Ultimately, you'll decide what features, specifications, and capabilities are most important for your use and your priorities. I suspect that you'll be very happy with any of the displays that you've mentioned as replacements for your current monitor.

[hubell]

To directly answer your questions... first, would I be wrong to conclude from it that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is pervasive on the web, the use of the P3 Photography Reference Mode for the XDR Pro Display with the luminance turned down to say 100 cd/m would be an equally desirable color space for editing to match screen to print as an Adobe RGB color space (assuming two monitors that covered 100% of P3 or Adobe RGB, respectively)?

There really is no single correct answer here because of variables which are specific to your individual methodology and desires—thus the fuel for the fire of online debate which produces a lot of smoke. For an individual making prints of their images, ideally what you want is a monitor with enough native color gamut and enough control over its output to emulate the output from your printer with reasonable accuracy. Since that's not the answer anyone wants... my personal opinion is that in the usage I just described, Adobe RGB or P3 working spaces don't matter very much because you're working in a closed-loop environment.

Personally, I would do initial photo editing with the monitor calibrated to its full native gamut and contrast ratio and using a very large working space like ProPhoto RGB. The reason is pretty straightforward. Initially, I want to see as much of the color and tonal range of the image as possible and distill it down after I've made some initial evaluation and edits. I would then refine the initial edit using soft proofing in Photoshop to simulate the final print output using the profile for the paper and printer that I'm using. Adobe RGB or P-3 as a working space wouldn't be used or neccessary in that scenario.

In a different scenario of sending out edited images for prepress or printing, or to an art director, or video to a producer; I would likely be required to use a working space like Adobe RGB, sRGB, DCI-P3, Rec. 709, etc. to insure that everyone is working in the same standard color space. Those are working spaces that help to insure color accuracy and consistency in those environments.

So... My abridged answer is that it doesn't matter. Use whatever color space works best for your editing and printing and ignore the web and its wisdom, conventional or otherwise.

Thanks. I think I have my head around it now. My editing space in PS is Pro Photo RGB, which is a very wide space, broader than both P3 and Adobe RGB. When I am editing an image in PS, there are some colors that my file may contain that are outside the gamut of my monitor, whether it's in PS or Adobe RGB. I won't be able to see those colors on my monitor and edit them. The gamuts of the 100% P3 and 100% Adobe RGB spaces for two monitors have very significant overlap, but at the margins, P3 has somewhat more coverage in the yellows/reds but Adobe RGB has somewhat more coverage in the greens/blues. The article that you referenced above contained several good examples of how this could work in the real world. However, I don't output to my monitor. I output to an Epson 9570 with specific papers, where the gamut of the printer/paper controls what can be printed. Those green/blue colors that I may see on the monitor in a monitor's Adobe RGB working space but not see in a P3 working space may not be within the printer/paper's' gamut, so they will not show up in a soft proof, they will not be printed, and they will be remapped anyway. Same with reds/yellows that I may see in a monitor's P3 working space. Of course,  depending upon the printer/paper gamut, it may be that the printer can hit those "extra" greens/blues that I can see with an Adobe RGB working space or those yellows/reds that I can see with a p3 working space. I suppose that the printer will still print those colors. The bottom line, as you said, is that both working spaces can work extremely well, it is not a mistake for someone who prints to choose a monitor that uses a P3 working space. So much for what I have been reading and watching on the web, spreading FUD.

[TechTalk]

That's sort of like asking: what would Andrew or TechTalk do if he was forced to use an Apple XDR Pro display? For example, is it possible to customize the target color space the way Andrew has done with his NEC monitor?

The honest answer is I'm not sure. I've had hands-on experience with NEC and Eizo monitors and their software, but none with the current Apple Pro Display XDR or Studio Display. I would have to refer you to the Apple support links I've posted which describe your options.

Since you're already familiar with how to configure your NEC monitor, there's no need to cover that ground. If you're interested in the basics of setting up an Eizo with their software, this YouTube video from Eizo-APAC demonstrates the process pretty well. They have additional useful information here or more in-depth video guides here.