Help with Monitor for Photo Editing

<blockquote>

<p> Does anyone ever wonder how photographers managed to make great photographs before all this monitor calibration technic geek bs?!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Ansel Adams and Richard Avedon used traditional darkrooms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most if not all of my output for commercial use is going to be viewed on screen which can be all over the place, though displays - with the majority of them now on mobile when used and viewed by consumers - have gotten better and better and more uniform</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The part about what's going to be viewed by others, being all over the place is so true and so frustrating. We simply can't control what other's see; is the browser or other software color managed? Did they calibrate and profile their displays and to what aim points (targets)? Are they now using wider gamut display technology where sRGB will suffer (new iPhone 7 and new iPad Pro two examples of much wider gamut display technology although thankfully color managed). Hopefully as more companies move towards wider gamut display technology, we'll see that color managed app's <strong>have</strong> to follow; there's no other option. We can get away from the silly idea that sRGB alone is somehow the solution for this mess; it's not. Not even close:<br /> <br /> <em>sRGB urban legend & myths Part 2</em><br /> <em> In this 17 minute video, I'll discuss some more sRGB misinformation and cover:</em><br /> <em>When to use sRGB and what to expect on the web and mobile devices</em><br /> <em><strong>How sRGB doesn't insure a visual match without color management, how to check </strong></em><br /> <em>The downsides of an all sRGB workflow </em><br /> <em>sRGB's color gamut vs. "professional" output devices</em><br /> <em><strong>The future of sRGB and wide gamut display technology </strong></em><br /> <em>Photo print labs that demand sRGB for output</em><br /> <em>High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4</em><br /> <em>Low resolution on YouTube:

 

<p>What I found interesting when I recently bought a 4K HDR UHDTV is that people are spending hundreds of dollars to calibrate it. I really don't see the point since everyone has their own tastes what they like to see. That's why there are different picture settings such as "Vivid" Home Video" Video Pro" Standard" etc. If the Tv is calibrated so it's perfect to a color standard, and you don;t like it which is probable, you're going to change it anyway. Since the TV is only for people in the same room to see, I don't see any point calibrating it. Just adjust it to what you like since that's what you like. Maybe I'm missing something.</p>

<p>"the silly idea that sRGB alone is somehow the solution for this mess" - This remark sets up a straw man, implying that one must jump full blast right now to the maximum color management setup, especially to get a good print.<br /><br />The fact is that an sRGB workflow often gives a fine print. And yes, sRGB sometimes simply cannot do justice to a scene.<br /><br />Since there are costs in time and money to set up a wide gamut monitor, custom calibrated print/paper profiles, trying to figure out what will actually appear while working in ProPhotoRGB color space, and so on, the reasonable conclusion is that sometimes sRGB is optimal, sometimes it is worth going full blast, and sometimes a middling solution built around AdobeRGB is the best choice. But then, I do not operate a color management business.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>This remark sets up a straw man, implying that one must jump full blast right now to the maximum color management setup, especially to get a good print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. You misunderstood my writings with assumptions you think are implied. You don't understand the mess I'm talking about or the person who brought up the mess I was agreeing with him about. Read my text <strong>again</strong> without the obvious bias: <em>The part about what's going to be <strong>viewed</strong> by others, being all over the place is so true and so frustrating.</em><br /> The <em>idea</em> that sRGB is a solution <strong>outside</strong> of color management, that just using it guarantees some kind of expected color appearance is simply wrong. Matching color across devices, having the numbers defined, having them consistently rendered IS the job of color management. Whether you make prints or do not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that an sRGB workflow often gives a fine print. And yes, sRGB sometimes simply cannot do justice to a scene.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Where above did I</strong> write anything about printing? I didn't. Then ask yourself why we see wide gamut displays on mobile devices which have nothing to do with printing? <br /> You want to talk about sRGB and it's role in printing? Ask. We can go there. Others here have discussed printing. You'll see no such text from me!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since there are costs in time and money to set up a wide gamut monitor, custom calibrated print/paper profiles, trying to figure out what will actually appear while working in ProPhotoRGB color space, and so on, the reasonable conclusion is that sometimes sRGB is optimal, sometimes it is worth going full blast, and sometimes a middling solution built around AdobeRGB is the best choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other than the cost of a wide gamut display (a feature), there's no more or less costs involved compared to an sRGB like display. You still need to, should calibrate and profile them if you care about what you're seeing on the display and the consistency of seeing the same numbers over time. Otherwise, in terms of the display, no other costs. Advantages? <strong>Yes</strong>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But then, I do not operate a color management business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. You have some facts based on the science of color management you wish to disagree with, the floor is yours. It appears you don't understand the topic. You are indeed coming across as a novice <g>.</p>

<p><strong>Wide gamut display facts. Nothing to do with printing:</strong><br /> http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone7_ShootOut_1.htm<br /> <strong>• </strong>The iPhone 7 has Two Standard Color Gamuts, the new DCI-P3 Wide Color Gamut that is <strong>used</strong> in 4K UHD TVs and Digital Cinema, and also the traditional smaller sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut that is used for producing most existing consumer content for digital cameras, TVs, the internet, and computers, including photos, videos, and movies. What’s more, on the iPhone 7 both Color Gamuts have been implemented with Absolute Color Accuracy that is Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect. That’s impressive... Plus only three manufacturers currently have the new wider DCI-P3 Color Gamut on their Smartphones or Tablets, so it is a major competitive advantage. <strong>Other manufacturers will need to play catch-up fast...</strong><br>

<br /> Since the iPhone 7 supports two Color Gamuts <strong>it needs to also implement Color Management</strong> in order to have the second smaller sRGB / Rec.709 Gamut to also appear correctly, which is generated from the wider native DCI-P3.<br /> <br /> <strong>The iPhone 7 has the following cutting-edge state-of-the-art display performance functions and features:</strong><br /> <strong>• </strong>The iPhone 7 has 2 Standard Color Gamuts, following in the footsteps of the innovative <a href="http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_Pro9_ShootOut_1.htm">iPad Pro 9.7</a> that was introduced earlier in 2016. Most mobile displays only support a single Color Gamut, including all previous iPhones. The iPhone 7 has both the traditional smaller sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut that is used for producing most existing consumer content for digital cameras, TVs, the internet, and computers, including photos, videos, and movies, and the new wider DCI-P3 Color Gamut, which is 26 percent larger.<br /> <strong>• </strong>The iPhone 7 has the same wide DCI-P3 Color Gamut as 4K UHD TVs, so it will be able to accurately display all of the new 4K TV and video content. Since the iPhone 7 has a Retina Display it doesn't need the 4K resolution because it already appears perfectly sharp at its normal viewing distances. <br /> <strong>• </strong><strong>The new wider DCI-P3 Color Gamut is really a big deal</strong> – it is what makes 4K UHD TVs deliver noticeably better color and picture quality than 2K Full HD TVs, which is why consumers are upgrading their TVs, and why they will want to upgrade their mobile devices up to DCI-P3.<br /> <strong>• </strong><strong>Only three manufacturers</strong> currently have the new wider DCI-P3 Color Gamut on their Smartphones or Tablets, so it is a major competitive advantage. <strong>Other manufacturers will need to play catch-up fast.</strong><br /> <strong>• </strong>The wider Color Gamut and much brighter display significantly improve screen readability and usability in high ambient light, which along with battery running is one of the most important issues for consumers.<br /> <strong>• </strong>The Absolute Color Accuracy of the iPhone 7 is Truly Impressive as shown in these <a href="http://www.displaymate.com/Colors_37.html">Figures</a>. It is the most color accurate display that we have ever measured. It is Visually Indistinguishable from Perfect, and is very likely considerably better than on any mobile display, monitor, TV or UHD TV that you have. So photos, videos, and online content and merchandise will appear correct and beautiful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I found interesting when I recently bought a 4K HDR UHDTV is that people are spending hundreds of dollars to calibrate it. I really don't see the point since everyone has their own tastes what they like to see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can do it for free by eye and it's easy as shown in this YouTube video...

<p>I did pretty much what was instructed in that video but chose "Movie" mode on my Samsung and custom adjusted WB using Gain/Offset panel along with a Warm2 preset and reducing saturation to B&W calibrating to Home Shopping Network that uses high end Canon video broadcast equipment.</p>

<p>My Samsung HDTV WB out of the box was so bluish, and not the blue on a 6500K computer display, but close to very violet pinkish blue or around 8000K. The color space of broadcast TV with regards to hue/saturaton is close to sRGB but with a more Lab style perceptual gamma curve where black point has a broad gradual increase into midrange. I have to reduce saturation from its preset 50 to 40.</p>

<p>There is no other taste for viewing movies, news and TV shows. After eyeball calibrating the TV no one is going to want to choose Vivid or any other setting.</p><div></div>

<p>Tim: I'm not saying that Vivid or any other setting is what a particular person wants. What I'm saying is that each person has their own tastes for how they like to view movies. That's why their are presets ,uch like you get in Photoshop. The different selections deliberately distort the image from calibrated. The point is, the viewer can adjust the settings until he gets what he likes. Sure getting it calibrated first is a starting point. But no different than using a calibrated monitor and changing the saturation and contrast and lighting away from calibrated toward your preference. <strong>It doesn't have to be calibrated to some standard because the TV owner and his guests are the only ones viewing the TV. The image isn't being sent out to others like we do ion the internet where you want some standard..</strong> </p>

<p>Absolutely Alan. Movie mode is usually low contrast, which is great in a darkened room, but not much good in a well illuminated one. Also, as we know, the eye adapts quite quickly to small color and brightness changes, which is one of the problems when print is the output and why calibration is necessary. A TV's output is just to our brains and we make the interpretation. Personally I prefer a much brighter image on the TV than would be suitable for use as a monitor for adjusting photos.</p>

I like it brighter too. Movie pro seems too dark.

Standard is better but Vivid is too much. A lot

depends on the tv and also what's being played. You

can adjust for one show off Netflix and then have to

readjust for YouTube and another for my own

video/slide shows which has its own palette.

<blockquote>

<p><strong> The image isn't being sent out to others like we do ion the internet where you want some standard..</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a standard, Alan, I mentioned it in my previous post. The standard of all broadcast content OUTPUT is sRGB or by its official name according to International Telecommunications Union-"Rec 709". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._709</p>

<p>The difference between "sRGB" and "Rec. 709" is in the shape of their tone response curve which creates a minor difference. Same color temp and XY colorants.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"However, in practice it is output (display) referred with the convention of a 2.4-power function display [2.35 power function in EBU recommendations has also been changed to power function 2.4 since October 2014, according to EBU Tech 3320]. (Rec. 709 and <a title="SRGB" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB">sRGB</a> share the same primary chromaticities and white point chromaticity; however, sRGB is explicitly output (display) referred with an average <a title="Gamma correction" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction">gamma</a> of 2.2.)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just wish the HDTV manufacturers would have their default out of the box picture set to this standard which isn't very difficult to achieve.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Movie mode is usually low contrast, which is great in a darkened room, but not much good in a well illuminated one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one watches TV in a brightly lit room. The low contrast you think you see in "Movie" mode is a more linear (perceptual style) tone gradation that can be easily brightened by either adjusting up the "Brightness" (black point) & "Contrast" (white point) intensity or just increase the "Backlight" which my $240 Samsung provides.</p>

<p>Anyone who thinks they need to crank up the contrast so it can be seen in a brightly lit room doesn't have a clue about human perception. Yes, you can make it appear the TV display seems brighter by cranking up the contrast but that's the same optical effect employed by old black ink line drawn comic books in order to give the appearance of higher dynamics on a low dynamic range medium of prints on pulpy paper.</p>

<p>OK So you have the Tv professionally calibrated to what: H709 or sRGB. Then do you leave it there or adjust it to some other preference you like by adding Brightness and what else? Then you no longer have a calibrated screen. And how do you deal with the different transmissions of the many providers that do not meet these standards? So you do a little more tweaking for each different provider so now the "standard" is different on the same tv depending on what input you watch. Don;t get me wrong. It is nice to start with a perfectly calibrated TV. But then the changes you make throws most of it out of whack so you might as well adjust to your own preference to start with and save $300 to calibrate it. In the end it doesn't matter what standard it loosk like or if it doesn't meet any standard at all; only if it looks good to you since no one else is looking at it other than the people in the room. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK So you have the Tv professionally calibrated to what: H709 or sRGB. Then do you leave it there or adjust it to some other preference you like by adding Brightness and what else? Then you no longer have a calibrated screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it's no longer sRGB. And why would that be necessary? We're not editing images on this product, we're watching TV/Movies. If the unit changes it's behavior in a year, so what, it's not like we need consistently whereby the same RGB numbers we hope to view and maybe edit today, should look the same in a year. We don't need instruments to measure then build an ICC Profile like we do on the desktop. We don't need our TV's to match other people's TVs when we watch <em>Game of Thrones</em>; it's not a collaborative, creative endeavor where a match is at all necessary. <br>

So yeah, I agree, targeting the TV to sRGB or DCI-P3 isn't necessary, perhaps even useful. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And how do you deal with the different transmissions of the many providers that do not meet these standards?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're really making this out to be harder than it is, Alan. I'm not talking about pro calibration. Why you keep making an issue out of it after I clearly pointed out anyone can eyeball it is beyond me. We're not talking perfect color precision here anyway.</p>

<p>And I'm not seeing a lot of variation between cable channels after eyeball calibration. I set it and forget it. (see below). I have Samsung's "Wide Color Enhancer" set to Auto which controls errant color regarding hue/saturation issues. It's so subtle that I don't notice it working surfing channel to channel. All my channels look correct. Accurate? Probably not but I'm not attaching a spectro to my TV. That's way too obsessive. I'm not going to edit photos on it. I'm using it for entertainment.</p><div></div>

<p>The only standard we're talking about is the XY chromaticity of sRGB's white balance and colorants. My HDTV's color gamut as measured with my Colormunki Display attached to my Mac Mini is around sRGB.</p>

<p>A wide gamut 4K HDTV may have issues with the Rec 709 broadcast standard, but I'll bet at the price paid it should have settings that address this out of the box without relying on professional calibration.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No one watches TV in a brightly lit room. T</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I beg to differ. You may not, many of us do (although not really "bright"): what about during the day and you don't want to draw the curtains, or you can't block out sunlight entering the room? Sorry greater brightness and contrast helps here. Movie mode is way too dull and lacking in contrast on my TV in this situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but that's the same optical effect employed by old black ink line drawn comic books</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, but perception <em>is</em> what it is all about. If it seems better it is better to the viewer in this case. </p>

<p>Lets keep beating it...<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Most if not all of my output for commercial use is going to be viewed on screen which can be all over the place,</strong> though displays - with the majority of them now on mobile when used and viewed by consumers - have gotten better and better and more uniform. </p>

<p dir="ltr"><strong>Print output too can vary and out of our control depending on the circumstances a print or magazine, book, etc is going to be viewed in</strong>. It's mostly in graphic design and certain photography like fashion or product ( and which too is now mainly viewed on screens ) where absolute color control and accuracy may be needed. <strong>And you can have the best color accuracy and calibration set up in the world, there will still be a lot of variety too of how one human eye sees a color vs the next human eye.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"><strong>What I'm saying is that each person has their own tastes for how they like to view movies. That's why their are presets ,uch like you get in Photoshop. The different selections deliberately distort the image from calibrated. The point is, the viewer can adjust the settings until he gets what he likes. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Exactly. Common sense from Phil and Alan.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">Is the Dell Ultra-Sharp 24" good enough for editing? That depends. If you are a professional whose livelihood depends upon customers accepting your work or an amateur who regularly submits work to contests for jury judging, possibly not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">After concluding that we all edit images on different devices, in different rooms, and under different light, and then send them to our audience who in turn views them on different (non-calibrated) devices, in different rooms, and under different light, Andrew, in what particular circumstances would a someone opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell with Spyder or a $1200 NEC with xRite? </p>

<p>Question for Eric already posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't you ever get tired of posting text, few ever take seriously, especially being called out for statements you can't backup (<em>99.99% of photographers send work to the net today and is displayed on peoples crapola phones and laptops. The other 0.01% send prints to an Epson or Costco and appreciate wysiwyg</em>)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Latest post from Eric illustrate the answer is <strong>no</strong>.<br>

Common sense is a flower that doesn't grow in Eric's garden. Now back to the topic....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now back to the topic....</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is hilarious coming from the guy that first responded here with off topic irrelevancies, derailed the thread, and resulted in the the OP returning to state so</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, in what particular circumstances would a someone opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell with Spyder or a $1200 NEC with xRite?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're <strong>hopelessly</strong> lost on the subject. I suspect that's evident to <em>everyone</em> but you. So I'll explain because clearly you don't get it. The circumstance has nothing to do with what other's see and everything to do with what I see as I edit images. Use the <em>Google's</em> Eric and look up WYSIWYG. <br /> As you missed <strong>again</strong>, both from Phil and I, is that what other's see on the net is a crap shoot and not anything we can control. What we <strong>can</strong> control is the appearance of the RGB and CMYK numbers on our displays. Using sound color management, expecting consistency over time, in seeing the numbers without the pollution of poor uniformity of color and tone across our screens. Had you <strong>any</strong> *experience with professional level, color reference display systems, you'd understand the facts provided already.<br>

As Benjamin Franklin said: "*<em>Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other</em>."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"seeing the numbers"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is shorthand, yet it expresses the flaw in A.R.'s approach, failure to see a photograph as a whole entity. A photograph is not the reality, but it is an interpretative expression of a reality, more than a collection of numbers. And similarly for a movie.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You're <strong>hopelessly</strong> lost on the subject. I suspect that's evident to <em>everyone</em> but you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suspicion in error, evident only to one person. What is evident is that whenever A.R. participates in a thread, it becomes acrimonious. Technicalities are used not to help make and see fine photographs but to bludgeon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is shorthand, yet it expresses the flaw in A.R.'s approach, failure to see a photograph as a whole entity</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it expresses your misunderstandings of how we work with images or for that matter, any data on a computer. It's all and always numbers. 1's and zero's. <br /> The RGB values that make up an image (or CMYK, Lab) are just big piles of numbers! Can you figure out how to zoom into any image in Photoshop to 1600 percent Chuck? What do you see? A group of pixels; each having a set of values. Zoom out, it looks like an image. And this is why a display is so critical in expressing the numbers consistently and correctly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suspicion in error, evident only to one person.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two. Welcome to the camp with Eric.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Technicalities are used not to help make and see fine photographs but to bludgeon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Similar to Eric's code to suggest the <strong>facts</strong> you're unable to understand and express are technicalities. I wonder how you two ever figured out how to set the exposure on your cameras. That's a technicality just like the subject of color management!</p>

<p>If a photographer takes a jpeg right out of any camera, and he likes the colors and doesn't want to change them, and the only edits he makes is to crop and maybe sharpen a little, would a commercial printer service use some sort of an ICC for that particular camera so that the print comes out with the proper colors contrast lighting etc? In other words, how mis-calibrated the photographer's monitor might be would really have no effect on the print results?</p>

<p>Ditto with making a file he uploads to let's say Flickr or Photo.net?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I beg to differ. You may not, many of us do (although not really "bright"): what about during the day and you don't want to draw the curtains, or you can't block out sunlight entering the room? Sorry greater brightness and contrast helps here. Movie mode is way too dull and lacking in contrast on my TV in this situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The above samples I posted are viewed in such a bright room with two six ft tall windows streaming in sunlight on the right side. Different time of day and season lets in more or less light. It never gets so bright as the brightness of white on my TV screen. The only time this amount of light is a problem is when viewing the screen at an angle and there's a shine on the black portion of the matte surface of the TV which can't be fixed with calibration since it's only in one isolated area.</p>