New Monitor choice and QC advice for buyer

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>How can you showcase via photos on the net the differences in wide gamut vs. standard gamut by taking a side by side photo of the two monitors and posting that as sRGB on the www??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you viewing the Hardforum images on a wide gamut display? If so, then those images should look way over saturated. Are they on your monitor?</p>

<p>The second link that show full screen photographs of landscapes has sRGB profile embedded for color managed viewing. Are you viewing that thread in a color managed browser? You need to. The NEC on the right is calibrated and the Dell isn't.</p>

<p>Remember the camera that took the actual landscape photos displayed on those monitors isn't necessarily capturing wide gamut scenes. You'll know if they're off and not color managed when the shots were taken. One will be WAY over saturated which as you can see they're not. They are different if you look at them closely.</p>

<p>You should always calibrate profile any display you do photo editing on.</p>

[ellery]

<p>I am viewing them using macbook pro, 2 or so years old, on safari....<br /><br />I can see some differences in color in the grass in viewing them on my monitor...<br /><br />I am indeed skeptical that NEC is without its problems as a possibility....and I am also skeptical about Andrew's dismissal of so many other brands that are lower in cost. I think his arguments though are sound and genuine....and honestly, as a non-expert myself on this subject - I am hardly an authority to judge pretty much at all....but it is quite apparent that besides a couple review sites that try and follow some form of routine and methodology in their testing, otherwise, there are various individual experts offering opinions online and of course many non-experts that without being incredulous, the viewer could mistake them as an expert.<br /><br />In matters of science in general, non-experts al almost always better off anchoring their opinions to a consensus of a larger group of experts...perhaps not entirely, but to some large degree.....but the quality of information on this topic available to consumers is not very good...and what good you may find is mixed in with so much noise....<br /><br />Its a recipe for confusion for newcomers.....<br /><br />Finding "the signal in the noise" I think given the overall quality of evidence on this subject is rather difficult.....or so it seems to me.<br /><br />If I go with NEC panel, ive already contacted amazon and a vendor through amazon and confirmed that if anything is not satisfactory, I can return for full refund within 30 days....<br /><br />Whatever monitor I end up with, it will be looked at carefully <br /><br />Thanks for all the consideration everyone...<br /><br /></p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Reichmann and Schewe use Photoshop and Lightroom, more lately Lightroom. I learned a lot from the original version of Camera to Print. I think that your being an CNX2 and Elements user will not make much difference to the utility of their video to you. </p>

<p>I too initially use CNX2 for processing my RAW images, which is about I all shoot. I made a point of learning CNX2 thoroughly, going through a couple of books on it. I like how it converts the RAW files, how it produces an image that adheres to the camera's settings, non-destructive editing, and the U-point technology built into it by NIK Software. (All bets are off on the future of CNX2 though since Google bought out NIK; no one knows really what Nikon is planning for the future of CNX2 or what intellectual rights in it they retain after the sale, and their earlier infusion of money into NIK. I can picture us all only in Lightroom or PS at some time in the future.) CNX2 is more stable lately, but instability was a real pain a few years ago. However, for pixel level editing, for the plugins that I have, and for color managed printing I use Photoshop. I have not followed Elements since trying out Version 2 several years ago, and being very unhappy about the interface, at the time being new to digital and unlearning some of my wet darkroom thinking. It is my understanding from folks in my photo club that Elements has come a long way, including having added layers; some plug ins work in Elements as well as PS.</p>

<p>I liked Michael Reichmann's video series because it was comprehensive, conversational, and because they followed the workflow necessary from capture, to editing to framing the final print. Both instructors bring around 40 years of professional photography experience, Jeff Schewe being intertwined in testing and feedback with the Knoll brothers who invented PS. I believe the output sharpening routine of Pixelgenius' Photokit Sharpener has now been adopted by Lightroom. (Though I still use Photoshop with the plugin.) I learned of Jeff Schewe and Photokit Sharpener after struggling through Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening.</p>

<p>Certainly there are other sources and many good books. Video and oral presentation are another style of learning that can augment that found in books. The original version of the series I cited above was very good for me, and it adheres to high standard from the start to the finished product. I occasionally read about a pros out today who credit these guys for getting them onto the right track. YMMV</p>

[ellery]

<p>David....your response answered my question perfectly! Thank you for that! Many times I ask such questions, and folks do not seem to get the context...<br /><br />I too noticed improved stability lately. Back when like you said, I remember just up and dropping out and the program "not responding"....luckily my editing at that point was not too lengthy...I would end up just losing 5-10 minutes of time....and I could get back to that point faster on the 2nd go around.<br /><br />I have been hovering around the idea of trying out LR for most of my global fixes and photo organization. <br /><br />I had been for a while, using some really old version of viewNX and it rendered my RAW files in preview perfectly....but when I upgraded a couple months ago, now the previewed photos look like dog s%$#t and after reading more online, its just something that is a bug....when you open them in capture NX2, they are back to looking great.<br /><br />This detail alone has frustrated my current workflow....I loved using viewNX to look through shots, many times in full screen, and now that is just crap.<br /><br />I have grown quite used to a few of the CNX tools and I will miss that....whit point/black point function, u-point tech I love for making "masks" and being a sort of a layering function with option to play with opacity...love it...its quick and I have become better at using it....but my attempts to print from NX2 has been buggy for some reason as well, and I have confirmed this with other users looking at threads here on PN....<br /><br />I dont know, its frustrating to think about this....<br /><br />But it seems as it relates to all of the book and video and other educational resources, LR and PS are used to teach it...so it will make more sense to start to tinker with those now...<br /><br />I guess I could drag my feet a bit longer and and keep building on my current skills....the one snippet from the preview video on that website from the vid you recommended mentioned learning a given skillset in digital darkroom and stick with it and dont jump around too much...perhaps I will take that advice for now and just see how things go....<br /><br />The idea that you pointed out that CNX could be shot down and us all in LR and PS, well, that would force my hand wouldnt it, lol.....<br /><br /><br /></p>

[ellery]

<p>ordered that video series and have watched a couple episodes....so far looks to be very hands on, intuitive, and thorough.....gives me something to do in the late of the night for the next couple weeks...</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I am also skeptical about Andrew's dismissal of so many other brands that are lower in cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh they work, they will produce an on-screen image! You're just not getting the same functionality and options, controls and ease of use to calibrate a display as you'll get with a smart display system. If tight color management in the display portion of the digital darkroom isn't a priority, spend less money. My point is (was), if you are concerned with printing anything (in our out of house), and you want the best possible print to display color matching, the quality and choose of a display system is far, far more important than the CPU or amount of RAM, or how many drives it will hold. What I see is people putting more money and concentration into that part of the hardware and I often wonder why they pay so little attention to a far more critical piece of equipment. <br>

<br>

Look, some consumers buy cars based on the number of cup holders or the body lines of a car which is more important to them then safety features or gas mileage. Whatever floats your boat. </p>

[ellery]

<p>Andrew...let me say, that I agree largely (personally) with what you are saying. I really like the features and capabilities of the NEC PA panels....for all the reasons discussed.<br /><br />I simply think you are committing a bit of a logical fallacy here - false dichotomy? <br /><br />Your language in your responses seem to indicate that these "alternatives" discussed are woefully insufficient.....<br /><br />On one hand, it seems VERY evident that the NEC integrated system as discussed is easier to calibrate and much more difficult to flub your accuracy.....while other panels you have to add in variables to reach equal accuracy....which calibraiton system/software?...how good is it?....is it compatible with that particular panel? And indeed with the NEC system, you have it appears more control on variables independent of others, that with lower cost models, you do not..which is great.<br /><br />But here is my nugget of skepticism still:<br /><br />Can a person buy a given model such as a Dell wide gamut monitor...get a good calibration system (xrite i1 pro for example right?) and tinker with it to create an accurate display? It would appear (i think?) that your answer to this quesiton is a resounding NO ("Oh they work, they will produce an on-screen image") - but at the same time, your assertions as such appear to be based on no emperical testing of your own? Its reasonable enough to question TFT central's methodology, but dismissal of various monitors broadly without doing the research yourself? I may still be missing something, but I cannot get past this skepticism.<br /><br />Let me hark back to a quote from one of your articles and ask you another question:<br /><br />"Smart monitors that allows multiple target calibration aim points, with control over contrast ratio and white point settings per paper class is a desirable functionally for print to screen matching. That said calibrating to a single calibration target and placing greater emphasis on individual ICC profiles, using the soft proofing tables could still work well for less demanding and complex workflows."<br /><br />quoted from: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</a><br /><br />I may be misreading this and you can correct me...but it would appear that within your article you were giving some play to the idea of being able to still use something less than a "smart monitor" to get the job done for "less demanding and complex workflows"...??<br /><br />Out of curiousity, what did you mean by that...? Also, what would be an example of such a monitor you are referencing in the above quote (which would not be an NEC or an Eizo)?<br /><br />-------<br /><br />"the quality and choose of a display system is far, far more important than the CPU or amount of RAM, or how many drives it will hold"<br /><br />You keep saying this...are you talking to me? Because I can afford to buy both RAM, and a CPU, the NEC, and a quality printer...does not mean that I will always spring for the top of the line for all of these things. But I suspect that most of these questions come up due to budget constraints and then your point is more relevant and I suspect the masses of consumers probably are not 100% consistently prioritized and logical in such purchasing...but then again, many of these consumers are not just buying with only photography in mind...so that can muddy the waters...but I get your point I suppose.<br /><br /> I have found the NEC system enticing and will likely purchase it for all the good reasons discussed, but I do not consider my investigation into alternatives for my own "less demanding and complex workflows" to be as silly as comparing it to considering number of cup holders for a car rather than safety or fuel efficiency....<br /><br />Perhaps your dichotomy is warranted.....I am skeptical to believe categorically that all of these monitors (I mean wide gamut dells for example) below NEC are as woefully incapable as your language in this thread has made them to be....if they are I would like to know....but for the most part, I am supposed to believe this based on your expert opinion...which is useful to note, but still...I would like to see data and research that looks at such questions before such dismissal.....<br /><br />Having said all of that...I am (personally) not spooked much by the difference in cost to go the NEC route, and I like what I read about these monitors so far and their features...so that makes it easier and less stressful for me...<br /><br />But I can see how people on a tighter budget would consider something lower cost as a compromise.<br /><br />I think it is reasonable enough to point out poor prioritization of folks in their purchases...but honestly, you have to also understand where people are at, where they are coming from, and where they are going....that is, when a person had an idea to upgrade their CPU/RAM or whatever...perhaps at that time they thought this was useful to them...but did they have the knowledge needed to properly prioritize their spending to account for a proper wide gamut monitor? Did they even think of that at the time? Or did they later discover the importance of color accuracy, color management, etc once they became more interested in printing....but at that point it is post hoc...<br /><br />Andrew, I think this is not so much of the failure of individual enthusiasts...I think it is the failure of the industry....as a beginner, you are struggling just to figure out how to use your camera, how to get a proper exposure (yeah, I still struggle), basic and intermediate levels of post processing....<br /><br />Your whole point of view would seem to make sure that many folks learn early on of the importance of this topic, as you said, it is so critical...but so many other sources of information (including many on PN and other forums) do not come from the same place as you, so many beginners recieve differing advice...<br /><br />Folks are trying always to assimilate information to do their best....their intentions in my opinion are mostly attempting to be very critical....not just looking for cup-holders vs. gas mileage.....but in their attempts, could they simply be looking at cup-holders and not knowing it? SUre....but that is different than the consumer intentially saying "well, I want it to have cup holders, I care much less about fuel efficiency"....there in lies your bit of a straw man here....at best, people are ignorant to the facts, they are betrayed by various individuals or websites that have the appearance of being an authority on the matter...and the consumer makes what they think is an informed decision - and they most always do so thinking that they will acheive "WYSIWYG"....<br /><br />I say all this, because I think intention matters in how we characterize people...and I am pedantic so yeah :D</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Your language in your responses <em>seem to indicate</em> that these "alternatives" discussed are woefully insufficient.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought my language was English. I never wrote anything about these "alternatives" discussed as woefully insufficient. </p>

[ellery]

<p>I apologize then....my reading of the words you provided in this space, led me to believe (erroneously) that you would not advocate for a (for example) a dell 2713, or 2413...and further, in the context of this discussion, my interpretation of your remarks are such that I thought you felt them functionally incapable of being any better than simply sticking with the current stock TN panel that came with your PC out of the box.<br /><br />It seems I missed some nuance there.....I apologize for that.<br /><br />Such conversation between experts and non-experts can be difficult...even more difficult in text format.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>...while other panels you have to add in variables to reach equal accuracy...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everything Andrew is indicating about NEC is true with regards to controlling accuracy. What I MUST implore you to consider is that is NOT the most important aspect in what you need to be concerned about with regards to getting your money's worth. </p>

<p>The market is flooded with IPS monitors of various price levels right now indicating the competition among manufacturers has gotten fierce which may or may not further indicate quality control within the same model and/or brand will suffer.</p>

<p>My posting of what happened to my 3 year old Dell which is now out of warrantee is an example. The cheap price had nothing to do with the non-uniformity artifact because there's no way to correlate with real evidence the cause not knowing anything about the production chain. Everything is made overseas or in Mexico. </p>

<p>You really need to pick one that serves you best for your current needs from a vendor that will quickly without question make an exchange for a new model. I would go even further and suggest you check out displays at a Best Buy or other local vendor that fits your specs and needs if you don't feel like dealing with customer support and waiting for them to ship a return. It's a real PITA. </p>

 

[Nick D.]

<p>Sorry Ellery, I was away for some time. I was talking about something like <br />LG IPS237L-BN, it is SRGB display, nothing fancy, I think I have LG IPS236, after calibration it works O.K. with my Epson 4800 . Agree with Andrew, I1 Display Pro would be better choice for calibration. <br />As I understand, you want to use your new display with MacBookPro. I also have Dell 2408 and tried it on MacBookPro, not really excited about it, Macbook videocard just do not have enough horse power to run it smozly.<br />As for the rest of that long tread, I belive Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe were using modest Panasonic GH2 for producing those videos, if follow Andrew logic, they should be using RED epic, or at list Canon C, it is all about efficiency guys. LOL</p>

[ellery]

The Mac book pro is my wife's - I use it for web surfing - have a new dell CPA 8500 for my use - lovin this machine -

decent video card too

 

I'll be interested to see more of the tutorials - perhaps it will further inform my decisions

[ellery]

I checked local best buy - did not see any wide gamut panels

 

There I an HH Greg though - may check them out too - have a feeling they will not have

[ellery]

<p>I am now a ways into the tutorials, just now getting into color management - as my veteran patients say.."im trackin'" - <br /><br />As far as sRGB monitors, their tutorial in the initial discussion on color management makes the same treatment as Andrew's video did....they use a photo of a colorful sign and map it in color think and show how much data is lost in sRGB (ALOT)....of course, there are examples where less is lost, or even none.....but I think that this all creates a very strong argument for wide gamut....assuming a) that you plan on printing and b) you care to retain as much of that detail/color as possible...<br /><br />compelling images can be made and printed in sRGB....its not a dichotomy....but why chop off the data (btw, when will we get a prophoto wide gamut monitor :0 :0 )</p>

[ellery]

<p>I just want to say, that no matter what, this forum ends up delivering!<br /><br />I always start from a question and it leads to 50 other questions that I had not thought of....im psyched...I am learning more in the past 2 weeks than I have in the last year...<br /><br />Im confident that much of this is going to give me more insight into my photography :D</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>btw, when will we get a prophoto wide gamut monitor :0 :0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never, not possible. The downsides of creating color spaces that are theoretical and based on math. Especially when two primaries fall outside human vision!</p>

[ellery]

<p>Im not sure I follow that point....<br /><br />Using something like that nifty color think program you used in the video...is there a 3D mapping of the "color space" that the human eye can detect? <br /><br />I guess that prophoto goes beyond it, but the benefit there is to successfully capture data...whereas adobe RGB will clip a bit of data (less than sRGB)....assuming I am recalling your video on that subject accurately.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Using something like that nifty color think program you used in the video...is there a 3D mapping of the "color space" that the human eye can detect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes indeed! If something falls out that horseshoe shaped plot, it's outside human vision and isn't a color. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess that prophoto goes beyond it, but the benefit there is to successfully capture data...whereas adobe RGB will clip a bit of data (less than sRGB)....assuming I am recalling your video on that subject accurately.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.<br>

<br>

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dupe removed.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Use ProPhotoRGB space to edit Raw files in 16bit ACR/LR. That's all you really need to know about that <strong>Working Space </strong>output space.</p>

<p>Raw images start out as gray luminance values (after Analog To Digital converter) that get assigned color data by software (ACR/LR) that applies quite a few presets and color definers to give you a normal looking preview on a calibrated display to start out with. This preview is normally dull, flat and somewhat dark.</p>

<p>Edits will further bring out the color in the preview whose hue/saturation levels are limited by your display's color gamut (remember Raw is nothing but gray luminance values per pixel).</p>

<p>Working spaces allow the edits to utilize all the color your display has to offer. Editing in ProPhotoRGB makes it easier and faster to push the Raw data to your display's color gamut limits over editing in AdobeRGB and sRGB. Over cranking saturation is not advised of course for aesthetic reasons and print reproduction limitations but there will be hues that you may be able to bring out that your display can reproduce but far easier attained editing in ProPhotoRGB.</p>

[ellery]

<p>"chromaticity coordinates".....oh, I am learning geek terms....saweet :D<br /><br />"</p>

<p align="left">The other attribute is called the gamma encoding of the working space. This gamma encodinghas no relationship to the gamma of your display! Rather, this gamma value defines how edits applied to an image are spread over its entire tonal range. As you edit an image using 2.2 gamma encoding, corrections appear to produce the same degree of change in shadows, highlights, andmidtones. This behavior is known as perceptually uniform, an advantage of synthetic color spacesthat are rarely achievable in other color spaces."<br /><br />Im confused by this bit in my reading so far....it says it is not related to the gamma of the display but then makes mention of the "2.2 gamma encoding"<br /><br />I thought the 2.2 was a reference to the gamma (TRC)? Trivial detail perhaps, but this caused my brain to skip.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Images, working spaces, displays can all have Tone Response Curves which can and often are different. They don't all have to match each other. </p>

[ellery]

<p>"sRGB’s gamut is a limitation for more demanding output, such as a printing press or many of the ink jet and photo printers so commonly used today."<br /><br />This bit from the document caught my eye....reminded me that I want to get the ICC profile for my current printer Andrew just for fun in order to know how wide this printer's gamut really is. I figure for a little while (a few months or until xmas, or longer?) I can use this printer to practice printing to get the swing of getting consistent prints....<br /><br />Ill try and dig that up tonight if I can remember....</p>

[ellery]

<p>I see...(regarding TRC's) - got it....<br /><br />Just finished that article....it helped gain a bit more clarity on some of the issues indeed....excellent write-up.</p>

[ellery]

<p>Just watched the bit on monitor calibration in the video tutorials.....solidified my tendency to want the NEC 241w....<br /><br />Can you use the device that comes with NEC combo deal on other monitors?<br /><br />Also, your name Andrew was mentioned a few times :) - something to do with "I had no idea what this was, so I called Andrew" ..... its good to know that we have such big nerds on here to help us aspiring nerds!<br /><br />Take Care yall (yeah, I live in the south)....<br /><br />Ill give you all an update in a few weeks on the likely purchase....</p>