Dell U2413 24" LED Backlit IPS Monitor and Dell U2412M UltraSharp 24" LED Monitor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicks Pics

I gather that Adobe RGB, more color variations, but is useful just for printing on a quality home printer, mostly at least.

---

No; it is also going to give you more of the colours that your camera captured when viewing the image on your screen.

Remember; your camera can capture approximately 100% of the colours that the human eye can see.

1. sRGB can only display around 1/3 of the colours that we can see, so if you have an sRGB screen, have decided that the other 2/3 of the colours are not important. This is especially true for the more brilliant colours.

2. Adobe RGB can display over half of the visible colours. So you able to see these.

No; it is also going to give you more of the colours that your camera captured when viewing the image on your screen.

Remember; your camera can capture approximately 100% of the colours that the human eye can see.

Quote:

---

1. sRGB can only display around 1/3 of the colours that we can see, so if you have an sRGB screen, have decided that the other 2/3 of the colours are not important. This is especially true for the more brilliant colours.

2. Adobe RGB can display over half of the visible colours. So you able to see these.

---

Thanks, that helps to know.

People seem to get carried away with colours we can see. There are all sorts of comments about including sRGB captures 100% of real world colours. What colours we can see is a rather complicated subject. It's not just a case of what we can see but also how sensitive our eyes are to them. There is a real rats nest buried in that area.

sRGB and aRGB have different origins. One is based on smooth colour gradation and fits in with 8 bit colour channels along with the capabilities to produce great images. It's also fiddled with to suit cathode ray monitors. The other originated as the largest gamut possible that can be covered with 8 bit colour channels. The knock on effect of that can be banding when the tones are manipulated. The fact that aRGB covers a larger range of colours more coarsely has lead to it's use for printing to make up for the reduced dynamic range printers generally have.

When in 8 bit channels both gamuts have an identical number of colours available. The aRGB colours are just more widely spaced. This effectively means that sRGB can display some colours that aRGB can't. Some feel that this aspect is important. Some don't. More people feel aRGB is suitable for printing but printers have their own gamuts.

When some one adjusts an image in either their aim is to produce an image that they/others will like. If they want to print either and obtain "the best possible results" they will adjust it yet again. Web images are a bit strange. These days most browsers are colour managed and there are plenty of sites about that will show several images in various gamuts including prophoto and state that people shouldn't be able to see any difference. The only way this can really be factual in all respects including their relation to the scene is if the colours in the image exist in the smallest gamut shown so what happened to all of the carefully adjusted colours in the larger gamut? Most monitors are sRGB. Actually I some times feel I can see differences in blues.

Where the above has changed is down to colour management. These days both gamuts can be held in a variety of bit depths and are then translated into what an output device needs. It also turns out that 10bit per channel aRGB is available and can be viewed on a monitor. This will dramatically reduce the colour spacings but it isn't entirely clear what can be done with it web wise if it could presented like this. There are some indications that viewing 10bit aRGB on a monitor means using an extremely short lead on high res 27in monitors. Display port seems to be the only one that can do it. Pass really as it's hard to find up to date specifications rather than off the cuff web comments. Dual link DVI might too. Pass. This could be fixed by going to lower than normal refresh rates.

100% sRGB coverage is also largely a red herring. The aim of calibration is to produce very low residual colour errors. Surprise surprise this can be done with monitors that don't cover 100%. Lower errors than are strictly needed.

Calibration ideally needs access to r,g and b levels, brightness and contrast AND software that can make use of all of these. One of the things Tftcentral usually check is how constant contrast is as the brightness is varied. The info they give also tends to get round the problem of finding an ideal contrast setting for the 2 gamut calibrations they give. Their reviews also show that calibrating a display's sRGB mode can be successful even though the only adjustment that might be available is brightness. The best initial test to see if a monitor is suitable for calibration is the head movement aspect and if in sRGB/default settings if the grey scales in the CinC tutorial look nice and even at some relatively comfortable brightness level. Or more easily the ones Dpreview show in all of their camera reviews. Calibration should tidy this aspect up anyway.

All it all means really is that if people want to produce the best possible image it needs to be adjusted in the gamut that is to be used - the web is still sRGB. :) On the other hand there are some about who like aRGB images that don't have a profile so get displayed as sRGB images. Sounds strange but they will still have adjusted it in the sRGB output gamut.

John
-

John - interesting theory, but you make a lot of statements that I would not agree with.

sRGB is really the lowest common denominator; and the only time I use it is when I either post an image on the net (a very small minority of my images) or print the image commercially (a minicule number of my images).

Most of my images are viewed by me on my screen. I suspect this is the case for most people, so why would anyone buy a screen based on the lowest common denominator. Again, as I've said before, I use a dual-screen setup; my main editing screen is a wide gamut one and I have a sRGB secondary screen; both are profiled and calibrated, so I can see the differences between both gamuts in an instance. Conversion to a lower gamut colour space takes a few seconds and a couple of clicks with a mouse; so why would I ever default to anything other than a wide gamut screen for image editing?

Based on your comments, I suspect that you are using a screen that is sRGB and don't generally use one that is AdobeRGB, am I correct here?

Interesting new tack Manfred. You know I use a sRGB monitor and have no interest in aRGB. Many of my images finish up on the web. Flickr. I'm well behind on that though due to a mistake which I must wake up one day and fix - some how I put all of the shots I took in Turkey on it including deliberate over and under exposures. I also found with enough body contortions sensor shift can wreck framing. :) I bought a wider lens when we got back.

You on the other hand always assume your type of use. Many people post somewhere and are perfectly happy with commercial sRGB prints - if they want them. Good printers can provide paper icc files. Actually if I print on my sRGB as it comes laser colour accuracy is pretty good but unfortunately it wont take the type of paper I would like to use as it's too thick. The only thing I am inclined to hang on the wall are real paintings that I like so that doesn't matter really.

Theory - no - it all depends on what some one wants to do with the images they take.

John
-

John - my issue is that you are writing about something you have little or no personal experience with and presenting it as a "fact".

I quite agree with you that someone may find a particular piece of equipment good enough for his or her work. My view on equipment purchases like this is quite simple:

Go look at a piece of equipment in your local computer store:

1. Can you see the difference between what you see on a properly set up sRGB screen or a AdobeRGB screen. If the answer is no; then why would you want to spend the extra money on the Adobe RGB compatible unit?

2. If you could see the difference, is there enough of an improvement for you to spend the extra money on it? If the answer is yes, they you will have made the right choice for you and if it is no; same situation, the choice was correct as well. What is important is that you have spent your money wisely.

I've had a Leica for many years and I've had enough people come up to me and tell me that they aren't worth the money. 100% of the people that said that to me have never shot a Leica, and in fact they have never even touched one (I know, because I asked).

We all have personal opinions and biases; to me it is important for us to recognize that and present the information in a way that the questioner has enough information to make up his or her own mind, based on facts rather than opinions masquerading as facts...

Mostly irrelevant Manfred especially for some one who's main interest is posting on the web and completely so for people who are happy with sRGB prints. The fact that it is possible to see a difference between an sRGB image and aRGB images on correctly set up monitors is completely irrelevant as well as I am sure I would see a difference but in a nut shell so what. The web in real terms is sRGB. Actually I hope that does change at some point.

Cameras - I have shot all sorts on film and can add Rollie to your Leica. I would be inclined to agree that these makes are in many respects a waste of money. Also Minox - now there is a name. The truth is as far as optics are concerned the German makes enjoy an undeserved reputation. Like all they vary from model to model.

Anyway. Nick has several options. He knows what he wants to do so can decide which way he goes and how much he is prepared to spend. These niggles do not really help with that aspect.

All I would add is that buying once even if that means waiting generally pays dividends. Need aRGB or can do what he wants with sRGB that's up to him. What I wont tolerate in some replies in this area is musts. There aren't any and some time they are misguided anyway.

John
-

John - Let's agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks guys for your advise. I've learned a lot.

You only need to see argb next to srgb to realize why you need it.

Thank you Richard,
Do you think, though, it helps for others besides you who are editing the photo if they have sRGB screens?

I think that even if you are only creating for the web, but are starting with RAW, you need an argb screen.

See has been mentioned again. Really Nick it all depends on what you want to do. If for instance I wanted to seriously print or sell images I would want an aRGB monitor. If I was going have work published I suspect I would as well but in that case any output would have to be converted to yet another gamut and I suspect in this case 10bit aRGB would also be a good idea. I do know some one who has work published regularly and this is what he uses. I also have a friend that insists on having the same gear but doesn't make any use of it especially the PP software they both use.

Both Manfred and Richard (I think) could tell you how much they have spent on a printer. You could find a commercial printer who will print aRGB and look at the prices. Only you know how much you are likely to spend and also where your interests lie.

An aRGB monitor and suitable software will allow you view images with a larger gamut. As far as I am aware YOU needs stressing so again it comes down to printing / publishing / selling after a fashion plus personal self satisfaction. There are plenty of comments about one the web that 10bit aRGB looks amazing on a monitor.

If 10bit aRGB was a web standard I would go for it like a shot. I've already mentioned the problems with aRGB ordinary on the web. On the other hand I have a phobia about any form of dithering but bear in mind I have spent far to many hours staring at monitors doing all sorts of things over many many years. If there is anything to see I generally do see it. That worries me but it's a personal thing. I'd even be reluctant to buy a 6+2 Dell without looking at a number of things on it.

The machine you plug a monitor into may also have a bearing on this area. I can't help there but it might be worth starting another thread on that subject mentioning what you intend to use. Some people use laptops, some desktops, some workstations even the all in one type PC's it seems. My feeling is that most use 16gb or ram or maybe even more plus a relatively fast processor.

Software for PP always causes some "entertaining" threads that have even encouraged some to leave here and never come back.

I would strongly suspect that the majority of people would reckon that you must have calibration facilities but personally I feel some one could get away with a factory pre calibrated one providing they set the brightness and contrast in a sensible fashion. Or even better the same with some one else's profile and settings from a reliable source. On the other hand I would still suggest that they bought one at some point. I might even say the sooner the better but would feel that this is probably a bit extreme.

Really it all comes down to needs, wishes and budget.

John
-

John - you have stated your opinion on this subject many times.

I think all of us who use an AdobeRGB screen have disagreed with your view. You have also told use that you do not use an AdobeRGB screen, so your writings are based on speculation, rather than fact or experience.

I think Nick should have enough information on this subject to make up his own mind on how to proceed with his planned purchase. If he doesn't, he can come back and ask for clarification (which he has done).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

John - you have stated your opinion on this subject many times.

I think all of us who use an AdobeRGB screen have disagreed with your view. You have also told use that you do not use an AdobeRGB screen, so your writings are based on speculation, rather than fact or experience.

I think Nick should have enough information on this subject to make up his own mind on how to proceed with his planned purchase. If he doesn't, he can come back and ask for clarification (which he has done).

---

Perhaps I haven't seen any work on the 2 peoples monitors I mentioned. On the other hand maybe I have. No doubt you know the answer to that. As to the rest thanks for repeating what I have just posted and have also one way or the other mentioned before.

John
-

Thank you folks, it is so handy to have experts who are willing to share their thoughts for me.

Quote:

---

The machine you plug a monitor into may also have a bearing on this area. I can't help there but it might be worth starting another thread on that subject mentioning what you intend to use. Some people use laptops, some desktops, some workstations even the all in one type PC's it seems. My feeling is that most use 16gb or ram or maybe even more plus a relatively fast processor.

Software for PP always causes some "entertaining" threads that have even encouraged some to leave here and never come back.

---

Somehow I did not find machines you plug your monitors into to be quite as hard to understand, and as for software, I don't think I will start asking about that right now, I already did a little while ago, :) and I was satisfied with my conclusion.

Thanks again!

Nick, simply pick the monitor that you can afford based on your initial two. They will do just fine. If you have the budget and want to do professional work, I am sure you will do a similiar search to fnd an appropriate monitor to suit your needs. Remember your photos are seen by you first and then by an audience and not everyone has the luxury to own top of the line monitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Perhaps I haven't seen any work on the 2 peoples monitors I mentioned. On the other hand maybe I have. No doubt you know the answer to that. As to the rest thanks for repeating what I have just posted and have also one way or the other mentioned before.

John
-

---

John - there are many posts on the internet and many opinions. MANY OF THEM ARE WRONG, out of date or have little real world photo-editing relevence. Directing someone to a site that does a generic review of computer screens is not particularly useful, unless you know which parameters are important to photo editing work and which ones are important to gamers, people who watch videos or general users.

Look at the specs of the Eizo ColorEdge CX271 (a screen designed and targeted at mid-range graphic arts and photo editing field (prosumer)) and see how the specs would rate on a general computer screen review site. They'd be all over the price, contrast ratio, etc. Yet these screens put out by this company are what the photo pros use.

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...dex.html#tab02

Again; I do feel that Nick has had some very good advice from real world users. I think he can make the right decision based on his needs.

If Nick wants to go that way I might suggest looking at the HP Dream Colour range. Early announcements and hp suggest it uses a true 10bit panel. He would need to look into calibration options but as one of it's intended applications is pro video work it has a number of preset gamuts. 10bit panels seem to mostly crop up for video studio monitor work. The 24in one is fairly reasonably priced anyway for this sort of spec. They also do a 27in but all of the side info on colour depth only mentions the 24 in. It gives the full aRGB gamut and they suggest that the back light actually exceeds this.

The review site I pointed him at always shows the results of a calibration suitable for photo editing. They also have a section in them for gamers. They also dismantle all of the monitors that they test to see what the actual panel is - manufacturers are sometimes a little misleading in this respect. I'm a bit narked that Dell have switched to 6+2 but I suppose it keeps their profit margins up. Often the better monitors of any make have certain LG panels in them.

Problem with HP may be that the calibration gear if needed might be rather expensive but all can be soft calibrated anyway - I hope as i can't see anyway they could get round that.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/w...-displays.html

However he really does need to find out if he can use it.

John
-

Windows is ahead of Apple in color management. Although CS4 and up can be set for 10 bit output, Apple machines are limited to 8 bit. Windows offers access to the video card for dynamic range and other functions and Win output can be set for 10 bit. Do not use the HDMI output of any machine for color critical work. HDMI is HD-709A color space which is dynamic range limited and has a compromise green primary. Also you should be aware that when converting color spaces downward in Photoshop and probably any other editor, you can only get relative rendering intent because the profiles used do not have the other intents. If you want to see a rendering intent on your monitor you have to use soft proof.