Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Alfred Molon, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
    space. Supposedly these are the best.

    On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
    world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
    point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
    because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
    gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 16, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    PeterN Guest

    there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
    <http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI>

    To sum it up!
    Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
    size doesn't fit all.
     
    PeterN, Feb 16, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    PeterN Guest

    I forgot to add:
    Here is a video htat explains the differences:
    <
     
    PeterN, Feb 16, 2013
    #3
  4. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Chan has investigated the matching of color gamuts between the
    (seriously obsolete) Samsung 191T monitor and the (obsolete) Epson
    3800 printer. He presents this at
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/gamuts.html

    His conclusion that no printer gamut entirely envelops a monitor
    gamut, and vice versa, is almost certainly as true today with the
    improved modern monitors and papers and inks. The whole article is
    worth studying.

    His conclusions are:

    -----------------------------
    From the examples above, as well as additional tests that I've
    performed on many other inkjet papers, I would conclude:

    If you use sRGB or Adobe RGB as your working space (e.g., in
    Photoshop), then you won't be able to access all the colors the
    3800 is capable of printing. These missing colors are usually the
    light yellows and the mid-to-dark greens and red/magentas. Use a
    wider space such as ProPhoto RGB to unlock these colors and make
    full use of your printer and paper's gamut!

    There are many colors that glossy, luster, and semi-gloss papers
    can reproduce that matte papers cannot. However, perhaps
    surprisingly, there are also some colors that matte papers can
    reproduce that glossy, luster, and semi-gloss papers cannot.

    There are many colors that the 3800 is capable of printing that
    cannot be displayed on normal monitors. Even the high-end monitors
    that cover approximately the Adobe RGB gamut cannot show all of
    the 3800-printable colors. This makes image editing on a display
    seem strange, given the inability to preview certain colors. It
    means, for instance, that it's possible for a color to appear more
    saturated in the print than it does on the display!
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 16, 2013
    #4
  5. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Wow! That's worth a million words.

    Thank you.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 16, 2013
    #5
  6. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?

    Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 16, 2013
    #6
  7. Alfred Molon

    Savageduck Guest

    Almost everybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, only making
    the conversion to sRGB & 8-bit JPEG on export.

    Also anybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, and then
    performing additional editing in an external editor such as Photoshop
    or some other stand alone applications such as some of the NIK
    offerings.

    The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
    exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
    as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.

    A note in the LR4 preferences reads:
    "16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving
    color detais from Lightroom".
    and
    "The AdobeRGB (1998) colorspace cannot encompass the full range of
    colors available within Lightroom."
    and
    "The sRGB colorspace cannot encompass the full range of colors
    available within Lightroom."

    There is also this note in the LR Preferences regarding using 8-bit in
    LR or in an external editor:
    "8-bit files are smaller and more compatible with various programs and
    plug-ins, but will not preserve fine tonal detail as well as 16-bit
    data. This is particularly true in wide gamut color spaces such as
    ProPhoto RGB."
    Perhaps, perhaps not. If your product is only going to be viewed online
    there is probably no good reason to work in ProPhoto RGB, unless you
    are trying to work the best colorspace for your software, and then
    convert to 8-bit sRGB to save as JPEGs for online presentation.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 16, 2013
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
    you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
    saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?

    Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 17, 2013
    #8
  9. Alfred Molon

    PeterN Guest

    As I said earlier , it depends on your use. I prefer to work in ProPhoto
    because I feel that I have more color control. I also use ICC profiles.
     
    PeterN, Feb 17, 2013
    #9
  10. Alfred Molon

    Me Guest

    And if you can't see it (because your monitor "only" covers aRGB), then....?
    Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
    when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.
    There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and >sRGB colourspace.
    A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
    mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
    adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
    can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
    much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).

    I can't see much point - if any - in using >sRGB for printing unless
    you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
    very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
    case, and opens a can of worms.

    While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
    mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
    aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
    manufacturers.
     
    Me, Feb 17, 2013
    #10
  11. Alfred Molon

    PeterN Guest


    If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter. Indeed you
    might get worse results because of interpolation of interpolation
    issues. It;s only if you are shooting RAW that it could become an issue.
     
    PeterN, Feb 17, 2013
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/16/2013 8:21 PM, Me wrote:



    <snip

    Depends on the printer. IIRC The Epson 2880, 3880 and up will do 19 bit
    depth printing.
     
    PeterN, Feb 17, 2013
    #12
  13. Alfred Molon

    Savageduck Guest

    That is only if you are making additional adjustments with an external
    editor such as CS5. All other LR edits to DNGs are recorded as
    non-destructive data within LR.
    Fortunately for me I am still shooting with my D300S. So If I take one
    of my latest SI submissions I start with a 4288x2848 DNG @ 36.8MB with
    all my RAW and LR adjustments. After exporting to CS5 for a few other
    adjustments including a crop, I have a 4500x3000 TIF @ 81.1MB. I could
    have saved back to LR4 as a PSD and saved a bit of HDD space. Both
    retain their ProPhoto RGB colorspace, and I can print those without
    issue to my R2880 using the matched ICC profile for the printer +
    paper.

    Also, HDD space is not unreasonable today. I am certainly not going to
    share or distribute fat TIFs unless I really have to.

    Then I export the saved TIF converting it to an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG (and
    still at 360 ppi and able to produce a pretty decent print)ending up at
    10.6MB. I resize that JPEG for the SI getting it down to 384KB,
    1280x862 and still at 360 ppi switching to 72 ppi makes no difference
    to the file size or the viewer's experience.
    None that I know of, and I doubt there ever will be. The "in camera"
    colorspace selection is mainly for the benefit of the camera generated
    JPEGs.
    Consider that the RAW file is going to be colorspace neutral until you
    process it in the RAW processing software of your choice and use
    whatever options it provides you. Adobe allows you the choice to decide
    between sRGB, Adobe RGB(1998), or ProPhoto RGB in ACR, or import and
    convert to DNG 16-bit ProPhoto with Lightroom.

    I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
    the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The
    benefit of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with
    the LR to CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would
    give me the same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 17, 2013
    #13
  14. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I try to use it whenever I can. However I am disconcerted to find that
    DxO seems to be using a quasi ProPhoto which is actually an Adobe RGB
    color range encapsulated in a ProPhoto shell. That's a big negative
    for DxO in my mind.
    I think that it depends on your printer, most probably yes. See the
    Eric Chan article to which I referred in a previous message.
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/gamuts.html
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 17, 2013
    #14
  15. Alfred Molon

    Savageduck Guest

    Oh! Well!
    ....and how is that a problem for online viewing?
    The biggest issue for online viewing is over compression of JPEGs which
    leads to some very nasty images loaded with artifacts.
    Lightroom has a very nice print module, and with my R2880 I use matched
    paper and printer ICC profiles, with very good results.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 17, 2013
    #15
  16. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Even if your monitor can't see it, can your printer?
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 17, 2013
    #16
  17. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Feb 17, 2013
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Feb 17, 2013
    #18
  19. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
    Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
    processing.

    From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
    exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
    AdobeRGB, how would you know?
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 17, 2013
    #19
  20. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Printer
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 17, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.