Wide Gamut Monitors

[Kirk Gittings]

Maybe I'm clueless but...................................

At both universities I teach at I get to use top of the line Eizo's. I also have friends with virtually every high end wide gamut monitor out there. Great. But I never spend the bucks on a top of the line monitor because frankly I CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE. I went from the old Lacie Blues to a Lacie 319 and just bought and received, setup and ran a couple of jobs on Dell Ultrasharps. Yes I can SEE the difference in resolution, but that makes NO difference in how I process images. Actual images on wide gamut monitors don't look any different IME vs. a midrange or even lower end graphics monitor. When printing I don't get any closer to a perfect soft proof with a high end wide gamut monitor. What value is the extra $s beyond bragging rights?
What am I missing?

[Peter De Smidt]

It depends a lot on your photography. If you use a lot of really saturated colors, then you'll see a difference. Otherwise, probably not.

[Amedeus]

Peter has it right ... if the color gamut of your image is smaller than the color gamut of your monitor(s), then it is really hard to see any difference at all.

It is easier to see the difference between a 6 bit panel and a 10 bit panel in my experience on a good b&w image than the color differences between monitors having same depth panels.

There's also a significant personal aspect of perceiving colors that muddies up the waters.

[limnidytis]

I believe the wide gamut monitors have higher quality panels. I have a Dell 22'' monitor and a NEC 3090 which I profile with ColorEyes software. The Dell is too red and can't be completely white balanced. Due to the interlinked nature of the 3 colors with flat panels, when I turn down the red pretty soon the green and blue are also reduced. The result is the monitor is always too red. I use it as a secondary monitor for menus, etc, but I could not use the monitor as a primary monitor if it was my only monitor.

[Jim Andrada]

Have you ever tried the high-end and "less high-end" monitors side by side? If you did you might be more likely to see the difference. I think the high-end monitors are more consistent, calibrate better, display colors more accurately and (maybe more important) consistently.

I have two Apple Cinema 30" monitors side by side and I can NEVER get them to look the same regardless of how often I calibrate. So I also use one for menus and the other for images.

[Kirk Gittings]

Have you ever tried the high-end and "less high-end" monitors side by side? If you did you might be more likely to see the difference. I think the high-end monitors are more consistent, calibrate better, display colors more accurately and (maybe more important) consistently.

I have two Apple Cinema 30" monitors side by side and I can NEVER get them to look the same regardless of how often I calibrate. So I also use one for menus and the other for images.

No I haven't-don't have that opportunity. But as much as I get published and have opportunities to view my files on clients computers. I do get considerable feedback on my color processing.

On your dual display......how do you know which one is "right"

[Kirk Gittings]

I believe the wide gamut monitors have higher quality panels. I have a Dell 22'' monitor and a NEC 3090 which I profile with ColorEyes software. The Dell is too red and can't be completely white balanced. Due to the interlinked nature of the 3 colors with flat panels, when I turn down the red pretty soon the green and blue are also reduced. The result is the monitor is always too red. I use it as a secondary monitor for menus, etc, but I could not use the monitor as a primary monitor if it was my only monitor.

It sounds like you are adjusting the color manually rather than using a calibration device?

[pherold]

And then there are other issues besides color that are factors in high end monitors: angle of view, longevity, uniformity across the screen. If you look at a lower monitor with a smooth gray background, or a near white background - is the color consistent throughout the whole display area? Some of these issues are not obvious when you're looking at typical photos.

[rdenney]

It sounds like you are adjusting the color manually rather than using a calibration device?

I'm using an X-Rite Eye1 Display Pro (that uses the same sensor as the ColorMunki), and my fancy IPS monitor also shows too much intensity in the red. It's okay at mid-gray and in many colors, but saturated red is going to be more saturated than on most monitors, and more red than any paper can print, even when I'm using soft-proofing. I've learned to subtract red saturation from what I see, and I attribute it to having too wide a gamut in the red direction for the calibrator to see or respond to. It's a lot better than it was with my old calibration system.

The problem with cheap monitors is the different colors I see top-to-bottom, or as I move my head.

Rick "thinking that most monitors not intentionally targeted for graphics professionals are really targeted for movie-watchers and gamers" Denney

[Jim Andrada]

Re: "How do you know which one is right?"

in my case it's pretty easy. One of them has a noticeable color cast, the other one doesn't. And the colors on the prints match better to the one that has no noticeable color cast. I know we always think of getting the print to match the display but I guess this is a case of going in the other direction.

[limnidytis]

It sounds like you are adjusting the color manually rather than using a calibration device?

No, you need to do both to set up the monitor. White color temperature and brightness are set with the monitor controls. The instrument reads the screen, but you adjust manually. You don't want to use the video card for these adjustments as if the red had to be reduced to 230 (from 255), the range output of the card would be 230x255x255 rather than 255x255x255. Once you adjust white and brightness, the instrument/ software profiles the monitor and builds the look up table.
I agree with the other posts that the high end monitors are much more uniform across the screen.

[Kirk Gittings]

And then there are other issues besides color that are factors in high end monitors: angle of view, longevity, uniformity across the screen. If you look at a lower monitor with a smooth gray background, or a near white background - is the color consistent throughout the whole display area? Some of these issues are not obvious when you're looking at typical photos.

I've even seen problems with evenness on top of the line Eizos. My best friend bought one and called me up to come over and ask my opinion on the evenness. It was terrible. He sent it back. Next one the same thing. Third one was ok.

[Preston]

No, you need to do both to set up the monitor. White color temperature and brightness are set with the monitor controls.

Whether or not one needs to do this depends upon the monitor and software used to calibrate and create the profile. I have a NEC MultiSync-P and SpectraView. The calibration process is 'hardware', i.e. the black point (contrast ratio), white point and luminance are set on the monitor's LUT according to the target values you select in the software. It's a 'hands-off' process. In fact, NEC recommends that you don't adjust the OSD controls and set your video card to it's defaults before calibrating.

At one time I used a Monaco Optix XR. It required that you use the OSD controls to set contrast, luminance and white point. So, basically what I am getting at is ...that it depends.

--P

[Kirk Gittings]

Mine too.

[Lenny Eiger]

Kirk,
Been watching this thread. I have an expensive Eizo. I was using Apple monitors and was shamed into getting this beast by my clients. It's a pretty monitor, excellent quality and the best thing is that it calibrates itself. I don't have to hook up the EyeOne to that thing with the rubber strap on it, etc.

However. I think color management is less than we all imagine. I say "I think" vs "I know", because other people disagree with me, including my buddy Jon Cone, for whom I have great respect. I don't like to sit in that low light room (makes we want to go to sleep) with a color viewing booth. There are some other problems I have with this approach, not the least of which is that the viewing booth is set to 5000K. Most prints are viewed in a mixture of light and there is some agreement about this being an average of 3900K or thereabouts.

There is one other effect that I think is huge that never gets mentioned. I don't print every day. If I have been working in b&w for some time and move to color (or the reverse) I find that the first print I make - based upon what I see on my monitor - is invariably awful. I look back at the monitor and realize that I was totally off. Then I adjust it based on the print and it looks right, I make another print and I am in range. Then I make another however many to get what I want. What happened here? My analysis is that I had to tune my eyes to the monitor. How do you quantify that, including the fact that we all see colors differently?

I think that most high-end monitors can do all right provided you can get them to display a clean gray as a background. Then everyone is on the same page. I don't have a lot of faith in color management. The idea that you could print something over at your house and then come and print it over here, device independent color and all, and have it turn out the same is not reasonable and does not work in real life. Not unless you can't see well at all, or are using some very limited colorspace. A lot of the "matching" that happens has to do with the creative people doing the work understanding what the client wants and tweaking it to get there vs the automatic features.

When I started I had an ok monitor on the PC that drives the scanner and when I brought the image over to my Mac it was different every time. I found that putting a Mac monitor on my PC made more difference than any color management technique I had tried. If you are going to work with someone and try to color match I might do my best to match their monitor brand.

Over the last decade I have concluded that color management doesn't work as well as we all would all like. Printing something well today isn't the same as what it was yesterday for a variety of reasons. If you get a good, clean gray on the monitor, then you have a starting place that will work. Most of the color differences people get upset about are a 1-2 point difference on a curve. My scans work by separating tonal and/or color ranges and the exact color is not that important. It is expected that someone will adjust them to the exact color they saw, or imagined the saw, or want to believe that they saw, or simply want to say that they saw. I often see comparisons of scanners, or digital cameras, where they compare the color of different images and I am amused by this useless exercise. Are we not supposed to correct anything?

In conclusion, I would say that you should get a great monitor, one that you really enjoy. This is your livelihood, you work very hard, you are likely to spend a lot of time with it and you deserve to have whatever monitor makes you happy. It doesn't have to be the most expensive one, any one of the top monitors will get you what you need.

Lenny

[Tim Povlick]

A while back I compared an astro image (Viel Nebula) on an older Silicon Graphics (SGI 1600W) display compared to an Eizo there was no contest. One could easily see the Eizo was much better. This was a B&W image.

To take full advantage of the Eizo doesn't one require a graphics card that supports 10 bits / color plane?

Tim

[Wildlover]

Anyone serious about color management should go with a Nec Specrtraview in my opinion

[bob carnie]

Lenny we must be on totally different wavelengths when printing.

Years ago I would agree with you, but today I don't. I have spent a lot of time and money searching out the holy grail of monitor to print sameness.

Our company had all the colour management tools at our disposal, and fwiw made pretty decent profiles that allowed us to be in a very loose ballpark in terms of difference between monitor and print.
We used the Eye One Pro with single line by line readings, We found it to be labourious to work with, but our profiles were ok for making one or two test prints before final. Then we humbled ourselves and asked a local expert to come in with his equipment latest generation of auto profile making equipment. It took him a couple hours per paper to dial us in.

Today we are within 1 point colour corrections off monitor, in other words in a commercial world we can offer a service which just prints off final prints. { yes I know you are going to say , but its just a commercial image, well I have been colour correction my whole career and can stand by my work in any setting} For all custom work we test, make PS adjustments to final tweak the image and frame the image for gallery presentation.
If the print does not look like the monitor then it was operator error and we usually find wrong profile applied or some silly issue.

Colour management with the right person driving it in your location (usually not you or I ) is critical for dead nuts reproduction from screen to print.
Also understanding the numbers in the info pallete and how they relate to print density is critical . For example different papers will have different L values for where the highlight with detail , or shadow with detail start falling off.
By knowing these numbers , and how to flash in colour density where the process seemingly will not allow you to see detail, is what separate the good printmaker from the average.
I use a Lacie 526, get it checked once a year that it still can handle the Adobe 1998 gamut, but its the least of my problem when making prints.

Knowing how to handle the top 6 L numbers and bottom 6 L numbers , with PS techniques(learned from the darkroom) is important to me... What happens in between , well thats the fun.

Colour Management does work, understanding that most monitors in the higher price range , will ultimately do the job, knowing how to read density , and constantly seeing it happen as you see on screen is totally workable in anyones printmaking area.

Bob

[Wildlover]

Bob, your post is absolutely precious, Incouldn't agree more

[pherold]

To take full advantage of the Eizo doesn't one require a graphics card that supports 10 bits / color plane?


Technically yes. But of course for any display that has the ability to support 10bit color, in order to view 10-bit color depth, you also need to have all the other pieces in place: 10-bit graphics card with the right drivers, operating system that supports it, program that supports it (Photoshop). Some NECs and some Eizo's can fit the bill here.

Viewing images in true 10-bit color depth is still up in that kind of rarefied air space that not too many people are doing just yet. Most of us are still viewing in 8-bit resolution and that works pretty well, noting those exceptions that have been mentioned already. Any more info on 10bit color might be directed toward this thread from awhile back:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?99268-10-bit-graphic-card