October 23, 2014, 10:18:17 AM

Author Topic: Screen gamut  (Read 4952 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2567
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2014, 12:45:00 AM »
A simple acknowledgement you made a small mistake and that you have subsequently edited all your posts to rewrite what you lambasted me for would have been sufficient.

But, whatever.

We both have good input to make to a thread about colour management, you are very theoretical based, I am more practical and pragmatic. Having printed commercially for other photographers I have a slightly unusual, for this forum, perspective, but it closely aligns with industry experts. I would never argue pure technicalities with you (apart from perspective and compression  :) ), indeed I often enhance my understanding of "why" because of posters like you. Of course consistency should be a given in an advanced thread like this, my input was merely to clarify a small point (which you vehemently denied but then edited) and to caution against obsessiveness and diminishing returns in a section of the workflow from capture to output viewing. Of course screen calibration and profiling are important, as are camera and printer profiles, as are final output viewing condition considerations. Obsessing over one or two and ignoring the rest are as invaluable for ultimate accuracy as not bothering.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2014, 12:45:00 AM »

notapro

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2014, 12:47:34 AM »
jrista,

You mentioned the NEC PA302W-BK-SV monitor.  When do you expect to purchase it?  I believe that you will find it an excellent piece of equipment.

I have had mine for five or six days, and it is tremendous.  For what it's worth, in the context of this thread, what I see on this monitor is a vast improvement over a more generic 23-inch monitor I was using previously  (an Acer S231HL).  To give a mundane example, the red color of the word "canon" in "canonrumors" at the top of this webpage stands out to me now.  I never noticed it before as a red distinct from the other reds on this site.  In fact, I notice differences in reds across many websites that were not so apparent before I had this monitor, and seeing wide ranges in reds in everyday use is at this point what is most striking to me.

Differences in reds as they appear in photos is noticeable as well, relative to what they were with my previous monitor.  The banding in the in the red background of the attached JPG file is evident, whereas to see the banding with the Acer monitor I was using, one would have to pixel-peep the original image at full size (in the original RAW file, banding was not visible).


jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2014, 01:17:06 AM »
A simple acknowledgement you made a small mistake and that you have subsequently edited all your posts to rewrite what you lambasted me for would have been sufficient.

But, whatever.

Tit for tat. Two way roads. We both made mistakes. I apologize.

We both have good input to make to a thread about colour management, you are very theoretical based, I am more practical and pragmatic. Having printed commercially for other photographers I have a slightly unusual, for this forum, perspective, but it closely aligns with industry experts. I would never argue pure technicalities with you (apart from perspective and compression  :) ), indeed I often enhance my understanding of "why" because of posters like you. Of course consistency should be a given in an advanced thread like this, my input was merely to clarify a small point (which you vehemently denied but then edited) and to caution against obsessiveness and diminishing returns in a section of the workflow from capture to output viewing. Of course screen calibration and profiling are important, as are camera and printer profiles, as are final output viewing condition considerations. Obsessing over one or two and ignoring the rest are as invaluable for ultimate accuracy as not bothering.

I completely agreed with you in the end about perspective and compression. ;P I was trying to extend the meaning beyond what you and Neuro were insisting it was limited to...I failed.  ::) I am happy to accept the more limited description.

I edited the post to eliminate future confusion, nothing else. And I still wish you had read everything...there were multiple posts between my first, and the point at which you decided to ignore everything I said about ColorMunki Design and claim I was talking about the ColorMunki Display (and I DID use the word Design in my subsequent posts, many times, before you made an issue about it. I only edited the first post, to avoid further confusion of anyone else who came along and read it.)

As for output scenarios, as you said, as an industry printer, you have a rather unique perspective. For the average photographer, what matters is their own workflow. We can even eliminate the print context, and just deal with the web context. Most photographers publish their work on the web. I do myself, more than I print (although I do print quite a lot.) The thing that is most irksome about DataColor's system is the inconsistencies between calibration and subsequent recalibrations (which the software wants you to do pretty frequently, no longer than two months at the most, and more frequently than that most of the time.) When I did recalibrate often, the biggest issue was the tonal range in the shadows. It swings widely...sometimes blacks seem completely crushed, and at other times they are wide open and rich.

That becomes a serious problem for publishing to the web. A calibrated screen is also usually readjusted so that it's backlight is dimmer. A brightness of 120mcd is pretty standard, and in some cases as low as 80mcd is even better for workflows that involve print. When you edit images with crushed blacks and shadows, especially if you don't know they are crushed, inevitably results in you editing the shadows to be brighter. It was a while before I noticed this inconsistency, however when I would view my work on other peoples computers, I'd easily notice that some looked pretty good, while others were clearly too bright in the shadows, often too noisy in the shadows, and tonal gradients were really poor. I've actually kept an old Sony Vaio laptop around that has this huge 18.4" screen that is one of the worst screens I've ever used. It's sole value to me is to check my post-processing, and make sure that I edited the shadows properly.

This was the heart of what I was trying to write about. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system are a problem. Less so, really, for print...and you make some great points there. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system that frustrate me so much are actually most important for my web publishing workflow. I've actually avoided recalibrating for...months, at this point, maybe over five months...because I kept recalibrating last time until I managed to get perfect shadow tonality, along with the best green and red reproduction I could manage. I'm truly afraid to recalibrate with the Spyder system, as it could result in hours of fiddling and tweaking and fiddling more to avoid the crushed blacks problem.

I also believe I am not the only one who has noted such issues with DataColor's products. In my research about what screen to replace my current one with (the backlight on this one is going to go in the not too distant future, as I've had this screen for at least seven years now), many reviewers of products like NEC's PA301 and PA302 screens noted that they experienced much more consistent and accurate results with either any of the i1 products from X-Rite, or the bundled SpectraView II device. I've read about similar issues with people who use Dell's UltraSharp screens. Even if "perfect" calibration isn't and maybe shouldn't be "the goal", I do believe "consistent" calibration IS and SHOULD be a goal.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2014, 01:24:38 AM »
jrista,

You mentioned the NEC PA302W-BK-SV monitor.  When do you expect to purchase it?  I believe that you will find it an excellent piece of equipment.

I have had mine for five or six days, and it is tremendous.

Well, congrats on the purchase! :D I'm a bit envious...I've read a LOT about what monitor to replace my current one with (an Apple CinemaDisplay 30"...one of the older ones, with the single piece injection molded aluminum body). The best on the market are of course Eizo's, which have built-in calibration so you don't even need a device...and the NECs. I'd certainly prefer a 16-bit hardware LUT and built in automatic calibration, but I can't justify spending three grand on such a screen, not for what I do. The NEC sounds, from all the raving reviews, to be quite amazing. I'm sure you'll love your screen for a long time to come.

For what it's worth, in the context of this thread, what I see on this monitor is a vast improvement over a more generic 23-inch monitor I was using previously  (an Acer S231HL).  To give a mundane example, the red color of the word "canon" in "canonrumors" at the top of this webpage stands out to me now.  I never noticed it before as a red distinct from the other reds on this site.  In fact, I notice differences in reds across many websites that were not so apparent before I had this monitor, and seeing wide ranges in reds in everyday use is at this point what is most striking to me.

You are using a true wide-gamut screen now, so deep reds will definitely be richer. Deep colors in general, as well as colors in the AdobeRGB gamut that extend beyond the reach of sRGB, will be more vibrant. Greens in particular should really start to pop with the NEC.

Differences in reds as they appear in photos is noticeable as well, relative to what they were with my previous monitor.  The banding in the in the red background of the attached JPG file is evident, whereas to see the banding with the Acer monitor I was using, one would have to pixel-peep the original image at full size (in the original RAW file, banding was not visible).

That would be the screen's hardware 14-bit LUT. Even though internally the operating system and most software is only capable of 8-bpc color, with the NEC screen, you actually have 14-bpc (or 42-bit) color. When working with images that have a higher bit depth than 8-bpc, such as 16-bit TIFF or RAW images in the AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB gamut, instead of multiple similar colors basically being "binned" into the same 8-bit color the screen is actually able to differentiate those colors, and the correct colors will be looked up via the LUT built into the monitor. You should RARELY see posterization and banding anymore, as that is usually caused by that binning effect, where similar colors are merged by ICM (which can occur with both Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual intents) when there isn't enough precision in the display space to account for all actual source colors.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2014, 01:42:02 AM »


There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".

hah

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2014, 01:45:33 AM »

I think she was damn right!  ;D  She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.

She was, that is why I referenced the anecdote. But she was working to the output viewing conditions, not the sterile fully profiled and managed workstation conditions.

Final output viewing conditions are all that matters, if you are outputting your images, if you aren't then by definition it is moot because you don't have any.

Don't forget though that they now know which sort of look looks best on the newsstand and since they have calibrated monitors they can reliable aim to hit close to that to begin with from then on.

And I still wouldn't discount the lone screen thing so much. Again most photos you take are seen by yourself and most and most often on screen. And the for others who see your stuff, it's online that will total the largest amount of views for most people.

And the varying conditions for prints thing, yeah, but all the same I find it way easier to get prints that seem reasonable when basing off of a color-managed monitor then one set to who knows what.

And you always have a decent starting point. You don't need to re-edit your images completely every time you move to a new screen or a new printer etc.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 01:50:43 AM by LetTheRightLensIn »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2014, 09:14:59 AM »
Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear.  I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray.  Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can.  I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before.  It's great and annoying all at the same time :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2014, 09:14:59 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2014, 09:40:32 AM »
Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear.  I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray.  Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can.  I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before.  It's great and annoying all at the same time :)

*Me Too*

I have developed the "problem" of being able to always see the color balance of lighting. Light used to just be "white"...it didn't matter if it was the deep orange 2700kelvin of tungsten or the 3300kelvin of halogen or the 5500kelvin of sunlight or the 6500kelvin of daylight. Now, I really hate standard tungsten light...it is just WAAAAY TOOOO OOOOOORAAAAANNNG. I prefer at least 3300-3500 kelvin lighting for my upstairs rooms, and I've moved to 5000 kelvin white light for my downstairs living area. Even if I turn off the downstairs lighting, go up the stairs in the dark, and turn on the upstairs lighting, I can still always tell that it is much more yellow-orange than the downstairs light, even after having hours to "adjust".

Because I obsessed over tuning my computers calibration, I somehow seemed to have disabled the bit in my brain that automatically adjusts whitepoint for me mentally. It's interesting in one sense...I can have different lighting of different temperatures all throughout the house, and I can recognize each and every one as distinct....even without needing to compare them simultaneously. In the other sense...it's kind of annoying, as I really hate the orange light that illuminates most people's homes now....  :-\

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2014, 10:30:15 AM »
Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear.  I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray.  Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can.  I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before.  It's great and annoying all at the same time :)

*Me Too*

I have developed the "problem" of being able to always see the color balance of lighting. Light used to just be "white"...it didn't matter if it was the deep orange 2700kelvin of tungsten or the 3300kelvin of halogen or the 5500kelvin of sunlight or the 6500kelvin of daylight. Now, I really hate standard tungsten light...it is just WAAAAY TOOOO OOOOOORAAAAANNNG. I prefer at least 3300-3500 kelvin lighting for my upstairs rooms, and I've moved to 5000 kelvin white light for my downstairs living area. Even if I turn off the downstairs lighting, go up the stairs in the dark, and turn on the upstairs lighting, I can still always tell that it is much more yellow-orange than the downstairs light, even after having hours to "adjust".

Because I obsessed over tuning my computers calibration, I somehow seemed to have disabled the bit in my brain that automatically adjusts whitepoint for me mentally. It's interesting in one sense...I can have different lighting of different temperatures all throughout the house, and I can recognize each and every one as distinct....even without needing to compare them simultaneously. In the other sense...it's kind of annoying, as I really hate the orange light that illuminates most people's homes now....  :-\
I'm happy to hear that I'm not alone - maybe we need to start ICC Anonymous ;)  I began replacing my house bulbs with D65 ones many years ago - D50 is too orange for me, too - I only use it for proofing my commercial work going to magazines and the like.

IMG_0001

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Amateur photon abductor
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2014, 02:37:46 PM »
Thanks again everyone, some interesting posts and debate in there. For me the move to calibrating the screen just resulted from the evident blue-purple cast of my previous machine screen. I don't do photography professionally, but it was overwhelmingly evident that I could not print easily with the initial setup. I don't have my own printer but deal with a reputable local shop that is well setup.

Now, even though all is not perfect, my screen is much ore neutral and postprocessing for printing is much easier to handle for a 'casual' user like me.
What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2014, 03:04:27 PM »
Thanks again everyone, some interesting posts and debate in there. For me the move to calibrating the screen just resulted from the evident blue-purple cast of my previous machine screen. I don't do photography professionally, but it was overwhelmingly evident that I could not print easily with the initial setup. I don't have my own printer but deal with a reputable local shop that is well setup.

Now, even though all is not perfect, my screen is much ore neutral and postprocessing for printing is much easier to handle for a 'casual' user like me.
I found the conversations pretty interesting, too, and a calibrated screen and a printer that uses a color-managed workflow is plenty good enough for the majority of people.  Congrats on getting set up, but beware, it can be a "gateway drug" to full color management - LOL  ;)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2014, 03:15:55 PM »
Looks as if monitors aren't the only things that need measuring around here  ::)

notapro

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2014, 05:02:23 PM »
As others have done here, I, too, have modified the lighting in my home.  All lights are at 6500K.  I will not ever go back to orange or yellow lighting.  I even have urges to change the lamps in my car's headlights to ones with whiter light . . . maybe I should look into finding an ICC Anonymous group.  Carl may be onto something with his idea of other things needing measuring around here.   :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2014, 05:02:23 PM »

IMG_0001

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Amateur photon abductor
    • View Profile
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2014, 07:35:53 PM »
Hi, my name is Laurent and I've not cailbrated my screen or changed a lightbulb for 48 hours... It is hard... you know...screen calibration has been part of my life since high school when that guy showed me his wide gamut.

I'm sure we can all relate.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 07:39:23 PM by IMG_0001 »
What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2014, 07:35:53 PM »