Let's talk about photographer-friendly monitors

[privatebydesign]

Let me offer an analogy to audio, one that you may be easily able to reproduce on your own.
What is pleasing in audio is subjective as are visuals.

If your PC's sound hardware has a graphic equalizer, open it.
Next open a media player with it's own equalizer leaving the software's equalizer off, play a song while tweaking the hardware's equalizer to your taste.
Now, with the hardware equalizer still active and tweaked, tweak some more with the software's equalizer.
I've found there's about nothing I can do to get pleasing results with both equalizers running on top of each other.
- - -
Back to color management for printing.
Calibrate your monitor. Best to use something like the x-rite i1Display Pro that takes ambient light into consideration.
Run the calibration in a darkened room on a well warmed up monitor that's been on at least two hours.
If your monitor has it's own hardware LUTs, use that.
If no hardware LUT, use the calibration software's monitor adjustment.


If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
Any other adjustments made through the OS will result in the equivalent of using multiple equalizers on audio signals.
Now, when the PC hardware and software send a red signal to the monitor, the monitor will display the truest red it is capable of and the same for all colors, white point, black point.
- - -


Printer can't print the same though, it needs profiling for each and every printer/ink/paper combination to be used.
A device and software such as a Datacolor SpyderPRINT is used to profile.
Profiling software sends a print job to the printer of many many different colored squares, software knows exactly what colors were sent to print.
Profiling hardware is then used to read to the profiling hardware exactly what the printer actually did print for each color, software then creates a difference or error file which is an .icc or .icm file. Name this file distinctly and descriptively.
- - -
Now in your photo editing software, edit using soft proofing or print proofing with the appropriate .icc/.icm file. If your editor has no such option, get one that does.
DO NOT ADD IN THE PRINTER'S DRIVER SOFTWARE, if you do, you're back to the multiple equalizer analogy. Print directly from the photo editor's print function.
- - -
Short version......
Calibrated monitor displays the truest color it is capable of.
Printer profile in photo editor displays what printer can and will do.
Any other tweaks result analogous to multiple equalizers.
- - -
With end to end color management in mind I spent many hours over several months reading most everything I could find, much of what I found left me more confused than when I started.
The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html
Keith has written so extensively on this and so many other topics I wonder how he finds time to shoot.
Shoot he does and very well, up on a level I aspire to.

Clearly.

I have edited your post for clarity, relevance, and useful information.

The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

 

[tolusina]

Let me offer an analogy to audio, one that you may be easily able to reproduce on your own.
What is pleasing in audio is subjective as are visuals.

If your PC's sound hardware has a graphic equalizer, open it.
Next open a media player with it's own equalizer leaving the software's equalizer off, play a song while tweaking the hardware's equalizer to your taste.
Now, with the hardware equalizer still active and tweaked, tweak some more with the software's equalizer.
I've found there's about nothing I can do to get pleasing results with both equalizers running on top of each other.
- - -
Back to color management for printing.
Calibrate your monitor. Best to use something like the x-rite i1Display Pro that takes ambient light into consideration.
Run the calibration in a darkened room on a well warmed up monitor that's been on at least two hours.
If your monitor has it's own hardware LUTs, use that.
If no hardware LUT, use the calibration software's monitor adjustment.


If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
Any other adjustments made through the OS will result in the equivalent of using multiple equalizers on audio signals.
Now, when the PC hardware and software send a red signal to the monitor, the monitor will display the truest red it is capable of and the same for all colors, white point, black point.
- - -


Printer can't print the same though, it needs profiling for each and every printer/ink/paper combination to be used.
A device and software such as a Datacolor SpyderPRINT is used to profile.
Profiling software sends a print job to the printer of many many different colored squares, software knows exactly what colors were sent to print.
Profiling hardware is then used to read to the profiling hardware exactly what the printer actually did print for each color, software then creates a difference or error file which is an .icc or .icm file. Name this file distinctly and descriptively.
- - -
Now in your photo editing software, edit using soft proofing or print proofing with the appropriate .icc/.icm file. If your editor has no such option, get one that does.
DO NOT ADD IN THE PRINTER'S DRIVER SOFTWARE, if you do, you're back to the multiple equalizer analogy. Print directly from the photo editor's print function.
- - -
Short version......
Calibrated monitor displays the truest color it is capable of.
Printer profile in photo editor displays what printer can and will do.
Any other tweaks result analogous to multiple equalizers.
- - -
With end to end color management in mind I spent many hours over several months reading most everything I could find, much of what I found left me more confused than when I started.
The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html
Keith has written so extensively on this and so many other topics I wonder how he finds time to shoot.
Shoot he does and very well, up on a level I aspire to.

Clearly.

I have edited your post for clarity, relevance, and useful information.

The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

Trying to start up again? You like it that way? The rest of the community doesn't.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Looks like OP already chose a display, but a note for anyone interested in the Dell 24" 2160P panels- looks like they just released a new model, the P2415Q. The specs are identical to the UP2414Q that I own except for 99% sRGB instead of 99% Adobe RGB, but the price is now under 500$. I would imagine this is the version with the fixed firmware, re-released under a new name to distance it's self from the messed up model.

I think there are a lot more differences than just the gamut.
It seems like it drives 60Hz UHD under SST without needing MST perhaps, which is nice, and probably a newer firmware also nice (as you noted) but:

it has a much smaller gamut (as you noted)

appears to lack an internal 3D LUT

appears to lack a screen uniformity compensator

probably used PWM to dim the LED instead of advanced direct current methods

so I'd say it's definitely considerably downscale

the UP2414Q was just on sale at Dell for $699 too

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated. ;D

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93362-what-colorspace-should-my-files-be-in-

It seems like using AdobeRGB would make the workflow a little more cumbersome in case one wants to share photos online. Is there an obvious difference between prints based on sRGB and AdobeRGB? Since i'm not going to print that often, it needs to be worthwhile for me to invest money an time into the technology.

The problem with 'studying' things like this from places like that is that they are not formally educated and often talk a lot of rubbish.

Do you shoot RAW or jpeg?

If you shoot RAW it doesn't matter which colour space you assign in your camera because the RAW file doesn't honour either, if you then carry on and work in Adobe Lightroom it works in an even bigger colour space that contains all the information your camera captured, you don't assign a colour space until you actually export the image and assigning whatever colour space you want is no more time consuming or difficult than telling it to be full sized or 1200px.

If you shoot jpeg and are editing and printing from that then it doesn't matter as you have comparatively little editing latitude anyway and you have already thrown away most of the information your camera captured.

Thank you, your explanation gave me a better view on the subject. There's still one thing i can't grasp. If i edit my images in a large color space, and then set the software to export the picture in a narrower color space, how do i know in advance which colors will be "discarded"? Is there an export preview mode like Lightroom 5?

You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

And you can also flip it into sRGB emulation mode (and it gives a truer sRGB mode than 99% of regular gamut monitors).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One last question: do you think that the available colorspace is as relevant for a B/W development workflow as it is for a color development workflow? Can you suggest me a good book on color theory related to photography development?

For a pure B&W color workflow definitely not. I mean for the very first ACR RAW step you might still want ProphotoRGB to avoid clipping before conversion to B&W, but after that it doesn't matter and the monitor's gamut doesn't matter at all either.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what context (desktop, web-browsing, photo-editing, videos,etc.)? And are you just talking intense bright saturation or like even whites popping your eyes out because the monitor's backlight is set so high?

I'm not quite sure what you describe is necessarily how it should always be.

 

[tolusina]

....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.

 

[privatebydesign]

If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what context (desktop, web-browsing, photo-editing, videos,etc.)? And are you just talking intense bright saturation or like even whites popping your eyes out because the monitor's backlight is set so high?

I'm not quite sure what you describe is necessarily how it should always be.

And I rest my case................

 

[tolusina]

If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

Are you using a wide gamut monitor in AdobeRGB mode? If so, some manufacturers offer tools to automatically switch back to sRGB for browsing and other tasks. Dell's tool that I use works great, which makes web pages go from NEON back to normal...

Yes.
It's an NEC PA242W with Spectraview.
I have seen where/how to switch back but I've not seen an automatic switching choice.

 

[privatebydesign]

....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.

No it isn't, Lightroom soft proofing does a very inaccurate job of any decent printers true gamut potential. Try it, make two prints one that you have 'adjusted' for what LR says is in gamut, and send one straight to the printer, the one that went straight to the printer will be much more saturated and closer to your original image on screen.

Rendering intent is very important, but soft proofing as done in LR, is not.

 

[tolusina]

If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what context (desktop, web-browsing, photo-editing, videos,etc.)? And are you just talking intense bright saturation or like even whites popping your eyes out because the monitor's backlight is set so high?

I'm not quite sure what you describe is necessarily how it should always be.

Whites aren't an issue, some bright reds and greens are though.
Re; "...how it should always be..." I probably could have phrased LEAVE IT THAT WAY better, more like use it that way while photo editing.
I have no idea if or what might be related to the monitor's back lighting.

I do know that I've been amazed, gratified and quite satisfied with each and every print I've gotten following this procedure. I've had zero wasted prints. A far cry from guesswork fails I've had in the past with less and lesser hardware and software.

 

[tolusina]

If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what context (desktop, web-browsing, photo-editing, videos,etc.)? And are you just talking intense bright saturation or like even whites popping your eyes out because the monitor's backlight is set so high?

I'm not quite sure what you describe is necessarily how it should always be.

And I rest my case................

No, you're just obfuscating the discussion. If you don't care for the discussion, stay out of it.

 

[tolusina]

....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.

No it isn't, Lightroom soft proofing does a very inaccurate job of any decent printers true gamut potential. Try it, make two prints one that you have 'adjusted' for what LR says is in gamut, and send one straight to the printer, the one that went straight to the printer will be much more saturated and closer to your original image on screen.

Rendering intent is very important, but soft proofing as done in LR, is not.

whatever, sheesh

 

[privatebydesign]

....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.

No it isn't, Lightroom soft proofing does a very inaccurate job of any decent printers true gamut potential. Try it, make two prints one that you have 'adjusted' for what LR says is in gamut, and send one straight to the printer, the one that went straight to the printer will be much more saturated and closer to your original image on screen.

Rendering intent is very important, but soft proofing as done in LR, is not.

whatever, sheesh

We have zero respect for each other, that is fine, but the difference is I back up everything I say.

This guy is a world authority on colour management and his findings align with my empirical results.

http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov

 

[tolusina]

....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...

I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.

No it isn't, Lightroom soft proofing does a very inaccurate job of any decent printers true gamut potential. Try it, make two prints one that you have 'adjusted' for what LR says is in gamut, and send one straight to the printer, the one that went straight to the printer will be much more saturated and closer to your original image on screen.

Rendering intent is very important, but soft proofing as done in LR, is not.

whatever, sheesh

We have zero respect for each other, that is fine, but the difference is I back up everything I say.

This guy is a world authority on colour management and his findings align with my empirical results.

http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov

A useful video for sure, as long as you're using LR beta 4. I stopped watching the irrelevant dated material at 0:08.
And, no, you're not going to goad me into wasting ink, paper and time printing without soft proofing but you go right ahead.

In my experience, when I print after editing with a calibrated wide gamut monitor and soft proofing with an appropriate .icc profile created expressly for and with the printer, ink and paper to be used and no other adjustments, my prints come out exactly as I expect the first and every time, zero waste of time, paper and ink.
---
I don't know, what? Maybe you're bringing complex baggage from a past technological era.
It's just not as complicated as you insist, it's just spendy on gear.
---
Once more, these are the steps;
1) Calibrate the monitor, don't try and second guess that your visual judgement is better than the hardware and software and tweak it further.
2) Profile the printer, ink and paper to be used, soft proof with the resulting .icc/.icm profile.
3) Click print, frame and hang the output.
---

 

[LovePhotography]

Anybody spring for the big LG 4k OLED yet? If so, what you think?

 

[Hannes]

OLED 4k is very interesting but I worry you will run into problems with them where everyone else sees the image very differently. My phone has an OLED screen and in the dark it is amazing. The blacks are truly black (the strength of that panel tech after all) but if you edit photos on one I think you will have a different colour balance than everyone else but most importantly the contrast will be off.

I know we have come far from the OP's original query but my advice would be to buy a Dell U2413 with a x-rite pro1 calibrator. That should come to about €500. There are far better screens out there but for the average prosumer it is what you need at a good price point.

 

[pjn0629]

I can't stand my monitor anymore, i need something better. The one i have now is a Samsung P2470HD: 24", 1920x1080, TN panel, fixed pedestal with no height/tilt setting. It's clearly not suited for photo retouching. I keep reading everywhere that IPS panels have better color accuracy, so i guess that would be my choice. I don't want to go below 24", and i'm considering 27" panels as well. My working distance is about half meter (1.5 ft) so i don't really know if it's a good idea to use a monitor larger than 24". Regarding the resolution, i think i could use some more screen space, so i think that monitors with a resolution of 2560x1440 would be the right choice. There is also a brand new 24" 4k monitor from Dell, but i don't really know if it's worth it. Maybe some retina display users can give some feedback regarding very high resolution monitors. There are also some cheap 29" 2560x1080 (21:9), has anyone got any experience with them?
Then there's the color space issue: someday i would like to be skilled enough to make pictures worth printing, will sRGB be enough in that case?
As you can see, i'm really confused. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't want to spend more than 500€.
Is there some brand/model you would recommend?

I might be a little late on this thread... ony skimmed it, but I just went through this process myself, and I'd like to share my thought process and conclusions...

I just upgraded from a 20" apple cinema display (1680x1050, sRGB) Mostly because I didn't like how lightroom manages screen space... Aperture was much more efficient in letting you see more of the photo that you're working on, especially with a smaller screen. But Aperture is dead, and Lightroom is admittedly much better (performance isn't as fast, but I turn out better results in less time)


Resolution:
You didn't mention what kind of hardware you're running aside from the monitor... So, if you don't have a discrete graphics card, 4K isn't really an option. I'm running a late 2013 macbook pro retina 13" and i'm not too excited to be limited to 30fps, even though i'm not gaming, dragging windows and other general computer stuff is pretty noticeable when you cut from 60 to 30 fps. Also with all of the hullabaloo over 5K and not being able to stream data to the monitor fast enough at 4K, I really decided to take a more conservative approach, and stick to more traditional resolutions.

Also, Having perpetually been using 16:10 for the last decade or so, I really like that aspect ratio, and always felt squished on a 1920x1080 panel, especially at work in excel. So, I set a hardline at a minimum resolution of 1920x1200.

Color Space:
I'd say 90% of the impressions of my photography, if not more are viewed on a computer screen, and an sRGB one at that. So, while I shoot raw and capture 14 bit color and all that jazz, no one is really going to end up seeing it.

... Unless I print
I looked into different printing services out there, and I'm all about convienence and price when ordering prints, Apple makes it super easy to order prints via the beta photos app/aperture(what i did pre-lightroom)/iphoto... the quality has always been great, and its easy. They print in sRGB

One day when I have the space to have a real setup (ie. not living in NYC) and I can get a proper printer, then sure maybe it's time to think about leaving sRGB behind.

If I really felt like printing beyond sRGB, I'm friends with the owner of a local wedding studio, who's offered that I can come in and use their edit bays and printers whenever I feel like it. FWIW they only have one set up there that's not an Apple Cinema Display (sRGB) and they keep the majority of their workflow sRGB as well.

If I really felt like sRGB was limiting my photography in any way, there are options around it, but for sitting at my desk, sRGB is plenty.

I also do calibrate my monitor with a huey, it's been going strong for years, and prints are dead on when compared to my screen whenever I've ordered them from apple over the years.

So, for 90+% of the photo work that I do... sRGB is plenty, and 100% coverage is great, kind of a given with a TN panel these days anyway.

Ergonomics:

I never had issues with my old apple cinema display, with its small-ish screen size, the height of the top of it was just right on my desk, so I guess I got lucky there. (new panel is much bigger, and I adjust it to be lower than the top of its stand)

This was the big one for me... I live in NYC, and I have literally the SMALLEST desk that pottery barn makes, because it was the smallest desk that I could get my hands on that wasn't super flimsy. That being said, Desk space is at a premium, and add in a keyboard/mouse/Drobo and room for my macbook to be on the desk, I really didn't think I could fit a 27" monitor or a 28" monitor, so I was trying to keep it under 27 if I could, in order to not be too cramped at my desk.

Monitor Selection:
So, with all of those inputs... I ended up getting a Dell U2515, 1560x1440 (16:9 but it doesn't feel cramped) It's SUPER BRIGHT, but after going through the calibration process (setting up brightness/contrast controls to a reasonable level, and letting the huey do its thing) I have to say i'm super impressed with the way my photos look on it. for a "retina" experience, these pixels are small enough that at about 29" from the screen, you can't see them, and it gives you great pixel-level detail when you view a photo 1:1 in lightroom for detailed retouching. (call me crazy but I want to see the pixels if I am really getting in there)

Pretty much this monitor is a nice middle ground on performance, size, resolution and price ($400). Not too expensive, so I won't feel bad in 2 or 3 years when I trash it for a (dual?) 4K setup on a mac pro or homebrew desktop.

Ergronomically, it's got a USB3 hub built in, and a Mini DP out for daisy chaining which is cool. It's a very gentle matte finish, so it doesn't make things look fuzzy, but still diffuses ambient light nicely, nowhere near as reflective as my Macbook screen, and the colors have just as much "pop," Stand has great adjustability, height/tilt/swivel, makes it very easy to get the right positioning/ergonomics. (I'm kind of spoiled with this because I have a standing desk and ergotron with 2 monitors at work)

Here's a link to the product page:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=480-ACRZ



TL;DR - 27" is too big for my desk, 1920x1080 is cramped, sRGB is like 90%+ of my work, Dell 25" hit the sweet spot/middleground in all categories, quality blew my mind for the price


Photo of my setup:
Macbook is in a vertical stand, with vents up to help it cool better, and save space on the desk. Also sorry about the potato quality of the photo, just a quick snap with my iphone to show a friend, had to push shadows so you could see the setup a bit better, more for size reference than anything else.