Wide gamut or a standard gamut LCD

I'm looking to buy a monitor for editing hd footage on a mac pro using cs 5.5.
Should I get a standard or wide gamut display?
Any recommendation would be appreciated.
ty

I wouldn't spend the money then - the final delivery is going to be devices that aren't wide gamut either.

Similar Messages

Wide gamut LCD monitors - Actually a hinderance?

There may possibily be a huge misconception about a key monitor spec: color gamut. I thought/assumed that the wider a display's gamut, the better. Well, I could be wrong.
I have a NEC 2690 on the way that I intend to color correct with using Apple Color and the Matrox MXO. This NEC is a wide gamut monitor that seems to be made for an aRGB color space. Good for print work, but HD video? I assumed so, but now I'm not so sure.
Here is what someone said in a Hardforum.com post:
+"HD video (REC 709) has the same gamut as sRGB, so no, the 2690 would not be okay. The 2490 {a narrower gamut screen} is a better choice for HD video since it's much closer to sRGB."+
Can anyone here confirm this? Did I just get caught by a "gotcha"? The guy from Hardforum was also saying that is characteristic cannot be calibrated out. Also, considering that I plan on using the MXO, is this an issue?
It may be important to learn this trait of "wide gamut", that's so heavily celebrated by manufacturers, may in fact be a negative for the video colorist. I sure hope not, because I'd hate to have to return the NEC monitor the second it gets here.

This may not be a total answer because I am not interested in trying to push a "pro"-sumer/computer monitor into the grade world. I put something in place that is dedicated to the purpose and whose job it is to portray "the truth". If you're interested in a monitor that simply "looks good", then you're fooling yourself.
Wide gamut is probably not the way to go, because what we do in grade is to match gamut and dedicate media to specific means of reproduction. I long for the days of SMPTE/EBU phosphor spec.
But that was then, this is now. You have to grade for the target, and that can be many things, among them computer screens... but you will agree that LCDs, DLP, Plasmas, CRTs, and cinemas all have different characteristics and gamuts. Trickiest of all is grading on one display for reproduction on another -- say trying to grade a filmout on a DLP projector. Among other things, besides whitepoint, which will skew the whole gamut, even the choice of target filmstock will influence the interventions that will need to be put in place so that a true representation will be displayed. A wide gamut display would defeat the whole purpose, since OOGs (out of gamut) values would persist. Grade away happily -- oblivious to the fact that you're creating media that cannot be transferred -- and then prepare for an unpleasant surprise-- because "that" shade can't be reproduced on film, or... because of strange emulsion layer coupling, you might wind up with something out of left field that isn't even remotely close to the intention. You're asking for Caribbean Seafoam and you get 2000 Flushes ToiletBowl, because your target display just can't make that much green... but a wide gamut display did... oops.
To reiterate and restate the premise simply... it is not the monitor's job to look good. It is your job to make that sensational image, on a monitor that is telling the truth.
You might not be DI grading for film... but this is the general environment whatever the milieu.
jPo

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Help with colour profiles and wide gamut monitor

Hi there,
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature but I would really appreciate it if someone could explain what settings I should be using in Photoshop to get accurate colours. I had a look around and couldn't find any other discussions that answered this exactly.
My set up is a Dell 2408WFP monitor which is wide-gamut. I have calibrated this using a huey Pro calibrator (therefore have an accurate system colour profile). My photos are in Canon sRGB space, set by Digital Photo Professional (obviously easily changed if need be).
What I would like is to be able to preview what my photos will look like on a standard sRGB display. When I open a photo in Photoshop with all the settings on their default it looks extremely washed out, very low contrast and saturation. This is nothing like what the photos look like outside of Photoshop, and also not what the photos look like on other (normal gamut) displays. I have tried using the "proof colours" settings. When I have "proof setup" set to Internet Standard sRGB the colours look dreadful, oranges become blood-red, definitely not what I am getting when I view the image on a standard monitor. If I have it set to Monitor RGB then I get colours that look like my monitor outside of Photoshop -- this is the closest out of the three to the result I am actually getting on standard gamut displays. However I know it is not accurate because I know my monitor is wide gamut and therefore more has more contrast (and this is the case).
So what combination of photo colour space, proof colour space, and proof colours settings should I be using? My main priority is just the Joe Average using his TN panel monitor on facebook, I accept that on my monitor they will look slightly different. Settings for print don't concern me at the moment.
Thanks for the help. To anyone who will suggest that I read up on colour profiles... I have, and I understand them to an extent, but there are so many variables here that I am getting lost (monitor profile, photo profile, photoshop settings, DPP settings, faststone viewer's settings, browser's lack of awareness...)
Andrew

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
thekrimsonchin wrote:
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature
You have no idea.
What I'm reading is that you want Photoshop, with its color management enabled, to display your sRGB photos as they would be seen on a true sRGB monitor - i.e., accurately.
Something to always keep in mind, when everything's set right and working properly: Your sRGB image displayed on your wide gamut monitor without color management (e.g., by Internet Explorer) will look bolder and brighter (more color-saturated) than the same image displayed in Photoshop with color-management. There is no getting around this, because the sRGB profile is not equivalent to the monitor profile. Do not expect them to look the same.
It's hard, without being there and seeing what you're seeing, to judge whether your sRGB images are undersaturated compared to what's seen on other monitors. I do know, as one with sRGB monitors myself, that images can look quite vibrant and alive in the sRGB color space.
What we can't know is whether your judgment that your color-managed sRGB images are undersaturated is correct in an absolute sense, or whether you're just feeling the difference between seeing them on your monitor in non-color-managed apps and Photoshop.
Photoshop normally does its color management like this: It combines the information from the color profile in your document with the color profile of the monitor, which it retrieves from a standard place in Windows, and creates a transform used to display the colors.
To have it do this you would NOT want the Proof Colors setting enabled. It is the default behavior.
-Noel
P.S., I don't recall whether DPP is color-managed, but you might consider using Photoshop's raw converter, which definitely shows color-managed output, per the settings I described above.
P.P.S., Your calibrator/profiler should have put the monitor profile in the proper place and set all the proper stuff up in Windows. Is it specifically listed as compatible with the version of Windows you're running?

Best way to configure Photoshop workflow settings when source photos are shot in AdobeRGB, edited using a wide gamut display, and output to sRGB?

Being able to quickly produce finished photos is of importance with the majority of my photography work. Therefore I shoot, process, and deliver JPEG files. For this time sensitive workflow there is no benefit to my clients by my shooting RAW. I do want to be able to accommodate any possible future uses of the photos, so I shoot using the Adobe RGB color space. The output for my clients are JPEG images for use on the Web, therefore sRGB. I currently used a wide gamut display (NEC PA302W) with a 24-bit graphics card. (I plan on upgrading to a 30-bit card sometime in the future.)
I've noticed that in Internet Explorer the reds in my finished photos are overly intense on my display. My photos look fine in other web browsers on my display. This situation has me concerned as I do not know exactly why it is happening since my photos have the sRBG color profile embedded and IE supports embedded color profiles. If anything, I would think the reds would be overly intense in other applications that do not support embedded color profiles.
Please let me know if my workflow can be improved, outside of shooting RAW and using a 30-bit display:
Shoot JPEG photos in Adobe RBG color space
Edit photos in Photoshop using wide gamut display, 24-bit
Color Settings: Monitor Color (Monitor RGB - PA302W, calibrated)
Save for Web, JPEG, Embed Color Profile, Convert to sRGB
While working in Photoshop the reds appear fine. When saving for the Web and previewing 'Monitor Color' the reds are intense, when previewing 'Internet Standard RGB (No Color Management)' the reds appear fine. The final saved images look fine with the exception of when displayed in IE, which supports embedded color profiles- Color Management.

You're rapidly making a mess out of this. Stop, sit back, and stop thinking there's a "problem" to "fix". There isn't - you just need to use software that is color managed. That disqualifies IE right off. Stop using it, throw it away. It's useless with wide gamut displays. Use Firefox, which has proper color management.
OK. Save For Web in sRGB, embed profile. So far so good. But:
Don't ! set your working space to Monitor Color!. That turns off display color management which is the very last thing you want with a wide gamut monitor. You could sort of get away with that with a standard gamut monitor, because it's not all that different from sRGB anyway. So you wouldn't notice the difference (but it's there). The fact that your Adobe RGB files look right in Photoshop is purely coincidental. Any other profile will look wrong.
With a wide gamut display you absolutely and unconditionally need a fully color managed pipeline. That means 1. an embedded document profile, 2. a valid display profile (Spectraview or other calibrator), and 3. an application that reads both profiles and does the conversion from one to the other as the image is sent to the display.
See, it's not just the document profile. That's half of it. The other half is the display profile. IE doesn't use the display profile, instead substituting sRGB. And that's very wrong with that monitor. Firefox is fully color managed if there is an embedded document profile. But it can be configured to color manage even if the image is untagged (and a lot of material on the web is untagged). It does this by assigning sRGB to the image.
To configure this - and you really need that with a wide gamut monitor - type "about:config" without the quotes in the address bar and hit reload. Scroll down to gfx.color_management.mode, and change it from 2 to 1. Relaunch. All web material will now appear correctly regardless.

Wide Gamut Nightmare

I have a Dell U3011 Monitor and I am about ready to toss it across the room. My problem is that my colors are WAY oversaturated so when I design in Photoshop and take it to web the colors are exceedingly oversaturated. I've tried various profiles, calibration, etc. I have an i1 profiler that I've run, etc.
Below is a screenshot of a Neon orange button in Chrome. When I use Color snapper to check the color notice how dull the orange is. So, basically everything I design is wonky with the colors.
Is there any way to "disable" the wide gamut function of this monitor?

I'm going to record what I do based on your most recent reply:
1. Quit Firefox
2. Reset Monitor to factor defaults
3. Ran i1 Profiler with following settings and created the profile:
White Point: CIE Illuminant D65
Chromatic: Bradford
ICC Profile: Version 2 (based on your response)
Tone Response Curve: Standard
Gamma: 2.2
Profile Type: Matrix
Patch set size: Medium
4. I then created the following color settings in Photoshop with my new profile created by X-rite:
5. I then set my Photoshop proof colors to:
6. I then Save for Web with following settings:
7. At this point I reopen Firefox and upload the image to my webpage (see here) . Note that the image coming out of Photoshop was very saturated (on purpose)
8. After refreshing the page the image comes up and is saturated well beyond sRGB (Below are my Firefox about:config settings)
So...do you see anything in my work flow that is incorrect?

Wide Gamut Monitors & 10.6 Default Monitor RGB

Hi, an Adobe employee just told me Snow Leopard 10.6x defaults untagged and unmanaged color, that SL "uses sRGB for untagged images/graphics, and converts to the profile for each display”.
I no longer have a WIDE GAMUT monitor to test myself.
Can a few people with wide gamut displays running 10.6x and Safari 5 please go to
www(dot).gballard.net/photoshop/srgbwidegamut.html
and roll over the tagged and untagged sRGB images at the top of the page.
And post back if they "match" to prove or disprove his statement?
(By his statement, the tagged and untagged rollovers should "match."
Also, if they shift, how does the untagged sRGB change in appearance?
Thanks (I am trying to get my page updated)...

That's expected, a wide gamut monitor will be a lot redder.
Yes. Just a lot more color range and gamut to view than a "standard" monitor.
Tagged) Photoshop/Safari is reading the embedded profile and CONVERTING to Monitor RGB.
Actually, that's what the OS or Photoshop always does. No matter what you're viewing in Photoshop, and no matter what the CMYK, RGB or grayscale working spaces are set at, the color you view is always your monitor profile, which is the last conversion done before displaying the image in Photoshop to the screen. Which is why I use my monitor profile as my working RGB space. I want my images to contain the color data of the device I'm viewing, not a canned space forced to fit. Here's what I mean. This image is Adobe RGB and my monitor profile overlaid. It's mostly a top down view. That was the best orientation I could turn the 3D map to for the example.
The ghosted map is the monitor space. As you can see, if I were to use Adobe RGB as my working space, I'd be losing all of the color I could be using that extends beyond Adobe RGB (reds through pinks, greens), since Adobe RGB would limit how far I could saturate those colors, as it has to stay within the limits of the profile. On the other side of the coin, the left side shows how much of Adobe RGB extends beyond my monitor space. The even brighter pinks through bright cyans across the top left.
But I don't care about that color. I already get all the saturation I can reasonably use for a photo. I mean, just how unnaturally bright do you want someone's lime green shirt to look? Using a color space your monitor can't display is also a very bad idea in my opinion. Say you're happy with the color you see on your current monitor. Then you get a new monitor at some point with an even wider color range. Suddenly, those bright pinks are way more saturated than you remember. What's wrong? Nothing. Your new monitor is just showing you values that were already in your Adobe RGB tagged image your previous monitor was incapable of displaying. I would much, much rather use my monitor profile for my RGB images. Then when I do move to any even wider range monitor, ColorSync/Photoshop will be able to properly map the color to fit the new monitor profile so the images look identical, or nearly so, as they did on the monitor I was using before.
In short, I consider canned profiles such as Adobe RGB, sRGB, ColorMatch RGB, etc. completely useless. None of them represent the device (monitor) in front of you. Only a properly created monitor profile is accurate to that device.
If the Adobe theory were true, you would NOT see a brighter, redder image on the rollover (they would "match").
Sorry, -g. By, So far, it sounds like his theory is true., I just meant that my tests were following his theory up to that point. After that though, it falls apart.
Can you tell me if Photoshop> Assign Profile (your custom EIZO monitor profile) displays like the Safari untagged rollover (especially level of saturated reds)?
Yes, but it looks that that to start with if I open the untagged image and tell PS to leave the color as is. So PS/ColorSync is already doing the only thing it can do with the color, mapping it to fit the monitor profile.

W510/W520 FHD, color profile supplied by Lenovo is wrong (sRGB clone, not wide gamut)

Hi!
I think I discovered a problem with the monitor profile for Thinkpad 95% gamut FHD LCDs:
The "TPLCD95.icm" monitor profile for FHD 95% gamut LCDs seems to be just a copy of the default sRGB profile. Thus it is likely not a calibrated representation of these screens!
This defect has been there since version 4.33 and is still in the latest version 4.35 of the "Monitor file for Windows 7 (32-bit,64-bit), Vista (32-bit,64-bit), XP (32-bit,64-bit) and 2000 - ThinkPad" package, http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-62923
In contrast, the "TPLCD60.ICM" and "TPLCD100.ICM" files of other screen types appear to be proper. Lenovo should provide a similarly produced "TPLCD95.ICM" file and update the drivers! (For the poor people without built-in color sensor.)
Some proof for the unconvinced why the "TPLCD95.icm" profile is not proper (just an sRGB clone):
* The RGB colorants are exactly the same in the "TPLCD95.icm" and "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" files, e.g. gXYZ = 0.385,0.717,0.097. (In "TPLCD100.ICM" the gXYZ colorant is 0.226,0.680,0.094 and in "AdobeRGB1998.icc" it is 0.205,0.626,0.061.)
* The tone repro curves of "TPLCD95.icm" and "sRGB" are both 1024 elements and identical for rTRC, gTRC and bTRC. (In the "TPLCD100.ICM" file it consists of only 9 points, presumably measured, and there are different curves for R, G and B.)
* The suffix of "TPLCD95.icm" file is in lowercase letters, indicating that it was made in a different workflow than the "TPLCD100.ICM" and "TPLCD60.ICM files". Also the file sizes are very different.
* By experiment: Set the monitor profile to "TPLCD95.icm" and open an image in Windows Photo Viewer (for example the Chrysanthemum.jpg image from the Sample Pictures folder in Win7). Then repeat with sRGB as monitor profile, you'll get the same color. Repeat with "TPLCD100.ICM" to get a reduced gamut, as expected from a wide gamut profile. That's how "TPLCD95.icm" should be too, except of course calibrated for the 95% gamut LCD not 100% RGBLED.
In the meanwhile, could anyone with a sensor calibrated W510/W520 95% gamut FHD screen care to share their ICM/ICC file?
Yours,
Mikael Sterner

As a workaround, I can suggest the excellent QuickMonitorProfile tool by Eberhard Werle: http://quickgamma.de/QuickMonitorProfile/indexen.html
It can create a profile just based on the rgb chromaticities, white point and gamma in the EDID information from the monitor. On my W520 FHD it reads out rxy=0.676/0.314, gxy=0.215/0.665, bxy=0.141/0.069, wp=D65, gamma=2.2. This matches what is in the LCD panel datasheet: http://www.notebook-lcd.ru/pdf/B156HW01_V_4.pdf
The created synthetic profile is better than nothing, and is the minimum what Lenovo should have included.

How to have posted images display as sRGB on wide-gamut monitors.

I understand an sRGB profile is necessary for posting images but I need help on how to do that with Photoshop CS2 and my new wide-gamut monitor (HP LP2475w with Spider3Express calibration). Before doing a "save for web" and posting, I "convert to profile" to either "sRGB IEEE61966-2.1" or "sRGB with hardware configuration derived from calibration" (it makes no difference which), but I see then a significant color shift in the posted images when I view them through Firefox 3.6 (with operating color management software -verified on other posted images) and the same color shift with IE6 (which has NO color management software). So, Firefox is NOT RECOGNIZING my posted images with the sRGB profiles that I thought I was embedding in them in Photoshop. So my question boils down to: WHAT EXACTLY DO I HAVE TO DO IN PHOTOSHOP SO FIREFOX WILL RECOGNIZE THE POSTED IMAGES AS sRGB and display them 'correctly' on wide-gamut monitors??
Thank you very much.
-Jeff

ISSUE RESOLVED. Photoshop CS2 was not embedding an sRGB profile in the images I was posting. I needed to check the "ICC Profile" checkbox in "save for web" to make that actually happen (after I did "convert to profile" sRGB).
I also have switched to "Full Color Management" Value 1 (hidden) in Firefox 3.6 so that Firefox now assumes any untagged image is sRGB standard and then converts those, and all other images which ARE tagged, to my calibrated monitor profile. This definitely looks to me like the way to operate with a wide-gamut monitor although I understand it is still recommended to always tag images for posting as sRGB and not embed any other profile for color consistency over color accuracy. At least if there are some out there with wider-gamut tags, I should get some benefit.
Have I got it right ?
Thanks,
Jeff

Firefox 3.6 color management incorrect on wide-gamut monitors?

Hi,
I'm having a problem with sRGB JPEGs exported from Lightroom (2.7) that I don't actually think is LR's fault, but was wondering if anyone here has experienced this.
What I'm finding is that these sRGB JPEGs don't display correctly on my wide-gamut Dell 2408WFP monitor under Windows 7 in Firefox 3.6.9 or in the Windows image viewer. Now, this isn't the standard problem people used to complain about on wide-gamut monitors, where sRGB images came out looking oversaturated (pinkish) in FF because older versions of FF didn't do color management; the newer Firefox seems to be doing color management in general. The problem I'm seeing in my photos is that dark areas are becoming darker and losing detail, and midrange shadows are turning into a grayish green.
What's odd is that these JPEGs look fine in Safari on the same machine and the same monitor (and they also look fine if I load them into PS). That suggests to me that Firefox (and Windows) are doing something wrong, probably related to the fact that the monitor is wide-gamut.
Has anyone encountered this problem?
Thanks,
nj

Jim,
I think you are right in saying that it is a crap shoot. There are some interesting points in your post though.
The general public will be viewing with a monitor and browser that are not color managed. Won't my v4 images diplay fairly well under this situation (at least much better than with ff3.6 and a monitor with a v4 profile)?
That will work just fine indeed. It is arguable whether it will look "better". The variation between monitors is much larger than the benefit you gain from using v4. One thing that will work better is the out of sRGB gamut colors. You won't get the posterization using the v4 sRGB profile that you get with the v2 sRGB. For some images (think shots of flowers) that might be a major benefit. If all your colors are in sRGB that is obviously not a benefit at all. The big disadvantage of using v4 sRGB is that it adds quite a few extra kilobytes (about 60) to your image. For example, I just exported from Lightroom a simple web sized image at 1000 pixels long side at good quality and in v4 it was 262 kB, while in v2 sRGB it weighs in at only 209 kB. I see no real difference between these images on my wide-gamut monitor. This difference in filesize can be important and at smaller sizes is really going to matter.
What about a wide gamut monitor that's not color managed, running a browser that doesn't support v4?
The v4 sRGB image will look just as badly oversaturated as the normal sRGB one. Try it and you'll see. Perhaps slightly less oversaturated but the difference is very small in general. The one thing that you should realize of course is that if these users are running a non-managed browser on a wide gamut display, they are likely conditioned to oversaturated images and probably will never even notice. These users are lost anyway. It's best not to even try to target them. Target normal users who generally run unmanaged browsers on unmanaged sRGB-like displays. The variation between these displays is far larger than the slight advantage you get from using sRGB v4 and in my mind at least it is not worth the added size in the picture and the loss of color management in Firefox. Of course, you might have different priorities.
P.S. the numbers of users using unmanaged browsers are waning quite quickly if I am to believe my website's stats - IE is way down and both Safari and Firefox are up. Chrome (not managed) is coming up too but not as fast as IE is decreasing. Apparently (I haven't tried as I don't do windows) the latest IE does respect embedded color profiles, but alas it doesn't translate to the monitor profile. That is of course basically useless.

Wide Gamut Displays with OSX

I guess this is the most appropriate forum for this question.
There are now a lot of wide-gamut monitors out in the market. In non color-aware applications, the colors on these monitors look terribly over-saturated. In a color-aware application, like Photoshop or Firefox 3, things look fine.
OS X itself doesn't seem to be color-aware. Most noticeable are the Close / Minimize / Expand buttons in the corner, the red and green are awful. Even after calibrating, things still look bad.
Are there any plans to make OS X more color aware, so that when a wide gamut monitor is used, correct colors are displayed?

I guess I can only hope that they will address the issue with Snow Leopard. As far as 1920x1200 resolution, professional-quality, standard-gamut IPS monitors go the pickings are pretty **** slim. You can either get the Apple Cinema Display with its single input, or you can get the NEC 2490 with its high cost and internal hardware that adds input lag. All other options are wide-gamut.
I feel like crying I'm not a software dev but c'mon, the open source Firefox 3 has got it down just fine, how hard is it to add wide-gamut support to the otherwise excellent OS X?

Wide gamut options for iMac, what are they

We have a new iMac 22 inch model and when we try to calibrate it as a wide gamut monitor using Datacolor Spyder Studio we get the error that this is not a wide gamut monitor. *** I thought this was the ultimate in displays!
What do we have to do to get a wide gamut display? We really don't want to add a monitor

Color gamut is a bit worse on the new panel vs. the old one from what I can tell. Both are WLED backlit which limits the spectrum of colors they can accurately reproduce.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4340/27inch-apple-imac-review-2011/7
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50281286

RAW output to an adobe rgb and srgb look identical in bridge but different in PS on wide gamut monitor.

Photoshop CS6. Wide gamut HP LP2475w monitor. Spider 3 Elite calibrated. Working space adobe rgb. When outputting a raw to Adobe RGB jpg it looks a bit whacked with color blotches/jumps in PS. The sRGB of it does not. BUT......in bridge they look identical. The adobe rgb jpg almost acts like viewing an image in a non-color aware browser on a wide gamut monitor. Like bridge shows it right but photoshop is showing it whacked out. I can't tell what is lying to me and if there is even a problem with the image. Here is a half second 2 frame gif alternating between the two from a screen cap. http://www.extremeinstability.com/hmm.gif Abrupt blotchy color changes with the adobe rgb when viewed in photoshop. And again, when you look at the two images in bridge they don't show that, they look identical.
Thanks,
Mike

I guess I now learned that Bridge only generates srgb previews. So I see them the same in there I guess. Looks like it comes down to the adobe space and jpg. Oddly enough an 8 bit adobe tiff covers it fine without breaking up. Can see the 3 on this gif. http://www.extremeinstability.com/3.gif

Color correction, color profile, colorsync, wide gamut,

There hasn't been any reply to the threads about color inconsistency in OS X, so I'm starting another one.
I'm using a wide-gamut monitor attached to a Mac with built-in display. When Preview displays an image, it applies some color correction to it. This leads to unnecessary color warping.
If the image is solid red, #FF0000, it displays it as orange, #FF2500. If I copy and paste the image, it further warps the color to brownish-orange, #DF4616 or the like.
For example, this image, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Solid_red.png , shows up fine in Firefox, but when it's color "corrected" thorough Preview or other OS X applications, it becomes something like http://i.imgur.com/gDiTE.png
Please, before commenting about color calibration, note that *this is not a monitor calibration issue*. My monitors are calibrated well, and no recalibration can fix this.
This is an OS X color correction issue. OS X applies and re-applies color correction schemes, resulting in warped colors on anything but sRGB monitors. This corrupts image colors whenever they are handled.
Someone, please address this long-standing issue.

These forums are the wrong place for getting Apple's attention to your issue. If you want to report this issue to Apple's engineering, send a bug report or an enhancement request via its Bug Reporter system. To do this, join the Apple Developer Connection (ADC)—it's free and available for all Mac users and gets you a look at some development software. Since you already have an Apple username/ID, use that. Once a member, go to Apple BugReporter and file your bug report or enhancement request. The nice thing with this procedure is that you get a response and a follow-up number; thus, starting a dialog with engineering.

Wide gamut or a standard gamut LCD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for