Wide Gamut Second Display?

Hi.
I am a graphic designer and I am currently working with a MacBook Pro 13 inch (mid 2010) with Mac OSX 10.8.3 and an external Dell U2412M display. I use mostly Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Adobe Illustrator CS6.
Since I would like to add another external display I have recently ordered the Matrox DualHead2Go DP Edition.
I am however, unsure of which 2nd external display is better for me: another Dell U2412M display (which is sRGB) or the Dell U2413 display which is a wide gamut display.
The main reason for my indecision is as follows: since the MacBook Pro doesn't allow for a graphics card exchange, the Matrox DualHead2Go is really the only feasible option to another external display. But this product has a caveat and that is that the operating system doesn't really "see" two independent displays. It "sees" a desktop space that occupies two displays but it thinks of it as a single big display. As such, I don't think I will, for example, be able to use 2 different display calibration profiles simultaneously.
Also, since my system isn't a true 10-bit system (the graphics card on the MacBook Pro is a Nvidia GeForce 320M) I wonder if I will see any difference in the total number of colours displayed by the wide gamut display or if I will still be seeing "only" 16 million colours but just a different 16 million than I see on the sRGB display.
Having a wide gamut display running alongside a normal gamut display seems to me like a good solution since I could just focus on the best display for color critical work and use the other one to preview things on a normal gamut display. But considering the calibration profile issue, would both displays render very different colours or would the difference be minimal if, for example, I set the wide gamut display to its sRGB emulation mode?
If I got a colorimeter to calibrate my display(s), would the Matrox DualHead2Go caveat still be there?
If anyone has tried a similar setup I would really appreciate your feedback since I am really lost on this issue, even after extensively researching it online.
Thank you.

Lucypug08 wrote:
So really, I don't even see how there could be a solution, other than getting a new monitor that isn't wide gamut.  But I'm open for any advice.  (by the way, if you dont' need to work on RAW files, and just go straight to jpeg, you're fine._   -Chance
Nope...sorry, you're all screwed up. First off, what display and how is it profiled? What OS? Since you have dual displays, are you absolutely sure your video card supports different profiles for multiple displays? On Mac, no problem, on Windows that depends on your vid card.
Camera Raw (and Photoshop) get's it's ability to accurately display you image directly from your display profile. If something is not showing up accurately in ACR or PS, then it's not the application's fault. ACR/Photoshop/Lightroom should all display your images accurately (and the same BTW). If it doesn't then it's something on your system that is breaking down...
BTW, you really don't seem to understand how ACR/PS and color management work. You need to do some reading on that. ACR takes the raw image, demosiaces the image and applies certain default correction. It then takes the image color (internally ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) and transforms the image data by way of your display profile for accurate display in the ACR preview. It's the display profile that needs to be accurate...ACR will only provide a preview based on the display profile and if that's hosed the preview is hosed.
I work with wide gamut displays (NEC) and I have zero problems dealing with color management. My images look accurate on the display and in print. So, if YOU can't get an accurate preview display on your monitors, you need to look inwards, not outwards.

Similar Messages

  • 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..

  • 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.

  • 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

  • AE, ICC color profiles, QuickTime player and wide gamut displays

    Hey there!
    I was inspired by @AdobeAE 's recent tweet about color management to look further into the subject.  We've historically not bothered with it, but are keen to enter the color managed world!
    I started in Photoshop, doing tests with working spaces and destination spaces to get my head around how the whole thing works.  One thing I quickly gathered was that our Monitors (Eizo S2243W) are wide gamut, which can create problems.  For example, if you make an image in the sRGB space in PS, then save it out as a jpeg without embedding the profile, the colours become over-saturated, as any viewing application won't know how to translate the colors. Images created in the Adobe 1998 did not display the same shift when saved 'untagged' - I assume because the gamut of the monitor is closer to Adobe 1998, so even if no transformation occurs the colours are perceptually similar.
    For still images all this is fine though, as you can always embed the profile so the viewing app knows how to translate the colours for your particular display.
    The problem comes with video.  It seems as though it is not possible to embed a color profile with, say, a ProRes QuickTime.  If you create a comp in AE using the sRGB colour space, then export the movie you'll potentially have the same over saturated colour problem when viewing the resulting file on a wide gamut display.
    So how is one supposed to overcome this, except for turning colour management off?
    Any help greatly apprecaited!
    Cheers, sCam
    Simon Cam
    Creative Technical Director
    Superglue
    http://www.wearesuperglue.com

    Not too many people will be watching your movie on a wide-gamut screen. You'd be better off working in an SRGB mode, if your monitor allows. Colour magement is a poisened chalice, wether you are working with still images or movies. The internet is not colour-managed and everything wide gamut will look oversaturated and garish.

  • 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 displays and Thunderbolt

    I returned an ASUS PA279Q wide-gamut monitor because several important advertised functions (Adobe RGB and sRGB modes) were not supported through the Thunderbolt connection on my 2013 MacBook Pro Retina (15”). ASUS support explained to me that the Thunderbolt port output was YUV rather than RBG and their calibrated modes were disabled with that output. The monitor worked perfectly on a 2009 non-Thunderbolt MacBook Air through the mini-DisplayPort.
    I am now considering the NEC PA272W but it appears to be the same panel as the ASUS monitor. Could anyone confirm that the NEC can utilize its Adobe RGB and sRGB functions when connected by a mini-DisplayPort cable through a Thunderbolt port?
    Or could anyone recommend another wide-gamut display that works for sure through a mini-DisplayPort/Thunderbolt connection…
    Would you consider the Apple Thunderbolt Display for critical color work?
    Thanks.

    chris.dg wrote:
    So I am curious how well the sRGB mode works? I've read reports on other NEC wide-gamut monitors that when switched into sRGB mode you lose a bit of luminance, that the reds over oversaturated, and general desktop/browser colors are obviously not "normal". Have you noticed anything of the sort with your new PA272, or in sRGB mode is it still a cream of the crop display?
    I have not noticed anything odd about sRGB mode. The problems you mentioned, where colors can look horribly oversaturated or shifted, I have seen (or seen documented by others) when the monitor is in Adobe RGB mode. But that is not the fault of the monitor at all. It is always the fault of the OS or an application not adapted to work with such a wide color space, mistakenly assuming the monitor is sRGB. The colors look fine in high-end graphics apps even when the OS X desktop and web browsers look oversaturated.
    But like Charles says, other features compensate for this. For example, the Adobe RGB and sRGB modes are just two of the built-in presets for the (highly accurate and factory verified) internal calibration. But you also get to store a number of your own presets. I do not even use the factory Adobe RGB and sRGB presets. I made two of my own. One I calibrated for "widest possible" gamut for photo work, at a certain luminance, the other an "sRGB emulation" preset at a completely different luminance. Because I didn't agree with the luminance of the factory presets. When you make a preset you can set the luminance, white point, gamut, etc. so if you don't like the factory presets it doesn't matter, just make your own. (Note: I am using the PA272-SV with one of the calibrator devices that actually talks to the internal monitor circuitry, so I am not sure how well this works if you get the more commonPA272 model without it and use a cheaper calibrator that only creates a profile without talking to the monitor.)
    The factory Adobe RGB and sRGB presets are very useful if you don't want to get into customizing the color specifications, but any limitations they have are easily understood and remedied if you have some knowledge of color management concepts and have a compatible integrated calibrator.
    What you might glean from this is that the true value of the PA272 is if you are an experienced graphics user who knows enough about color to get the most out of the monitor. If you are a casual user who just wants to flip back and forth between sRGB and Adobe RGB once in a while, things might not always work as expected and a more conventional monitors could have been a better deal. If you understand how the PA272 is designed relative to color science, and in terms of how it's an internal calibration compared to the external profiling of most monitors, the sRGB mode makes a lot of sense.
    chris.dg wrote:
    The PA272 has a number of key features for me: the 2560x1600 native resolution, the built-in KVM switch, DisplayPort, wide-gamut for when I want it,etc. But the only thing holding me back is whether or not I should simply stick with a "normal" gamut range monitor because that is where I'll spend most of my time. Cost is not so much of an issue, i just want the best of both worlds, if it even exists.
    Although you said cost is not an issue there seem to be a decent selection of monitors out there that would get you similar features, without wide gamut, for a lot less money. Monitors with that resolution, DisplayPort, pivoting, etc. are now widely available.
    One last note: Minor problems have been observed with these monitors in OS X Mavericks. I think they started turning up in 10.9.2. It still performs the same but some things don't work right and it looks like Apple's fault:
    OS X 10.9.2 Breaks Display Support with NEC Displays: Sleep, 90° Rotation Failure
    Apparently all is needed is for Apple to fix it in the next release, whenever that is. A later post on that same blog indicates that a fix may be coming from Apple. Again, these problems do not stop the monitor from doing its job so if you want one you should still buy it.

  • My menu bar is wider than my second display.  Why?

    All of a sudden, my Finder menu bar is wider than my second display and overlaps into my first display.  I'd like to correct this but don't know how.

    '''Try Firefox Safe Mode''' to see if the problem goes away. [[Troubleshoot Firefox issues using Safe Mode|Firefox Safe Mode]] is a troubleshooting mode that turns off some settings, disables most add-ons (extensions and themes).
    If Firefox is open, you can restart in Firefox Safe Mode from the Help menu:
    *In Firefox 29.0 and above, click the menu button [[Image:New Fx Menu]], click Help [[Image:Help-29]] and select ''Restart with Add-ons Disabled''.
    *In previous Firefox versions, click on the Firefox button at the top left of the Firefox window and click on ''Help'' (or click on ''Help'' in the Menu bar, if you don't have a Firefox button) then click on ''Restart with Add-ons Disabled''.
    If Firefox is not running, you can start Firefox in Safe Mode as follows:
    * On Windows: Hold the '''Shift''' key when you open the Firefox desktop or Start menu shortcut.
    * On Mac: Hold the '''option''' key while starting Firefox.
    * On Linux: Quit Firefox, go to your Terminal and run ''firefox -safe-mode'' <br>(you may need to specify the Firefox installation path e.g. /usr/lib/firefox)
    When the Firefox Safe Mode window appears, select "Start in Safe Mode".<br>
    [[Image:Safe Mode Fx 15 - Win]]
    '''''If the issue is not present in Firefox Safe Mode''''', your problem is probably caused by an extension, and you need to figure out which one. Please follow the [[Troubleshoot extensions, themes and hardware acceleration issues to solve common Firefox problems]] article to find the cause.
    ''To exit Firefox Safe Mode, just close Firefox and wait a few seconds before opening Firefox for normal use again.''
    When you figure out what's causing your issues, please let us know. It might help others with the same problem.

  • 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

  • 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

  • My Mac Pro Desk Top computer no longer can "see" my second display??

    I've tried reversing the connections on the back of the MacPro but it still doesn't "see" the second display.  I've had these two displays hooked up for years with no problems.  I recently upgraded to Mountain Lion and I just had the MacPro in the Apple Store for a  "One To One" transfer of data to my new MacBook Pro laptop.  When I brought it back home it still worked fine.  I then was cleaning up some stuff and I know I went into my "Users and Groups" panel in System Preferences and I did remove some items from the "Login Items" list that open automatically so maybe that is the problem??  I know the second display is getting power and recognizes it's connection to the compuiter because when I disconnect it, it says, "no signal" and when I reconnect it, it just goes to sleep.  Advice appreciated.
    Saratoga Lefty

    Some of the graphics cards that had two DVI connectors had one Dual-Link (suitable for all resolutions including wider than 1920 wide) and one Single-Link (suitable for resolutions up to 1920, but not wider). This does not appear to be your problem, since both are less than 1920 wide.
    The "Drivers" business is a complete Red Herring (Not Applicable), as the Mac does not use Drivers for displays -- it uses a unified driver for the Display CARD, and customizes it based on the capabilities reported by the Display when connected. In order to get this to work, the display must correctly self-identify.
    To verify that the display is correctly detected, look in:
    About This Mac > ( More Info ) > Graphics and Displays ...
    ... a correctly self-identified display shows its Name and its maximum resolution. be skeptical, this information does not update when you plug/unplug the display, and you have to close and re-open this window (or possibly the entire program) to get the information to refresh after a change.
    If either display provides a USB cord, it must be plugged in to complete the display connection and provide display ID and control (this is much more common with Apple displays that third-party displays).
    Is there any evidence of trauma to the display connectors or cables? Any bent pins on the connectors?

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Windows, wide-gamut does Safari Convert to monitor profile?

    Hi, I was looking for the Safari Windows forum, but this was the only one I could find.
    Can someone with a Wide Gamut monitor (not set to its sRGB preset) using a calibrated custom monitor profile look at the sRGB rollovers here
    gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
    And tell me if the Tagged image is a dead-on exact "match" to the Untagged rollover?
    If the Tagged file looks normal or over-saturated like the Untagged image?
    I am trying to determine if Safari for Windows Converts Tagged color to the monitor profile like Photoshop (or only to sRGB) and it should be most obvious on wide-gamut AdobeRGB type monitors.
    I've pretty much concluded the Untagged color gets sent straight through to the monitor unchanged (so Untagged images should appear overly red on wide gamut panels).
    Thanks...

    Okay, I put my Windows Vista Business hard drive back in my Mac Pro and booted off it.
    I installed Xrite iMatch 3.6.2 software, connected my eye-one display 2, profiled my monitor with a custom ICC profile, and rebooted.
    Now I am seeing exactly the same Safari behavior I see on system 10.6 using this hardware (and my other Mac Pros running profiled 30" Apple displays) --- a slight shift in the untagged sRGB rollover.
    The untagged sRGB rollover appears like Safari for Windows is defaulting untagged sRGB to my custom monitor profile now, the same as my OS-X machines, and as I expected it to work on the PC.
    +++++
    Previously, my Windows system was using whatever profile my NEC 2490WUXi setup by default --- I had a feeling setting a custom profile would provide a clue.
    Seeing is believing...

Maybe you are looking for