Please help to select a monitor...

I am in the process to acquire a (27" or 32") monitor for editing my photos in Lightroom Classic and Photoshop. Up to now the monitor of my notebook had to be good enough, but sometimes (not always) I had some unpleasant surprises after some photos were printed out (the entire workflow, so far, was in Adobe RGB, but I am sure my notebook monitor does not support it 100%).

Mostly I hold slideshows, my images are at Alamy and Adobe stock, sometimes my images get published in a journal. I plan to operate Lightroom in the two screen mode, still using the notebook as computer and as a display of the menue and the new monitor for display of the (hopefully!) "WYSIWYG" image. Iin addition I will acquire the Loupedeck CT, for more comfortable adjustments...

I started to recherche in the internet, but in the lack of practical experience I am asking for help:

#1.: How important is it to have the monitor calibratable by LUT (12, 14 or 16 bit) vs. software calibration of the graphics card of the computer?

#2.: 100% sRGB seems to be a must, but how important is it to have +99% Adobe RGB?

Already the two points raised above make a great difference in price, e.g. BenQ SW321C with 16-bit LUT and 99% Adobe RGB is available here for ca. 1700 Euros (shock (!), I am reluctant to pay so much for a monitor) and the similar BenQ PD3200U, no LUT and 73% Adobe RGB goes for approx. 650 Euros...

#3.: UHD (4k) is certainly the future, but still expensive compared to the "old" QHD standard. How smart is it to go for QHD in these days?

#4.: What hardware can be recommended for calibration?

#5.: What is the optimum workflow? Working with the most comprehensive color gamut the monitor allows (e.g. Adobe RGB; How much % of Adobe RGB are required from the monitor for meaningful processing?) and then exporting the final, processed, image at the appropriate color gamut, e.g. sRGB for display via LCD projector and Adobe RGB for printing?

Which ones of the points raised above are really important in practice and which ones are just important for gadgeteers?

Suggestions for monitor models are also very welcome, but e.g. 4000+ Euro monitors from NEC are out of my scope (my budget is flexible, but I plan to remain in reasonable dimensions)...

Thanks, Wolfgang

you are probably talking to the wrong person - my view is that you spend all the many thousands of $$ on UW camera gear and the end result you see 99% on your monitor.  Having said that there are diminishing returns, but I do like the view on my 30 inch NEC monitor.

But seriously topline  inkjets can print 100% of adobe RGB these days.  sRGB is particularly deficient with cyans and blues and those colours are important for UW photography.    LUT calibration is important, have a look at this link, which is a good reference for this type of monitor. https://imagescience.com.au/products/monitors/monitor-recommendations

Thank you Chris, the cited reference is good and helpful (although it seems they are biased towards the trademarks they sell)...

It seems 100% (or 99%) Adobe RGB and LUT are a must, otherwise better save the money and stay with the notebook monitor...

Which Nec monitor do you have and can you recommend it?

Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,
what about Eizo monitors?
The are well known in graphic and picture agencies.
Regards,
Wolfgang

9 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

#1.: How important is it to have the monitor calibratable by LUT (12, 14 or 16 bit) vs. software calibration of the graphics card of the computer?

I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems that you mix several topics.

One is the color depth supported by the monitor (8 bits, 10 bits, 12 bits ... some details here) with higher color depth, you may get smoother color gradients. You should avoid 8 bits monitors, it seems that most "color accuracy" oriented monitors are now 10 bits (from "entry level" Dell to high end Eizo). If the bit depth of the monitor is not mentioned, look at the "number of colors supported": 1.07 billion means 10 bits, 

Then there is the topic of internal calibration of the monitor. High end monitors have an integrated calibration sensor, which enables a fully automated calibration. This feature is mostly for convenience, as you may get similar calibration with an external calibration probe.

Then there is the topic of the LUT, which is related to how the monitor convert the color signal received from the computer to the screen. Here is an illustration from Eizo on their conversion:

This is important for high end monitors, as the management of color is done within the monitor. With lower end monitor, this has to be managed by the computer to which the monitor is attached. In that case, the conversion of the signal to the screen is a black box on which the user has not control.  You will then rely on the external color probe calibration to setup a LUT which will be used by the computer. 

9 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

#2.: 100% sRGB seems to be a must, but how important is it to have +99% Adobe RGB?

I would say that 99% Adobe RGB is now a must of any "color accuracy" oriented monitor. Even entry level monitors achieve that.

9 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

#3.: UHD (4k) is certainly the future, but still expensive compared to the "old" QHD standard. How smart is it to go for QHD in these days?

Not critical, but useful, and it "futureproof" your monitor purchase. 

You should also check that your computer is able to manage this resolution without issue (should be the case if your computer is recent)

There is one feature that you have not listed but is becoming more common: the compatibility of the monitor with HDR. It may be useful for video. This is also becoming more mainstream and affordable, so added bonus on good monitors.

If Eizo monitors are too expensive, you may look at BenQ monitors which are more affordable (4K, 99% Adobe RGB, internal LUT, ...)
Review shows the main weakness is color/luminance uniformity, but otherwise color accuracy is very good (other review).

Dell also makes some "color accuracy" oriented monitors in their ColorPremier range, some of which have good reviews (but overall you'll find mixed reviews) I've had Dell monitors from that range and been very happy with them.

Yes they are biased to what they sell, though they claim they only sell stuff they believe in - for example they no longer sell NEC due to them changing their dead pixel warranty which they regarded as unacceptable.  They are primarily a fine art printing company and sell gear to achieve that - I've found them very reputable and bought my NEC there.

You ask about my NEC - it's a PA-302W and I calibrate with NEC software and the i1 display puck - works very well.  it might be acceptable in your market - read the warranty fine print on dead pixels.    I'm very happy with it. 

Regarding 4K - some software still struggles with the required scaling PS CS6 for example is unusable on a 4K monitor and there is not really a workaround last I checked - though win10 may handle it better.  The menus and tools are pixel based and shrink below the size you can read them on a 4K monitor.  Adobe only fixed it in CC - I suspect they knew CC was coming and resisted fixing to force people into upgrades to the subscription model.

Regarding 10 bit that sounds nice in theory but when I last looked into it the technology was very particular.  Even my NEC had difficulties with a display port cable I bought - it was only ever happy with the mini display port cable that came with the monitor - though that was 8 bit and I think connected to supporting the 30" resolution properly.  You do need to be a little careful with cables not all of them are fully compliant with standards - no matter what the salesman tries to tell you.

See this about 10 bit:  https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/10-bit-output-support

As to what to do - I would suggest you would be happy with any of their recommended monitors.  Pick the one that matches your budget.

I have a non professional but high end monitor that is 4K and has sRGB and Adobe RGB and has some HDR compatibility (this is the one I was mostly interested when I got it) BENQ PD2720U is 4K 27 inches.

The first thing I realised is that is not so easy to find someone that will print adobe RGB for you and of course no web media supports it anyway. 

The other thing that is also interesting is to understand how the editing programs work. Lightroom library screen is in Adobe RGB and will be clipped to sRGB on your screen. The Develop screen is in prophoto rgb so it is tone mapped anyway. When you work with an sRGB monitor you will have less suprises as it will clip out of gamut across the field

Generally I found that the most effective way to produce something for sRGB purpose is to use soft proofing to check out of gamut colours.

I also have to say that prophoto RGB is not very useful and adobe color rendition is actually pretty bad when processing raw files for my cameras. Colours that do not clip on DxO are totally out of gamut on lightroom.

Just take a few shots of a red rose and you will see it yourself.

Considering the low resolution but high contrast direction the world is travelling I think I have an adequate set up but most importantly is to understand how your editing programs work as some destroy brutally all the benefits they should provide

So I would agree you need an adobe RGB monitor it will be wonderful to see what reds the camera can produce that are usually muted and for some shots you will want to print them however the bulk will still be sRGB as that is what the world travels. Very important for certain shot to have better raw converters

Web browsers now in fact support colour management, though it is not perfect, the days of having an Adobe RGB image display poorly because the browser assumes it is sRGB should be mostly gone, except perhaps for Safari on Mac.

I have an Epson P800 at home and its colour space is in fact larger than Adobe RGB. Google: "fine art printing"  and you'll find people printing with top line inkjets on the best papers which will cover all of Adobe RGB and then some.  They won't be cheap but after all the money you've spent to take your camera underwater it is worth it.

To get the most out of the system you need to calibrate your monitor well and soft proof using profiles supplied by the people doing the printing for you or utilise a profiling service to profile your own printer.  I have profiles done for my preferred papers on the P800 and it provides a great match between the screen and printed image.

You will find reading into technical documentation of monitor producers that the advice is to use sRGB for consistency
This is unlikely to go away with the growing consumption of content on mobile devices unless all smartphone start supporting adobe rgb
For printers you will also find that although the printer will take an adobe rgb profile it will be very far from actually printing the gamut with good coverage and this is why many professional printers are still used in sRGB to ensure predictability
I would also question that on land you need to take specific shots with rich reds and sunsets to see a difference and majority of underwater shots lack color and dynamic range as a start
From what I can see adobe rgb is helping me map the out of gamut into sRGB but is never my output space as it can’t be easily consumed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The technical documentation is designed to deflect questions to help desks - but in reality it's simple:   Import in Adobe RGB, do all your editing there and export for web in sRGB.  You get the advantages of working in the bigger colour space then convert it down for web consumption.  Store your processed files in Adobe RGB - no sense throwing away colour information - even if the mass market can't see it you can and that should be reason enough.

As far as printers go they do indeed cover the Adobe RGB colour space and then some - but I'm not talking about the the mass produced models from big box stores - you generally can't buy them from those retailers - the archival pigment ink printers do an amazing job and can produce very vibrant images. But to get the advantage - you need to have a good profiled monitor - You need to use a profile to soft proof your images and follow the procedures with your files precisely.  If you do that and print on the right paper the results are very nice indeed.  You need to recognise that a monitor and a print will never look "the same" one is transmitted light and the other reflected and getting that right is a bit of an art form and you need a experienced operator to get the best out of the print.

In my experience the vibrant blue-cyan tones in tropical blue water images get crunched if you convert them to sRGB - that's reason enough for me to keep using Adobe RGB.  You can join the race to the bottom or try to educate people on the benefits of quality and enjoy it yourself in the process.  This is particularly the case if you print your image sand put them on your walls.

The technical documentation is designed to deflect questions to help desks - but in reality it's simple:   Import in Adobe RGB, do all your editing there and export for web in sRGB.  You get the advantages of working in the bigger colour space then convert it down for web consumption.  Store your processed files in Adobe RGB - no sense throwing away colour information - even if the mass market can't see it you can and that should be reason enough.
As far as printers go they do indeed cover the Adobe RGB colour space and then some - but I'm not talking about the the mass produced models from big box stores - you generally can't buy them from those retailers - the archival pigment ink printers do an amazing job and can produce very vibrant images. But to get the advantage - you need to have a good profiled monitor - You need to use a profile to soft proof your images and follow the procedures with your files precisely.  If you do that and print on the right paper the results are very nice indeed.  You need to recognise that a monitor and a print will never look "the same" one is transmitted light and the other reflected and getting that right is a bit of an art form and you need a experienced operator to get the best out of the print.
In my experience the vibrant blue-cyan tones in tropical blue water images get crunched if you convert them to sRGB - that's reason enough for me to keep using Adobe RGB.  You can join the race to the bottom or try to educate people on the benefits of quality and enjoy it yourself in the process.  This is particularly the case if you print your image sand put them on your walls.

I certainly find there an issue with blue/cyans - see this link for the coverage of the two colour spaces:  https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/srgb-adobergb1998.htm

I see it regularly when converting to sRGB for web, I process in Adobe RGB then convert and it sucks the life out the blues - you can tweak it a  little to get some blues back, but it's not the same.

sRGB is the lowest common denominator,  it's safe but limiting.  With the amount of money I spend on equipment and physical effort hauling dive and photo gear around I prefer to educate myself about the possibilities and make best use out of them and for me sRGB has limitations.

I'd never consider a TV for critical work - the images will really pop on them but they are generally too bright if you are going to profile everything and make prints. They are great to display images to other people though - the right tool for the job.

I also never use prophotoRGB that's purely a bigger must be better exercise and some of it is imaginary - the human eye can't see some of the tones included. 

I am not saying to use sRGB but to use soft proof to check it
In fact as lightroom uses prophoto RGB in the develop mode you always have variations between develop and library/print mode anyway. This is apparent in certain shots
If you do not use proofing your jpegs are off
Photoshop instead works in a single space consistently so you don’t need to proof however if you work on adobe rgb and then publish online you get surprises too
Finally even of a browser supports something different than srgb the conversion when the user doesn’t have an adobe rgb monitor is done on the end device and again this results in unexpected results
In practical terms since I have an adobe rgb monitor I can see colours I was not seeing before however I end up proofing all my images as nobody else really has it out there
I do not own an adobe rgb printer and all the printing shops I have access do not support adobe rgb so in hindsight it has not been a major upgrade as I expected
I have also discovered lightroom does a really poor job with saturated colours that fall out of gamut while other programs work better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On 9/3/2020 at 12:53 PM, Interceptor121 said:

Lightroom library screen is in Adobe RGB and will be clipped to sRGB on your screen

Which version of Lightroom are you using? Is it a recent one?

I'm not using Lightroom, but Adobe Bridge, which enables the selection of the proper color profile (at least in the current version).

2 hours ago, Algwyn said:

Which version of Lightroom are you using? Is it a recent one?

I'm not using Lightroom, but Adobe Bridge, which enables the selection of the proper color profile (at least in the current version).

All lightrooom version have the same behaviour

Bridge is not color managed it means it will show the default of your monitor however if you click on camera raw you are into photoshop preferences so that will manage the display usually with Adobe RGB 8 or 16 bits (your display won't show more than 10 anyway or even 8)

I am not that good at Photoshop but usually you get in there once the color management part is done and you would still need proofing tools 

Photoshop can do a lot of things with colour management and can get you into trouble if you are not careful.  The basics are:

• Select the colour space you want to work in - in ACR you click on the link at the bottom that says something like AbobeRGB(1998) 16 bit etc and select your preferences
• I recommend AdobeRGB1998 16 bit and 300 ppi resolution (only matters for printing)
• In Edit Colour settings  use the attached settings

This will set your working space to be Adobe RGB and PS will warn you if you open a file tagged with a different working space and you have the option of converting to working space.  Always edit in 16 bit it is much less prone to banding.

For detailed explanation of what happens in colour management this is a good article:  https://imagescience.com.au/fundamentals-of-digital/01-digital-imaging-fundamentals

I work in AdobeRGB and only convert to sRGB for an image  I am posting on the web.  You can soft proof your image using profiles from other devices, for example you can soft proof prior to printing.  This article explains how to:  https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/using-icc-output-profiles

Oh and all this relies on having a well calibrated monitor.

I thank everybody for the great advice and discussion. At the end I just ordered a BenQ SW270c monitor and the x-rite i1display pro plus for calibration...

Wolfgang

I thank everybody for the great advice and discussion. At the end I just ordered a BenQ SW270c monitor and the x-rite i1display pro plus for calibration...
Wolfgang