New Monitor - and I'm a bit overwhelmed...

va3pinner

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
34
to say the least!

BenQ SW2700PT.
When I fired it up and loaded some JPG photos I just downloaded from my camera, I was absolutely astonished at the detail and colors I saw. Vastly different than either my desktop or my laptop monitors. The default display color space is AdobeRBG. I can switch to sRBG, but still, the colors and detail were FAR better than what I was used to. It makes me wonder, what do other people see when I send/post my photos? I'm wondering should I go back and review some of my processed images and if they will need re-tweaking? What I saw (ooc jpg images) was almost too much, and I think it is because I set my camera (Lumix G9) to either Vivd or Scenic for landscapes because I thought it rendered the colors better. I just switched that back to Natural from here on. But I do have RAW files to work with.
Funny thing is, If I look at an image on say my laptop monitor, It looks fine, but side by side with the BenQ, there is no comparison.

I really don't know how to ask the right question, but for those of you that use a similar type monitor for photo processing, what color space do you use to view your images aRGB or sRGB?
Which provides the best results for you?
Because I am working with a monitor that shows so much more color and detail, how will a processed image translate to someone else who has a more generic monitor?
What I worry is that most of my images could be a bit over processed because I had a 'more generic monitor" until now?

For my photos, I shoot landscapes and nature primarily, and I like my images to pop, but not to an excessive level. I don't like to add any kind of artificial elements, but I do want to enhance details/colors so the viewer can see what I saw.
Hope this makes at least some shred of sense, and I appreciate your comments.
 

Keeth101

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
506
Location
U.K.
sRGB in camera, monitor, and everything else. It's the industry standard. Also every web site uses sRGB so you know that what you see will be correct color-wise.

(edited to remove the statement "not something Adobe dreamed up to make sure you stick with them" which was wrong and my apologies for saying it).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
209
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I do sRGB.

The aim should be to match your display space, and other than rare prints that I start from the raw and process aRGB to match the print service, everything is on a light emissive display that is factory calibrated (if at all) to sRGB.

If browsers and OSs get better at tone mapping some day I might switch to higher gamete ranges and let them handle the occasion that someone is on a sRGB monitor. Most phones are higher range now but browsers and OSes haven't caught up and until the OS handles it well I don't think apps with either.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
1,435
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
I have a friend down the road with some heavy duty Nikon gear, and occasionally I go visit him for a beer and he throws whatever card I have in my camera into his system to look at what I'm shooting. I am always secretly thrilled because I get to see my photos on something that's about 36" on the diagonal, and the photos are always waaaaay better than on my screen. I never try to appear excited otherwise he'll learn all I have is a 13" macbook, :D

I know another friend in London who has a huge monitor on his wall; he uses it as a frame for his photos which he has loaded somehow to them - it's like an advanced version of those photo-frame things from Kodak. Every image that clicks through is just fabulous. I have no idea now what the make was, even though I made a note of it at the time, some five years ago, He's probably upgraded it five times since. I do know it was a ton of money to buy,

One day, when I win the lottery..... :)
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
3,153
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
to say the least!

BenQ SW2700PT.
When I fired it up and loaded some JPG photos I just downloaded from my camera, I was absolutely astonished at the detail and colors I saw. Vastly different than either my desktop or my laptop monitors. The default display color space is AdobeRBG. I can switch to sRBG, but still, the colors and detail were FAR better than what I was used to. It makes me wonder, what do other people see when I send/post my photos? I'm wondering should I go back and review some of my processed images and if they will need re-tweaking? What I saw (ooc jpg images) was almost too much, and I think it is because I set my camera (Lumix G9) to either Vivd or Scenic for landscapes because I thought it rendered the colors better. I just switched that back to Natural from here on. But I do have RAW files to work with.
Funny thing is, If I look at an image on say my laptop monitor, It looks fine, but side by side with the BenQ, there is no comparison.

I really don't know how to ask the right question, but for those of you that use a similar type monitor for photo processing, what color space do you use to view your images aRGB or sRGB?
Which provides the best results for you?
Because I am working with a monitor that shows so much more color and detail, how will a processed image translate to someone else who has a more generic monitor?
What I worry is that most of my images could be a bit over processed because I had a 'more generic monitor" until now?

For my photos, I shoot landscapes and nature primarily, and I like my images to pop, but not to an excessive level. I don't like to add any kind of artificial elements, but I do want to enhance details/colors so the viewer can see what I saw.
Hope this makes at least some shred of sense, and I appreciate your comments.
I assume you bought a colour critical display for a reason?

If you google your monitor name and 'Adobe RGB', you will find a number of tutorials online which will walk you through the concept of colour calibrated displays and colour gamuts.

It is the case that if you only ever view your work online, then sRGB jpegs are probably how your pictures need to be saved (at least, the web version), but good quality inkjet printers can print the wider Adobe RGB gamut.

A common workflow is to shoot in Adobe RGB (or Profoto - an even wider gamut) and edit in Adobe RGB (or Profoto). If you need to see the sRGB version on the fly, you can set your editor's soft proof mode to sRGB rather than switching modes on your monitor.

Adobe RGB is not some Illuminati style conspiracy designed to lock you into Adobe products. It happens to have developed by Adobe systems, but is very widely supported in the hardware industry. Last time I looked, Adobe didn't make printers.
 

va3pinner

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
34
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I assume you bought a colour critical display for a reason?

If you google your monitor name and 'Adobe RGB', you will find a number of tutorials online which will walk you through the concept of colour calibrated displays and colour gamuts.

It is the case that if you only ever view your work online, then sRGB jpegs are probably how your pictures need to be saved (at least, the web version), but good quality inkjet printers can print the wider Adobe RGB gamut.

A common workflow is to shoot in Adobe RGB (or Profoto - an even wider gamut) and edit in Adobe RGB (or Profoto). If you need to see the sRGB version on the fly, you can set your editor's soft proof mode to sRGB rather than switching modes on your monitor.

Adobe RGB is not some Illuminati style conspiracy designed to lock you into Adobe products. It happens to have developed by Adobe systems, but is very widely supported in the hardware industry. Last time I looked, Adobe didn't make printers.
thank you!
I purchased a colour critical display monitor for 2 reasons - 1)I needed a monitor anyway, 2) I'm getting real serious about my photography. I'm an old film guy. Digital is still a bit new to me. I wanted the best quality (that I could afford!) end-to-end, and I am hoping this type of monitor will give me a better idea what I am getting, either jpg from the camera of working with RAW. I just had no idea there would be such a dramatic difference between my usual daily-use monitor and the new one.
I'll be shooting for both web use and printing. So I will play around with both color spaces. Most of what I have read steer me toward sRGB as a universal standard, and so far I have had no complaints with it.
 

va3pinner

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
34
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Only use Adobe RGB on your monitor if you shot it in aRGB and are using aRGB in all the software tools in your chain. Mixing colour space is a recipe for false colours.
Thank you. I have read that elsewhere. I will end up sticking with one or the other depending my intended outcome. Nice thing about working with RAW and a non-destructive PP program, I process one of each from the same file. Might do that and compare just to see the difference.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,592
Location
New England
One thought that comes to mind is you might want to go through the monitor settings or even calibrate the monitor if it has a built in calibration tool or your computer does. Sometimes out of the box monitors, TVs, mobile phones, etc. come with the settings all Wham, Bam, Pow, Every-setting-to-11 to give new customers that impression of a great display right out of the box. So while the picture might look super fantastic on the monitor it might be false in that that same file sent to a printer will look dull again because the bright colors, high saturation, great contrast were all in the monitor settings rather than in the photo file.
 

Replytoken

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,721
Location
Puget Sound
Real Name
Ken
Managing color is a bit like waling through an unknown files with many rabbit holes. You can easily turn yourself around and suddenly think up is down. And there are a lot of article about color management. Some spot on, some conveying preferences, and some just downright unhelpful. If you are serious about working in a better color managed environment, there is more than just buying hardware, just like buying a GH5 will not make you a videographer.

If you are somewhat methodical, then I might suggest starting with your monitor calibrated in sRGB mode. This takes one big variable out of the question for now until you have a handle on things. sRGB is the lingua Franca of the internet, and unless you need to send or share a file in another color space, this is what you will probably use as your final product.

But, sRGB is a narrow, 8- bit color space and you do not want to work in it if you have other options. Assuming that you are shooting raw files, you will want to work in the largest native color space of your processing software. In Lightroom, this is ProPhoto RGB (aka Melissa). I do not know what software you are using, but choose a large supported color space that is 16-bit if at all possible. Work in that space and check for out of gamut colors before you need to export files to an sRBG jpeg.

When you calibrate your monitor, follow the directions carefully and calibrate it accordingly. If you can set the intensity (brightness of the monitor) with the software during calibration, you should probably bring it down to something around 115-125 cd/m. As PakkyT mentioned, many are set to "11" when they leave the factory so they appear to be your new BSO (bright shiny object). This level of intensity of more akin to a normal level of light in a room and will allow you to better produce prints that match what you see. If you can set your monitor's color temperature, you should probably choose something between 5000k and 6500k. There are arguments for choosing each end of that spectrum, so I will not say more as this can devolve into a Coke vs Pepsi discussion.

If you think you have a handle on things, then you can use your monitor in Adobe RGB, but you will need to understand the ins and outs of using that color space. Does your monitor allow you to quickly switch between the two spaces with a switch or with software, and can you calibrate your monitor in both spaces and utilize the appropriate one when in that space? As I mentioned, I use LR Classic for processing images and I have two NEC monitors; one is (capable of 100% ) displaying Adobe RGB and the secondary is displaying sRGB. And I leave my images in LR until I need to export them and then I assign them a color space. Remember that a lot of programs are not color managed, and that can create some issues for you, which can be further exacerbated when you have a monitor in Adobe RGB.

Hopefully this will help you get started. I know that "Digital Dog" has written a lot about color space and color management. There are others as well, so good luck and have fun!

--Ken
 

b_rubenstein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
1,477
Location
Melbourne, FL
Monitors are not calibrated to color spaces. They are calibrated to a series of color patches that are part of calibration software for hardware device you are using to calibrate the monitor.
 

Replytoken

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,721
Location
Puget Sound
Real Name
Ken
Monitors are not calibrated to color spaces. They are calibrated to a series of color patches that are part of calibration software for hardware device you are using to calibrate the monitor.
Correct. The sRBG capable monitors I have previously calibrated were all done with DataColor Spyder software. My wide gamut NEC monitor was calibrated with Spectraview software which recommends calibration in Native mode, but the software also offers other calibration options. My apologies for the misstatement.

--Ken
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
332
Location
The Netherlands
Real Name
Roel
I work on a Benq SW270c and have the screen calibrated in AdobeRGB and sRGB using the hardware calibration option (using Palette Master). Depending on the output format (print vs web) I pick the appropriate color space. I do have a secondary screen (LG 27GL850 Ultragear which is not bad from a color and adjustment perspective) calibrated for sRGB (using DisplayCAL).

In-camera, I have set AdobeRGB as it converts without any loss of color to sRGB in post (but not the other way around). If the image will be edited for print I use AdobeRGB. Benq set to AdobeRGB profile. For the web I work in sRGB, Benq set to sRGB. The secondary display is for sRGB proofing and having more screen real estate.
If I process for the web I always verify the final image on a different device (iphone / tablet / laptop) just to check how the image translates to a "good-but-not-calibrated" screen.

Having the option of two hardware calibrated color spaces on the monitor is very useful if you process for web and print. But keep in mind that shooting in AdobeRGB will add more hassle to your workflow and overall just makes your workflow more complex (I would only recommend it if you do use the colorspace often for printing as you still can print very well using sRGB). One recommendation is to switch the monitor to the appropriate setting and let your eye adjust before jumping in an edit.

I should end up with two edits, one for print and one for the web. But lately, I'm often lacking time/motivation to do a print and web edit and just edit for print (as I set a goal to print more often and get the images out of the digital space).
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,592
Location
New England
In-camera, I have set AdobeRGB as it converts without any loss of color to sRGB in post
I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that if you go to those lengths with your expensive monitor and such, that you are shooting RAW? If so, as you probably know, the color space setting in the camera is more for convenience (allowing your software to assume to use that same color space to start) as you can change it at any time when working with the RAW. Of course if you shoot in JPEG, then you absolutely need to pick the color space you prefer up front before firing the shutter.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,592
Location
New England
If you plan on printing, I'd go with the wider gamut standard, Adobe RGB.
If you print at home where you control everything. But if you use any of the online print services, be sure to check what they use. Many are set up expecting sRGB files and may do an automatic aRGB to sRGB conversion which may make your beautiful vibrant photo come out dark and drab.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
332
Location
The Netherlands
Real Name
Roel
There will be a loss, you just haven't noticed it.
Yes, you are correct. I should have made it more clear that you obviously lose the color space of AdobeRGB and end up with the sRGB space after conversion. But then you will still have the full sRGB spectrum. Converting sRGB to AdobeRGB will not result in a AdobeRGB with full color spectrum.

If you print at home where you control everything. But if you use any of the online print services, be sure to check what they use. Many are set up expecting sRGB files and may do an automatic aRGB to sRGB conversion which may make your beautiful vibrant photo come out dark and drab.
Very true, and even many print services that say that they accept AdobeRGB are still converting to sRGB before printing. The statement is not wrong as they indeed do accept AdobeRGB., but not final result will come out different than you would expect ;) . Doing the edit in sRGB, in that case, will result in more control (and better results) from monitor to print.

But if you print at home or work with a service that can process and print AdobeRGB regularly it can be worth the hassle.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom