Buying a new monitor? Do you need wide gamut [Adobe98] for great prints?

Why the ability to make great photo prints is about so much more than getting a wide gamut [A98] monitor. How DCI-P3 monitors can work fine and even an older sRGB one is useful if calibrated.
Some of the things to look for when you want a better monitor and why just buying an expensive monitor alone may not help you.
The gamut comparison is from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI-P3
See my detailed review [with videos] of the SW321C I use for day to day photo work:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/b...

[@andrewnewton6524]

Thanks for taking the time to make the video to answer my original question and provide an expanded explanation. I really appreciate your videos that cover complex topics in a clear no nonsense way, that are based on real world use rather than theoretical concepts

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was helpful! And thanks for asking!

[@vikrantaga]

Thank you so much for this video. This was very informative.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was of interest

[@sarco64]

I recently bought a BENQ 24-inch monitor. I calibrated it for sRGB because I typically send my photo files to an online photo printer which recommends using sRGB for the monitor and in Photoshop in order to get the best match between what is seen on the monitor and what the prints will look like. This works well for me. I think that the color space that you use on your monitor should depend on what you are going to be doing with the files. Using the widest available gamut is not always the best.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, that's an excellent reason for choosing sRGB Knowing why you are using what you are using is what helps most...

[@liveinaweorg]

Loving my recently purchased BenQ 270C.

[@KeithCooper]

yes, a useful monitor...

[@dummatube]

Thanks Kieth, great content as usual! I have a Polaroid copy stand in my office and recently fitted it with high CRI LED Neewer ES lamps at 5,600K and dropped my BenQ Adobe RGB monitor down from my usual 6,500K to 5.600K to match. I now use the lamps for illuminating artworks and can perfectly match and soft proof my reproduction digitisations on a matched colour temperature calibrated screen!

[@KeithCooper]

That's excellent - have you created camera profiles at all. This is one of the areas where a DNG profile may help with some colours - of course, a lot depends on the artwork

[@dummatube]

@@KeithCooper I shoot artworks on a huge overhead copy rig with studio flashes and 1m x .3m softboxes. Sadly I tried profiling the Nikon and Fuji camera sensors with both Datacolor and Passport systems but I get much more accurate colour matching with my own manual colour corrections made to the raw files using the ‘Adobe Standard’ raw conversion and Lightroom HSL corrections locked into a simple Pre-set! I now only have to do minimal final PhotoShop colour-to-colour matching on the 16bit Adobe RGB TIF master files - the 5,600K calibrated monitor matched to my new 5,600K art/print viewing area lighting takes the last bit of guesswork out of it! Most times the first or second pigment proof print from the Epson matches the artwork extremely closely and ‘job done’! I’d love to work at 6,500K with everything but 5,600K seems to be the standard for the highest CRI LED lights.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks for the detail - one reason I 'd never suggest profiling 'will' make an improvement! ;-) I regularly get asked about art repro and have to point out that doing it well requires a lot of expertise and practical experience. When software was being tested, I was given the big ColorChecker SG target to look at. I've used it for making camera ICC profiles, but the number of times it's been genuinely useful in real work [as opposed to writing articles] has been very few...

[@dummatube]

@@KeithCooper yes the way it tweeks colours of a Macbeth chart onscreen looks really impressive but I had to do more work in post to match the digitisation to the artworks than just using a standard Adobe raw conversion with a few of my own manual tweeks in LightRoom. Sad!

[@paulwilliams4295]

Thank you for this guide. I bought a ViewSonic VP2785-4K a couple of years ago and whilst it supports Adobe RGB colourspace and hardware calibration, I chose to calibrate with the DataColor software. Why? Because understanding and finding the ViewSonic software to perform hardware calibration difficult and frustrating, and also it didn't suppose DataColor devices at the time. Jump ahead to your video, and you've re-motivated me to look into hardware calibration, and joy of joys, ViewSonic have made everything easier to understand and support the Sypder X devices now. Tomorrow morning's job will be trying hardware calibration - wish me luck :-)

[@KeithCooper]

Hope it helps! As an aside... Monitor maker software can also be used for just calibration - i.e. setting your monitor to a known state. This is then calibrated/profiled with your usual software. Using the hardware controls/software just mean that your usual software has less 'work' to do. It's sometimes worth considering if you have a mixed monitor setup and want one to get closer to your 'better' one, using the same software (such as the Datacolor software)

[@hamshanksproductions7161]

I think I have the same benq monitor as you. Had it 4 years, not cheap £1000. But one of the best photography investments I’ve made. I started colour photography after buying t after years of only printing black and white. Cheers Keith

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I do like that one - it has a good scale for use on my Macs. 4k resolution is just a bit too fine on a 27" monitor for my eyesight.

[@mipmipmipmipmip]

​@@KeithCooper for me 32 inch is best for 4K, but it is a bit of a behemoth on the desk

[@ffoeguk]

Interesting stuff Keith, catching up on your previous vids. It is a lot of information to digest but some of it is stopping between the ears

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - If you've any questions, please do ask... ;-)

[@gosman949]

You answered my question on a later video you made. I currently have a Dell monitor that is internally calibrated to Adobe 98. I'm picking up a 2019 iMac that is P3. Was wondering how my prints will look. The big difference for me will be the difference between a low resolution 24 inch monitor VS a 27 inch 5k iMac monitor!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I found switching to higher res monitors means you need to be very careful in evaluating image sharpness for print. I currently use a couple of 4k 32" monitors.

[@drwatsonismine]

Thanks so much for addressing this! I am considering this exact issue regarding the Apple Studio display or a BenQ or other monitor. I didn’t think you can calibrate the Apple display in the way you can the others. I think you just adjust the modes they provide “photography” that is already set in their calibration. Do you know about it at all? It would help. I don’t know if software calibration works on the Studio display either. Any insight would be helpful.. Thanks again.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - can't help with the latest Apple displays I'm afraid [not unless someone lends me one!] I'd suggest asking on either the Mac or Printing forums at DPReview where I'm sure someone will have looked into it?

[@drwatsonismine]

@@KeithCooper ok. Thanks anyway

[@markflanagan521]

High Keith and thank you for educating me, regarding printing, just a brief question if I may. I have a late 2013 iMac and i just went into display settings and realised it was set on iMac but also i have the Adobe RGB setting profile along with others and switched on it and immediately saw the screen saver photo take a colour shift and then i switched off and went to one of my photos and switched it on again (adobe RGB 98) and straight away a colour shift (subtle but noticeable) My Question is, naive that i am (regarding digital) should i use this setting (Adobe RGB) for future editing and printing on my Epson 8550 as i have the setting anyway and will it help for better reproduction from screen to print.

[@KeithCooper]

The system controls are at best of dubious utility here - you've no way of know what is 'right' or how 'wrong' a setting is. I'm afraid the only real way is to get/borrow a monitor calibrator - almost all Mac displays I've looked at for some time default to a too bright basic setting for editing for print. BTW If you borrow a calibrator, just grab a screen shot of the brightness settings for the calibration - these displays don't drift much, you can leave re-profiling for another year ;-)

[@markflanagan521]

@@KeithCooper Thank you for responding, the little i have learned was to have my display brightness on the lower side with regards too editing a photograph for home printing, which i have done but not with a calibrated screen. I will get there, eventually🙃

[@ddsdss256]

I also like a larger workspace (especially as I shoot a lot in portrait mode), so I knew I wanted at least a 32" and I went with the Benq PD3200U 4K. It's factory calibrated, I use it in sRGB, and I've been quite happy with the results I get editing primarily with DxO (in Windows) and printing on an Epson P900. I'm not sure if there's any advantage using DxO PhotoLab 6 Elite's Wide Gamut color space as I'm not sure if my monitor (or printer) can utilize that.

[@KeithCooper]

PhotoLab is an odd one here with their approach to colour spaces. In normal use you are editing in a larger space anyway [not sure what's different with the win version] Take a well coloured, well exposed RAW file, edit and print as normal Then switch over to wider gamuts and edit a copy of the original RAW file [the copy is important so as to truly start from scratch] Then print... write details on the back of the print, leave somewhere overnight, come back and see what differences you can see This is the sort of thing I much prefer to test, rather than trust what I think the answer 'ought to be' ;-)

[@ddsdss256]

@@KeithCooper Thanks for the response--I'll have to try that. I've got a lot of testing to do (mostly paper comparisons) but it's been difficult finding the time. I appreciate all of your sage advice--you're helping a lot of people to up their game.

[@johndc7446]

Thanks for the inputs. How significant are the differences in print results when you print an Adobe RGB image using a DCI-P3 monitor? I am aware the Adobe RGB has more blues/greens and DCI-P3 has more yellows and reds, I am just curious how much adjustments you have to consider to in order to create a more accurate representation of your print for an Adobe RGB image using a DCI-P3 monitor? Or are there little to no adjustments at all?

[@KeithCooper]

Close enough that I'd take no special care. Given the inherent weaknesses of much soft-proofing, proper calibration/profiling and knowing how standard test image prints look is far more important IMHO

[@johndc7446]

@@KeithCooper Thank you.

[@steveh1273]

How do ICC profiles relate to the monitor's profile? To me, that's key, if I understand it, because if they don't match, the print is going to be unpredictable, close but no match. Does having your editing software in Prophoto or Adobe 98 matter if you use a sRGB or P3 monitor? My head spins, but basically you try to alter the image on the screen to get what you want from the print, costly for sure in paper and ink values experimenting until you get what you want..

[@KeithCooper]

The predictability you are looking for here is partly illusory, since screens can never match prints - it's why when testing a new printer I'll always start with prints of known test images. A bit of testing can much reduce ongoing waste. This video expands on the subject of colour spaces and editing kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2KykJJ5e71-rqc See the notes for the video for lots more about this. BTW I have some new printers coming to test, so feel free to contact me directly via Northlight, since it's questions like yours which help me with ideas for new videos which can hopefully help people...

I can edit for print just fine on a relatively inexpensive approximately 100% sRGB software calibrated monitor. It doesn’t make much difference in the real world, and if sRGB is good enough for pro labs, it’s good enough for me. The most important aspect of monitor vs printer is getting the brightness right.

[@KeithCooper]

yes, I'd say that sRGB is OK for pro labs for their basic business. Personally I'd want better, but that's why I do my own large format prints. As an aside, we supply digital images to most clients in sRGB and have never had complaints ;-) As I mentioned, for quite a few years I used an sRGB monitor and it was good enough - just that I have the kit to do better now. Many wouldn't notice, but I do, and given it's my actual job, I'll use that excuse ;-)

Of course, there’s no substitute for having a monitor colour gamut that approximates that of the printer if you want to be able to match screen and printer with the least amount of guesswork. Just saying… for the benefit of my short of pocket brethren. The more affordable wide gamut “gaming” monitors may not be better than an inexpensive %100 sRGB monitor anyway.

[@oneeyedphotographer]

I have an Sw2700PT. Having bought it and thought about things for a few more years, I have decided that AdobeRGB is pointless. The internet works on sRGB. I can print RGB. Whichever I use, once I export to JPEG, I have eight bits per channel, so 16.7 million distinct colours are possible. The BenQ monitor has ten bits per channel, my graphics card eight. I don't know what a Datacolor calibrator does, the BenQ software creates a LUT so you do get the whole gamut displayed, 16.8 million colours out of two billion. I am not convinced that converting to AdobeRGB when edits are done is at all sensible, I think I should edit and print in the same colour space. So if I convert, I should edit again, however briefly, and if I do that, I suspect that my eyes won't adjust to the change of colours. If Ps and LrC edit in 16 bit colour, suspect there is no conversion going on, it's just mapping its sixteen bit colours to whatever monitor or printer you use. The ICC profiles are part of that process. I have decided that, if I am happy with the colours (or monochromes) I see on the screen, that's what I should print. Hands up if you would edit in the 16 and 256 colour monitors we used to hve, and then print on a modern printw? Or edit on a modrtn screen to print in 16 or 256 colours.

[@oneeyedphotographer]

I came to see whether you, with practical experience, could refute my mostly theoretic information. I don't see a large difference.

[@KeithCooper]

I have no wish to 'refute' anything... ;-) If you are happy with the results you get, then that's fine. My suggestions are just based on my own practical experiences as a working commercial photographer... My current situation is that I edit in 16 bit and choose the colour space for whatever end purpose I have. I have the monitor set to its widest gamut whether I'm editing in sRGB (for web and some client images) or print. I save files in 16 bit and only use 8bit jpegs (usually sRGB) for non print output.

[@jameswalker7874]

One thing I love about your channel/videos is you don't do the usual KZbin hype of jumping on the whole "you must buy this" etc. A while back I upgraded my 21.5" HP monitor to an Asus ProArt 27". Whatever the cheapest model is - bit of an impulse really as I'd been wanting a larger monitor for a while as I was struggling to see on a smaller screen. Got it on offer for £210/220 at Costco. Not quite full Adobe but according to my Spider it isn't a million miles off. I find it is more than good enough for my hobbyist use, and at the price, I didn't really pay a premium for the Calman certification. If I was a pro, perhaps I'd consider spending more. But ultimately, I don't really need it. The only thing is it doesn't come with a hood/surround - as you say I could make one but as it's got a matt screen it probably isn't that essential. :-)

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I try and avoid it! That's a useful monitor - I use hoods even on matte screens - I find it lowers distractions and makes sure the screen is the brightest thing I'm facing (helps with visual 'white balance'), give it a go with a fairy crude one and see if it makes any difference [or just annoys you!]

[@warehousing2953]

Come on, treat yourself with a 40 inch monitor... The End.

[@KeithCooper]

Indeed - all donations greatly received...