Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been researching about monitors to get one for post-processing. It seems like a wide-gamut IPS panel is recommended. I'll also be using a color calibration device.

I print so rarely that it can be ignored; more than 99% of my photos are processed for web, so I use sRGB for processing them. It seems like almost any panel would be able to display 98% of sRGB, while wider gamut panels are significantly more expensive and known to cause trouble in applications that don't use color management.

So, the recommendation of using a wide gamut panel feels odd for such usage. What are the merits (if there are any) of a wide gamut panel in post-processing for web?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I would say that a wide-gamut display is NOT really necessary if you only intend to publish to the web. As you know, sRGB is pretty much the lowest common denominator for presentation on the web. Unless you expect the majority of your viewers to be using color-managed web browsers capable of properly rendering images tagged with AdobeRGB, there aren't really any merits to getting a wide-gamut display for such purposes.

The need for wider gamut displays relegated more to those who expect maximum quality from their prints, particularly those who print with their own equipment, and for printing equipment that supports the bulk of the AdobeRGB gamut. Top of the line consumer grade and most of the recent commercial grade ink jet printers from Epson, Canon, and some off-brand Giclee-grade printers support wide gamuts, and the envelope is constantly being pushed. AdobeRGB is certainly a possibility, and with some of the latest advancements in Epson inks, I believe they can print an even larger fully-encompassing gamut on a couple types of papers. If you don't expect such high-caliber prints on a regular basis, then I would say a wide-gamut (98% AdobeRGB) or ultra-wide-gamut display (120%+ AdobeRGB) are really unnecessary.

share|improve this answer
4  
And for those who like to be blown away by their own photos when they're lookin' at em :) –  Shizam Feb 14 '12 at 0:36
    
Hah! That too! :D –  jrista Feb 14 '12 at 3:58
    
@jrista Truth to be told, this question was largely inspired by one of your comments: If you only do sRGB work, a lesser screen might be fine, but I would still recommend something with broader color range. As I read from this answer, you've changed your mind since then (which is completely okay - changing one's mind shows ability to learn). –  Imre Feb 14 '12 at 6:20
    
My "recommendation" would be to get something that supports at least 98% of AdobeRGB. However, my personal recommendation, and whether such a screen is "necessary" for the kind of work you mentioned you need it for, are different things. ;) A wide gamut display is NOT necessary if all you ever do is publish sRGB versions of your work online. I would still recommend that you pick up a decent LED display capable of 98% AdobeRGB (of which there should be quite a few for moderately expensive prices)...you never know if someday you want to start printing, or at least proofing for print. –  jrista Feb 14 '12 at 7:03

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.