Why do you want to know?

File: fc3757d51e690497afc679580(...).jpg (12 KB, 410x359)

12 KB JPG

>>4062497
I'll put 100% of my sRGB dick in your ass faggot

>>4062497
Nah, I use a gaming monitor lmfao

Monitorfags are the worst, lowest type of gearfag.

what is this, 2012? even my phone has 100% srgb these days

>>4062497
My monitor is assembled from scrap parts so idk

yes

no, I use my 55" TV as my primary monitor. jej

>>4062565
As long as it's a lg c series oled you're golden

>>4062497
You're clamping to srgb right, even if you have a wider gamut monitor?

(And no, of course no one here can answer this question, they're too poor for a monitor calibration device)

>>4062497
why yes, i use an eizo monitor that's calibrated, how could you tell?

>>4062497
>100% sRGB
Are you shooting ads for Coke? If not, why you are obsessed with 100% RGB?

>>4062574
That’s my current setup. An LG C1 oled, calibrated with Calman Studio. Pure bliss.

File: grouchreaction.png (103 KB, 291x245)

103 KB PNG

>>4062497
I prefer to live dangerously anon, try it sometime

wait... how are they showing the whole color space in that image when my monitor is only sRGB???

>>4062497
Color gamut is mostly marketing hype. It doesn't matter if you have 100% sRGB, ARGB, or DCI-P3, if your display isn't calibrated weekly it's not color accurate. If it's not connected to your PC via a Pcie playback card it's not color accurate. If it's not run through a LUT box to prevent OS interference it's not color accurate. If you aren't in a color-treated room it's not accurate. Of course, I'm not saying you need these things for personal and even light professional work. I'm simply saying don't care about what % sRGB your display is, because it just doesn't matter.

>>4064513
That’s right. I’d rather work on a limited monitor as long as it’s calibrated. Which for a hobbyist is enough. Want to go further? Profile your camera and the light conditions of your shoot with a color checker if you’re doing product photography or going commercial.
I’ve seen people obsess over gear through marketing hype. But the basics still stand: Calibrated > anything else
On a personal note, I think wide gamut monitors are a wrong tool on the wrong hands. People just watch the over saturated image and wow themselves over the ‘rich’ colors. Badly enough, their monitor isn’t profiled and the software they view their images doesn’t honor color profiles.

I use a photospectrometer and take pics in AdobeRGB

>>4062709
>use calibrated monitor
>forget to turn off f.lux
>white balance fucked

>calibrate your shit so 99% of the people who view it on their phone screen with eye comfort shield or blue light filter on.

File: 1337.gif (1.26 MB, 640x480)

1.26 MB GIF

>>4062497
my monitor can show about 1/3 of the sRGB color space

>>4064525
I've seen that wide gamut phenomenon especially noticable on OLED computer monitors, where people simply grade what they see on the screen, and then are shocked when the image looks flat on their phone or TV.

>>4064800
>$200 budget
LMFAO
Well, put aside $150 for a colour calibration device, and scour craigslist for the best you can get for $50.

I just sold an IPS 27" 1440p monitor with 120hz and Gsync for £40, so you should be able to find something ok.

Edited on Mac, viewed on Mac and iOS
Duck calibration to anything else

>>4064820
You want to use it about once every 3 months, and it will last for years, I've just upgraded my Spyder from about 10 years ago as I needed something that could do HDR screens.

It's cheap as shit, it's really not worth umming and arring over. A $50 calibrated monitor is better than a $500 uncalibrated one, always has been, always will be.

>>4064919
You know Mac's are no better calibrated than anything else at a similar price point, right?

>>4062497
even my cheapo benq sw270c hits 99% adobe rgb.

I have a tn 144hz gaymen monitor

>>4062497
I just realized that my photos looked different on honeyview after editing compared to photoshop, more saturated. They only look the same as photoshop on windows' 11 photo viewer.
Turns out I had my monitor set to adobeRGB, if I set it to sRGB they both look the same but everything look so much duller, what am I supposed to do?

>>4062709
I have an eizo monitor and I calibrated it, now it looks worse, how am I supposed to do it properly?

>>4065100
No point in argb if you're printing or posting online, 99% of the time they're gonna be locked to srgb. And movies and shit are srgb too. In fact first thing you'd do with a 100% argb monitor is clamp the color space to srgb.

Different calibration devices allow different standards and work faster. If you're under 500 nits then a cheap one will be fine.

this is pointless for web publishing, right?

everyone have a different screen, and most of the viewers has no clue about calibration

>>4065170
Wrong.

Being calibrated means that whatever you post will look as you intend on other people's monitors. Eyes are relative, not absolute, we all acclimatise to our own equipment, if the colour is correct on your monitor, it will look correct on someone else's. If your monitor is too blue, and someone else's too yellow, then your images will look piss soaked on their screen, to you and them.

>>4065496
The correct answer is "it depends".
Gamut isn't everything

>>4065170
That's true enough, however using a better, more color-accurate monitor to get the best colors out of your image will futureproof your photo as technology developes.

>>4065172
Even if your color is correct on your calibrated monitor, it will still look incorrect in another person's monitor if they're monitor is shit

>>4065502
>they're
>>4065172
It means it will look as intended when you use it across calibrated devices, but it's far from the end of the story. Getting the color right when printing can be a pain in the ass, ICC and calibration aside.

>>4062516
/thread

>>4065502
It will look exactly like the viewer expects it to look. The guy with the shit monitor, that he looks at every day, isn't going to suddenly go "your photo looks bad" because of his monitor.

But if your monitor is off, your images will look off to everyone else, including people who have identical monitor colour reproduction to you.

Our eyes are much more relative than they are absolute.

>>4065496
Do you need over 100% srgb?
What's the contrast ratio?
What's the peak brightness?
What's the pixel pitch?

Gamut is just one facet of a monitor.

>>4065496
if it’s VA than no
VA is not even worth calibrating

>>4065649
It's not 2006 anymore, colour accuracy on VA is very nearly as good as ips, and still a shit ton better than tn.

Yet ips still stuck with its 2006 tier 1000:1 contrast ratio.

If I had to choose between IPS and va today, and I expect my work to mainly be viewed on a screen, then it'd be VA every time, as it's much closer to the contrast of oled mobile phone screens.

With oled just round the corner, it's a shit time to buy any monitor though. Much brighter, infinite contrast, wider gamut, no backlight bleed, and just all round better I'm ready to relegate my ultrawide to 2nd monitor duties.

>>4065657
VA is still shit and nothing has changed much in display technology, only in marketing !
NEC and EIZO professional monitors still use IPS
and there is still no adequate replacement on the horizon

>>4065657
oled change color and uniformity with time too much
I have two oled tvs sony a9f and lg gx

>>4065657
also not all IPS is good
Nec and eizo best models use Panasonic pro-IPS
lower models and Dell mostly LG IPS which is so so

File: EC9C7F7E-C7B2-4F87-8C5D-0(...).jpg (579 KB, 1440x968)

579 KB JPG

Eizo new generation of flagship coloredge monitors for color critical work use AUO industrial medical IPS panel since Panasonic proIPS is not been made anymore

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1440
Image Height	968
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4062497
dell 1907fp

Is 4k preferable to 2k when editing photos?

File: Res_Graph.jpg (49 KB, 550x399)

49 KB JPG

>>4067440
for 27" 2k is enough but for 31" and up 4k

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Bob Cowherd
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4067440
ideally you'd have test monitors in the resolutions your audience is gonna use so you can compare the results. But this is /p/ so I'm gonna assume this is just masturbation and no one will ever see them so yeah, go for 4k.

>>4067444
With a 27" monitor won't 4k be small enough to see text? Also I only have 8gb memory will dat be enough?

>>4067440
I use a 40" 4k tv + 27" 2k monitor
Color's meh, but I've loved having a screen so large and dual monitors are super handy

My laptop is from 2012 and the screen is worse than my 80 dollar pre paid phone.