New Monitor - which gamut?

I have a nondescript old TN 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor
(and a 4:3 21" 1280 1024 which is very handy as an extra, though not ideal.)

It's time to replace the main one.

When I've had photos printed the colours have not been accurate though with nothing calibrated I wouldn't expect it. I don't get much printed, as a result.

I don't use games. Afaik "HDR" modes are for gaming, not photo.
For photo printing:

There's sRGB compatibility, I'm seeing numbers from 80% to 100%, then
Adobe RGB compatibility, from not quoted up to 99% or so.
..and a few others

I want 32", I think. 4K seems to be the standard now.

If I use a calibration tool or get something "factory calibrated", how fussy do I have to be?
I imagine wedding photographers have to go to extremes to get granny's green hat just the right shade; does that require a £$4000 monitor?
I'm trying to get an idea, if say I go for 100% sRGB and less-than-the-best Adobe RGB, am I likely to be horrified at the first output?
Price isn't the main driver but I don't want to spend 2-3 times as much on something if I'd struggle to see a difference.
if necessary, a second monitor could be a cheapie the same size.

Have anyone found out the hard way?

One MUST consider the very fundamental issue: What media is my final product?

• If getting prints from a commercial printer that accepts & prints aRGB files, then edit and view aRGB
  
• If getting prints from a commercial printer that only prints sRGB files (they convert all aRGB files to sRGB for printing!), then edit and view sRGB...being able to see aRGB colors which do not reproduce in sRGB is pointless.
  
• If making photos only for web posting, edit and view in sRGB...it is pointless to create aRGB when most viewers do not use a color managed system and monitor!
  

You don't need to spend a bunch on the monitor and/or overly worry about gamut. Most modern monitors will support 99% sRGB or so and will work for general printing.

What is important and you should spend money on is a good color calibrator, such as an X-Rite i1Display. Don't skimp.

If you are printing your own stuff or use a consumer lab, sRGB would be fine. If you are going to print on a press, using a CMYK process, sRGB will be fine. However, if you are going to print on a higher end printer (such as a newer wide format) or have client output needs, then you'll need to get a monitor that support aRGB decently. Either way, you need to calibrate it yourself, for your environment, and test it against the expected output.

I've shot many ad campaigns on "cheap" monitors that are sRGB, fully profiled and with a fully profiled printer/output for soft proofing. Comparing the output to the monitor, you'd barely be able to tell the difference. I've also shot using a factory calibrated aRGB monitor that was waay off on certain colors compare to output until I calibrated it myself. I've also judged shot color on a laptop that only supported around 75% sRGB, but profiled, and it was good enough that a quick proof showed decent reference color. Those shots were then edited on a full set of monitors calibrated to 99% aRGB once returning from the location shoot.

If you want accuracy, you need a fully controlled path from exposure to output. That means a calibrated camera, reference image in shot, calibrated monitor, and properly calibrated output for the media as well as viewing environment.

For most people, simply calibrating any monitor to sRGB and *consistently* editing in the same environment as the calibration will yield output that's decent enough.

Thanks.
Something like a Benq PD3200U, then. They were Editor's choice in 2017 - I guess the price has come down since then, though.
(Someone complained about the HDMI version being old), .
There are so many other standards I don't properly understand - HDR10, and on and on. The Benq 3220 is 60% more, but I'm not sure what for!.

Or there's a Dell Ultrasharp, or a Viewsonic, or a .....

Chris-R wrote in post #19108557
Thanks.
Something like a Benq PD3200U... The Benq 3220 is 60% more, but I'm not sure what for!.

Or there's a Dell Ultrasharp, or a Viewsonic, or a .....

Benq 3200U is an IPS monitor. IPS produces much higher display quality, with better colors and much better viewing angles.

Chris-R wrote in post #19108557
Thanks.
Something like a Benq PD3200U, then. They were Editor's choice in 2017 - I guess the price has come down since then, though.
(Someone complained about the HDMI version being old), .
There are so many other standards I don't properly understand - HDR10, and on and on. The Benq 3220 is 60% more, but I'm not sure what for!.

Or there's a Dell Ultrasharp, or a Viewsonic, or a .....

Be careful with those other "standards". They are for gaming and media consumption, not editing. Also, aim to get a monitor that uses Displayport so you can get 10-bit color and better gamut LUTs. Many HDMI monitors are limited in resolution AND color. HDMI is a very weak standard, again primarily for consumption.

I had two Benq monitors, both had power supply issues and the calibration drifted. For my high accuracy monitor, I use Eizo and NEC and for my mainstream monitors, I also use some NECs and mostly Dell Ultrasharp. It's hard to tell the difference in imaging between these monitors once calibrated.

Most of the other monitors I've had around the studio got pitched within a year due to random issues, including an Asus "ProArt" (cheap power supply components), HPs (drifting calibration), and a few Acer Predators (overall, just crap).

Also, watch out for those "reviews" as they are mostly by people who know nothing about color science (or science in general) and most times, only have the monitors for a few weeks/months at most. They don't really get what a good monitor truly entails for long term reliability and usage.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19108422
...For most people, simply calibrating any monitor to sRGB and *consistently* editing in the same environment as the calibration will yield output that's decent enough.

I'm glad to see this mentioned, as it's a point which is frequently glossed over.

As someone who has never paid for calibration tools of any sort,
I have asked for and received confirmations from people here
that my colors and such are, indeed, accurate to the best of initial reviews and feedback.
It would seem that my own eyes are actually up to the standard of placing colors
into a correct space, and there is therefore no reason yet for me to spend monies
on some sort of calibration system.
So let's not make a knee-jerk reaction about calibrating a monitor as a first response.

Let's not also forget that monitors are also far more color-accurate than they were
just a few years ago, and we're entering a situation which provides a more-accurate
output than was possible not long ago.

I recently went from dual Dell U2412M 1920x1200 24-inch monitors to a pair of AOS 27-inch
3840x2160 monitors, factory-calibrated. Colors, contrast, sharpness, accuracy, and much more
are greatly improved over the Dell monitors, and I only adjusted brightness & contrast.

The standards and manufacturing technologies are only getting better all the time.
Get something modern & current, and you'll be good.

SkedAddled wrote in post #19108627
I'm glad to see this mentioned, as it's a point which is frequently glossed over.

I recently went from dual Dell U2412M 1920x1200 24-inch monitors to a pair of AOS 27-inch
3840x2160 monitors, factory-calibrated. Colors, contrast, sharpness, accuracy, and much more
are greatly improved over the Dell monitors, and I only adjusted brightness & contrast.

The standards and manufacturing technologies are only getting better all the time.
Get something modern & current, and you'll be good.

My set of NEC monitors look great "factory calibrated" and compared to other on-screen imaging. Once put next to an actual product in hand under a viewing booth, the first thing noticed is that the reds are waaaayyy off, yet still look good. Calibration doesn't do much to these monitors, other than tone down the saturation and alter the hue on the red a bit. And I still have a set of U2410s calibrated for aRGB that almost the same as the new expensive Eizos and NECs. Not perfect (lower gamut), but at least predictable when you respect the monitors limitations.

The OP's comment was that "When I've had photos printed the colours have not been accurate". So YES, the first thing to do is to calibrate the monitors to a known standard, brightness, and profile. I too can judge color quite well and come pretty close to approximating the RGB/CMYK components on most colors as well as determining color temperature of lighting in studio for rough setup. But, I wouldn't try my eyes to judge for print, no matter if it's on a desktop IJ or 12-ink WF print. Without that known standard, the colors that "look great on screen" and "as told by other people" become too dark or light in print. So, if the print's too bright, you darken it on screen to get it right. But it looked right on the screen...when really your screen was too dark and you pushed brightness/exposure/ga​mma to get the image looking right. Then, since you darkened it, you now think the reds aren't punchy enough and add saturation to get the screen right. Well, that blows out the print gamut so the print is now wrong again. It's an endless shot-in-the-dark unless you have knowns and references to work from.

Getting something modern and current is a good start, but no substitute for proper calibration. At that point, you might as well save the dollars, get something a few years older, and just calibrate. Especially since the OP isn't looking for dead-perfect color accuracy (like studio product shoots where the client expects the shot AND print to match the physical product they just sent you), but rather predictable results from shot to screen to print. Not investing in calibration gear (you can buy a used i1 or equivalent on ebay and then use the free DispCalGui to calibrate the monitor) when publishing for Facebook, Instagram, or Flickr is fine, and nobody will know the difference. But you'll know real quick once you try printing the image and it looks nothing like what you edited on screen!

Thanks all, useful stuff. Wilt, yes, most of the monitors I'm looking at - anyone would look at - are IPS, just a few VA. No TN, no Oled. VA had a reputation for being better in some areas (eg deep blacks), but I read that the better IPS screens have now improved in those regards, even without the multiple area backlighting which more expensive IPS panels use. The two Benqs I quoted are very similar, but the prices are 60% apart.

Craig, Doc, what you're both saying ties up with what little input I have from a local photo club, where a couple with Color Munkis found they only really needed them once with their new monitor, and it wasn't far off. "Far", of course, depends on the user's standards, but they did say they wouldn't want to be without it. (A good case for borrowing one from time to time).

The HDMI comment was about the implemented version of the standard in an older (Benq I think) monitor. The grouch was that full 4k resolution wasn't available with the refresh rate available from some plug-ins; he needed HDMI 2, I think.

In Dells there's the UP3216Q 32", 95% aRGB at £1188.
or 3219 which is 400 vs 300 brightness, 1300 vs 1000 native contrast ratio, no claims to aRGB, £879
The other makes now in Doc's skip, are a lot less!

NEC monitors seem to be thin on the ground apart from the "public viewing" bright ones, and smaller gaming ones.

Chris-R wrote in post #19108797
Thanks all, useful stuff. Wilt, yes, most of the monitors I'm looking at - anyone would look at - are IPS, just a few VA. No TN, no Oled. VA had a reputation for being better in some areas (eg deep blacks), but I read that the better IPS screens have now improved in those regards, even without the multiple area backlighting which more expensive IPS panels use. The two Benqs I quoted are very similar, but the prices are 60% apart.

Craig, Doc, what you're both saying ties up with what little input I have from a local photo club, where a couple with Color Munkis found they only really needed them once with their new monitor, and it wasn't far off. "Far", of course, depends on the user's standards, but they did say they wouldn't want to be without it. (A good case for borrowing one from time to time).

The HDMI comment was about the implemented version of the standard in an older (Benq I think) monitor. The grouch was that full 4k resolution wasn't available with the refresh rate available from some plug-ins; he needed HDMI 2, I think.

In Dells there's the UP3216Q 32", 95% aRGB at £1188.
or 3219 which is 400 vs 300 brightness, 1300 vs 1000 native contrast ratio, no claims to aRGB, £879
The other makes now in Doc's skip, are a lot less!

NEC monitors seem to be thin on the ground apart from the "public viewing" bright ones, and smaller gaming ones.

You actually don't want too deep of blacks if you want to match prints. That's all for video consumption (proper calibration will raise those black levels anyways). It'll result in weird banding and other artifacts (uncalibrated). You want your deepest black screen to match your deepest black ink, which you'll set in your calibration (usually around 0.2-0.3 cd/m2). Same with your brightness, as a matched monitor will be calibrated to somewhere between 85-120 cd/m2.

NECs aren't popular with consumers, but are common in pro and medical imaging. They aren't cheap and in your case, not necessary as they aren't cost effective for your purposes. Some even go up over $20K.

Read through these articles updated for 2020. May be helpful.

https://www.creativebl​oq.com …onitors-for-photo-editing

https://www.digitalcam​eraworld.com …onitors-for-photographers

https://photographypx.​com …onitor-for-photo-editing/

Yeah, load of reviews around, I hadn't seen one of those, so thanks for that.

I think I don't need aRGB. But some of the featues of this Benq appeal:
https://www.benq.com …tor/designer/pd​3200q.html

It is getting old interms of design, though.
Whether those Cad/Cam and other modes are something you could achieve with a "twist of a knob" I don't really know, though.

Doc would expect it to be in a skip in a year - I'd better see if anyone around here repairs monitors!.
Dell though, don't have too many models to choose from..
Their 32" is about 50% more, though has aRGB.

As my 10 year old cheap Acer flickers its way through various hues and then periodically overheats (there's no fluff, I've had it apart) and turns itself off, I'd better buy something.
Almost tempted to get a "second" screen first, something like a £250 Lenovo 28" 4k, 99%sRGB... and see how it goes.

Chris-R wrote in post #19109483
Yeah, load of reviews around, I hadn't seen one of those, so thanks for that.

I think I don't need aRGB. But some of the featues of this Benq appeal:
https://www.benq.com …tor/designer/pd​3200q.html

It is getting old interms of design, though.
Whether those Cad/Cam and other modes are something you could achieve with a "twist of a knob" I don't really know, though.

Doc would expect it to be in a skip in a year - I'd better see if anyone around here repairs monitors!.
Dell though, don't have too many models to choose from..
Their 32" is about 50% more, though has aRGB.

As my 10 year old cheap Acer flickers its way through various hues and then periodically overheats (there's no fluff, I've had it apart) and turns itself off, I'd better buy something.
Almost tempted to get a "second" screen first, something like a £250 Lenovo 28" 4k, 99%sRGB... and see how it goes.

I'm lucky that I'm also an electronics engineer...old school one that still actually fixes boards instead of modern day board-swapping/firmware-updating type. I usually open up my monitors when I first get them and look for troublesome components and swap for better parts.

It sounds like you will be fine with sRGB gamut monitors: if you don't already know that you need aRGB because clients/printers have shown the need, then you don't need it! Just get/borrow a calibrator and calibrate what you do get.

The Lenovo monitors are really nice for the price. I've got them deployed at various locations and have no complaints about performance, longevity, or color gamut.

I'm extremely happy with my BenQ as I was with my ASUS ProArt and Viewsonic. Stay with a top 5 brand, with a model that has the connections you need, and a model your graphics card can run and you should be happy.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19108658
Not investing in calibration gear (you can buy a used i1 or equivalent on ebay and then use the free DispCalGui to calibrate the monitor) when publishing for Facebook, Instagram, or Flickr is fine, and nobody will know the difference. But you'll know real quick once you try printing the image and it looks nothing like what you edited on screen!

I suppose there's truth to this, though I seem to have been fortunate in my endeavors so far.
My few prints to a PRO-100 printer have gone from Photoshop to print extremely well,
onto Canon Paper, looking very much like what I see on the displays, if even exactly as expected.
Perhaps I've been very lucky in this regard - ?

The only noticeable discrepancy is with the software I use to print to disks.
I have to brighten every image in that software(Acoustica CD/DVD Labeler Pro)
by 15 to 30 points so that it's not too darkly printed to a disk.
I figure it's either the medium being printed to, or the software's handling of images,
which is the reason for requiring adjustments for print.