high gamut

[reaction]

Getting new gear, have the option to buy high gamut LCD.

I'm going to keep my workflow in sRGB, because it seems the easiest thing to do from what I read. Even the printers I use prefer sRGB anyway.

I calibrate my monitors.

In that case, would a high gamut screen make any difference to me? I mean, do normal LCDs (notebooks) already cover the iwhole sRGB?

[ricktas]

if you stick to sRGB then the visual difference will be negligible, but a high gamut (usually AdobeRGB) monitor will let you see all of the sRGB colourspace, which some of the older, cheaper monitors did not even do, so you might find it very worthwhile. The other thing is if you shoot RAW, your photos do not have a colourspace, that is assigned during RAW conversion, so even though you are sticking to sRGB now, if you shoot RAW, you have the option in future to start using AdobeRGB etc, if you choose to.

[Warren Ackary]

I concur with ricktas as I shoot RAW & found that out the hard way.. well explained ricktas

[etherial]

Yep, I agree with Rick. I bought a monitor that is capable of displaying aRGB but I have it calibrated to display sRGB because there are so many apps that aren't colour space aware and interpret everything as sRGB anyway. So if you set your screen for aRGB, when you look at photos in Lightroom for example it is taking advantage of the full capabilities but look at the same image in other apps or some web browsers they look terrible as the application interprets it as sRGB and you end up with horrible over saturated reds.

If you're willing to live with that and work around it, you can use the screens abilities but the difference is so minor it is near impossible to detect. And as you say many printers ask for sRGB anyway. So all up I chose to stick with sRGB.

The important thing is a good quality monitor (usually IPS) that is consistent.

[reaction]

I thought RAW are assigned color space. SRGB raws have the colorspace compressed already, while ARGB don't. SRGB thus divides a smaller range of colors into finer increments, while ARGB describes a larger colorspace with the same amount of data. Can't remember where I read that from.

Like etherial I figure even if I work out how to use ARGB workflow, somewhere somehow someone (or even me) will have some incorrect app setup and my photos will look crap.

Also I'd have to 'convert to srgb' for people a lot and apparently that's not a simple process?

I have an IPS monitor for the rarely used desktop, but I'm told those aren't ARGB either.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway I found this notebook with a 95% gamut display. But it's 6bit. I was told for photo work you'd want 8bit.

What do you think? OTOH I don't know if the usual notebooks are 6 or 8 bit

http://www.logicalblueone.com.au/docs/B156HW01_V_4.pdf

"B156HW01 V4 is a Color Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display composed of a TFT LCD
panel, a driver circuit, and LED backlight system. The screen format is intended to support
the 16:9 FHD (1920(H) x 1080(V)) screen and 262k colors (RGB 6-bits data driver) with LED
backlight driving circuit. All input signals are LVDS interface compatible."