Following on from this thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...d-to-Adobe-RGB) I thought I'd post a few observations and questions and see if anyone has anything helpful to add, including good sources of simple info.
Sorry if it's too long, if you don't want to get your colour/calibrating/soft proofing geek on, then reading now.
This all stems from my research into whether I want to buy an Eizo monitor or not. It seems to me that if all I want to do is work in the sRGB colour space and display on web/screen, then a standard screen like a Ultrasharp will do.
But if I want to print images then such a screen will not adequately represent the contrast, saturation or brightness of the finished print so using one will involve a certain amount of "hit and miss" re getting a good print.
Colour will be fine if the screen is calibrated, except that if it doesn't support the aRGB colour space I won't be able to see, and therefore edit, colours outside of sRGB. To be honest the colour space side of things doesn't worry me too much. Yes, sometimes you can get banding or lose subtle grading of tones if you use sRGB instead of aRGB, but generally a calibrated screen will represent the colours well for printing.
What I'm more concerned about is the fact the monitor may not represent the contrast, saturation and brightness of the final print.
The reason I ask about soft proofing is that I don't understand why Eizo man says that the only way to see contrast, saturation and brightness as they should be, is to use an Eizo monitor. Why can't I softproof in PS and have the software reduce the contrast, brightness and saturation to levels representative of a print (i.e. pretend to be an Eizo monitor). I started playing with this last night and when I softproof in PS and pick a printer/paper ICC profile, while the image does indeed change, it doesn't seem to change as dramatically as when an image is moved from a mac screen across to an Eizo. So maybe Eizo man is right?
Has anyone got a simple how to on softproofing in LR or PS that will lead to the screen showing me, and allowing me to edit, what will be seen on print, or is getting an Eizo the only way? Eizo man tells me it is because, for a start, all other screens will be way too bright.
Given 99 % of my work is on the web it's no good me getting an Eizo screen that shows me what prints look like but not what the image looks like on the web. It's a bit like getting a 4x4 because every couple of years I drive on sand.
But when I do print I'd like to see what I'm going to get on screen. Do I have to accept that without an Eizo (yes I know there's NEC too) printing will be a little more difficult to get correct? Maybe using a test strip for example?
As an aside, it would appear that El Capitan will now output in 10 bit (http://flip.it/Rqhsc) , which is something Mac OS has not done before. To be honest whilst the difference in colours between millions, billions and trillions of colours sounds impressive I'm not convinced that the ability for humans to print or distinguish the difference makes it that important.
But it's interesting that while Eizo advertise their 10 bit/16 bit/whatever LUT capability, they don't mention that if you're a Mac user, you can't take advantage of it...until now.
Please note that I write the above as what I think I know, but this is all open for anyone to tell my why they think I've got something wrong or misunderstood; or even agreeing would be helpful