Do I need a wide-gamut monitor if I edit photos mainly for the web?
Asked 2/13/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I'm shopping for a monitor for photo post-processing and plan to use a hardware calibration device. Almost all of my images are prepared for online viewing, so I work in sRGB. I rarely print, to the point that printing can mostly be ignored.
Since many standard displays already cover nearly all of sRGB, wide-gamut IPS monitors seem harder to justify for my use. They also cost more and can create problems in software that is not color-managed.
For someone editing almost exclusively for web delivery, are there meaningful benefits to using a wide-gamut display, or is a well-calibrated standard-gamut monitor enough?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
6
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.
Originally by user124. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user124
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If your photos are edited and delivered almost entirely for the web, a wide-gamut monitor is usually not necessary. sRGB is the standard target for web viewing, and a good standard-gamut display that covers sRGB well, combined with proper calibration, is generally enough.
Wide-gamut displays are more useful when your workflow benefits from colors outside sRGB—most commonly for high-quality printing, especially with printers and papers that can reproduce a larger gamut. In that case, seeing more of Adobe RGB or similar spaces can help.
For web-only work, the downsides can outweigh the benefits: wide-gamut monitors cost more, and in non-color-managed applications they can make images look oversaturated or otherwise inaccurate. Unless your audience and software are consistently color-managed and you have a reason to work beyond sRGB, there is little practical advantage.
So for your stated use, prioritize a monitor with good sRGB coverage, stable calibration, and consistent viewing angles over wide gamut.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do colors look oversaturated on a wide-gamut monitor in some photo viewers?
What does it mean to calibrate a monitor to sRGB?
Do I need a different ICC profile when switching a wide-gamut monitor into sRGB emulation mode?
Why do my sRGB JPEGs still look oversaturated on some monitors?
Is a wide-gamut monitor worth it for photography, or should I choose a good sRGB IPS display?