Understanding of color gamut: monitor vs print

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simple minded, as far as photo print concerned,  the best monitor would be the one what you see is what you get. Meaning, a monotone that shows wider color gamut is not better than a monitor of narrower color gamut  that matches better on your print.

Is this a correct understanding? If so, how to find out a printer’s color gamut (with certain papers in mid), and how to find a monitor  that suits the best?

[rogxwhit]

Isn't soft proofing the answer?

[Einst_Stein]

Just now, rogxwhit said:

Isn't soft proofing the answer?

Bring my printer to the store to check? Any quicker method? Just as the starting point.

[elmars]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Einst_Stein:

Simple minded, as far as photo print concerned,  the best monitor would be the one what you see is what you get. Meaning, a monotone that shows wider color gamut is not better than a monitor of narrower color gamut  that matches better on your print.

Is this a correct understanding? If so, how to find out a printer’s color gamut (with certain papers in mid), and how to find a monitor  that suits the best?

What you are asking for is impossible. One important difference is that a monitor lights up, but printed paper only reflects the light. In addition, the gamut during printing is influenced by both the printer and the paper.

I tried it for a long time and held many prints directly next to the screen. They don't match, but you can achieve a great similarity or a comparable image impression. At least if the colours are not too extreme at the edge of the spectrum that can be reproduced. At some point you should say goodbye to all the testing and be satisfied. The brain forgets the differences in presentation.

The most important thing on the way to satisfaction is to set the monitor as dark as you are looking at the printed picture. Most monitors are far too bright, they have values of over 200 CD/m2, but it should be a maximum of 120, better still 80 to 100.

 

[Einst_Stein]

42 minutes ago, elmars said:

What you are asking for is impossible. One important difference is that a monitor lights up, but printed paper only reflects the light. In addition, the gamut during printing is influenced by both the printer and the paper.

I tried it for a long time and held many prints directly next to the screen. They don't match, but you can achieve a great similarity or a comparable image impression. At least if the colours are not too extreme at the edge of the spectrum that can be reproduced. At some point you should say goodbye to all the testing and be satisfied. The brain forgets the differences in presentation.

The most important thing on the way to satisfaction is to set the monitor as dark as you are looking at the printed picture. Most monitors are far too bright, they have values of over 200 CD/m2, but it should be a maximum of 120, better still 80 to 100.

 

I don’t understand you. Are you trying to say the monitor color gamut is irrelevant? Also ICC in the printer?

Edited June 6 by Einst_Stein

[elmars]

No, of course that is not irrelevant. It's just that you can't achieve a completely identical representation, only the greatest possible similarity of colours. Please google rendering intent.

[Carlos cruz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I don’t understand you. Are you trying to say the monitor color gamut is irrelevant? Also ICC in the printer?

You can’t have 100% compatibility between two systems, one bases on reflected light (print) cmyk and the other is rgb with light behind the picture. There will always be nuances that differ the two. It’s like painting and stained glass. Or even simpler analogy stained glass picture during the day and during the night 

[Einst_Stein]

8 minutes ago, Carlos cruz said:

You can’t have 100% compatibility between two systems, one bases on reflected light (print) cmyk and the other is rgb with light behind the picture. There will always be nuances that differ the two. It’s like painting and stained glass. Or even simpler analogy stained glass picture during the day and during the night 

What you mean 100% compatibility. All people care is about how close. And the criteria of “close”. 

[Carlos cruz]

3 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

What you mean 100% compatibility. All people care is about how close. And the criteria of “close”. 

I doubt it can even be measured in scientific units how close the colour reproduction is maybe if you’d compare colour space curves it would answer your question more precisely. In layman terms It’s like a print and a slide, a painting and stained glass there will always be subtle differences in rendition, there’s a lot of effort in trying to close this gap but you can’t argue with physics. 

[Jeff S]

The camera needs a color profile, the monitor should be calibrated, the paper should ideally have an excellent profile for printing, and even then, it all can fall  apart if the display lighting conditions aren’t optimized for print viewing, including color temp as well as accounting for cover glass transparency and reflections. But all that’s just academic..best IMO to first print a lot, and learn consequences of different variables, without presuming what others care about.  There are plenty of high quality monitors and print machines, papers, profiling options, etc to start (with plenty of discussion here on each), and like everything else in photography, the user is the most important variable in determining results. 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Carlos cruz said:

I doubt it can even be measured in scientific units how close the colour reproduction is maybe if you’d compare colour space curves it would answer your question more precisely. In layman terms It’s like a print and a slide, a painting and stained glass there will always be subtle differences in rendition, there’s a lot of effort in trying to close this gap but you can’t argue with physics. 

Now I see where you are coming from. Fair enough.