Mac computers color space

[mavericks7913]

I realized that all mac computers are not able to change the color mode which is the biggest issue for me. Beside iMac does not support Adobe RGB, it is quite shaming that Mac OS does not have any features to emulate other color space. Having external monitors would be a solution but it is very disappointing that Mac does not support Adobe RGB or only 73% of Adobe RGB and not able to emulate sRGB. Emulating and changing icc profile is totally different btw.

Any thoughts?

 

[MCAsan]

What color space you need depends on the work you are doing. DCI-P3 is the wide color space for video work. Adobe RGB is not. There is a huge overlap between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB. They are closer to each other than either is to sRGB.

 

[mavericks7913]

What color space you need depends on the work you are doing. DCI-P3 is the wide color space for video work. Adobe RGB is not. There is a huge overlap between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB. They are closer to each other than either is to sRGB.

I need Adobe RGB mostly. So I found P3 color space useless. The biggest problem is that there is no way to emulate other color space even sRGB. If I can not emulate the color space, then I only see P3 color space which is ridiculous. Both color spaces are close to sRGB but that doesn't mean they are sRGB. I have two Adobe rgb monitors but if I emulate sRGB, it shows different results but it is very helpful.

 

[MCAsan]

Calibrate using a ColorMunki or Spyder or other color meter. They generate a profile file for the color space you are calibrating to.

 

[mavericks7913]

Calibrate using a ColorMunki or Spyder or other color meter. They generate a profile file for the color space you are calibrating to.

You are not understanding. Calibrating and emulating is different. First of all, P3 support only 73% of Adobe RGB. BenQ SW series have a remote control to change Adobe RGB, sRGB, and more. I tried sRGB icc profile and emulated sRGB but sRGB ICC had inaccurate color tones.

 

[mollyc]

Are your images primarily for print or for web viewing? Printers cannot handle nearly the full color space of a monitor. I typically work in ProPhoto, which comes out of Lightroom and have never felt like the screen on any of my three iMacs were lacking in color.

 

[mavericks7913]

Are your images primarily for print or for web viewing? Printers cannot handle nearly the full color space of a monitor. I typically work in ProPhoto, which comes out of Lightroom and have never felt like the screen on any of my three iMacs were lacking in color.

For my uses, both iMac and Macbook pro are useless due to P3 color space. If anyone working with sRGB like web designer, they will find Mac computers with a display to be useless cause they cant emulate sRGB color space. Changing ICC profile is not emulating btw. The only way to solve this is to get an external monitor which can select other color space mode.

 

[mollyc]

Well you didn't actually answer my question as to whether you are concerned about prints or just web viewing. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people do not care or even notice what color the images are on their screen.

If it really bothers you, then you've already determined your solution, which is to get an external monitor. Plenty of people use dual monitors anyway.

 

[mavericks7913]

Well you didn't actually answer my question as to whether you are concerned about prints or just web viewing. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people do not care or even notice what color the images are on their screen.

If it really bothers you, then you've already determined your solution, which is to get an external monitor. Plenty of people use dual monitors anyway.

Majority of people do not even know about emulating cause they dont work with it. I do photography but my friends and other designers, who def need sRGB color space for web design, can not see the right color cause iMac and Macbook Pro support P3 color space and not able to emulate sRGB. What if they use only either iMac or Macbook Pro? Then that's the problem. There are quite a lot of companies use the only iMac for their works.

 

[robgendreau]

Isn't the emulation vs color profile issue only for nontagged images? In non-color managed applications? A concern since you might end up with oversaturated colors. But if the image were tagged for sRGB and you used that profile, wouldn't it be OK? Maybe I'm missing the point. I'd just use a color managed app and proceed accordingly.

And as far as I know NO computer with a built in retina display does Adobe sRGB. That's what external monitors are for. And if you're producing images for people with sRGB displays then I'd think you'd use sRGB for proofing.

 

[mavericks7913]

Isn't the emulation vs color profile issue only for nontagged images? In non-color managed applications? A concern since you might end up with oversaturated colors. But if the image were tagged for sRGB and you used that profile, wouldn't it be OK? Maybe I'm missing the point. I'd just use a color managed app and proceed accordingly.

And as far as I know NO computer with a built in retina display does Adobe RGB. That's what external monitors are for. And if you're producing images for people with sRGB displays then I'd think you'd use sRGB for proofing.

Even images are tagged for sRGB, you need to calibrate to get the right color and then emulate the color space to see sRGB color space if you are using P3 or Adobe RGB monitors.

Dell laptop supports Adobe RGB.

 

[ChrisA]

I don't see a problem. I work in a mac and use Adobe RGB in Photoshop. My iMac displays it as best it can. Actually idid try and calibrate the screen but found I was lucky and my monitor required a null calibration.

I thought I understood this. Every file can be in any color space and every physical device like a printer technically has it's own unique space that might even change if you change brands of ink. Then the OS apples a 4x4 matrix to do a linear transform from files color space to device. There is no emulation. It is translation, not emulation.

Of course the problem is that a 4x4 can do only a linear operation but the error is tiny, likely less than the devices quantization error.

It is worth it to review your linear algebra. It is simple but I think the authors of some desigbooks make it seem complex because I bet they don't know how it really works. It simply an R3 vector times a 4x4 matrix twice. In this contest the word "emulation" does not make sense.

In order to have a valid complaint that does not involve hand waving show how a number in a file ends up being displayed on the screen wrong. As they say in most math calluses "SHOW YOUR WORK" or no credit.

The things to always remember is
1) All physical devices (screens, printers, cameras, scanners...) have their own unique color space. Some are very close to a standard but you can't know that without measuring with a colorimeter.
2) all files have an assumed color space
3) even in theory, not all transformations are possible, in fact none are if you want a one to one mapping.

 

[deep diver]

Any thoughts?

Sounds to me like you are more interested in arguing for your thoughts than in having an open discussion.

 

[OreoCookie]

Beside iMac does not support Adobe RGB, it is quite shaming that Mac OS does not have any features to emulate other color space.

This is not correct, you can of course preview images in different profiles on the Mac, including Adobe RGB. The latter only makes sense if the monitor you use supports 100 % (or very close to 100%) of Adobe RGB's color gamut. And you could preview your photo in other color spaces (including Adobe RGB), although if you are not careful, the preview will look nothing like what other people see when you send them the photo.

The problem here will be most monitors do not cover the whole gamut of Adobe RGB colors. You mention that you use a Benq SW-series monitor, and at least some models supposedly cover 99 % of Adobe RGB. I say supposedly, because the only way to know for sure is to create a color profile with a hardware calibration tool. Once you know that your monitor's gamut really does cover almost all of Adobe RGB does it make sense to preview files that use colors from the whole Adobe RGB spectrum with your computer/monitor combo. Few monitors really get close to being able to display Adobe RGB's color gamut, and Apple is aiming for 100 % coverage of DCI-P3. (DCI-P3 is a standard from the video industry, and it is being picked up by many other smartphone manufacturers.)

You are not understanding. Calibrating and emulating is different. [...] BenQ SW series have a remote control to change Adobe RGB, sRGB, and more. I tried sRGB icc profile and emulated sRGB but sRGB ICC had inaccurate color tones.

It is not clear to me what your problem is: we do understand the difference between calibrating a display and viewing photos after applying different output profiles. Insisting to use a profile that includes colors which your monitor cannot display makes no sense and is just asking for trouble. Are you changing the display profile rather than the proofing profile?

You should keep your display profile fixed, preferably you should create one yourself with a hardware calibration tool. Don't muck with settings on the on-screen display after calibration, keep it as it is. The display should have a gamut wide enough to contain all of the colors supported in the proofing profile. If it doesn't, then it isn't good enough for this particular proofing target.

First of all, P3 support only 73% of Adobe RGB.

No, that is not correct, DCI-P3 overlaps 93.6 % with Adobe RGB and Adobe RGB overlaps with 87.0 % of DCI-P3.

It is worth it to review your linear algebra. It is simple but I think the authors of some desigbooks make it seem complex because I bet they don't know how it really works. It simply an R3 vector times a 4x4 matrix twice. In this contest the word "emulation" does not make sense.

Nice explanation. The only thing I would add is that there is a bit of variability when it comes to how colors are treated that lie outside of the color gamut that is displayable by the device (e. g. your printer or your monitor). But of course, the underlying fact that you are dealing with a representation does not change.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people do not care or even notice what color the images are on their screen.

Yup. If you really care about color accuracy, you have to create versions of the image optimized for each type of output. There is no “true” colors, unless every device along the way treats profiles correctly and all devices are calibrated. If you want to print a photo, you need to know the printer/paper combo and optimize for that. If it is for the web, pick sRGB, etc.

Even images are tagged for sRGB, you need to calibrate to get the right color and then emulate the color space to see sRGB color space if you are using P3 or Adobe RGB monitors.

From what I read here, it seems you don't understand how color management works: you only need to calibrate your monitor once. You definitely do not calibrate your monitor for different color spaces. When you get images from a device which has not been calibrated (like in almost all circumstances digital cameras), meaning if you take a photo of a reference color target such as this one, the colors will appear differently on your monitor. That's why you can assign a color profile of your choosing in digital cameras. Of course, depending on what profile you choose (on digital cameras that is typically either sRGB or Adobe RGB) that will change the way an image is rendered, but it will not change the underlying data. In fact, if you shoot RAW, there is zero loss of data. As soon as you start working in a calibrated environment, you have to keep track of the color profile. That means if you edit the photo to “look just right” on your calibrated screen, then when you save your photo you need to include an output profile (e. g. Adobe RGB). If you then open it on another machine or printer whose color gamut is large enough to display all colors, it will look exactly the same way. As you noticed, the output profile can be different from your screen's or printer's profile.

 

[mavericks7913]

This is not correct, you can of course preview images in different profiles on the Mac, including Adobe RGB. The latter only makes sense if the monitor you use supports 100 % (or very close to 100%) of Adobe RGB's color gamut. And you could preview your photo in other color spaces (including Adobe RGB), although if you are not careful, the preview will look nothing like what other people see when you send them the photo.

The problem here will be most monitors do not cover the whole gamut of Adobe RGB colors. You mention that you use a Benq SW-series monitor, and at least some models supposedly cover 99 % of Adobe RGB. I say supposedly, because the only way to know for sure is to create a color profile with a hardware calibration tool. Once you know that your monitor's gamut really does cover almost all of Adobe RGB does it make sense to preview files that use colors from the whole Adobe RGB spectrum with your computer/monitor combo. Few monitors really get close to being able to display Adobe RGB's color gamut, and Apple is aiming for 100 % coverage of DCI-P3. (DCI-P3 is a standard from the video industry, and it is being picked up by many other smartphone manufacturers.)

It is not clear to me what your problem is: we do understand the difference between calibrating a display and viewing photos after applying different output profiles. Insisting to use a profile that includes colors which your monitor cannot display makes no sense and is just asking for trouble. Are you changing the display profile rather than the proofing profile?

You should keep your display profile fixed, preferably you should create one yourself with a hardware calibration tool. Don't muck with settings on the on-screen display after calibration, keep it as it is. The display should have a gamut wide enough to contain all of the colors supported in the proofing profile. If it doesn't, then it isn't good enough for this particular proofing target.

No, that is not correct, DCI-P3 overlaps 93.6 % with Adobe RGB and Adobe RGB overlaps with 87.0 % of DCI-P3.

Nice explanation. The only thing I would add is that there is a bit of variability when it comes to how colors are treated that lie outside of the color gamut that is displayable by the device (e. g. your printer or your monitor). But of course, the underlying fact that you are dealing with a representation does not change.

Yup. If you really care about color accuracy, you have to create versions of the image optimized for each type of output. There is no “true” colors, unless every device along the way treats profiles correctly and all devices are calibrated. If you want to print a photo, you need to know the printer/paper combo and optimize for that. If it is for the web, pick sRGB, etc.

From what I read here, it seems you don't understand how color management works: you only need to calibrate your monitor once. You definitely do not calibrate your monitor for different color spaces. When you get images from a device which has not been calibrated (like in almost all circumstances digital cameras), meaning if you take a photo of a reference color target such as this one, the colors will appear differently on your monitor. That's why you can assign a color profile of your choosing in digital cameras. Of course, depending on what profile you choose (on digital cameras that is typically either sRGB or Adobe RGB) that will change the way an image is rendered, but it will not change the underlying data. In fact, if you shoot RAW, there is zero loss of data. As soon as you start working in a calibrated environment, you have to keep track of the color profile. That means if you edit the photo to “look just right” on your calibrated screen, then when you save your photo you need to include an output profile (e. g. Adobe RGB). If you then open it on another machine or printer whose color gamut is large enough to display all colors, it will look exactly the same way. As you noticed, the output profile can be different from your screen's or printer's profile.

https://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/...r-gamut-of-the-imac-display-retina-late-2015/

Check here.

There is no way to use sRGB mode in Mac computers. Like I said, emulating and ICC profile are different. I have no idea how many times do I have to say that. Have you ever used wide gamut monitors with emulating features? The article even mentioned that if you need sRGB mode to emulate, then you need to buy external sRGB monitor. Because iMac or Macbook Pro can not emulate sRGB. Changing ICC or Display profile is not emulating but calibrating. This is definitely a biggest problem with Mac computers with a display.

 

[simonsi]

This is definitely a biggest problem with Mac computers with a display.

Really?

The entire global photography and design business seems able to deal with it in the real world...

 

[robgendreau]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the practical difference between using a profile to soft proof in say srgb vs P3. Perhaps you could explain it to us. How are "emulating and ICC profile" different, as you say?

I realize something like a Spectraview on a Mac can emulate sRGB by just hitting a button, but again what's the practical difference between that and using the Macs and say Photoshop's color management tools?

 

[OreoCookie]

https://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/...r-gamut-of-the-imac-display-retina-late-2015/

Check here.

It doesn't look as if the author knows the ins and outs of color management either. He is asking people whether displaying sRGB is possible: “I’m not 100% sure that there is no sRGB emulation mode on this display, but that’s how it’s looking. If you have more information on this, please post in the comments.”

So I don't think the article says what you think it says.

There is no way to use sRGB mode in Mac computers. Like I said, emulating and ICC profile are different.

That is not how color management works. If you have a calibrated display whose gamut encompasses all of sRGB (which modern Macs definitely do), you can display sRGB images accurately on any Mac (or any other calibrated device). There is no need to buy an sRGB display.

You introduce a distinction between “emulation” and ICC profile that doesn't make sense. Color profiles are color coordinate systems, and if you use profiles correctly (including calibrated output devices), a color, which translates to a bunch of numbers with respect to a given coordinate system as specified by the color profile, will be exactly as intended. However, on your monitor or printer you will need different numerical values to recreate the same colors. This translation between the two color profiles is handled by mac OS's ColorSync or other color management systems if you use other platforms. This is particularly obvious if you convert from a subtractive RGB color scheme to an additive CMYK scheme (or one that utilizes even more colors such as light versions of each color) — it makes no sense to specify red, green and blue values for a printer that doesn't have red, green and blue ink.

That means you will always deal with at least two color profiles, but usually three: one color profile for your output device (usually a monitor or a printer) and a second one for the image itself. As soon as you fix your output device, a third color profile enters, e. g. you work on a photograph shot in Adobe RGB (first profile) on your calibrated monitor (second profile), and you want to print it at the end: most printers, for example, have a smaller gamut than monitors, and therefore, it is not possible to accurately recreate all colors. Then you have to compromise, and edit a version of, say, your photo staying within the color output gamut supported by that device.

Again, as long as your monitor's gamut is larger than that of the other device and everything is calibrated, the colors in the print out should correspond exactly to what you see on the screen. In Aperture, for example, you can toggle on-screen proofing on and off; you can select different color profiles including sRGB and Adobe RGB.

Perhaps this is what you call “emulating”, but I know it as (soft) proofing. There is nothing fake about what you call “emulating” — as long as your output device's color gamut is large enough, the colors will be absolutely accurate. There is no need to buy an sRGB monitor if the monitor you use covers all of sRGB (which if you have a recent Mac it absolutely does).

Changing ICC or Display profile is not emulating but calibrating. This is definitely a biggest problem with Mac computers with a display.

That's not correct. When you calibrate a screen, a camera or a printer, you create a custom color profile, nothing more. That has nothing to do with “emulating”.

 

[mavericks7913]

It doesn't look as if the author knows the ins and outs of color management either. He is asking people whether displaying sRGB is possible: “I’m not 100% sure that there is no sRGB emulation mode on this display, but that’s how it’s looking. If you have more information on this, please post in the comments.”

So I don't think the article says what you think it says.

That is not how color management works. If you have a calibrated display whose gamut encompasses all of sRGB (which modern Macs definitely do), you can display sRGB images accurately on any Mac (or any other calibrated device). There is no need to buy an sRGB display.

You introduce a distinction between “emulation” and ICC profile that doesn't make sense. Color profiles are color coordinate systems, and if you use profiles correctly (including calibrated output devices), a color, which translates to a bunch of numbers with respect to a given coordinate system as specified by the color profile, will be exactly as intended. However, on your monitor or printer you will need different numerical values to recreate the same colors. This translation between the two color profiles is handled by mac OS's ColorSync or other color management systems if you use other platforms. This is particularly obvious if you convert from a subtractive RGB color scheme to an additive CMYK scheme (or one that utilizes even more colors such as light versions of each color) — it makes no sense to specify red, green and blue values for a printer that doesn't have red, green and blue ink.

That means you will always deal with at least two color profiles, but usually three: one color profile for your output device (usually a monitor or a printer) and a second one for the image itself. As soon as you fix your output device, a third color profile enters, e. g. you work on a photograph shot in Adobe RGB (first profile) on your calibrated monitor (second profile), and you want to print it at the end: most printers, for example, have a smaller gamut than monitors, and therefore, it is not possible to accurately recreate all colors. Then you have to compromise, and edit a version of, say, your photo staying within the color output gamut supported by that device.

Again, as long as your monitor's gamut is larger than that of the other device and everything is calibrated, the colors in the print out should correspond exactly to what you see on the screen. In Aperture, for example, you can toggle on-screen proofing on and off; you can select different color profiles including sRGB and Adobe RGB.

Perhaps this is what you call “emulating”, but I know it as (soft) proofing. There is nothing fake about what you call “emulating” — as long as your output device's color gamut is large enough, the colors will be absolutely accurate. There is no need to buy an sRGB monitor if the monitor you use covers all of sRGB (which if you have a recent Mac it absolutely does).

That's not correct. When you calibrate a screen, a camera or a printer, you create a custom color profile, nothing more. That has nothing to do with “emulating”.

If you calibrate iMac or Macbook Pro, it will calibrate P3 basically not sRGB. How will you going to see sRGB then? Both iMac and Macbook Pro does not support emulating color space unless you get an external monitor. This is what I exactly heard from BenQ and Eizo during the Photo Plus Expo last week.

They directly showed and compared the difference between emulating and changing display profile. The staff told me emulating is a mode to show sRGB or Adobe RGB color space directly while display profile shows calibrated profile which optimized color tone, brightness, gamma, white balance, and more. I already tried and compared both emulation and display profile and I see the differences.

If not, how come most photographers are using external monitors instead of using iMac or Macbook Pro which have a feature to emulate the color space from the monitor itself?
[doublepost=1509418710][/doublepost]

Really?

The entire global photography and design business seems able to deal with it in the real world...

For photography, it's totally wrong. Adobe RGB is the standard, not P3. P3 is for video purposes.
[doublepost=1509418986][/doublepost]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the practical difference between using a profile to soft proof in say srgb vs P3. Perhaps you could explain it to us. How are "emulating and ICC profile" different, as you say?

I realize something like a Spectraview on a Mac can emulate sRGB by just hitting a button, but again what's the practical difference between that and using the Macs and say Photoshop's color management tools?

Then why BenQ, Eizo, and other brands have a feature to emulate the color space? Even you calibrate for sRGB from iMac with P3, it wont gonna show sRGB properly cause it doesn't have any features to emulate sRGB.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you calibrate iMac or Macbook Pro, it will calibrate P3 basically not sRGB. How will you going to see sRGB then?

You misunderstand what calibration means and how they interoperate with color management. A color profile has nothing to do with sRGB, Adobe RGB or P3. Screens are not “calibrated for P3”, if a manufacturer like Apple says something about P3 or “99 % of Adobe RGB”, it means the screen covers the gamut of P3 or 99 % of the gamut of Adobe RGB. That's significant because P3 isn't smaller per se than Adobe RGB, if you look at the color gamut of DCI P3 and compare it to Adobe RGB, you see that P3 covers more reds but less greens than Adobe RGB. So one isn't better than the other, they are just different standards, one is popular with still images (Adobe RGB), the other with videos.

Here is what happens when you calibrate your monitor using a hardware calibration tool: Most monitors these days have 8 bits color depth per channel, which gives 2^24 = 16.8 million different colors; some professional monitors have 10 bit per channel, in that case the same principles apply, but you have 2^30 different colors. That means on a fundamental level, your levels for red (R), green (G) and blue (B) range from 0 to 255. Note that the number of shades has nothing to do with the gamut, you could have the same number of different colors in a smaller gamut.

The color calibration software will output a sequence of known colors, say, R:100, G:50, B:50, and the calorimeter (the sensor) will measure the actual color the screen outputs. Depending on how fancy your colorimeter and your software is, it'll do that separately for the center of the screen and the edges as well as for different numbers of shades of colors. This maps out the color gamut for the screen in a reference coordinate system for colors (e. g. Adobe RGB). At the end of the day, a color profile is a “table” that tells you if you want to display this particular color in your reference coordinate system, you need to use R:100, G:50, B:50.

Then why BenQ, Eizo, and other brands have a feature to emulate the color space? Even you calibrate for sRGB from iMac with P3, it wont gonna show sRGB properly cause it doesn't have any features to emulate sRGB.

If the gamut of the output device you use is larger than that of the image's color space, you may lose some shades in between: for instance, the BenQ monitor I linked to claims to cover 99 % of Adobe RGB which is much, much larger than sRGB. So of the 16.8 million shades, only a subset lies within the smaller sRGB gamut: since sRGB covers about 86 % of Adobe RGB that monitor can distinguish only roughly 86 % * 16.8 million = 14.4 million colors within sRGB. That means if you do a soft proof with a sRGB color profile on that BenQ monitor, you will only have 14.4 million colors at your disposal. Given that sRGB is the lowest common denominator, those 2.4 million shades of colors that you lose, don't play a role in practice. Conversely, if the image's color gamut exceeds the monitor, you will no longer be able to differentiate between certain colors.

You can switch some monitors to different modes where they try to stay within a given color space, e. g. sRGB. So what you would have to do for a color accurate workflow is re-calibrate your monitor in that mode, and then if this sRGB mode works as advertised, you lose less colors as the overlap is larger (ideally 100 %). Another option is to use a monitor with a 10 bits per channel, then you would be able to use a larger gamut monitor but still display 16.8 million different shades of sRGB. However, if you just switch modes without re-calibrating, everything is for naught, you totally lose color accuracy as the other factors such as lighting in your office will have far greater influence than 2.4 million “lost” colors.

That's why I think I haven't heard people on these forums complain about “losing colors” when previewing (= soft proofing) photos in sRGB. One more thing: for the sake of having an easier discussion, it is better to stick to established terminology. I haven't heard someone use “emulation” in the way you seem to use it before. Check out the cambridgeincolor pages that I have linked to, they give a short and easy introduction to color management.

If not, how come most photographers are using external monitors instead of using iMac or Macbook Pro which have a feature to emulate the color space from the monitor itself?

External screens are much better than notebook screens, and they are much larger.

For photography, it's totally wrong. Adobe RGB is the standard, not P3. P3 is for video purposes.

Given the large overlap, you will be fine with either unless you have very specific needs. But then you will need to buy a special screen for photo or video work one way or the other. Even many pros don't do that. My cousin who shoots commercials for car companies (stills and videos) uses his MacBook Pro when he is on the road.

 

[Apple fanboy]

On a BenQ and an Eizo you can select the colour space to work in and store more than one calibration.
So for example you calibrate your monitor in Adobe RGB for your photo editing. Choosing a white point of D65 (standard ICC profile).

Then when it comes to soft proofing before printing you select your second colour space of say sRGB and a white point of D50 (standard for printer profiling) as this will most likely be a closer representation of your printers colour space.

The calibration is stored on the internal LUT of the monitor.

Apple screens are glossy, not Adobe RGB, terrible for uniformity and not for professional use. That's why anyone serious about colour buys an external display.

 

[mollyc]

@OreoCookie I have been a photographer for nearly 10 years and have done small amounts of research on color management, to the extent that I do use a colorimeter (a Spyder) to just to make sure my prints relatively match my screen. I've read a lot over the years, and I admit that most of it is beyond my desired knowledge level. You have succinctly explained all of my reading into a very well written posts, and I want to say thank you! I know more about color management in easy to understand terms than I have ever gotten before reading all the very technical stuff. So thank you.

 

[OreoCookie]

@OreoCookie I have been a photographer for nearly 10 years and have done small amounts of research on color management, to the extent that I do use a colorimeter (a Spyder) to just to make sure my prints relatively match my screen. I've read a lot over the years, and I admit that most of it is beyond my desired knowledge level. You have succinctly explained all of my reading into a very well written posts, and I want to say thank you! I know more about color management in easy to understand terms than I have ever gotten before reading all the very technical stuff. So thank you.

You're welcome

 

[Colonel Panik]

Just thought I'd add this link here for the viewers of this thread. A 2017 WWDC video about P3 displays and workflows:
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/821/

I worked for years in environments where accurate colour reproduction was essential, and it's a science. I don't want to get into it, and to be honest, the OP doesn't seem to be interested in listening to people who know what they're talking about.

 

[Jacquesson]

Really?

The entire global photography and design business seems able to deal with it in the real world...

No they don't. Photographers usually work on Eizo monitors, and the grownups on the other end before printing look at the proofs on an Eizo too. I am flabbergasted by how bad images look on a MBP and iMac compared to an Eizo.