[jatrax]

Once I edit my image with the wide gamut monitor, I would also like to export it in sRGB for web viewing. How would I do this so that the sRGB version of the photo matches exactly what I see on the wide gamut monitor? When posting to my website and social media, I would need people to see the image just as I did on my wide gamut monitor.

I think you are really over thinking this. In my experience it is rare for a properly developed image to show significant difference when exported into other colorspaces. If you follow the process as laid out here, start wide and only go small when you have to. This assumes you have a properly calibrated display which in my opinion is more important than wide gamut.

And as to having people see your image just as you did on your wide gamut monitor? Never going to happen. Two reasons. Most other people don't have a wide gamut monitor, and second most people never calibrate their display. And that does not even consider those looking at your image on an iphone, android phone, TV monitor, tablet, old laptop and so on.

The only thing you can do is develop the image correctly on a properly calibrated monitor. Everything downstream of that is going to be based on the quality of your image and how the display hardware shows it, which you have zero control over.

[photodesignch]

Ok, thanks guys.
I guess I'll go with the Dell U2410 and start using Adobe RGB.

Once I edit my image with the wide gamut monitor, I would also like to export it in sRGB for web viewing. How would I do this so that the sRGB version of the photo matches exactly what I see on the wide gamut monitor? When posting to my website and social media, I would need people to see the image just as I did on my wide gamut monitor.

Like what jatrax mentioned.. It's true you do not have any control over others. The color calibration and custom icc is for your own control on your workflow and outputs. Modern color management system already doing a great job! You probably won't see significant color shift form your original palette vs converted sRGB. sRGB will be a little more saturated than AdobeRGB, but that's visually what you would see the difference. In reality, AdobeRGB although mentioned to be wider gamut, but in actual practice, NOT BY MUCH.

If your monitor is sRGB, and you are editing a 16bit image.. Don't let the color depth (16bit) fool you. Since your output is still a monitor (8bit), you will only almost always getting a 8bit output. So when you are editing in RAW software, whatever you are seeing on your screen.. That's exactly what user would get in sRGB file output. Your custom ICC calibration already done it's work beforehand; it converts all the color values for you before it shows on your screen. Therefore, whatever saved into sRGB file, the color space is already been altered by your custom ICC and been converted to sRGB already before your eyes.

I personally think it's funny people would believe in those market advertisements.. Since file format has it's constrain, how is it possible to "expand" more color out of actual format constraints? As funny as it may sound, it's the same reason why people use LAB color and believed it's better or finer toning compare to RGB. But they often forgot, LAB color still won't reach over the file limitation and color depth of 8bit (0~255 levels).. You are in theory, still making the same adjustments! Only going through different calculation to render the color value.. But max value of color still won't go over the limits.

[noahdsnell]

I think you are really over thinking this. In my experience it is rare for a properly developed image to show significant difference when exported into other colorspaces. If you follow the process as laid out here, start wide and only go small when you have to. This assumes you have a properly calibrated display which in my opinion is more important than wide gamut.

And as to having people see your image just as you did on your wide gamut monitor? Never going to happen. Two reasons. Most other people don't have a wide gamut monitor, and second most people never calibrate their display. And that does not even consider those looking at your image on an iphone, android phone, TV monitor, tablet, old laptop and so on.

The only thing you can do is develop the image correctly on a properly calibrated monitor. Everything downstream of that is going to be based on the quality of your image and how the display hardware shows it, which you have zero control over.

Better overthought than underthought
I know that it is not possible for people to see just as you do on a wide-gamut monitor, but I was thinking maybe use the sRGB mode and saving a virtual copy in Lightroom for web export only? Not sure what would work best but I'm sure there is a way around it.

Thanks.

[jatrax]

I know that it is not possible for people to see just as you do on a wide-gamut monitor, but I was thinking maybe use the sRGB mode and saving a virtual copy in Lightroom for web export only? Not sure what would work best but I'm sure there is a way around it.

Maybe I have no idea how this works but I do not think there is any need to do what you keep saying. If you have developed an image properly in a wide colorspace, (Adobe rgb for example) on a color calibrated monitor, and then export that image into a smaller colorspace (sRGB for example) it will look just fine There is no need to develop separate versions for separate colorspaces. Why would you do that? The software will convert it to the other colorspace properly all by itself.

Like I said, maybe I'm confused. All I can say is I do this everyday with no issues as do a lot of other people.

I work only in Prophoto until export time. Then export to either AdobeRGB or sRGB depending on what the agency wants. It just works, no problem. I don't save different versions, there is no reason to, the export from Lightroom handles that.

[photodesignch]

Better overthought than underthought
I know that it is not possible for people to see just as you do on a wide-gamut monitor, but I was thinking maybe use the sRGB mode and saving a virtual copy in Lightroom for web export only? Not sure what would work best but I'm sure there is a way around it.

Thanks.

Use whatever monitor you wish. When calibrate color in the first place, color space conversion is already been done behind the scene. Always work with RAW which gives you the best flexibility. Export to sRGB or AdobeRGB when needed. In photoshop and other tools you can even soft-proofing by switching your color palette into sRGB to see the end result. To use an AdobeRGB monitor is to make sure you "see" better color transitions and if you are printing, you better have AdobeRGB printer that's all. For others who view or print, it really isn't your concern if they are getting every bit of color. Simply they can not, and you can't provide it anyway (unless you hand over your RAW file). If you are worry about end result to be constant. Simple! Work only in sRGB color space.. then you will always know what viewers are seeing.

[emalvick]

The whole reason you buy the colormunki is so that it generates a monitor profile for whatever monitor you have. That profile essentially acts as a translator for your images and makes them look right on your monitor. It won't matter what color space you have your images in. The profile will figure it out, and there is nothing for you to think about. What you do have to think about is what others might see.

For instance, if you post an image on-line. You want to post it in sRGB because most people do not have color calibrated monitors, and sRGB is the colorspace you can count on most software, including web-browsers being able to see. For online printers, you need to make sure the business can handle other color spaces. For your own home use, you can do pretty much whatever you want. Just don't worry too much about having to do things to make your system work.

The only thing I ever noticed was that some software does not handle color profiles very well. Images in any color space can look funny outside of managed software, although I have noticed that Windows 8 does color management on the OS level now. It seems to work well, and I would think that Mac's do the same thing since they usually lead in that type of thing. Prior to Windows 8, I used Firefox as my browse because it could use ICC profiles.

A side note. Firefox had color management prior to version 3 (if I remember right), and they removed it around version 3 or 3.5 because they said it slowed the browser down too much. I never had problems. They then brought it back at a later time as others mentioned. I honestly don't pay close attention much any more. I use chrome a lot now, and I really don't know if it is color managed or not. My images always look ok on it.

And, I currently run a dual monitor setup (two 24-in 1900 x 1200 monitors). One is a high gamut Dell monitor (a predecessor to the one you're looking at) and the other is the same Asus monitor you are looking at. They both have been calibrated, and they both work fantastically and look 99.8% identical (the brightness is a tad off on one). My photo workflow uses both monitors, and I have no issues with color or color-space.