a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The two monitors I'm considering are both Benq and both 27" and both the same 4K resolution. Other things aside, the biggest difference seems to be that in order to display the full gamut of Adobe RGB I need to spend about twice as much $$ (~$500 ±). Both can do 100% sRGB. Both say they are 10 bit monitors.

I already understand that for the internet and for most commercial printers, sRGB is what you get. I don't print at home and won't. In my experience, most printer houses want 8 bit JPG, not higher, don't do 16 bit TIF (only a few do).

The question for Hoggers who have the relevant experience is this:
which if any commercial printers offer Adobe RGB and will it make a noticeable difference?
I am not a pro and don't often print. I like Fuji Pearl or other similar papers when I do get prints made.
I use a Sony a6500 and a Sony RX10iv and have no plans to go any higher on quality or resolution until either of those is offered in a better version. No full frame. Both my cameras offer raw and that is all I shoot.
My favorite subjects are nature and wildlife. I don't do portraits or street photography. I sometimes do landscape but don't travel much anymore so not much of that. The colors in flowers are at least some of my concern
I use a MacBookPro and CaptureOne v20.

I already have the more expensive monitor(SW271) and I'm very fond of it. This is for my southern abode. I just don't know if the extra $$ will get my anything I can see and appreciate.

Benq: PD2700U vs SW271

gmw12 Loc: Indianapolis & Windsor/UK & Montreux/Switzerl

I have been using the PD2700 for about 3 years now, knowing that it's optimized for graphic designers rather than photographers. After calibration I can hardly see on the prints what I am missing on the screen from the extended gamut (I print at home on an Epson Photo expression XP 960). IMO the monitor is good enough for the photo enthusiast.
And BTW there is no problem printing 16-bit TIFFs or JPEGs.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I have sometimes found some print shops that can handle a 16 bit TIF but a JPG is always 8 bit as far as I know.

As you point out, the question is about the gamut, though.

Thanks for the encouragement.

bleirer

Bay photo accepts Adobe rgb but they want them in 8 bit tif or jpeg. They won't tell me which printer they use but I've seen demos of some printers that can handle a fair portion but not all of Adobe rgb . Check out the breathing color blog for some straight facts. Bay Photo only offers one universal softproofing profile, saying they calibrate their process to that one profile. My monitor only displays 76% of Adobe RGB, so it says when I calibrate, but I'm not sure I can see a difference between srgb and Adobe rgb when I toggle them. So if you are getting 85+ % Adobe rgb would the printer even handle color beyond that?

https://blog.breathingcolor.com/

bleirer

I mispoke above as I re-read some of my reference material. Some pigment based inkjet printers on fine art paper can exceed adobe rgb and get partially into the prophoto rgb range, so on a cost per use basis maybe the better monitor is worth the money.

You have to read deeply into part 2 of this article but it shows color gamuts for several high end printers. The video in part 2 is worth watching, showing 3d renderings of color profiles. https://blog.breathingcolor.com/guide-to-digital-printing-part-1/

tcthome Loc: NJ

Thank you for the link!

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

All the responses so far have been very helpful, especially the link to "breathing color".
THANK YOU!

That plus additional reading that was triggered by it leads me to some preliminary conclusions or observations.

✔︎ On the internet or most monitors, sRGB is all that can be effectively used.
✔︎ It's hard but not impossible to find a print lab that will go beyond sRGB. This is not same as TIF vs JPG. A few can do 16 bits, most won't. Adobe RGB can be done with 8 bit JPG.
✔︎ Adobe RGB is closer to CYMK and CYMK is what printers actually do. So to take advantage of what the best printers can do, Adobe RGB should be considered.
✔︎ Unless using a monitor and application that can do Adobe RGB, sRGB is the limit. In simple terms (my limit of comprehension) the chain of "components" that starts with a raw exposure and ends with a print will be limited by the lowest functionality element in the chain.
✔︎ In some color regions, Adobe does have noticeably more ability but subject matter is relevant since not all of the color space is significantly greater. So the colors in the image affect the possible outcomes.
✔︎ The printer technology is an important factor if trying to use the bigger color space. Big subject in itself.
✔︎ Ken Rockwell has an interesting article suggesting that unless one knows the subject well he/she is best off sticking with sRGB.

The one thing I'm still frustrated by is trying to find print labs what will actually do the larger color space (and do it correctly). The comments by the author of the two part article in "breathing color" are depressing. I wonder if I could tell the difference as well as she does? Probably not.

I will probably buy the SW271 again, higher cost notwithstanding. Expensive insurance for that one in a million shot that I have yet to take.

jdmiles Loc: Texas

WCC will take Adobe RGB, 8bit JPG. I edit everything in 16bit but my last conversion to 8bit is only used to send to print house. WCC print profiles are limited so I am using them just for small prints now. I print my own using Adobe RGB 16bit.

What I have found is when using a print house, if you use the best glossy and lustre papers you can probably get by without a printer profile. But it is frustrating. For me it is easier to just print my own.

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

If you are worried about commercial printers printing in eight but jpeg print your own at home in tiff or print from you are photograph, personally I always print my photographs from tiff, save all my photographs in tiff and raw and save my whole collection of 110,000 photographs on four hard drives

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Are you looking at the BenQ SW271 27" 16:9 4K HDR IPS ($1099) and BenQ SW2700PT 27" 16:9 IPS ($599). Both at designed for photography and come with a hood (nice to have).

Those are not the same resolution. The more expensive SW271 monitor is 4K (3840 x 2160), while the less expensive SW2700PT is not (2560 x 1440).

Both are 10 bit. And they have the same color gamut.... 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB.

The more expensive monitor has more connectivity options.

Frankly, I'd be happy using either one for photo editing.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/BenQ_SW271_vs_BenQ_SW2700PT/BHitems/1360177-REG_1176775-REG

There also is BenQ SW270C Photographer 27" 16:9 HDR IPS priced in between at $789. It essentially has the display of the SW2700PT (i.e., not 4K), but the connectivity of the SW271.

You might also want to consider the lower priced BenQ SW240 24.1" 16:10 PhotoVue IPS ($400). The three monitors above are 27" 16:9 monitors, while this is a 24" 16:10. It's a little less wide, but the height of the screen is only 1/2" different. I use a 16:10 format monitor now and it's great for image editing. By the time you have Photoshop or Lightroom (for example) tools on screen, the image size you have to work with is pretty similar with 27" 16:9 or 24" 16:10.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The last line of my original post said:
Benq: PD2700U vs SW271

They are both same size, same (4K) resolution and while the connectivity options differ, I only use one connector, either HDMI or USB-C so the reason for the original post was the gamut which is better for more money.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I would buy the SW2700PT ($600) instead of the PD2700U ($526). The SW2700PT (HD), SW270C (HD) and SW271 (4K) have 1:1000 contrast, while the PD2700U has higher 1:1300 that's good for graphic arts, but not necessarily a good thing for photo editing.

But a much bigger problem is that the PD2700U only displays 70% of Adobe RGB. That may be fine for graphics arts, but it's not good for photographers.

Plus the SW2700PT comes with the shade hood, while the PD2700U is designed for graphic arts and doesn't come with a hood. I know some hoods can be bought separately, though I don't know if there is one to fit the PD2700U. Typical cost of a hood is about $100. (None was avail. for my current monitor, so I made one from 1/2 black foam core board.)

I don't think 4K is necessary for photo editing. In fact, it can make text and labels too small to read and/or more strenuous on your eyes (you may need to use a larger text display option).

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am sure you meant to be helpful and it’s clear you spent some time and effort on your reply. But you ignored what I asked.

I made it clear that I already have the 4K SW271 and really like it. I DO think 4K is best for editing. For everyday use I set it for 1920 x 1080 or 1200. My Mac makes this super convenient.

I’m really only asking about gamut and whether the larger color space is worth having at a much high price.

I think I now have the answer: it is.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Yes, it most certinly is worth it if you print a lot, have really big prints done by labs and esp if it is for sale.

My eyes tell me that no matter what monitor I have it isn't big enough.

I just went from a 27" Pro level Graphic Arts monitor I got in 2011 to a BenQ PD3200U - yes I would have liked the 99% RGB dedicated Photo Monitor. But I settled for the $700 Pro Designer model instead of the $1500 or $2000 dollar 99% RGB photo versions. I have never done sales, I print my own up to 13x19 and my printer's software will do proof pages of multiple thumb nails at different settings to adjust the image.

Besides I also wanted another camera so my goal was to keep within a $2000 budget-even if my wife did say "Get what you want for your birthday." So the Pro Designer monitor and a very slightly used 90D camera body at a good price from someone who is going mirrorless.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Just because your monitor is a 10 bit or 8 bit or 14 bit Lut monitor doesn't affect the printing capabilities of your printer . I use a BenQ 2700 RGB or sRGB plus black and white it is only giving me a representative look of colors of my file . I print professionally from Photoshop for local artists and painters were color is critical ...and print at 600DPI and 16bit on a Canon IPF8300 and a PRO4000 both large 44 " printers I have no problem with a 10 bit display . A 14bit monitor is only a better representation of color gradation for editing it has no affect on the physical printing of your printer .. https://color.viewsonic.com/explore/content/Advanced-14-bit-LUT-and-3D-LUT_1.html