Lightroom on MacBook Pro with 4K HDR monitor

[ejg1890]

I recently purchased a 2017 MacBook Pro and I am not considering monitors.  There are not many that are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C compatible.  However, the few choices not only include 4K but also 4K with HDR.  I know Lightroom and Photoshop support 4K monitors but what is the feedback for the 4K HDR monitors. Is there any benefit for HDR? Are the applications compatible with HDR? Curious if anyone out there uses a 4K HDR monitor and whether they believe its worth it.

Thanks

[dj_paige]

As I understand things, HDR monitors are for gaming. I don't think they help at all with photography.

[Just Shoot Me]

You'll need to buy one of the Apple Dongles that convert from USB/C to whatever input the of the monitor is.

[ejg1890]

Thanks for the reply.

Correct. Unless I get a monitor with Thunderbolt 3 or USB-C.  I just want to determine if there is a benefit to HDR for photos and if Lightroom/Photoshop supports the HDR capability. I know there are benefits for video - gaming, video editing, movies, etc. Is there a benefit for photos and does Lightroom/Photoshop support the capabilities.

Thanis again.

[Hal P Anderson]

Paige is right. You definitely don't need and don't want 1000 cd/m*2 for photography. That's about an order of magnitude above what's recommended. Colour isn't likely to be accurate, either.

Hal

[ejg1890]

I did do a little bit of research over lunch and it does appear several companies are or have recently released 4k HDR monitors directed towards photographers and video editors including Dell, LG, Viewsonic and BenQ. The brightest these go are 350 cd/m. (I have no idea on print vs screen) The msrp varies greatly from Dell up to BenQ.  The most interesting to investigate is the ViewSonic that includes a power deliverable USB-C. BenQ does not deliver power while Dell does not have a USB-C, but its also by far the cheapest of the 4 I found.

Jim

[dj_paige]

ejg1890​

Since these monitors are new, and we're all learning, can you provide a link where it says that these new 4K HDR monitors are for photography? Because my own use of Google finds only vague and unsupported and indirect mentions of using an HDR monitor for photography, usually by some web-site reviewer, rather than the manufacturer. If these HDR monitors were truly useful in photography, I would expect to see Google find more than I found.

[ejg1890]

dj_paige

1. Viewsonic HD Desktop/PC Computer Monitors | HDMI / LED / LCD Monitors  - scroll down the page until you see the "Pro Video and Grapics" product group and click the link.  The description on the page main page states - ". . . . . . . Consider them your ultimate digital canvass, the perfect place to bring your graphics, photography, video, engineering design or other creative passion to life." The newest product is the ViewSonic VP2785-4k. 4K HDR monitor release in the December period.
2. SW271 - Color Management - Monitors | BenQ USA - BenQ SW271 4K and HDR. Marketed as "27 inch 4k Adobe RGB Color Management Photograper Monitor SW271" They also have the SW320 as another 4K HDR monitor.
   
3. LG 32UD99-W: 32 Class 4K UHD IPS LED Monitor with HDR10 (31.5 Diagonal)

None of the above 3 items are marketed for gaming but creative development as they are 60hz rather than 120hz for gaming monitors. Other items include brightness of 350nits and contract of 1000:1.

There is also a Dell U2718Q that uses "Dell HDR" whatever that is.

This is just some items I found very quickly earlier today.

However, D Fosse, does have a point if your concern is the print. How much of a difference between the HDR monitor and your print. There will be a difference that could make it difficult to get that print correct.

ejg

[dj_paige]

ejg1890  wrote

dj_paige

1. Viewsonic HD Desktop/PC Computer Monitors | HDMI / LED / LCD Monitors  - scroll down the page until you see the "Pro Video and Grapics" product group and click the link.  The description on the page main page states - ". . . . . . . Consider them your ultimate digital canvass, the perfect place to bring your graphics, photography, video, engineering design or other creative passion to life." The newest product is the ViewSonic VP2785-4k. 4K HDR monitor release in the December period.
2. SW271 - Color Management - Monitors | BenQ USA - BenQ SW271 4K and HDR. Marketed as "27 inch 4k Adobe RGB Color Management Photograper Monitor SW271" They also have the SW320 as another 4K HDR monitor.
   
3. LG 32UD99-W: 32 Class 4K UHD IPS LED Monitor with HDR10 (31.5 Diagonal)

The first two (I didn't click on the 3rd) sound like marketing rather than giving a technical reason why these are good for photography. I'm still not convinced the HDR in these monitors are good for photography.

So here's my concern. It is broader that the concern that D Fosse stated. The monitor takes your photo and does its HDR thing, and suddenly, the original unedited RAW that you shot has the HDR immediately bring out the details in highlight and shadow area, and so you don't use LR to bring out those details, because of the monitor is already showing these details to you. Then you share the photo with someone who does NOT have an HDR monitor, and they see no details in the shadow or highlight areas. Seems to me the monitor has misled you.

I wonder if in the future, LR can be set to turn off the HDR in the monitor software when you are using LR, and turn it back on when you are done using LR.

[ejg1890]

Dj_paige

I agree with you that I may be a marketing ploy.  That is the rason for the original question. I still like to ask for anyone that has a 4K HDR monitor if there is any benefit of HDR for photography, especially if you print. I do see this is new technology and new technology drives changes elsewhere over a period of time.  With HDR as well as bandwidth and other new technology I do see changes on the specs of graphics/photos displayed on websites.  We have seen SD to HD to 4K vidDo. I do expect to see changes in the technology of photos as well.

It would be nice to have the ability to turn HDR on/off; however, I haven’t seen it anywhere.

[Hal P Anderson]

You asked us for opinions on using HDR monitors for photo editing, and you got a unanimous answer that it's a bad idea. If you are going to argue with that answer, asking the question seems pretty pointless. Like D  Fosse said, if you're set on using one, go ahead. You'll probably regret it later, but that's your problem.

[D Fosse]

dj_paige  wrote

the monitor has misled you.

Yes, that has been my point exactly, all along.

[dj_paige]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote

   wrote

the monitor has misled you.

Yes, that has been my point exactly, all along.

Well that's a relief. We agree on this.

[D Fosse]

The very concept of HDR monitors for photography is, pardon my french, ridiculous. The whole paradigm of looking at a photo is based on a printed photo on a piece of paper. There's no reason to assume that will change anytime soon - at least not until the day our brains are all online and there's no longer any need for physical media.

Until then, what you need from a monitor is the ability to accurately preview a print. That's what the word monitor means.

A good inkjet print on top grade glossy paper has a contrast range of about 300:1. So why do you need a contrast range of 1000:1 or 2000:1 or above in a monitor?

Any monitor out of the box is already too bright, already with too high contrast. It's already too much HDR. The references we all share for a photograph is paper white, and maximum ink. Those are the black and white output endpoints.

For an existing monitor to reproduce that, you usually have to dial brightness way down, and the black point (if adjustable) almost as much up. For most normal scenarios, a white point of around 120 cd/m² is about right. I just saw an HDR monitor advertise a white point of 550 cd/m²!!! Have your UV protection sunglasses ready, gentlemen...

Gamers may have some fun with this. In the real world...well, not all technology advances serve any sensible purpose. This one certainly doesn't.

[dj_paige]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote

The very concept of HDR monitors for photography is, pardon my french, ridiculous. The whole paradigm of looking at a photo is based on a printed photo on a piece of paper. There's no reason to assume that will change anytime soon - at least not until the day our brains are all online and there's no longer any need for physical media.

Until then, what you need from a monitor is the ability to accurately preview a print.

In my mind, there is a different paradigm. My paradigm is that many (nearly all) of my photos are not destined to be printed, that we view them only on a computer monitor, and so the monitor doesn't have to accurately preview a print. Could there not be monitors that are built to this paradigm?

[D Fosse]

The point is that it's the only reference we all share. If we all stick to that as a reference, we have common ground and can share files and we all see the same.

Even if you only look at your images on screen - you do want to be able to share those images with others, right?

[dj_paige]

Certainly, I want to be able to share the image with others, as closely as possible to what I see on my screen. But why limit the contrast to 300:1 for instances where no printing is ever involved?

Also, I'm sure there are many young folks these days who don't have that reference of a printed photo.

[D Fosse]

True, you can extend the black point downwards if you don't have printing to consider. But not the white point! That affects the whole perception.

On a very good "traditional" monitor you might be able to extend black down to 0.25 cd/m². In practice you will perceive that as pitch black. With a white point at 120, that gives a contrast range of 480:1

[ejg1890]

D Fosse - I completely disagree with your comment. There has been a huge paradigm shift from paper to screen.  Far more people share their photos in some matter other than paper.  That shift will continue. In fact, the big limitation of "the screen" has been the poor quality of jpg photos. I do believe some other lossless format will take its place. Maybe png maybe something else. As some one else stated why limit a viewing device based on what paper can do. Paper is a viewing device was good for 100 years but the shift has been taking place and will continue to do so.

[Guest]

Thank you so very much for this detailed reply. Only place on the internet I could find some clarity.

[D Fosse]

Well, be my guest, if you want to work in your own private bubble. But don't try to publish your photos anywhere. They won't make any sense to anyone else - not in print, and not on anyone else's screens either.

What this means in practice is that you will have a monitor that blasts out 500cd/m² or more. That's where the "high dynamic range" comes from. You won't exactly be on the same page as anyone else.

Don't say you weren't warned.

If you want to be on the cutting edge, pushing new technology forward and into the paper-less future, that's fine. But it's a very  l o n g  way to go. In the meantime, I prefer to be in the same world as everyone else.

[ejg1890]

D Fosse

I dont disagree with you on the HDR monitor to print issue. I am stating there is a paradigm shift of viewing photos on a screen not in print. This is the case for many (not all) professional photographers as well.

[elie_dinur]

But what D Fosse has also said - and you haven't related to it - is that very few of your web viewers will be doing so on calibrated, profiled, and color managed HDR monitors. Just as only a minority of today's viewers have a Wide Gamut monitor (although they have been around for much longer) and therefore the current advise is to reduce the gamut of your web postings to sRGB. Will you upload "as is" photos that look great by you to Flickr and on my six year old monitor will I see blown whites and blocked up shadows? Being in the tech vanguard may sound attractive, nevertheless you will sometimes need to consider exactly where that state-of-the-art, "paradigm shift of viewing photos on a screen" is really at (to say nothing of the limitations of human vision until the day when we all have USB slots on our foreheads).

[ejg1890]

Elie_di

I think I did address and agree with your statement. I stated currently viewing on screen or web is limited to jpg which is poor quality. This will improve as new improved lossless format emerge, bandwidth expands, and technology improves. Is the new format png or something else I don't know at this point.

Jim

[D Fosse]

ejg1890  wrote

I think I did address and agree with your statement. I stated currently viewing on screen or web is limited to jpg which is poor quality. This will improve as new improved lossless format emerge, bandwidth expands, and technology improves. Is the new format png or something else I don't know at this point.

This has nothing to do with jpeg or file formats. Jpeg has other problems, but this isn't one of them. It has to do with color spaces - the way numbers are encoded in a file, the whole tone response curve. To fully utilize a new HDR display technology, the traditional gamma 2.2 or 1.8 would have to go, and a new optimal TRC invented.