Wide Gamut

[Liight]

I am planning to get a Doublesight 265w when it comes out. As it is Wide Gamut I worried about it causing problems for me.


I will be using it to edit photos in photoshop/lightroom 2 90% of the time. I will also be watching movies sometimes.

Can anyone using a wide gamut for photos comment on problems encountered ect? I kinda like oversaturation (so i dont think it will bother me in movies), just not on stuff I am sending for print.

 

[mlewis]

If you calibrate the monitor and use colour aware software such as Photoshop and Lightroom then you will have no problems. The colours will display correctly. The oversaturation only occurs with software that doesn't care about colour management.

 

[nomu]

I am planning to get a Doublesight 265w when it comes out. As it is Wide Gamut I worried about it causing problems for me.


I will be using it to edit photos in photoshop/lightroom 2 90% of the time. I will also be watching movies sometimes.

Can anyone using a wide gamut for photos comment on problems encountered ect? I kinda like oversaturation (so i dont think it will bother me in movies), just not on stuff I am sending for print.

Editing for print is what wide gamut is for, as long as you know what your printer will do and work in that space you are using the monitor correctly. Where wide gamut is bad is movies and games.

Honestly, it's not even that horrible in unmanaged content, but it is noticeably wrong for sure, and with a sRGB monitor for a side-by-side comparison it's kind of annoying.

 

[Liight]

Unfortunately, working within my printers color space will be hard as I am not working with my own printer. I generally just send the files off to a printing company and I have no idea what their printers can do.

I also give clients a copy of the files on dvd/cd. If they do not have wide gamut monitors will the files I give them be messed up?




::sigh:: I was really hoping not to have to spend 1100$ on the NEC.... but it feels like I am going INCREASE my screen vs print issues, not decrease them....

 

[mlewis]

Unfortunately, working within my printers color space will be hard as I am not working with my own printer. I generally just send the files off to a printing company and I have no idea what their printers can do.

Ask your printing company what colour space they recommend images to be in for printing with them. Places using Fuji Frontier kit will want them in sRGB.

I also give clients a copy of the files on dvd/cd. If they do not have wide gamut monitors will the files I give them be messed up?

Unless specified I would convert files for clients into sRGB and embed the colourspace. If images are view in colour aware applications and have the colourspace embedded then they will look correct. If not viewing in colour aware applications and on standard gamut monitors the converting into the sRGB colourspace (if you don't work in it) is the best you can do.

::sigh:: I was really hoping not to have to spend 1100$ on the NEC.... but it feels like I am going INCREASE my screen vs print issues, not decrease them....

I have a 2690 and send files out for printing and so far everything is working fine for me. Calibrated with the Spectraview software you can be sure that the image quality on the screen is about the best you can get. There are some good books on colour management which could be useful to look at - one by Andrew Rodney and one by Bruce Fraser. I can't remember the titles at the moment.

 

[Luthorcrow]

...Honestly, it's not even that horrible in unmanaged content, but it is noticeably wrong for sure, and with a sRGB monitor for a side-by-side comparison it's kind of annoying.

Not exactly true. For most things its only annoying but specifically for skin tones it is an absolute train wreck.

But as stated prior as long as you are using Photoshop, Lightroom and have the color management settings right, you will be fine.

 

[panhead]

This thread has some information,

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/67909965/m/842006119831/inc/1

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti5...splay/Poynton_InforDispl_WideGamutDisplay.pdf

 

[nomu]

Not exactly true. For most things its only annoying but specifically for skin tones it is an absolute train wreck.

But as stated prior as long as you are using Photoshop, Lightroom and have the color management settings right, you will be fine.

Well, that's mostly true in movies, with extremely made-up actors and much tinkering with color. For instance, Fantastic 4 and LOTR (horrid) do not work at all. But someone like Vladimir Putin looks nearly identical between my 263n and 20wmgx2. Also, this is the Doublesight we are talking about here, which is 92% NTSC, not the 110% of the Dell or HP monitors.

 

[Snowdog]

I don't know why people go for this wide gamut nonsense. If people didn't buy them, they wouldn't be building more and more of them.

Much less than 1% of the population will garner any real benefit from a wide gamut panel, everyone else will just get different varieties of grief.

 

[panhead]

I don't know why people go for this wide gamut nonsense. If people didn't buy them, they wouldn't be building more and more of them.

Much less than 1% of the population will garner any real benefit from a wide gamut panel, everyone else will just get different varieties of grief.

Quote from http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti5...splay/Poynton_InforDispl_WideGamutDisplay.pdf

"...The Rec. 709/sRGB color gamut does not cover all of the interesting and important colors...Many of the Macbeth colors lie on the Rec. 709/sRGB gamut boundary. Many “real world” colors lie somewhat outside the Rec. 709/sRGB gamut, and there is a strong desire to display such colors in both professional applications (for example, to meet the gamut available in commercial offset printing and commercial photographic reproduction) and in consumer applications (because consumers like colorful pictures)..."

 

[Snowdog]

The amount of people doing commercial off set printing is likely about 5 out of a million people. If you like colorful pictures, you can visit the digital vibrancy control, no need to foist incorrect colors on everyone for everything. It is lunacy.

 

[Biges]

Snowdog, look on the WG from the better POV - if their market share if large enough, maybe Windows Se7en will have fully enabled colour managemend and will benefit from the WG.

 

[Snowdog]

Not holding my breath. I have the display I will use for at least the next 4 years( the length of the warranty).

I dont' have much hope I will be able to buy another high quality sRGB display 4 years from now and I expect only marginal improvements in color management. I expect my old games/apps will never be color managed, so if I want to play old classics they will be gaudy and garish.

Besides windows 7 is likely going to forbid you from doing anything Microsoft,RIAA,MPAA, BSA etc... don't want you to do. DRM'd up down and around the block.

Oh well. I really should spend less time here now, I finally have the display I wanted. That was the reason I joined the forums to learn/discuss displays while trying to find a good one.

I just find it crazy that people buy wide gamut display when the internet is full of people jumping through hoops trying to get back to normal color again. Save yourself the grief and get an normal gamut display. There should be Giant buyer beware stickers attached to each wide gamut display.

 

[Liight]

::sigh::

Thanks for the input everyone. Wide gamut sounds like a serious pain in the ass. I really don't feel like shelling out 800$ so that I can increase the time and complication of my workflow. If I wanted inaccuracy I would buy a *(&# TN or PVA panel and save the cash.


Well. Looks like buy cheap, buy twice holds it's truth once again.

24in NEC here I come. Just have to sell my firstborn so I can afford it.

 

[Biges]

I just find it crazy that people buy wide gamut display when the internet is full of people jumping through hoops trying to get back to normal color again. Save yourself the grief and get an normal gamut display. There should be Giant buyer beware stickers attached to each wide gamut display.

At least you had a chance to get 2490. In Europe every high-end monitor is WG. Even new HP LP2475w... obviously it looks so cool in the ads - "wide gamut"... BAH!

 

[Luthorcrow]

Quote from http://www.optics.arizona.edu/opti5...splay/Poynton_InforDispl_WideGamutDisplay.pdf

"...The Rec. 709/sRGB color gamut does not cover all of the interesting and important colors...Many of the Macbeth colors lie on the Rec. 709/sRGB gamut boundary. Many “real world” colors lie somewhat outside the Rec. 709/sRGB gamut, and there is a strong desire to display such colors in both professional applications (for example, to meet the gamut available in commercial offset printing and commercial photographic reproduction) and in consumer applications (because consumers like colorful pictures)..."

You don't get it. No one would deny that having the full spectrum of color is a good thing. When we get scRGB it end all this nonsense. The problem is these wider gamuts are not supported in properly by the OS and only work properly in aware apps. As result you get wrong colors and one big mess most of the time.

I don't know why people go for this wide gamut nonsense. If people didn't buy them, they wouldn't be building more and more of them.

Much less than 1% of the population will garner any real benefit from a wide gamut panel, everyone else will just get different varieties of grief.

Well if we all want to buy the one new monitor that is sRGB then it would not be an issue but the reality is manufacturers got us pinned because every decent monitor except the 2490 is wide gamut.

Well, that's mostly true in movies, with extremely made-up actors and much tinkering with color. For instance, Fantastic 4 and LOTR (horrid) do not work at all. But someone like Vladimir Putin looks nearly identical between my 263n and 20wmgx2. Also, this is the Doublesight we are talking about here, which is 92% NTSC, not the 110% of the Dell or HP monitors.

Come one. Putin is a vampyre, of course putting some over saturated color in those cheeks would be fine. But image or video that involves real flesh and blood humans will look wrong.

...24in NEC here I come. Just have to sell my firstborn so I can afford it.

That is the very reason I didn't bite. Also, as I am hitting 40 I wanted the larger dot pitch of a 26" monitor. Right now I am not feeling the pinch to bad as I use FF3 with color management plugin. So I spend 95% of my time in Photoshop or FF3. Aside from my desktop I am golden most of the time. But its still annoying. Hell if Windows 7 actually had proper color management, I might actual bother with the upgrade.

 

[Liight]

Theoretical question to help me understand color managment:

If i am working in photoshop on a wide gamut monitor and have the workspace set to srbg, the photo will look correct on my monitor and in print/web/ other monitors (assuming calibration). It will not allow me to go out of the srbg gamut when working?

yikes. I am currently reading a book on this subject and it is still confusing.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Theoretical question to help me understand color managment:

If i am working in photoshop on a wide gamut monitor and have the workspace set to srbg, the photo will look correct on my monitor and in print/web/ other monitors (assuming calibration). It will not allow me to go out of the srbg gamut when working?

yikes. I am currently reading a book on this subject and it is still confusing.

I think they are painting a bit "the devil on the wall" for you.

Read about the users of Dell 2707WFP, 3008WFP, 275T etc. There are extremely many wide gamut screens on the market now and the average user doesn't mind. They love their screens. Many of the average users even use things like Nvidia digital vibrance to spice up the colors a bit.

Snowdog and Luthorcrow (with all respect to both of them) have a more purist look at it then most people (most people don't give a rats ass about color management and calibration even beyond whats "flattering". They don't care what looks correct, only what looks good.).

But, when you work with colors, you need them to be correct (even if they would look better before corrected). Enter the colormanagement:

Colors are not correct from the moment they are captured. The camera's of today, though good, are not capable of capturing the exact colors of the scene. All of them capture in RAW (even the sRGB camera's). Then the RAW files are converted into the artificial RGB color space either within the camera or afterwards. RAW has no colorspace and the success of the conversion depends purely on the programs compatibility with the camera matrix. There is no 1:1 conversion, so it will not match 100% anyway.

Here's a file to read about the basics here:
http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf

As you might have read now, which colorspace to use depends on your target (output-referred device). This has to do with the capabilities of your target and not what looks best all-around. Something that can look good on your screen, might not look good in print (sRGB vs. CMYK or the greater aRGB). sRGB is often a good all-around choice, since its the lowest common RGB colorspace that looks ok on most devices . At the same time, it gives the worst picture out of your RAW file due to the narrow gamut. The larger colorspace, the less gamut gets clipped out of your RAW file. But, at one point, the colors would be too far apart unless you have a larger bit-depth.

Outside of color managed programs, it exists no colorspace. Since OS's like windows aren't fully colormanaged, it assumes sRGB on everything and that everything is in RGB color space. If and when windows gets color managed properly, problem will be gone.

Within color managed programs like Photoshop, there is a use of virtual colorspaces. This means there is a conversion going on according to your devices abilities as described in their respective .ICC color profiles. Within Photoshop, you can select your workspace according to what output-referred device you wish the photo to be shown upon. If you scroll up in the list there, you'll see something called monitor color space. This is your .ICC profile for your screen. Never select it, unless you wish to send your monitor profile with it. Its being used automatically and when you change it in windows color management, it will be changed there too.

That .ICC file shows what your screen can do and cannot do. If you have the "out of gamut" warning on, it will warn you when colors are outside of your color space.

Take a look at this page:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

If you view it within internet explorer or other non-colormanaged browsers (firefox 3, when you have enabled colormanagement, will show it correctly above), you'll see that the first picture isn't looking quite right. This is because your operating system assumes all the picture parts are sRGB. sRGB and Adobe RGB (aRGB) looks more alike, but thats because the differences ain't that big.

The picture below is how it should look if your browser was colormanaged. As you can see, there is still a difference, but the colors are matched according to your monitor profile.

This is what Photoshops also do. It reads the colorspace in your picture when you load it, you use that as your workspace (or assign another workspace to the photo) and it displays it according to the capabilities described in your .icc profile. If your workspace is sRGB, you will see the picture as sRGB on your screen even though your screen has a larger gamut.

The colors you'll see, will be colormetrical accurate according to your image. BUT, you won't nessesarily see all the shades. Don't worry too much, you have a big palett on your screen. Just google how many colors CMYK can produce...
If to have unique shades, it will take about 7.25 screens with 8-bit 1920x1200 resolution to show them all at the same time. Many work with 16-bit images to have a larger range when editing even though they can't see all.

The largest problem isn't when you edit sRGB pictures on a wide gamut screen, but rather when you edit ANYTHING thats not sRGB on a sRGB screen. Photoshop can show CMYK, aRGB etc. with exact colors on a sRGB screen, BUT it cannot show the whole gamut range. This means that the gamut gets clipped and even the lovely CYAN colors in CMYK cannot be shown on the screen. The deeper colors will be there, you just can see them because your output device isn't capable of showing them. All the colors up to the end of sRGB will be shown correctly, while the rest will be clipped (out of gamut).
If you work with only sRGB, then you'll get less headacke using a sRGB screen. If you have mixed work, go with wider gamut and learn color management (which you should anyway when working with colors).

 

[Snowdog]

Snowdog and Luthorcrow (with all respect to both of them) have a more purist look at it then most people (most people don't give a rats ass about color management and calibration even beyond whats "flattering". They don't care what looks correct, only what looks good.).

Hardly a purist. I hate calibration, color management etc. I have been using computers for over 20 years I have owned a large number of CRTs and handful of LCDs. Until very recently I have never calibrated anything and I was never unhappy with color until getting a wide gamut LCD panel. I like sRGB primarily because I like the path of least headaches and least fuss. If liking colors to look somewhat like the real world makes me a purist so be it. But I don't think so.

The largest problem isn't when you edit sRGB pictures on a wide gamut screen, but rather when you edit ANYTHING thats not sRGB on a sRGB screen. Photoshop can show CMYK, aRGB etc. with exact colors on a sRGB screen, BUT it cannot show the whole gamut range. This means that the gamut gets clipped and even the lovely CYAN colors in CMYK cannot be shown on the screen. The deeper colors will be there, you just can see them because your output device isn't capable of showing them. All the colors up to the end of sRGB will be shown correctly, while the rest will be clipped (out of gamut).
If you work with only sRGB, then you'll get less headacke using a sRGB screen. If you have mixed work, go with wider gamut and learn color management (which you should anyway when working with colors).

After calling me a purest, you seem to be engaging in elitist nonsense here. The lovely colors the plebes with lowly sRGB screens can't see. Please enlighten me. Do you have some real world RAW captures (not test patterns) that I can convert/print to see the difference? Since practically everything is sRGB, you must be talking about lovely colors in your own RAW image captures, of which you must have many examples. Please share one. You know even if I can't see them on my monitor I can still open and print the image in aRGB and then in sRGB to see the difference in print. Maybe after seeing all the lovely color I can't see on my lowly sRGB monitior I will have to go out and buy a wide gamut panel.

To the OP. You can spend the time paying attention to what Tamlin had to say, or you can just get an sRGB monitor and forget about color as an issue like we all did before having wide gamut foisted upon us. The NEC is an expensive choice, but I wanted a IPS screen. There are some very good sRGB TN panels if you don't mind the viewing angle (Benq G2400D). Hyundai seems like it might soon be selling a sub $600 IPS that may be sRGB...

 

[Liight]

That was very helpful, Thank you Tam!


Could you explain how the monitor profile I select in OSX come into play with everything you just explained? (it is currently set to the custom profile I made).

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Hardly a purist. I hate calibration, color management etc. I have been using computers for over 20 years I have owned a large number of CRTs and handful of LCDs. Until very recently I have never calibrated anything and I was never unhappy with color until getting a wide gamut LCD panel. I like sRGB primarily because I like the path of least headaches and least fuss. If liking colors to look somewhat like the real world makes me a purist so be it. But I don't think so.

Snowdog, saying you have a more purist look at this was not ment in an offensive way. My apoligies if it came out that way. It was ment as a contrast from your point of view regarding colorspaces vs. most users.

1, Considering you have been here 2.4 years with an average of 2.48 posts a day, you must have read about many who are thrilled about the colors on their wide gamut screens like the 2707WFP and others.

2. You state that you have no understanding of people who buy wide gamut screens:

I don't know why people go for this wide gamut nonsense. If people didn't buy them, they wouldn't be building more and more of them.

Much less than 1% of the population will garner any real benefit from a wide gamut panel, everyone else will just get different varieties of grief.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032956746&postcount=9

3. You might have read about a lot of people using Nvidia's digital vibrance and similar. Many use higher gamma to get "stronger colors".

4. Even the OP states:

I kinda like oversaturation (so i dont think it will bother me in movies), just not on stuff I am sending for print.

5. Even though many like wide gamut, do you find it unnecessary or even offensive to make wide gamut screens?

If you prefer sRGB yourself, then thats allright. On the other hand, if you cannot be open for the fact that many others might prefer wider gamut, then you have a more purist approch to it.

After calling me a purest, you seem to be engaging in elitist nonsense here. The lovely colors the plebes with lowly sRGB screens can't see. Please enlighten me. Do you have some real world RAW captures (not test patterns) that I can convert/print to see the difference? Since practically everything is sRGB, you must be talking about lovely colors in your own RAW image captures, of which you must have many examples. Please share one. You know even if I can't see them on my monitor I can still open and print the image in aRGB and then in sRGB to see the difference in print. Maybe after seeing all the lovely color I can't see on my lowly sRGB monitior I will have to go out and buy a wide gamut panel.

I don't wish to be rude, but what you call "elitist nonsense" is color management basics. That there are colors outside of sRGB that is visible on both CMYK and aRGB is hardly controversial, and anyone who have worked with color at least semi-professional wouldn't even contest it. Posting raw files so you can have a home experiment is a waste of time and I'd rather invent the wheel again. Please google it instead.

Here's a quote from a link I want to give Liight to start you off:

aRGB uses the same color space as sRGB and expands therefore more colors on the outer edge are available. This will make the greens and blues in your prints look richer (trees and water).

Liight: I don't use Mac (its over 10 years since I worked on one), so I can't advice you so indepth here. Photoshop is the same though and colorimeters are usually putting the newest profile you've calibrated as default. Your default profile thats assigned to the monitor will be used in Photoshop.

Here's an old article (but still valid) that can give you a good start:
http://www.digitalimagecafe.com/articles/colorSpace/

and here's one about softproofing:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/soft-proofing.shtml

In Norwegian print services, you can ask them to mail their printer profile (many even have them online) and also which papertype and ink used. This will help you if you wish to be more sure of how the prints will look when returned. This way you can simulate the printer and do softproofing of your images.

 

[Snowdog]

Snowdog, saying you have a more purist look at this was not ment in an offensive way. My apoligies if it came out that way. It was ment as a contrast from your point of view regarding colorspaces vs. most users.

1, Considering you have been here 2.4 years with an average of 2.48 posts a day, you must have read about many who are thrilled about the colors on their wide gamut screens like the 2707WFP and others.

2. You state that you have no understanding of people who buy wide gamut screens:

Most people are oblivious. The number who actually prefer seems perhaps equal perhaps even less than the number of people trying to get normal colors back out of their monitors.

My comment about not understanding was more aimed at the numerous folks who are now having grief trying to get normal colors again. Perhaps we need more education about the pitfalls. So when someone asks I try to point this out before they buy it. Just save yourself the grief.

If you prefer sRGB yourself, then thats allright. On the other hand, if you cannot be open for the fact that many others might prefer wider gamut, then you have a more purist approch to it.

I would have no concern about the informed choices of other people, except that their choices is removing mine. Marketing has latched onto wide gamut as another number they can crank up higher and higher. First it was 92%, then 102%, now some are 110% of the adobe color space... Throw in the oblivious herd and those of us who actually care are having a harder time to find a decent sRGB monitor. It is likely that after this monitor I will not be able to buy another decent quality sRGB monitor.

I don't wish to be rude, but what you call "elitist nonsense" is color management basics. That there are colors outside of sRGB that is visible on both CMYK and aRGB is hardly controversial, and anyone who have worked with color at least semi-professional wouldn't even contest it. Posting raw files so you can have a home experiment is a waste of time and I'd rather invent the wheel again. Please google it instead.

I am well aware of alternate color spaces, my comment on elitist nonsense was aimed at your supposition that people are somehow missing out by owning a sRGB monitors.

Missing out on what? PCs are an sRGB environment. 99.99999% of the content is sRGB. There are no extra colors to see.

Your average user is never going to see wider gamut content, so will miss nothing and have monitor that is in the wrong color space for all of his content. I will grant that some people will enjoy the extra saturation that comes from pumping sRGB uncorrected input wide gamut monitors, but those of us with sRGB aren't missing anything by actually seeing the colors the way the were.

 

[Luthorcrow]

NOOO!!! It's Tamlin_WSGF, run for the hills!

No point arguing. Liight said he will spend 90% of his time in PS, so 90% it won't be an issue. Outside of PS, for most folks it won't be an issue outside of skin tones, which just look funky.

The thing is if you are getting IPS you got only one sRGB choice which is may be too pricey. So if you are like me you end up getting a DS or Planar just work around it.

I think MS will be forced to address issue as the gamuts continue to rise without a matching standard. I think the Picture Gallery in Vista is an indicator that MS is starting to build a bridge. scRGB is the light at the end of the tunnel but that is probably 5-10 years down the road. Until then, so far, the consumer is left to muddle through. My guess is as monitors rise about 120% it will reach a level of silliness that consumers at large will demand a bridge.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Most people are oblivious. The number who actually prefer seems perhaps equal perhaps even less than the number of people trying to get normal colors back out of their monitors.

My comment about not understanding was more aimed at the numerous folks who are now having grief trying to get normal colors again. Perhaps we need more education about the pitfalls. So when someone asks I try to point this out before they buy it. Just save yourself the grief.

You're not educating in this case. The OP stated clearly that he works 90% in a color managed enviroment (photoshop and lightroom). Perhaps even more since he's on a MAC. Outside it, he stated he likes oversaturated colors in movies. Your issues with wide gamut doesn't apply to him.

I would have no concern about the informed choices of other people, except that their choices is removing mine. Marketing has latched onto wide gamut as another number they can crank up higher and higher. First it was 92%, then 102%, now some are 110% of the adobe color space... Throw in the oblivious herd and those of us who actually care are having a harder time to find a decent sRGB monitor. It is likely that after this monitor I will not be able to buy another decent quality sRGB monitor.

They will continue to remove your choice. Get over it. Take a look at all new TV's and screens. sRGB is a thing of the past. Check out the colorspace capabilities of the new Blueray players:
link

They don't make the gamut wider and wider to piss you off. Its made because people want to buy them and they sell more screens then. If they would sell more screens with smaller gamut, the demands would be higher there.

I am well aware of alternate color spaces, my comment on elitist nonsense was aimed at your supposition that people are somehow missing out by owning a sRGB monitors.

Give it a rest, Snowdog.

You don't read my post or the OP post properly being too busy about your crusade against wide gamut. Its pointless to discuss this further. If you read my post again, you might notice I'm not talking about people, but answering OP's question:

Can anyone using a wide gamut for photos comment on problems encountered ect?

This is not "elitist nonsense", but what he will encounter when using the screen as stated in the OP.

And yes, he will be missing out on something getting a sRGB screen.

Your recommandations for him to get a sRGB screen and forget about color management is not suitable for someone who works 90% with photoshop and lightroom towards print. I would strongly advice against that. His clients will suffer and so would he/she being a photographer also. Some clients, like magazines, often demands all photo's in aRGB these days.

NOOO!!! It's Tamlin_WSGF, run for the hills!

LOL!

I also think that at some point, Microsoft is forced to have color management on OS level. Then even old games will be shown as sRGB on wide gamut screens.

Btw, did you try out this?:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=28383998

I haven't had the chance yet, but it seemed interesting.

 

[Snowdog]

The thing is if you are getting IPS you got only one sRGB choice which is may be too pricey. So if you are like me you end up getting a DS or Planar just work around it.

There is a new 24" Hyundai IPS hitting the market in Japan, it may be sRGB, by the specs it appears to be the 2490 panel for about $500 equivalent.
http://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/murauchi/0824314003706.html

They will continue to remove your choice. Get over it. Take a look at all new TV's and screens. sRGB is a thing of the past. Check out the colorspace capabilities of the new Blueray players:

You need to actually dig a little deeper and look at the Blu Ray standard. There is no wide gamut content. The HD standard for color is BT-709, there are no provisions for a wide gamut color space of content. Sound familiar? BTW BT-709 is essentially the same color space as sRGB. As for televisions, any that don't have good standard gamut settings get serious trashed in reviews. Videophiles tend to be quite particular about things like human looking skin tones.

They don't make the gamut wider and wider to piss you off. Its made because people want to buy them and they sell more screens then. If they would sell more screens with smaller gamut, the demands would be higher there.

No it is because marketers have found a new number to pump and most people don't know any better. Kind of like dynamic contrast. But at least you can shut that off.

And yes, he will be missing out on something getting a sRGB screen.

Your recommandations for him to get a sRGB screen and forget about color management is not suitable for someone who works 90% with photoshop and lightroom towards print. I would strongly advice against that. His clients will suffer and so would he/she being a photographer also. Some clients, like magazines, often demands all photo's in aRGB these days.

Now you are making all kinds of assumptions that were not mentioned. Is he a pro photographer with these kind of demands from his publisher. I must have missed that part. Does he even use a RAW workflow. Ditto on missing that part. If he is your typical home hobbyist photog doing his own prints, he is likely shooting jpgs in sRGB and will get precisely ZERO benefit from a wide gamut monitor but still suffer the associated grief. Most of the online print shops in the USA use Fuji Frontiers that are essentially sRGB. I guess anyone with prints done by an online shop in the USA suffers. You keep heaping on this BS FUD. Show me a raw file that suffers from conversion to sRGB? If you are going to post FUD, back it up. Suffer as a photographer? The arrogance of that statement is just ridiculous.

Btw, did you try out this?:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=28383998

I haven't had the chance yet, but it seemed interesting.

No I ditched my wide gamut screen for an NEC 2490, so I don't have to jump through hoops to make my colors look normal.

Bottom line. There is no wide gamut content, no wide gamut movies, no wide gamut Blu Rays. The only wide gamut content will be self made. The only people who need wide gamut are working color professionals who have job demands for it and they already know who they are. Anyone just thinking about it is almost certainly better off with an sRGB display.