Rob Cole wrote: In my opinion, unless you *want* an evenly feathered elipse-shaped mask, you can get superior results using the brush (depending on brushing skill). I agree for image areas that follow a complex contour the adjustment brush is a better tool. For this specific image one (1) Radial Filter works better than the Adjustment Brush. I did try both the Adjustment brush and Graduated filter and I have plenty of experience using both tools. I'm sure if you played around with the brush settings long enough, stroked it enough, and endeavored long enough you could come close to the same effect as the Radial filter. I say "close" because the Radial brush "feathering works differently than the adjustment brush. The Radial filter feathering "zone" is less pronounced and allows feathering over a much larger area achievable with the adjustment brush. Try making the Radial filter much larger to extend feathering and rotate it to fit the contour as in my posted screen shot. I used Invert Mask, Feather = 100, Exposure = -1.36, and Contrast = 24. Feel free to use whatever Radial Filter settings you like. Like I said, there is no one "correct" way to adjust this image or any other image file. Choose your own tools and use whatever works for you. The Radial Filter is new to LR5 beta and there's no guarantee it will work the same in the LR5 final release....but I sure hope so! ... View more

This thread is a testament to LR's ability to "make a silk purse out of a pig's ear," without resorting to PS. There is no one "correct" way to process this image, but everyone here has done a great job creating interesting and usable images from this color shifted and contrast starved raw image file.  LR5 takes this a step further with the Radial Filter. I tried correcting the sky area using the Graduated Filter tool, but found it impossible to get a smooth transition. Using LR5 beta with the same settings from LR4 I discovered the Radial Filter provides a much smoother and more transparent "feathering." I had to make the Radial Filter very large to achieve the desired transition, but it works quite well. Here's a full-screen mode view showing the Radial Filter. Here's the final results: To me the image looks almost like an oil painting, but I'm sure it will help achieve whatever look you desire. Cheers, Todd ... View more

The camera was repositioned in the first three shots, and then the moon moved in the last three images. I tried creating an HDR and the image looks better, but it's impossible to get good imaging of the moon due to the movement. Based on the HDR results I still think shooting this image with at least three bracketed exposures (-2EV, 0EV, +2EV) creates a more easily corrected image. The primary reason being that the HDR process significantly reduces noise and provides additional dynamic range in the image to accommodate heavy contrast correction. I know it sounds contradictory to use HDR on a moderate dynamic range image, but try it for yourself. Here's all five images in an HDR with Basic panel adjustments in LR. Ignore the moon –There are no frames where it is in the same position ... View more

Here's the D4_131150996.nef raw file histogram using RawDigger. The image is very underexposed, which is causing a "comb" appearance in the Red channel due to the larger steps at this very low exposure level. The image also has very little dynamic range (i.e. low-contrast). Here's an expanded view using a log Y-axis scale. George can you post the NEF file(s) for images with higher exposure levels? Up to +4 EV higher exposure would be very useful. ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: George in Seattle wrote: For illustrative purpose, this is the closest I can get both subjects on the same photo using LR,  graduated filters and some controls cranked.  I run out of control trying to recover the black around the moon, and lowering its saturation.  Obviously this is unacceptable except that it shows that since detail at both extremes got recorded to the same raw file, it should be theoretically possible to make it look like I want.  Or not?  That's the question. George, this is the result of something discovered by trshaner and others (not me, I was incredulous and had to be beaten over the head with a 2x4 before I would believe it). * Locals are applied BEFORE globals (in the pipeline). Thus, if you darken to the point of clipping using locals, no amount of global correction will resurrect. Likewise at the other end of the histo... So, to answser your question: yes, maybe, I think - you can normalize exposure of mountain and moon, but it will be very tricky, since you'll need to blend/match the inbetween, carefully, and in both color and tone, the former (color) being perhaps the greatest challenge. The secret will be to not underexpose anything when dropping exposure, locally, and not over-expose anything when raising exposure, locally. I may give another whack and post it, if successful (if unsuccessful, I'll probably just wander back into the shadows, with my tail between my legs, and keep quiet... (mostly joking). Rob The fact that the sky went completely black using the Graduated filter confirms the raw image file is heavily underexposed. As Rob describes using the Locals in the wrong way can create problems. Locals take precedence over Globals and pixels that become clipped in one or more channels are not recoverable using the Global controls. ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: It's worth noting that there is no clipping in the original photo, on either end. So, although multi-image blended (or HDR) photo could improve quality of result, it won't change the basic problem, which is - the mountain is behind a heavy blanket of fog. Moon-glow on the mountain will need to be artificially created... Rob, did you look at the raw file in RawDigger or other raw file analyzer. It's impossible to determine raw file clipping using LR because the camera profile and other settings are applied to the raw image file, which changes the actual raw pixel levels. My guess is shooting multiple exposures probably would have yielded a better image file, even if all you did was pick the best exposed image file (ETR). It's very common to underexpose when using the camera's histogram, since it is reading an in-camera processed JPEG file. The actual  raw file can have 1EV or more additional highlight expansion before actual raw pixel clipping. Geroge, do you have any image files from this shoot that have more exposure (i.e. more than ISO 100, 1/6 sec @ F2.8 )? ... View more

You were probably using 8bit or 16bit mode with 'Local Adaption' and HDR Pro's toning controls inside PS. Here's an example of a single image file and an HDR Pro 32bit file created from five 1.3 EV step images, both processed only in LR4.4: Double-click on image to see Full-Size: A properly processed HDR image can provide a wider tonal-range and still maintain natural looking contrast. You can overdo it, which is fine for special effects images. ... View more

This wide dynamic range "still life" subject is best shot as an HDR image. Even shooting just three exposures with AEB (±1.5 to ±2.0 EV) would help. Use a sturdy tripod and high enough ISO to keep the longest exposure time low (<1 sec. with 400mm), otherwise the moon will have moved enough to blur slightly. With ±2.0 EV Bracket your exposures with this image would have been 2/3 sec., 1/6 sec., and 1/24 sec. I assume you're already using a tripod and I see you have PS CS5, so you just need to use' Edit In'> 'Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop.' Merge to HDR Pro does not apply LR's Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks Basic panel settings, so there's no need to adjust these for the three bracketed imag files. I use my LR defaults and only apply LR adjustments to the reimported 32bit HDR TIFF file. ... View more

Rob, you have way more experience with LR's SQLite database than I do. I'm just guessing (as well) that on one or more of the newer Intel platforms perhaps it "can" become a bottle-neck due to changes in the processor architecture (i.e. thread handling?). Develop module image processing is the most processor intensive LR activity and I wouldn't expect the newer Intel six-core processor based systems to have severe performance issues, but some do. I'd be inclined to say it has nothing to do with the SQLite database, but I wouldn't rule it out either. ... View more

Some interesting reading on the subject: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/multi_user_multi_computer For single-user applications database does not appear to be a bottle-neck. From my own experience slow LR performance was quickly remedied by replacing my 5+ year old system with a new mid-range system platform. The bigger issue is why do some people with very high-end systems still have LR performance issues? Does SQLite run the same in a multi-threaded environment, on every new processor platform, with every compatible OS? Given that Intel processor and I/O system technology changes about every six-months it's not surprising to me that a new system platform may have issues running processor or I/O intensive applications. On my first job one of the designers developed a new floating point processor architecture that provided faster computations and better rounding accuracy. NSA was one of first customer to beta test a system with the new floating point processor. All of their applications ran a background system health monitor that used results calculated on a known good system. The monitor immediately detected the "more accurate" floating point data as a "system error." NSA refused to purchase the new system until we changed the floating point processor to match all of our other system's calculations. Many years later Intel ran into a similar problem, which they claimed was not serious. It cost Intel about $450,000,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug ... View more

BillAnderson1 wrote: It reminds me of my very, very early days as an IBM Operating Systems Programmer. Alas, that was when the S/360 Model 30 was powered by steam and our 36-hour work shifts were fueled by candy bars, coffee and cigarettes, followed, of course by long sessions at the tavern to tell each other how totallly cool we were!!! Sounds like we're both throwbacks from the same technology era. I started my career in 1968 working for Interdata designing minicomputers based on IBM 360 architecture. What's interesting is that with all of the technology advances we've made the basic root-cause of problems never seems to change. ... View more

Sounds like it's time to buy a new system. I wish I could give you solid configuration guidance, but there are some users with six-core Xeon processor systems, 32GB memory, and multiple SSDs who are still experiencing LR performance issues. My first LR system was a single core Pentium 4 with hyper-threading running on XP 32bit with 2GB memory and two 500GB hard drives. I used it with LR 1, 2 & 3 processing Canon 300D 6.3 mp raw image files. It wasn't "speedy," but it was very usable. When I purchased a 5D MKII in 2010 the 21 mp raw files brought LR to its knees! I purchased an HP Pavilion HPE-170t in 2010, which has run flawlessly with LR3 and all versions of LR4. Camera image resolution (Megapixels) has a definite impact on LR's performance, as well as monitor resolution and use of dual monitors. For the latter getting a high-performance graphics card won't help since LR doesn't support Open GL or any other type of graphics acceleration, at least not yet..... I have no doubt my current system will run out steam with the addition of a higher resolution monitor (>1920 x 1080), higher resolution camera (>21 mp), or a future LR upgrade. Welcome to the sometimes wonderful and sometimes wacky world of LR performance! ... View more

Bill, thank you for the reply with your system configuration information. You said: BillAnderson1 wrote: TR, it’s important to know what system I am running in order to understand how my experience is maybe unlike yours and definitely unlike Ian Lyons’. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q9650@ 3.00Ghz and 8GB memory, Windows 7 64-Bit. I have a 250GB Western Digital 10K RPM HDD SATA 300 and a 1TB Seagate 7200 RPM HDD SATA 300 plus a 500GB and a 1TB USB 2 backup drives. This is actually very similar to my system and probably many other LR users as well. BillAnderson1 wrote: I have tested but not documented my experience with separating files on my 2 HDD drives. The biggest gain came when I moved my cache, catalog and preview databases away from the C-drive and onto the 1TB Seagate. My gains all occurred while I was editing in the form of quicker response times. Using the same configuration I saw no change in LR's Library and Develop module response times on my Windows 7 system with 12GB memory, and i7-860 quad core processor. The biggest difference is that I have never expereinced LR slowdowns as you and some others have described during heavy editing sessions or at any other time. So defragmenting or adding a 2nd hard drive made no difference on my system. Clearly there is something else different about your LR system that benefits as you say by "frequent defragmentation." I have Windows 7 defrag scheduling turned off and have never seen more than 1% defragmentaion on the separate LR Catalog, Previews, and Camera Raw Cache partition I created. It would be great if hard drive defragmentation and multiple HDDs or SSDs was the 'Silver Bullet' for killing most LR performance issues. Unfortunately there are many LR users who have already tried this and still have performance issues. I'm willing to bet that in 99% of these cases there is unidentified hardware and/or software at the root cause. As an example we have seen strange LR performance issues caused by phones, other mass storage devices, and even USB monitor calibrators left connected. I'm sure there are many more causes yet to be identified. ... View more

BillAnderson1 wrote: So what are we to do? For those of us who can’t afford multiple SSDs (I would if I could) there is at least the option of adding a second or third HHD and spreading the data as Bob has done. Have you actually tested LR's performance using two or more hard drives (not SSDs)? What were the "measured" difference in LR's performance? What file location configuration(s) did you test? I mean no disrespect either, just asking. According to Ian Lyon's testing there is only marginal LR performance improvement when using even multiple SSDs, and only for specific operations: http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/ As already mentioned I currently have two hard drives and have found no measurable difference in LRs performance over a single hard drive, regardless where I locate the LR Catalog and Camera Raw cache. I am more than happy to test any configuration suggestion using my two hard drives that you've verified will increase LR's performance. Thanks. ... View more

BillAnderson1 wrote: Putting high access file in a new partition will do nothing for performance. A partition is just another location on a disk that must share the same and single access path as all other partions on the drive. My response and others here are to your post #33 concerning disk fragmentation slowing down LR. I suggested putting the LR Catalog and Camera Raw cache on separate partitions to reduce disk fragmentation, which will improve performance by your own admission. BillAnderson1 wrote: Plus it will do nothing whatsoever to avoid fragmentation or make its effects any less. A partition is a contiguous area of reserved disk space and putting the LR catalog and/or Camera Cache on a separate partition greatly reduces the possibility of fragmentation. I'm not saying it will "automatically" increase performance. BillAnderson1 wrote: Even SSDs can have performance problems if too many file are accessed at the same time as is the case in a highly multithreaded program like lightroom. It's seems you are recommending disk fragmentation as the only solution to disk I/O bound performance issues. There's no question that a small percentage of LR users are experiencing LR performance issues even when using multiple SSDs and very fast processors and the actual root cause has yet to be identified. I've been using LR on a single 1TB hard drive based Windows 7 system for several years now with a separate partition for the LR catalog and Camera Raw cache. I've experienced no major performance issues processing 21mp 5d MKII raw files. I recently added a 2nd internal hard drive (WD Caviar Black) and moved all my image files to the new drive. I also tried moving the LR catalog and Camera Raw Cache to different drives to see the affect on performance. From my tests there appeared to be no "measurable" performance advantage to using two hard drives with LR, so I more or less agree with you. I have no experience using SSDs with LR so can't comment on their performance improvement. ... View more

All hard drive file systems are prone to fragmenation. OS X constantly monitors file activity in the background and than "reorganizes" (AKA defragments) files smaller than 20MB to larger areas of free space. to "reduce" the possibility of future fragmentation. This is also one of the possible causes of LR performance issues with Mac systems, since you have no control over this background activity. It can't be "scheduled" as on a Windows system to defragment ALL files, including those >20MB. Rest assured large files such as the LR Catalog and Camera Raw cache do get fragmented on a Mac system. The best solution (Mac or Windows) is to put these performance critical LR files on their own partition or even better a separate SSD, which doesn't have fragmentation performance issues (no spinning media). ... View more

It looks like the newer NEC Spectraview II software does allow using Datacolor calibrators including Spyder 3 & 4 models: http://www.necdisplay.com/support-and-services/spectra-view-II/Compatibility#system_requirements The software can be purchased separately for about $100 and then you can use any calibrator on the list above. ... View more

It all comes down to marketing decisions, which in this case were between Dell and X-Rite. In return Dell probably got a better deal from X-Rite on the software development. NEC Spectraview is a similar situation also with X-Rite calibrator exclusivity. ... View more

Lundberg02 wrote: Googling around a bit I found that the reason factory cal is done at high brightness with LCDs is as I expected, to preserve wide gamut as advertised. I suspect this is more a "marketing" decision rather than a calibration issue. One of the biggest selling points for monitors and TVs has always been to make the screen appear "brighter" and more "colorful," even if it isn't accurate. This in fact is what "gamers" want in a display more so than low delta-E and display marketeers want to capture the broadest market possible. Lundberg02 wrote: This raises the concern that if you rduce the brightness from 140-200 cd/m2to maybe 80, how much gamut is lost? If aRGB is 100% of NTSC at 140 cd and sRGB is 75%  of NTSC, what is the gamut  of a wide gamut LCD at 70 cd (half of the cal). This is a bit too dim, but some folks use 80 with what they think is a good result. TFT Central does all of their hardware calibration tests at 120cd/m2 with very high color accuracy and gamut performance. Because of the marketing issue mentioned above panel manufacturers use backlight technology designed for the highest possible Luminance(>300 cd/m2). The downside is that this makes it difficult to adjust some displays below 120cd/m2 without causing visible flicker and reduced image clarity. If interested this article explains the issue in more detail: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm This is also discussed in the Dell U2413 review at TFT Central along with the consequences of using a lower luminance level (i.e. 80-100 cd/m2). http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm TFT Central was able to lower the U2413 luminance to 114cd/m2 (20% Brightness setting) without any flicker issues. Screen flicker is highly "subjective" and some people seem to be bothered by it more than others, including myself. Fortunately you can use higher luminance with photo editing applications by adjusting the ambient room lighting and print lighting. Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml ... View more

Lundberg02 wrote: Photoshop supports 10 bit but only Win can use it now? Could OS 10.9 support it if Apple chose to do so? That is correct. Apple only needs to provide updated drivers that support Open GL 10 bit/color. Some have suggested that Apple hasn't done this because there are no Apple monitors that support 10 bit/color, at least not yet. Some have also suggested that Apple has neglected the pro graphics market to focus more heavily on the larger consumer and mobile devices market. Regardless Apple's marketing decisions you will still get good imaging with 8 bit/color on wide gamut monitors that have a properly calibrated internal LUT with high bit-depth (14-16 bit/color). The primary issue is visible banding in smooth gradient areas, which is eliminated or reduced when using a 14-16 bit/color LUT in the monitor with no other external profiling. ... View more

Acording to Diglloyd as of 02/01/2013 this is still the case – OS X only supports 8 bit/color: http://macperformanceguide.com/AppleCoreRot-10-bit-color.html This is all the more reason for Mac users to only purchase "wide-gamut" monitors that use a programmable internal LUT with high bit-depth (14-16 bits) for creating and applying the monitor profile. Do not double-profile and only use manufacturer approved software and hardware puck to calibrate the internal LUT on monitors like the Dell U2413. Using a "plain vanilla" sRGB monitor like the Dell U2412M avoids all of these issues, but then what fun is that! ... View more

I assume when you say "empty mini DisplayPort socket at the ready" you are on a Mac OS X platform. Unfortunately Mountain Lion OS X v10.8 only supports 8 bit/color. Apple does a good job of not mentioning this in any of its literature, including technical documents. http://www.laszlopusztai.net/2012/08/11/30-bit-color-depth-on-the-mac/ If you are on Mac OS X and know how to get 30 bit/color in PS please let us know. I'm not trying to bash Apple, just stating the current capability (i.e. 8 bit/color only). ... View more

Lundberg02 wrote: trshaner: what relevance does your link to the  U2412M have to the discussion of the U2413? Here's what the OP said in his last response: "Also appreciate you drawing the distinction between the sRGB and wide gamut displays- while I still don't know the technical differences between the two I can eliminate the wide gamut display for now." The U2412M is an sRGB gamut monitor, so it would be of interest to the OP. Lundberg02 wrote: And why not adjust the monitor's LUT and the card LUT? Here's what I said: "With a wide gamut monitor unless you're running a full 10-bit display signal path this isn't advisable, and if you're using Lightroom it only supports 8-bit color. You already run the risk of banding due to spreading the wider Adobe RGB gamut over an 8-bit signal and double-profiling will make it worse." The primary purpose of using a monitor internal is to minimize the possibility of banding, since the monitor profile is created using higher bit depth (i.e. 14 bits for U2413) than the display signal (i.e. 8bit/color, or 10/bit/color). I never said you couldn't do it, only that it's not advisable unless you have a full 10 bit/color display data path. In the case of Mac OS X platforms you are limited to 8 bit/color. Only Windows platforms support 10 bit/color. ... View more

Sorry Noel, it looks like we just had two cross-postings (double-cross?). I agree 100% that the monitor manufacturers should include an internal LUT in all wide gamut displays (and maybe sRGB) that allows custom programming AND use of features such as 'Uniformity Correction.' (Ref. quoted text from TFT Central site above). Once OLED technology has matured all of this should become academic. Displays can then be designed to use an internal GPU and programmable LUT to automatically control the luminosity uniformity and color accuracy at the pixel level. Am I a dreamer or what! ... View more

With a wide gamut monitor unless you're running a full 10-bit display signal path this isn't advisable, and if you're using Lightroom it only supports 8-bit color. You already run the risk of banding due to spreading the wider Adobe RGB gamut over an 8-bit signal and double-profiling will make it worse. In the case of the Dell U2413 it has an internal 14-bit LUT, which can only be programmed using the custom calibration mode and software provided by Dell. Academically using the Dell factory calibrated Adobe RGB internal LUT mode AND external calibration of the graphic card's LUT just doesn't make sense, does it? Read the 'Hardware Calibration' section here for more details: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm ... View more

Reading the two reviews I posted it appears both the U2413 and U2412M incorporate 'Uniformity Correction' circuitry. Unfortunately it can only be enabled in the factory preset modes, which is not what you want when doing your own hardware calibration. Is this what you are referring to, or something else? See the end 'Conclusion section at these links: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm Quote: "One area which disappointed us again was the uniformity correction. We had seen from our U2713H tests that it didn't seem to work at all, but had been more impressed with its implementation on the U2913WM since. With the U2413 the function did work, but it was practically unusable since it wasn't available in any of the main modes you'd want to use it, and even when you did find one where you could, it would lock the brightness at a setting which was too high and uncomfortable for any prolonged use. Along with support for more hardware colorimeter tools for LUT calibration, this is an area we'd like to see Dell address if they can." ... View more

The Dell U2413 has some nice improvements over the U2410, making it a good wide gamut monitor choice: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm The U2412M also has very good performance, making it a good sRGB monitor choice: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm Both of these displays use LED backlighting, which should provide better long term calibration stability compared to CCFL. For the monitor calibrator the Datacolor Spyder4Elite seems to have the least issues on Mac OS X platforms, and it also works with wide gamut displays. Here's a good review and comparison to the closest competitor the X-Rite i1 Display Pro: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3NFBNRSL1VT39/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3NFBNRSL1VT39 For best calibration results use the 'Advanced' mode with 6500K, 2.2 Gamma, and 120 cd/m2 settings. ... View more

Lundberg02 wrote: Dells MUST be calibrated because their delta E is way off out of the box. The OP has already been advised to purchase and use a hardware monitor calibrator, on the MacBook's display and any external display(s). Most all monitors exhibit high delta E "out-of-the-box.". Wide gamut monitors aren't any better, except for those with "factory calibrated' modes (Adobe RGB, sRGB). The problem with "factory calibration" is that in a few days or weeks of use the calibration will drift and increase the delta E. In addition all factory calibrated monitors are set to Luminance levels that are way too high for photo editing use (>150 cd/m2+). The only way around this is to purchase and use a hardware monitor calibrator on a scheduled basis, so there's very little benefit buying a monitor that's "spot-on" right out-of-the-box. That said do you have specific monitors you can recommend to the OP? ... View more

You will want to get a monitor that is significantly bigger than the MacBook's screen size. A 24" display would be a nice size bump-up. Since the end use is for "printed" book covers, that would be CMYK offset output. The color gamut of CMYK 4-color printing can be accurately "soft-proofed on a standard sRGB gamut display inside Photoshop or Lightroom 4. A wide gamut monitor is only beneficial when processing images for 6-color or higher printer output, but even then a standard sRGB display will work well. One of the most important tools required for accurate display color and luminance rendering is a hardware monitor calibrator. If your wife is currently using one that's great. If not then you first order of priority should be to purchase one and calibrate the MacBook's display. When using an external display the hardware calibrator will be needed for it as well, otherwise it's pretty much a waste of time. You should be able to find numerous standard gamut displays that will work well with the 2008 MacBook's DVI display connector. Highest supported native resolution is 1920x1200 for the MacBook and 2560x1600 for the MacBook Pro. Here are some links that may be helpful: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4718834#4718834 http://www.lightandmatter.org/2011/equipment-reviews/best-monitors-for-photo-editing-is-it-really-that-important/ ... View more

beau_nash wrote: With regard to trshaner's comprehensive answer above, is a dual monitor setup really necessary to look at how sRGB images are rendered? If you're soft-proofing anyway, can't you soft-proof using sRGB as the profile rather than your physical output profile? I think you can but I'm happy to be corrected. I agree 100% with twenty_one. It makes no sense to buy an "inexpensive" wide gamut monitor that has issues for photo editing. It's a case of more (i.e. wide gamut) is not better if you lose color accuracy. The reason I suggested two displays (wide + sRGB gamut) is that non-color managed applications will not display properly on a wide gamut monitor: http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html You can also use a single (one) monitor that integrates the LUT internally for color calibration purposes, such as this one: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/p241w-bk-sv All displays that utilize an internal LUT have user-selectable color modes, including a calibrated wide gamut mode and sRGB mode. When working in non-color managed applications like Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer you switch the display's color mode to sRGB. Someday all applications will be color managed, but for now this is the only workaround if you want to use just one (1) display. NEC and Eizo have the best wide gamut display solutions for this purpose, but they are expensive. If this is outside your budget I agree with twenty_one – A standard sRGB gamut monitor that provides good color accuracy will give you better results with LR and PS than a mediocre wide gamut display. "Pay your money, but make your choice wisely!" ... View more