@afre It’s too complicated a subject to discuss on a forum. It’s also a difficult subject to get to the bottom of. Mainly because the general view of aRGB is that it’s bigger so must be better. The visual spectrum gamuts are shown against is also misleading. We really don’t want to see intense levels of all of it. Pointer’s gamut is a much better view of what we need to see and nothing currently covers it.
I did mention a clue as to what it’s all about really. Bigger colour steps and more saturated colours meant to be viewed via reflected light via a printed photo. That is less efficient than a monitor - net effect colours are more subdued and contrast reduced hence the bigger steps etc. People still push things to get round that when it’s printed from aRGB. Some go prophoto and buy a printer with a larger than normal gamut to make it worth while. That takes saturation out of the aRGB gamut.
Generally I don’t bother getting into this subject. There is a rudish expression that goes something like urinating into the wind. That sums it up because there is plenty of info on the fact that the gamut is bigger but virtually zero spelling out why, what it’s intended for and the implications.
Many monitors will calibrate to cover most of sRGB. All of the ones I have owned since I did more photo work have been up in the high 90%'s. Dell is a good bet but many will do it at all sorts of prices. It’s also wise to go for one with an IPS panel. The main problem is the need for a colorimeter. I started with used one. The risk there is that the filters will be aged but it’s still likely to do a better job than can be done by eye. I now use a colormunki. Nothing special. Software to drive them isn’t a problem. DisplayCal will drive the majority of them. It’s a pro package and can even be used beneficially with spectrometer types that cost £1000’s and even more with similar software.That means that a calibration takes longer and using it effectively isn’t just click a button and done.
There is a monitor review site that I find useful but like many funding is a problem so the coverage isn’t complete.
This time I have bought one that he hasn’t reviewed. I also did a Belinea years ago when LCD panels really did have problems. It was a TFT. Much better than what preceded it. It was a lot better when it was calibrated and gave well into the 90’s coverage. When I view shots adjusted on that now I’ll probably see over sharpening. Colours no problem and maybe more punch than I would usually give them. Here’s a really bad example
I don’t think it’s possible to buy a monitor these days that wouldn’t show so much over sharpening providing it’s set up reasonably well. Coverage of that one from memory was very low. I thought it was ok and had been using it for years.
If some one wants 100% exact sRGB coverage I’d guess they would need to buy a hardware calibrated monitor. Say the Dell at >£1000 or a similar NEC, Eizo etc. Really colour temperature, brightness and no serious colour errors are more important than coverage and the odd few % loss on that doesn’t really matter. Often the loss will only be some fraction of 1% or a little more after calibration anyway.
Should mention that I post some junk on flickr. I even take 2 shots at times in case I run out of dynamic range and these may finish up on there.