[YorickPeterse]

The photos are just meant to illustrate the difference to the reader, not to be anything scientific. Of course manual calibration is ideal, but having a somewhat sensible default calibration isn't much to ask for and is in fact something many other laptops do just fine.

[daviddever23box]

Problem is, display profile support for Wayland has been, at best, spotty until recently - and, there should be multiple accurate targets available on any good display panel.

My factory-seconds F13 (using 11th-gen Intel, still the best in terms of power savings) shipped with the older glossy display, which had a known, disclosed-as-cheaper LUT issue at lower brightness settings. After a couple of calibration rounds, it is spot-on and my go-to PC laptop.

Decent keyboard, too.

Of course, things are often more expensive in Europe (compared to the US) for zero good reason, so the F16 will always be at a proportional disadvantage compared to the F13. You may find that a much better fit.

[a_sulvanite]

I am aware that most people don't have any idea of what "display calibration" is actually about (which is primarily about display profiling), but the observation that the "The colors of the display are overly saturated, with reds in particular looking more intense than they should." seems to be to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening here.

The framework 16 has a screen that is more capable of displaying reds than either of your two comparison screens (X1 Carbon 2019 seems to have a sub-sRGB gamut, while the Eizo CS2740 seems to be designed to match AdobeRGB [which has a red primary that matches sRGB]). This is by design, as framework claims 100% DCI-P3 gamut coverage (which has a more saturated red primary than sRGB/AdobeRGB).

In terms of red saturation, the framework monitor is literally displaying superiority over the other two by demonstrating the capability to show more colours, yet it is being framed in a negative light here as being something that is "over saturated".

The responsibility to dictate how much of the display's capabilities (i.e. red saturation) to use to lies squarely in the software (and their associated colour-management systems), which require a display profile (ICC) that accurately models the display's capabilities (profiling), and thus allows colour-managed applications to appropriately scale their source colourspace values into the target display colourspace values. These display profiles are generated via colorimeters or spectrophotometers using specialized software.

Once an appropriate profile is loaded (for each screen), the output image should look identical on all screens that are capable of displaying the colours in the image (e.g. in an sRGB case, all three screens show show the same image, save for maybe the X1 Carbon being slightly desaturated). Correspondingly, attempting to display an image with a DCI-P3 space (that fully utilizes that space) will cause undersaturation on both your X1 Carbon and the Eizo CS2740 (i.e. the ability to show more red saturation is strictly a plus).

If your critique lies in the fact that framework laptop does not ship an appropriate ICC profile for their monitor, then fair enough. But I don't agreement with the statement that "somewhat sensible default calibration isn't much to ask for and is in fact something many other laptops do just fine." I don't believe many laptop manufacturer's ship reasonable ICC profiles at all, and mostly just rely on either the consumer liking the oversaturated look or by having their panels only be rated for around sRGB where implicit colour management (i.e. doing absolutely no colour management and having it work merely because the source and the target are the same space).

It is entirely possible that you do understand all of this and I'm making assumptions about potential misconceptions where none exist. However, you seem to have alluded to using Firefox as your main browser (which is not colour-managed by default) and your Eizo CS2740 being "properly calibrated (at the hardware level at least)," which to be suggests that you might be susceptible the misconception that I have pointed out. If this is not the case, then I deeply apologize.

[YorickPeterse]

Thank you for mansplaining what color calibration and accuracy means, but I'm well aware of how it works due to my background in photography and having spent plenty of time calibration displays in the past.

In particular, there's a big difference between "can show more colors" and "shows the same colors but overly saturated".

The Framework 16 suffers from this by default, something that's quite obvious when comparing it by looking at photos for which you know what the actual colors look like, something I did do but didn't cover in the article.

Whether this is because the display operates in a different colorspace by default (e.g AdobeRGB) or not I don't know, but there's at least no option for it anywhere in the BIOS that I could find.

Claiming the Framework is superior over a monitor literally meant for color grading and photography is laughable to be honest, and seems to suggest you interpret display quality as "more intense is better".