Good monitor for photo editing

Yes, many monitors cannot produce the right colours even when calibrated due to performance limitations. However calibrating is just as important as getting a good monitor. The room lighting is of course important too. It all depends on how serious you are about it as you have to colour manage your entire workflow to get exactly what you see is what you get printed out.
--
See my photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

I bought a 21" Viewsonic G225f back in July, and couldn't be happier. It's hardware calibrated, and my prints look great and match the screen pretty well. I think CRT's are better at subtle variations in color and light, much as film handles extreme brightness levels better than digital sensors. My second monitor (older CRT) is dying, so I'll pick up an LCD for the second display.

One problem i have with CRT vs. LCD is that sharpening looks totally different on the different display types. To me, an image that is correctly sharpened for printing on my CRT looks over sharpened on a LCD. I'm going to have a tough time judging sharpness solely on a LCD, when CRT's finally disappear.
--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'

• Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language

Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)

I don't know if they are still available but if you can purchase one it won't disappoint.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

I saw that NEC 26 at Macworld, looks awesome!!! I would not recommed any Apple displays, I've had troubles with all that I have owned over the years. Hi price, esp when you consider the short warrenty, must purchase Applecare just to get the warrenty up to what most come with. adjustments in software on computer not good. Must have too many bad pixels before getting a replacement. If you cannot afford the NEC look at the La Cie's, but ther'e lower res.

I second that. Excellent monitor with lots of tuning possibilities.

As others have said, you still need a good calibration system anyway.

The pros will mostly recommend Eizo monitors. But they cost a lot more.

Henri.

With well over a decade of experience in design, prepress and digital imaging I think I can steer you in the right direction.

First and foremost, it is important to understand the fact that regardless of what monitor brand you go for or how good the monitor is, you will need to invest in a good calibration device. One device that caters for both the screen and a printer. I am assuming that you are a photography enthusiast using a DSLR and need to print some of your work on a decent photographic inkjet printer models by Epson, Canon or hp. For that purpose I would recommend that you maintain an RGB (eg. Adobe RGB) based workflow. Hence the calibration device (Spectrophotometer) that you buy will have a dual function: 1. Calibrate your monitor and 2. calibrate your printer as an RGB device. Of course, it is more cost effective to buy just a good screen calibrator (Colorimeter) in order to calibrate monitor only. You would then have to rely on color profiles that you get with the printer supplied with the printer manufacturer. This works but I must tell you that the first option or the ability to calibrate both monitor and printer provides more control and better end results.

Now, back to your original question: Apple and Lacie LCD screens, especially the latest ones are very good and can be calibrated successfully. Apple LCD screens are extremely bright and people in the graphics industry have complained about this, the idea is to wack the brightness down to half (approximately) and then calibrate the screen to suit your purpose. The idea here is to get a good close match between the screen and the printed result, know that this will never be 100% simply because screens are backlit devices and printed matter is viewed by way of reflected light. The ambient temperature (the kind of light) in your working environment has a big role to play in all of this, same applies for the type of paper you use, considering that you will stick with original inks from the printer manufacturer.

My recommendation, and this is if you can afford it, is to go for an EIZO LCD screen simply because these screens (The ColorEdge range) have been specially designed for graphics and photo professionals. have a look at this link:-

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg241w/index.asp

From the "Products" pull down menu on the web site, choose "Graphics Monitors"

EIZO screens are excellent, maybe you could call them and see if they have an authorised dealer in your vacinity. Go down and talk to them and get a demo.

Also, don't feel intimidated with all the technicalities of calibration, the latest generation calibration software and hardware is easy to use. With a bit of practice and trial/error you will get to learn about it pretty fast.

It would be useful to know how you shoot: JPEG / RAW ? What software do you use to process/retouch/color correct your images. What printer do you own and what kinds of papers do you print on ?

Hope that helps and saves you valuable time. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Sam

I've done the same exercise lately. I found a lot of information on prad.de. But it is in German. I've looked at HP, Dell, Nec, Eizo and all the rest. There are a few things I experienced myself. So not everyone will agree on that:

• I used to have an Eizo CRT. But LCD is way better. I think one just cannot judge sharpness of photos on CRT. I have very good sharpness on my LCD, where CRTs like kind of sharp. The noise on CRT just makes things unsharp.
• For me as an enthousiast I think this whole calibration thing is heavily overrated. As you can read on Prad, a bad monitor does not let itself calibrate. If the color is off, it is off. You can fix it, to reproduce correct gray scales, but then when you show the primary color again can become completely terrible. My family works in the graphics business and most people do not use calibrated monitors. Only when work becomes very sensitive or they have a nit-picking customer. But for who are you calibrating? Your print quality will also depend, even in top notch printing services. Age of ink, temperature of ink, batch of ink. And light radiation (panels) is always differentl from reflecting paper. And do you have perfect lioghting conditions in your work room? And the big question is: would you make different modifications in Photoshop when you have a calibrated monitor? Do you know EXACTLY when the colors are best when you adjust the levels or the curves, or change selective colors? Do you think: white level at 233 is much better than at 232? I don't think so, so how much does it matter?
• so in the end, I think adecent monitor should have decent colors when shipped from the factory. Yes you can tweak it, but it SHOULD BE good enough.
• whenever you eye for an HP and Dell, google on "panel lottery + type/model". Dell and HP tend to put different panels into same LCD displays. See if your model is affected.
• Do not go for glossy display. You will hate it.
• I ended up with an Eizo s2431 and I am very very happy with it. It comes with 5 year warranty. It has stunning colors and correlates very well with my prints. I can decrease contrast and brightness whatever I want, but it is always shows the full range of 256 steps. Furthermore, I like a clean desk so I appreciate the built in USB hub and speakers. Even if the speakers are low quality. Enough to enjoy youtube videos as well.

Anyone have financially practical advice for a photo enthusiast? Yeah I know it's best to spend the money on the top tear, but is there something people are decently satisfied with in the LCD form factor? I only have $250 to spend on a monitor. I already have an EyeOne.

I can deal with the fact that print and screen may not be perfect, but where are the poor people like me who are content with 75% perfect color and density?

If you live in the U.S., you could alternatively consider the LCD2490. I have that monitor and, while it lacks the Adobe RGB space, it is a good monitor for photoediting (and playing games, which is my second favorite hobby). I also calibrate it with my xRite Monaco Pro software (discontinued) and puck.

ISP often don't have as deep blacks as PVA though, so in some ways PVA can be better though. The other kind does stink though (for anything like photo or movies).

furano said:

I'm not a pro, but I take serious my hobby.
I go with the tide who thinks the monitor itself is important.
Up to now, just a few LCD can compete with CRT monitors but they are
expensive.
There are several technoligies in LCD monitors: NT, PVA, ISP, etc.
The best are ISP, then PVA and lastly NT.
Most monitors (almost all Dell's, are NT, those are good for gaming
due to the refresh speed but in order to achieve it, the color
rendition is low and most are 6 bit only). The easiest way to notice
them is looking in different angles (from above and below included)
and you can notice shift in color, mostly for the darlks. So it is
better to stay away from NT.
ISP are expensive, NEC and Lacie are great but they start in the
thousands...
After a big and long search I got a ViewSonic 24" which is a PVA,
middle of the road between NT and ISP. It cost about $700. It is HARD
to calibrate it, but once calibrated is very good...
I replaced an old 20" ISP and side by side (both calibrated) you can
notice a little bit difference, mostly in the highliths and darks
being sharper the ISP.
As stateed before, if money is a problem, get the best calibration
hardware, but always check to have the most color bit depth you can
if you shoot RAW.
My 2 cents
Cheers.

Click to expand...

WBirch said:

I've been using an NEC 19" Multisync 97F CRT for a few years and
couldn't
be happier. I profiled it myself to print as I see in PShop my big
prints
17" x 36" and more at 16bit. CRT's offer more colors and depth vs.
LCD's.

Big and bulky is the trade off.

Click to expand...

they also wash out unless used in a darkened room and the sharpness of an image tends too look quite a bit different than on an LCD (which is what 95% of those viewing your photos will be using these days).

anyway, I stuck with CRT for a long time, but, overall, found that it was worthwhile going to LCD at this point. Have no regrets at all. I actually still have my old 19" diamondscan and have not gone back to it.

good, if expensive advice.

cordellwillis said:

Anyone have financially practical advice for a photo enthusiast? Yeah
I know it's best to spend the money on the top tear, but is there
something people are decently satisfied with in the LCD form factor?
I only have $250 to spend on a monitor. I already have an EyeOne.

I can deal with the fact that print and screen may not be perfect,
but where are the poor people like me who are content with 75%
perfect color and density?

Click to expand...

might be tricky with $250.
most of those panels are terribly unsuited for photo work.

maybe you can find a small 4:3 one that is last last years model closed out somewhere that is very good for photo work.

(of course prices have dropped a lot over the last year, so maybe it's not so dire now as i make it sound)

bronxbombers said:

cordellwillis said:

Anyone have financially practical advice for a photo enthusiast? Yeah
I know it's best to spend the money on the top tear, but is there
something people are decently satisfied with in the LCD form factor?
I only have $250 to spend on a monitor. I already have an EyeOne.

I can deal with the fact that print and screen may not be perfect,
but where are the poor people like me who are content with 75%
perfect color and density?

Click to expand...

might be tricky with $250.
most of those panels are terribly unsuited for photo work.
maybe you can find a small 4:3 one that is last last years model
closed out somewhere that is very good for photo work.
(of course prices have dropped a lot over the last year, so maybe
it's not so dire now as i make it sound)

Click to expand...

Any tips on which specs to consider when looking? Any particular lines under a brand to look for?

Thanks

First it is hard to tell the type of screen used in the model you buy as the manufacturers change them ...after they get the good reviews.

TN is bad, PVA much better, and is it IPS or sIPS the best?

I found a deal I've mentioned in other threads. Discontinued Gateway FPD2485W at Best Buy clearanced for something shy of $400. I know that is over your limit, but hear me out. This is a PVA 24 inch monitor. I have calibrated it with monaco/xrite puck, and am getting very close to identical output from screen on Fuji frontier, and IPF5000 printer at home. Try different sources and buy the extended warranty, as the reviews I read (including some other pros who liked it) indicated only a bit bright, and possible durability issues on the screen.

So far I am quite happy with mine and no problems. I do find I am doing better than with my LaCie electron 19blue iV crt units. I would prefer the newer LaCie too, but they are still close to $1500 apiece.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Do you really think so? I'm really happy with my PVA, it was painful to calibrate, but it's working great. I tried again my 20" IPS and I think you can notice a difference in blacks and deep blues... but I may be wrong.

I did try a Samsun NT and it was way off colors each time I moved from my chair. Is not that bad with small moves, but if you leave the chair, then the change of color is bad... great for gaming and movies but not photo edition...

Hi,

If $$ is not in your budge..

Eizo is the best in the market:

http://www.eizo.com

Good luck!
T2

Richard Katris said:

First it is hard to tell the type of screen used in the model you buy
as the manufacturers change them ...after they get the good reviews.

TN is bad, PVA much better, and is it IPS or sIPS the best?

I found a deal I've mentioned in other threads. Discontinued Gateway
FPD2485W at Best Buy clearanced for something shy of $400. I know
that is over your limit, but hear me out. This is a PVA 24 inch
monitor. I have calibrated it with monaco/xrite puck, and am getting
very close to identical output from screen on Fuji frontier, and
IPF5000 printer at home. Try different sources and buy the extended
warranty, as the reviews I read (including some other pros who liked
it) indicated only a bit bright, and possible durability issues on
the screen.

So far I am quite happy with mine and no problems. I do find I am
doing better than with my LaCie electron 19blue iV crt units. I
would prefer the newer LaCie too, but they are still close to $1500
apiece.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Click to expand...

Thanks. This is the kind of "useful" information when someone ask for help and their budget don't allow for Lacie or other. Thank you for actually reading my reply and responding to that.

I can at least stretch from $250 to $400....unlike some who suggest a $1,500 monitor when someone,......errrrr, forget it and thanks again.

Peace,
Cordell

cordellwillis said:

Anyone have financially practical advice for a photo enthusiast? Yeah
I know it's best to spend the money on the top tear, but is there
something people are decently satisfied with in the LCD form factor?
I only have $250 to spend on a monitor. I already have an EyeOne.

I can deal with the fact that print and screen may not be perfect,
but where are the poor people like me who are content with 75%
perfect color and density?

Click to expand...

As I stated above, the Viewsonic VP930 is a lot of bang for the buck; it's an excellent monitor (calibrates easily and the profile created using my Monaco Optix Pro works very well). If I remember correctly the VP930 cost around $350 (mail order).

FWIW I tested seven (or so) monitors and the VP930 wound up at the top of the heat. A couple of the tested monitors cost almost $800 more than the VP930 but they didn't do as well in the shadows (clipped blacks).

Samsung models were the worst of the bunch. Sony was a major disappointment because the initial white balance was so far off the display never calibrated/profiled properly (there was too much correction required).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

what samsungs did you try? at least a year or two ago they used to be really good.

J A K said:

Samsung models were the worst of the bunch. Sony was a major
disappointment because the initial white balance was so far off the
display never calibrated/profiled properly (there was too much
correction required).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Click to expand...