Best Computer Monitor for Post Processing

[David Lal]

Thanks, All. I suppose I should have mentioned budget. I have room for a 32" display, not to exceed $1000. I'm thinking the LG should be good enough. I'm using a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 now, which provides very good color. It's the brightness I struggle with, as I have to turn the brightness down below 50% to match my printer output (Epson P900).

You raise a good point here - matching screen image to printer. Lots of people colour calibrate the monitor but I also endeavour to calibrate my printer. I always use the same photo paper. No fancy hard/software just lots of testing and now have a pretty good match between what my mind's eye remembers what is shown on the monitor and what is printed out.

I would not necessarily call it 'best' but I am well-satisfied with my Philips 278E screen.

 

[BobKnDP]

(snip)

I have my 48 inch mounted on a tilt and swivel wall mount at my big desk I used to have an iPs led tv and that had to be careful how far you sat , parts of the screen would slightly fade out or lose color. With the oled tv all angles or distances looks great.

Interesting.

I've never had an IPS TV.

VA, yes. (Samsung quantum dot with edge LED backlight.) I sat far enough from it that I didn't notice nonuniformity due to viewing angle effects.

I did see such effects with a 32" IPS PC monitor at a 24" (60cm) viewing distance.

Hard to beat an OLED for viewing angles. I didn't try an OLED TV as a PC monitor mainly because of space limits.

 

[Paddler213]

The BenQ SW272U and SW272Q look good, though a bit pricey ($1600) for the 4K version.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Do you have a calibrator already? If not, budget $150 or so for something like the SpyderX.

I have a 32" BENQ - awesome monitor! Makes the 27" next to it look puny.

You'll want a 4k monitor at that size, and OLED really helps the contrast.

Dell makes some decent monitors.

 

[Fullframer]

(snip)

I have my 48 inch mounted on a tilt and swivel wall mount at my big desk I used to have an iPs led tv and that had to be careful how far you sat , parts of the screen would slightly fade out or lose color. With the oled tv all angles or distances looks great.

Interesting.

I've never had an IPS TV.

VA, yes. (Samsung quantum dot with edge LED backlight.) I sat far enough from it that I didn't notice nonuniformity due to viewing angle effects.

I did see such effects with a 32" IPS PC monitor at a 24" (60cm) viewing distance.

Hard to beat an OLED for viewing angles. I didn't try an OLED TV as a PC monitor mainly because of space limits.

I would have liked a 42" oled for my office desk space but went with 48" oled because it is on sale at Costco for $899 plus free 5 year ext warranty and $100 streaming rebate. Same price as the 42 oled. I sit about 40 inches away with wall mount and big desk. Works well for me. Nice and big. A non oled at that distance would have issues at that distance with colors at far left and right.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I suppose I should have mentioned budget. I have room for a 32" display, not to exceed $1000. I'm thinking the LG should be good enough. I'm using a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 now, which provides very good color.

With a $1000 budget and a 32" maximum size, and you apparently wanting as close to that size as you can get an UHD (with is not quite 4K) resolution, I think I'd go for a Dell U3223QE ($821). A similar alternative is an LG 32BL95U-W ($829).

Regarding hardware to calibrate and profile it, there are some experts who have reported that, even for monitors that don't require it, the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus ($319) produces somewhat more accurate results than the older-type Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro ($279). Also, the Plus version is probably more future-proof.

It's the brightness I struggle with, as I have to turn the brightness down below 50% to match my printer output (Epson P900).

No monitor is going to solve that issue. Most of us find that a monitor for editing photos to be printed needs to be calibrated to, and profiled at, somewhere roughly around 100 cd/m^2. On my monitors that's usually around 25% of maximum brightness.

 

[Paddler213]

I suppose I should have mentioned budget. I have room for a 32" display, not to exceed $1000. I'm thinking the LG should be good enough. I'm using a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 now, which provides very good color.

With a $1000 budget and a 32" maximum size, and you apparently wanting as close to that size as you can get an UHD (with is not quite 4K) resolution, I think I'd go for a Dell U3223QE ($821). A similar alternative is an LG 32BL95U-W ($829).

Regarding hardware to calibrate and profile it, there are some experts who have reported that, even for monitors that don't require it, the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus ($319) produces somewhat more accurate results than the older-type Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro ($279). Also, the Plus version is probably more future-proof.

It's the brightness I struggle with, as I have to turn the brightness down below 50% to match my printer output (Epson P900).

No monitor is going to solve that issue. Most of us find that a monitor for editing photos to be printed needs to be calibrated to, and profiled at, somewhere roughly around 100 cd/m^2. On my monitors that's usually around 25% of maximum brightness.

Thanks for the advice. I tried to order the LG from B&H but it's discontinued. I talked to my son and ended up ordering the Dell you mentioned. I ordered it from B&H just before 3:00 today local time (Utah). I received an email from Fedex saying it will be delivered tomorrow. Gotta love B&H.

I'm going to hold off on calibration hardware as I think color balance won't be much of an issue. Brightness and contrast seem to be more problematic, I'll play with it so as to get it as close as possible to match my printer output.

 

[bagelbesides]

Thank you, guys for all the suggestions! I've also been looking for a new monitor for some time and the advise in this thread is priceless. It will make it easier for me to choose a monitor I would really like

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I find that 100 cd/m^2 is still too bright for all of my Epson printers and Epson papers and profiles - I usually need to get down to as low as 75-85 cd/m^2 to get accurate brightness.

Mike

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I find that 100 cd/m^2 is still too bright for all of my Epson printers and Epson papers and profiles - I usually need to get down to as low as 75-85 cd/m^2 to get accurate brightness.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Above I wrote "somewhere roughly around 100 cd/m^2" because even among experienced and knowledgeable users, there's a range in which different people find different values best. People whose experience and opinions I respect report preferring values from 80 to 120 or I think in one case even 140 cd/m^2. If anything, there is something of a standard or at least a default (at least in some X-Rite / Calibrite software) of 120 cd/m^2. However, many of us find that too bright for best print matching / processing for printing. There is no magic answer; this is definitely a YMMV issue. So I think 100 cd/m^2 is as good a place as any to start, but any given user may well find that some value somewhat higher or lower than that is best.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I suppose I should have mentioned budget. I have room for a 32" display, not to exceed $1000. I'm thinking the LG should be good enough. I'm using a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 now, which provides very good color.

With a $1000 budget and a 32" maximum size, and you apparently wanting as close to that size as you can get an UHD (with is not quite 4K) resolution, I think I'd go for a Dell U3223QE ($821). A similar alternative is an LG 32BL95U-W ($829).

Regarding hardware to calibrate and profile it, there are some experts who have reported that, even for monitors that don't require it, the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus ($319) produces somewhat more accurate results than the older-type Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro ($279). Also, the Plus version is probably more future-proof.

It's the brightness I struggle with, as I have to turn the brightness down below 50% to match my printer output (Epson P900).

No monitor is going to solve that issue. Most of us find that a monitor for editing photos to be printed needs to be calibrated to, and profiled at, somewhere roughly around 100 cd/m^2. On my monitors that's usually around 25% of maximum brightness.

Thanks for the advice.

You're welcome.

I tried to order the LG from B&H but it's discontinued.

Huh, that is really odd. As of both last night and just now, B&H shows me that LG in stock:

I talked to my son and ended up ordering the Dell you mentioned. I ordered it from B&H just before 3:00 today local time (Utah). I received an email from Fedex saying it will be delivered tomorrow. Gotta love B&H.

Sounds good, I hope you enjoy it and it meets your needs.

I'm going to hold off on calibration hardware as I think color balance won't be much of an issue. Brightness and contrast seem to be more problematic, I'll play with it so as to get it as close as possible to match my printer output.

Certainly try it as is and see whether it works for you. You might want to start with something like brightness set to 20 - 25% of maximum and contrast set to 75 - 85% of maximum.

That said, my own personal experience is that, with a monitor for editing photos for printing, I'd prefer a less-expensive monitor plus calibration hardware over a more expensive monitor without calibration hardware. I bought an X-Rite ColorMunki Display some years ago, and with it I experience much less frustration getting prints that look like what I want / expect. But that's me; see how this works for you.

 

[Paddler213]

I suppose I should have mentioned budget. I have room for a 32" display, not to exceed $1000. I'm thinking the LG should be good enough. I'm using a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 now, which provides very good color.

With a $1000 budget and a 32" maximum size, and you apparently wanting as close to that size as you can get an UHD (with is not quite 4K) resolution, I think I'd go for a Dell U3223QE ($821). A similar alternative is an LG 32BL95U-W ($829).

Regarding hardware to calibrate and profile it, there are some experts who have reported that, even for monitors that don't require it, the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus ($319) produces somewhat more accurate results than the older-type Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro ($279). Also, the Plus version is probably more future-proof.

It's the brightness I struggle with, as I have to turn the brightness down below 50% to match my printer output (Epson P900).

No monitor is going to solve that issue. Most of us find that a monitor for editing photos to be printed needs to be calibrated to, and profiled at, somewhere roughly around 100 cd/m^2. On my monitors that's usually around 25% of maximum brightness.

Thanks for the advice.

You're welcome.

I tried to order the LG from B&H but it's discontinued.

Huh, that is really odd. As of both last night and just now, B&H shows me that LG in stock:

That's a different monitor than the one I mentioned above:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1692615-REG/lg_32uq85r_w_aus_32_uhd_4k_3840x2160.html

I talked to my son and ended up ordering the Dell you mentioned. I ordered it from B&H just before 3:00 today local time (Utah). I received an email from Fedex saying it will be delivered tomorrow. Gotta love B&H.

Sounds good, I hope you enjoy it and it meets your needs.

I'm going to hold off on calibration hardware as I think color balance won't be much of an issue. Brightness and contrast seem to be more problematic, I'll play with it so as to get it as close as possible to match my printer output.

Certainly try it as is and see whether it works for you. You might want to start with something like brightness set to 20 - 25% of maximum and contrast set to 75 - 85% of maximum.

That said, my own personal experience is that, with a monitor for editing photos for printing, I'd prefer a less-expensive monitor plus calibration hardware over a more expensive monitor without calibration hardware. I bought an X-Rite ColorMunki Display some years ago, and with it I experience much less frustration getting prints that look like what I want / expect. But that's me; see how this works for you.

I don't think color will be an issue as most monitors are very good these days. As I said above, the color match even from my Surface Pro 7 looks great, and when I checked the factory color balance with the installed calibration tool didn't make any changes.

The Dell has a maximum brightness of 400 cd/m2, so your suggestion of 20-25% looks to be in the ballpark.

 

[Austinian]

That said, my own personal experience is that, with a monitor for editing photos for printing, I'd prefer a less-expensive monitor plus calibration hardware over a more expensive monitor without calibration hardware. I bought an X-Rite ColorMunki Display some years ago, and with it I experience much less frustration getting prints that look like what I want / expect. But that's me; see how this works for you.

I have a ColorMunki Display as well, and in addition to color correction, when used with software like the free DisplayCAL/Argyll CMS it can also provide interesting info about contrast ratio and screen uniformity, among other things.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

With a $1000 budget and a 32" maximum size, and you apparently wanting as close to that size as you can get an UHD (with is not quite 4K) resolution, I think I'd go for a Dell U3223QE ($821). A similar alternative is an LG 32BL95U-W ($829).

I tried to order the LG from B&H but it's discontinued.

Huh, that is really odd. As of both last night and just now, B&H shows me that LG in stock:

That's a different monitor than the one I mentioned above:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1692615-REG/lg_32uq85r_w_aus_32_uhd_4k_3840x2160.html

Okay, we're talking about two different LG models. In my post above, I suggested a 32BL95U-W, which is available, but you were looking at a 32UQ85R-W, which B&H says is discontinued and suggests was replaced by the 32BN88U-B (a $599 special order item).

LG seems to offer a ton of models, so following what's what in its line is a little tough for me.

 

[Paddler213]

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:
Okay, we're talking about two different LG models. In my post above, I suggested a 32BL95U-W, which is available, but you were looking at a 32UQ85R-W, which B&H says is discontinued and suggests was replaced by the 32BN88U-B (a $599 special order item).

LG seems to offer a ton of models, so following what's what in its line is a little tough for me.

Yep, very confusing.

The Dell arrived yesterday, less than 24 hours after I ordered it. Unfortunately it was damaged in transit. The screen was badly scratched in two places. I called B&H, they emailed a return authorization and shipping label immediately. Easy return but now I'll be waiting for a replacement.

Not sure what happened. Something sharp penetrated the box in two places both front and back, like maybe it was picked up by forks of some type. What a waste.

 

[Austinian]

you were looking at a 32UQ85R-W, which B&H says is discontinued and suggests was replaced by the 32BN88U-B (a $599 special order item).

I wouldn't consider that much of a 'replacement'; the 32UQ85R-W has an IPS Black panel, the 32BN88U-B doesn't, along with other differences. Not that it's a bad monitor, just that it's nothing special as far as I can tell.

LG seems to offer a ton of models, so following what's what in its line is a little tough for me.

Yes, a lot of different LG model numbers seem to vary mainly in details like the stand.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Ellis the Cg series of Eizo have built in calibrators. It is the CS series that need an external.

 

[Petr B]

I spoke with expert from Eizo about calibration probes in CG series and he said that they also detune slightly during years. But it's possible to recalibrate that integrated probes in Eizo center for recovering their accuracy, he recommended that recalibration after five years of use.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

You can reset retune your internal calibrator using an i1 Pro , however remember ALL calibrators wain over time and the i1 Pro ( regarded as the best option for photography without an internal) is no exception .

So the result is the only one you can realign is the internal, as I don't believe the puck style calibrators allow this and need to be replaced.

 

[BobKnDP]

Do colorimeters wane over time?

I've asked what sort of RGB filters are used in X-Rite/Calibrite colorimeters, and have been told they are not organic dyes. They should be stable.

The electronics may age or drift, I suppose. If there are any corrections built into the colorimeters, I'd be pleasantly surprised.