 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2008How to choose a monitor for photography?
Hello I'm looking for a larger monitor than my current 17" CRT. That will mean a flat screen one - and I believe there are now two technologies to choose from. Which is the one to look at? Also, I read that cheaper monitors can't be calibrated to match the colour input from the camera or the output from the printer. I also read that I need 14 bit resolution to match my camera and a digital video card in my computer. Can anyone recommend a good site where I can read about the subject. I've Googled round and round but haven't found anything that looks authoritative. I'm in the UK if anyone knows of a decent shop/dealer within 100 miles of Mid Wales. Thanks John Rule 1. Ignore Usenet advise. Rule 2. What was told to you about "cheap" LCD monitors should be ignored too. Rule 3. Australia uses the PAL standard so I guess that makes us pals !! Get yourself a Gforce or Radeon video card with at least one - preferably 2 DVI outlets. You also get a DVI to VGA adaptor with them so you can continue to use your CRT screen as a second monitor to hold all the Photoshop tools and give you even more working space on the new LCD desktop. Next is the contrast ratio of a LCD determines how "good" the monitor will display it's dynamic range. Look for high number and probably avoid Kung Foo brand stuff. Viewsonic and Samsung are good as are some low end LG monitors. The real advance in monitor technology has come about with true "backlit" screens that have the Dmax and gamut of CMYK... The standard real printing machines that clunk, clunk, clunk in the night use. Samsung have just release such a monitor and they sold out the first shipment into Australia in days. You might also get just as much value from an entry level LG with 2000:1 contrast ratio and some basic profiling software. Wide screen is definitely the way to go. Do not ever use a LCD screen with a 15 pin VGA cable or you will see where all those critics of LCD for photo edition got their opinion from. And are the pies pork or lamb? Douglas ------------------------------------------ > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John > Rule 3. > Australia uses the PAL standard so I guess that makes us pals !! Rule 4 PAL is an analogue video standard of no relevance to modern computer displays, not since 80s 8-bit microcomputers that were meant to be plugged into tvs at least. (either via rf or composite analogue video). That actually depends on wether or not you intend to take advantage of the video out function on the cards I recommernded! >> Rule 3. >> Australia uses the PAL standard so I guess that makes us pals !! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > plugged into tvs at least. (either via rf or composite analogue > video). > Rule 1. > Ignore Usenet advise. Heed your own advice. > Rule 3. > Australia uses the PAL standard so I guess that makes us pals !! Irrelevant. Where's your PGP signature? was your post a forgery? >Do not ever use a LCD screen with a 15 pin VGA cable or you will see where >all those critics of LCD for photo edition got their opinion from. I have my LCD connected to two computers, one via VGA and the other via dual link DVI. There is no difference in image quality. All those critics got their opinion from using 6bit panels instead of 8bit panels. Most panels are 6bit to increase response time. If you want a pro quality LCD with 8bit you have to pay a lot more for them than what most are willing top pay. My LCD is a Samsung 226bw with 2ms response time and 3000:1 dynamic contrast ratio and it is considered a good gaming LCD but it is most ceretainly not good enough for critical digital imaging work as it doesn't even have uniform brightness level across the whole screen. That's a common issue with LCD and IMO you are better sticking with a good CRT unless you are willing to pay $1,000.00 or more for a pro level LCD. >> Do not ever use a LCD screen with a 15 pin VGA cable or you will see >> where all those critics of LCD for photo edition got their opinion from. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > good CRT unless you are willing to pay $1,000.00 or more for a pro > level LCD. Anyone out there using an Apple Cinema Display? That is the third big-ticket item on my shopping list this year. After I get Either a 105 DC or an 85/1.4, then upgrade my 5-year-old G4 computer, I really want a thirty, but will probably end up with a 24" Apple monitor. Right now they're about $1800 new or $1200 as an Apple refurb. I know what you mean about the CRTs though. I used to work on LaCie's in the service bureau, and my home monitor was a Trinitron which did yeoman duty for nearly ten years.  Signature"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." >>> Do not ever use a LCD screen with a 15 pin VGA cable or you will see >>> where all those critics of LCD for photo edition got their opinion from. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the service bureau, and my home monitor was a Trinitron which did yeoman > duty for nearly ten years. I've been thinking about an upgrade of my G5, wondering if a top end iMac wouldn't be just about perfect....? I won't be doing much, if any, video, so I think it's fast enough for LR or PS batching or reasonably complex actions in PS, but I don't really know. It'd certainly make the monitor decision easier! Interesting about LaCie; I have the 19" Electron Blue, and have been trying to re-calibrate, using it at times as a second monitor off my MacBookPro, but setting it to sRGB seems to lock out Contrast and brightness adjustments. (?) Was thinking of calling support, but perhaps you know, Tully? The other temps are stated in degrees, and the sRGB does say to read the fine manual, which I have misplaced. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>> Do not ever use a LCD screen with a 15 pin VGA cable or you will see >>>> where all those critics of LCD for photo edition got their opinion from. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > perhaps you know, Tully? The other temps are stated in degrees, and the > sRGB does say to read the fine manual, which I have misplaced. Where I worked, the retouching Macs were all calibrated to a specific target image "by the numbers" and ran 24/7. We worked in LAB, had a single profile conversion LAB>CMYK for imagesetter output. Nobody cared about web color, so the occasional low-res RGB file was tweaked by eye. they installed the first digital press just before I quit, and I never prepared an image for it. Everything I worked on was proofed as a four-color (overlay or laminated), and color corrections (we strove for no more than three rounds of CX, even for picky clients like Saatchi and other agencies with national accounts. That's getting off track, but the simple truth is I started my shift by throwing away PS prefs, loading my own prefs and actions, using the eyedropper to check the target image, and then looked for the day's first cup of coffee. I've had to learn a lot about RGB profiles, inkjets and RAW conversions over the last two years! I have been ogling the Cinema Displays for longer than that, and after I get my eight-core Mac from Apple Refurbs (ballpark of $2k) I may get a monitor from the same source. One of these days I might even get CS2 or CS3. I'm very cheap, though: I was still using OS9 and PS5.5 as recently as 2004. Signature"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > authoritative. I'm in the UK if anyone knows of a decent shop/dealer > within 100 miles of Mid Wales. Don't buy one with a TN-panel. Check on http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php >Don't buy one with a TN-panel. But most are TN panels. If you want an LCD for gaming then a TN panel it must be because of their much better response time. If you want a pro level LCD for digital imaging that is not TN panel then you have to be willing to spend about $1,000.00 or so and they are crap for gaming on, unless you only play chess. Since I'm a gamer I will take the much cheaper TN panels. I know there were a few not too expensive ISPS panels made but I read they are not so easy to find now so you must go pro level if that is what you want. Dell might have an ISPS model still though. The short and curlies: Unless you get an expensive dedicated graphics panel, a al Eizo or LaCie, all LCD panels are inferior to CRTs for critical color managed printing. In large measure it is because the brightness and color characteristics of a CRT are closer to a reflective print than LCD panels which are just too bright. In order to use LCDs, depending on your particular standards, you will have to develop workarounds. With a color calibration device, keeping the panel at its default brightness and contrast, reasonable color matching is not difficult to achieve. However brightness and contrast are a different matter, because at those default and non-adjustable (read your color calibrator instructions--those settings should not be adjusted) brightness and contrast settings what you see cannot possibly be matched in even a glossy print. The second problem is neuropsychological: the brightness of LCD screens is such that even if you generate an ideal print you might not think it so because it cannot match the brightness of your LCD panel. There are a variety of work-arounds and changes in the way you evaluate a print that make use of LCD panels manageable. The mid-range Samsungs are very good values but require effort to develop a satisfactory workflow; the wide panel formal is very convenient for use in Photoshop. In truth I have an older NEC CRT that still calibrates perfectly and if I really want the best results I judge the image on that before printing! > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm in the UK if anyone knows of a decent shop/dealer within 100 miles of > Mid Wales. Get an iMac. That may sound like "Apple bias" but what I've noticed with my Mac dispay side by side with a high quality LCD monitor is much finer appearance and tone grading (even though the other monitor has a finer pitch). The other monitor is driven from the same card as the iMac display and over DVI. Under the hood: the iMac uses a Radeon HD 2600 Pro, so a similar grpahics card on a PC will likely help. The problem is determining which display will give you the best results and I regret that I have no advice for that. But an Apple dvi display (sans Mac) would probably do the joj even if hooked to a PC. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >The problem is determining which display will give you the best results >and I regret that I have no advice for that. But an Apple dvi display >(sans Mac) would probably do the joj even if hooked to a PC. Yea, they probably use ISPS 8bit panels instead of 6bit TN panels. They are much more expensive too though but that would be a good way to go if you must have LCD. They are probably not good gaming monitors though. I know this is a photography group but I uses my LCD for more than just photography so use a Samsung 2ms 6bit TN LCD. I rarely print out photos anyway and when I do I just guesstimate how it will turn out. >>The problem is determining which display will give you the best results >>and I regret that I have no advice for that. But an Apple dvi display [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out photos anyway and when I do I just guesstimate how it will turn > out. Well here's a news flash that will shatter that myth... I have a "Cinema" Apple monitor on one of my Editing PCs and I also have a bottom of the (price) range LG (Life's Good!) monitor on the printer driver PC. It controls 4 printers. Many professional photographers visit my studio for large (canvas and Giclee) prints. All with an interest in colour calibration have remarked how similar these are in their display properties despite the nearly $1500 price difference. I spent a lot of time discovering how to calibrate them for synchronous display. True, the LG need recalibration quite often but... I can now interchange them and know I'll still have the same output colours. I think the real issue with colour, photography, CRT and LCD is the harsh brightness produced by LCD screens as opposed to CRT screens. That brightness does affect your sight and colour judgment. With critical work, I still use a pair of "smoke" sunglasses to take the edge off the brightness. Working in a really brightly lit room can help too. At the end of the day, the area of colour balance still has little science and much personal preference. No two humans see the same photo as having exactly the same colours. I worked for years with an absolutely brilliant photographer in Perth (Australia) who was totally colour blind! He just relied on his gear and a pro lab for colour output. >>>The problem is determining which display will give you the best results >>>and I regret that I have no advice for that. But an Apple dvi display [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bottom of the (price) range LG (Life's Good!) monitor on the printer driver > PC. It controls 4 printers. What's your point ? Many professional photographers visit my studio > for large (canvas and Giclee) prints. Sure they do. Is this the studio that has no adress ? > All with an interest in colour calibration have remarked how similar these > are in their display properties despite the nearly $1500 price difference. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > still use a pair of "smoke" sunglasses to take the edge off the brightness. > Working in a really brightly lit room can help too. Yes, nothing like wearing sunglasses for all your critical work. Who would have thought suglasses would beat a well calibrated monitor. And you call yourself a working pro ? I'll bet you wear the sunglasses because you're a crackhead ! > At the end of the day, the area of colour balance still has little science > and much personal preference. Forget calibration and just get some sunglasses, eh Doug ? Sounds real professional advice to me, not ! No two humans see the same photo as having > exactly the same colours. I worked for years with an absolutely brilliant > photographer in Perth (Australia) who was totally colour blind! He just > relied on his gear and a pro lab for colour output. Did he still think bridezilla was ugly ? Get one with the most real-estate and highes resolution you can afford, or want to afford. Whatever you do, get a monitor calibration system. > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John > I'm looking for a larger monitor than my current 17" CRT. That will mean a > flat screen one Not necessarily. Why do you think it would mean a flat screen? > Also, I read that cheaper monitors can't be calibrated to match the colour > input from the camera or the output from the printer. There are 2 different things to ponder regarding calibration: - how exact the calibration can make the output look like it should look. - how repeatable that calibration is. Monitors age, but it is a difference if a calibration every hour or every month is needed --- or if just shifting your head changes the hue and intensity (as many flat screens, especially cheap ones, do). > I also read that I > need 14 bit resolution to match my camera and a digital video card in my > computer. DSLRs produce 12 or 14 bit linear RAW data these days. - there's a large difference if a pack of chewing gum costs $0,10 or $0,30 - The difference if a house costs $500.000 or $500.000,20 is a) just as large in linear steps (12 or 14 bit RAW) b) trivial and not noticeable looking at the big picture. (more how our eyes and JPEG work) -Wolfgang >> I'm looking for a larger monitor than my current 17" CRT. That will mean >> a [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > - The difference if a house costs $500.000 or $500.000,20 is > a) just as large in linear steps (12 or 14 bit RAW) 12 bit: 4096 steps 13 bit: 8192 steps 14 bit: 16384 steps > b) trivial and not noticeable looking at the big > picture. (more how our eyes and JPEG work) A factor of 4 trivial? > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>> I also read that I >>> need 14 bit resolution to match my camera and a digital video card in my >>> computer. >> DSLRs produce 12 or 14 bit linear RAW data these days. >> - there's a large difference if a pack of chewing gum costs >> $0,10 or $0,30 >> - The difference if a house costs $500.000 or $500.000,20 is >> a) just as large in linear steps (12 or 14 bit RAW) > 12 bit: 4096 steps > 13 bit: 8192 steps > 14 bit: 16384 steps For your $500.000 home, does it matter if the auctioneer raises by $250 or $62.5? No, since he'll use $10.000 or $20.000 steps ... >> b) trivial and not noticeable looking at the big >> picture. (more how our eyes and JPEG work) > A factor of 4 trivial? It is only relevant in the shadows --- and only if the additional steps give you signal well enough above the noise level. Sure, if you stack hundreds of shots, it matters. -Wolfgang |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.