Soldato
I actually meant the 27" cinema display, not the 24", but I guess they are the same.
What's wrong with glossy screens by the way?
What's wrong with glossy screens by the way?
Are back-lit LED screens good for photo processing?
- Thread starter Phate
- Start date
No offense but I'm going to guess that you have absolutely no idea 'where it's really at', and you just went to find the most expensive LCD monitor on google and assume it's the best. The 724 is a classic case of having a uselessly big gamut - 123% of Adobe RGB with an 8bit panel is neither big nor clever.
SS: Glossy screens are bad for numerous reasons, but providing you've managed to get yourself in a perfectly reflect-less black space in the corner of your room, you've shut all the blinds and aren't wearing anything luminous.. Even then they cause contrast problems. They basically fake a higher contrast ratio, which is a nightmare when trying to print because the effect is very hard to reproduce. I guess in todays world where we display so much work on screen we're approaching also needing a reference glossy monitor, just to make sure it looks good on that too! But generally you're working monitor is exactly that, a reference. It's where you can make sure the file is good before making it's various alterations for prints or other display. It's no good having a reference that's lying too you.
Associate
How come? Why would anyone want less screen space?
I prefer the wider form
It's nice to have a wider monitor to fit a landscape orientated image + tools either side in PS/Lightroom 
Soldato
But it is no wider - it's still 1920 pixels wide. All it offers is less vertical, which may offer the illusion of being wider, but you won't gain anything for your landscape shots - you'll just be zooming out of the photo more, thus being able to fit in more palettes.
Soldato
Thanks for the explanation. I suppose I really should know more about this stuff.
Associate
I've been keeping an eye on this and would love to know what ~£300 24" monitor is a good choice for 'toggers.
Any ideas? HDMI input etc would be a bonus.
Any ideas? HDMI input etc would be a bonus.
Associate
For an equal size monitor (e.g. 22") then it will be slightly wider, but of course slightly less tall - as 22" is a diagonal measure
Caporegime
get one
I have a 27" imac that uses the same screen as the 27" cinema display and its gorgeous.
I sold my NEC 20WGX2 for it, which was and still is one of the most highly regarded IPS 20" monitors.
Sell a kidney if you have to.
Alternatively, see if you can pick up a NEC 20WGX2 on ebay / MM
Amazing quality if you can stand the 20" screen size.
Soldato
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-036-DE&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=
I like the look of this, seems to get very good reviews. The other Dell screen doesn't have HDMI, which puts me off slightly.
I like the look of this, seems to get very good reviews. The other Dell screen doesn't have HDMI, which puts me off slightly.
I love sweeping statements, me .....
An inexpensive but perfectly adequate display which is well calibrated and outputting to a
correctly profiled printer, can be more cost effective for non pro, (non colour critical) photographer
(that's about 90% of photographers - another sweeping statement - told you I liked em) than
shelling out for a £ 100's more for an IPS display, all things are considered.
There are plenty of things that can be more cost effective for a non pro. That doesn't mean the advice of not using a TN screen for PP work is invalid. If you can stretch the extra couple of hundred (often not a lot considering how much even some 'non pros' camera gear is worth) for a decent display you're doing your work a favour.
FYI, you can't calibrate a TN screen well. The viewing angle limitation of the technology is so great any accuracy you achieved during calibration is easily outdone and more by simply slouching in your chair. The program may get close to the desired targets with a 2 degree FOV and report a satisfactory profile but this means very little in the real world.
"Calibration" based on numbers has also been done to death, in the real world.
User posture has little to do with calibration 'cept on fora where posturing is essential
Anyone worried about colour fidelity 'within x budget' can't afford proper accuracy and anyone who really needs accuracy doesn't tend to worry about cost as they have clients who pay .. so they outsource and bill accordingly.
QED
There are great TN panels and rubbish IPS panels, both for the price and in terms of performance.
£100 spent on a large tin of flat paint, a decent light bulb and some blackout blinds can make more of a difference to a user experience of a display and make less expensive (more affordable) calibration tools perform better in terms of getting close to whatever is deemed as accurate.
That's assuming that the source image was captured correctly and the person paying for/viewing the image isn't colour blind, thinks it's a bit blue or wants it warming up a touch
Way too many variables to determine if X panel is better than Y panel in Z situation in the hands of A user.
For the average user the best advice is to buy the largest display you can afford and, if it's important, calibrate it as best you can.
The display will end up within a few percent of what an expert will classify as within tolerance but in the meantime you will have spent 80% less dollar and enjoyed many more games, movies and donkeyp0rn than said expert will as they are too hung up on micropercentages of accuracy.
Last edited:
"Calibration" based on numbers has also been done to death, in the real world.
User posture has little to do with calibration 'cept on fora where posturing is essential
Anyone worried about colour fidelity 'within x budget' can't afford proper accuracy and anyone who really needs accuracy doesn't tend to worry about cost as they have clients who pay .. so they outsource and bill accordingly.
QED
There are great TN panels and rubbish IPS panels, both for the price and in terms of performance.
£100 spent on a large tin of flat paint, a decent light bulb and some blackout blinds can make more of a difference to a user experience of a display and make less expensive (more affordable) calibration tools perform better in terms of getting close to whatever is deemed as accurate.
That's assuming that the source image was captured correctly and the person paying for/viewing the image isn't colour blind, thinks it's a bit blue or wants it warming up a touch
Way too many variables to determine if X panel is better than Y panel in Z situation in the hands of A user.
For the average user the best advice is to buy the largest display you can afford and, if it's important, calibrate it as best you can.
The display will end up within a few percent of what an expert will classify as within tolerance but in the meantime you will have spent 80% less dollar and enjoyed many more games, movies and donkeyp0rn than said expert will as they are too hung up on micropercentages of accuracy.
User posture has everything to do with a TN screen, far less to do with an IPS or VA screen (And do not have me confused with someone who assumes IPS panel immediately = good monitor, it certainly isn't the case - That said if a manufacturer has gone to the effort of implementing an IPS or VA panel it's almost certainly of higher quality than anything with a TN one). The entire image changes. Not only that but if the screen is large (so the angle at which you view the top and bottom is more extreme than a smaller screen) you can see a difference without even moving your head. This really is non disputable, it's a clear limitation of the technology.
There is worrying about accuracy within X budget and there is spending money for old rope. I'm fortunate in being able to pay for my equipment with work, but that doesn't mean anyone not earning money with their monitor has to buy cheap. Or that buying a mid-range monitor is bad value for money.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your suggestion that "the best advice is to buy the largest screen you can afford". A Dell 2209WA, for example, is a cheap but fair quality monitor, IPS, small enough to not really have severe problems with uniformity. You could buy a 24" TN panel, but I've not seen a single one that would be a better purchase than the Dell. Not only is the viewing angle problem exacerbated with a larger screen but so is the uniformity, and that's without considering the limitations of the bit depth of the panel.
There are many variables in determining whether X panel is better than Y in Z situation for A user of course. However a pretty safe assumption is whatever the situation and whatever the user (within the photographic context we're discussing), the IPS/VA panel would be a better bet than the TN one.
I don't think when considering monitors even for casual users we're talking about 'micro-percentages of accuracy' either. I'm looking at an image on a very good monitor, and duplicated on a cheap TN monitor next to it. On the TN there is a pink band running across a very subtle graduation on her forehead, on the good monitor this is shown to clearly not exist. I could spend some time trying to remove this band that doesn't exist. I'm sure subtle graduations of a persons forehead isn't exactly a unique situation many photographers would find themselves in.
At the end of the day we're talking of a difference of say £50 (between a 24" TN and a 22" IPS), and for that, considering how much even hobbyists can spend, really is very little considering ALL your work will run through this piece of equipment. I still maintain it's a better investment than yet another lens you might not need, or an upgrade to an otherwise capable camera body.
I do agree with your suggestion of flat paint and blackout blinds. Controlling your ambient editing environment is key before worrying about your screen. I should probably suggest that more
Soldato
That's actually cheaper than the 22" TN monitor I bought a couple of years ago
.At the time I didn't really give any though to photography usage and just wanted one that would be ok for gaming.