Would you use an LCD for image editing?

Associate
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
1,036
Location
Notts/Derby
I am in the market for a new LCD and had my eyes on the Samsung SyncMaster 244T (24" widescreen).

I want to be able to do image editing via CS2, but also use it for gaming and HD movies.

This review http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2662 says its a cracking monitor except for this comment:

"For all but professional image editors that demand a colour calibrated display, the 244T is ideal for Photoshop work."

I am slightly confused by that statement. To get correct colour you need a colour calibrated screen (like my wifes Lacie CRT calibrated with a Gretag MacBeth device). My wife has to have a properly calibrated screen for her work so the same would go for myself.

Are there any image editors here use this panel or can advise whether I should go the LCD route? (currently using an Hitachi 17" lcd)
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
1,036
Location
Notts/Derby
mrgubby said:
Are you a Pro ??


I've been using LCD monitors at home for years & nobody has ever noticed any problems with my stuff

Depends how you define Pro! I work part time with my wife for her wedding photography and portrait business and I want to help with the processing of images. Its been a busy year with hundreds of images to process and I want to do my part.

What monitor do you use and what type of photography?
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
100,627
Location
South Coast
I've used a £140 TFT (AG Neovo F417 R12) for almost 2 years doing photography (commercial, freelance and weddings throughout that time) and images have always been how they should be. Now on a 19" widescreen and the same still stands...You don't need to spend £710 on a screen JUST to get accurate colours, you just need to be able to know how to callibrate any panel effectively.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
1,036
Location
Notts/Derby
mrk said:
I've used a £140 TFT (AG Neovo F417 R12) for almost 2 years doing photography (commercial, freelance and weddings throughout that time) and images have always been how they should be. Now on a 19" widescreen and the same still stands...You don't need to spend £710 on a screen JUST to get accurate colours, you just need to be able to know how to callibrate any panel effectively.

Thanks for the information. I can calibrate the CRT with no issues and did try to do the Hitachi lcd but with poor results, although it is not an 8 bit panel and does not do 16.7 million colours as far as I know.

The screen will be used for other things like some gaming and HD movies so I should get the most out of it. I have had the Hitachi for almost 4 years now - it must be time to upgrade :)
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
9 Nov 2004
Posts
2,140
If your main purpose is Image editing. Eizo do a very nice 24" LCD designed especially for the purpose.

However, unless you really really need to colour accuracy I'm sure most people would rather have £300 and the Samsung or Dell.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2005
Posts
4,448
Question for those who use a colour calibration unit: do your customers see your images online or in print before they choose the buy?
 
Associate
Joined
3 Jun 2003
Posts
1,775
Location
Gibraltar
As far as I know LCD screens are fine for image editing, just not any cheapo one, you'd have to be more picky about the quality. (Disclaimer: My info might be outdated and all of them be fine nowadays)
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
1,036
Location
Notts/Derby
glitch said:
Question for those who use a colour calibration unit: do your customers see your images online or in print before they choose the buy?

Online usually usually for us, or a preview dvd. We can do contact sheets with mini proofs if requested.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2005
Posts
4,448
So do you think that calibration is the be-all and end-all for your clients? Only reason I mention it is I've found that 99.9% of clients are are viewing images on an uncalibrated monitor, generally at 9300K, and see colours which vaguely reprisent the final work.

I know people really bang on about calibrating monitors and ensuring that colours are as accurate as possible, but I'd argue that in most cases it's only the photographer that knows. If the user is only seeing the end result and not the original subject, who's to know apart from us?

The biggest issue I've found is that a lot of my macro work (which easily sells the most) is reliant on the colour of the image to sell. People want a red flower, a pink flower, etc etc. So they look at my stuff, pick the one they like and then end up with something that could be close to what they thought it was, or in some cases completely bloody different as the monitor they saw the image on wasn't showing anywhere near the true colours! I've never had a situation where I needed to refund the individual involved, but I bet I will one day.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
1,036
Location
Notts/Derby
glitch said:
So do you think that calibration is the be-all and end-all for your clients? Only reason I mention it is I've found that 99.9% of clients are are viewing images on an uncalibrated monitor, generally at 9300K, and see colours which vaguely reprisent the final work.

I know people really bang on about calibrating monitors and ensuring that colours are as accurate as possible, but I'd argue that in most cases it's only the photographer that knows. If the user is only seeing the end result and not the original subject, who's to know apart from us?

The biggest issue I've found is that a lot of my macro work (which easily sells the most) is reliant on the colour of the image to sell. People want a red flower, a pink flower, etc etc. So they look at my stuff, pick the one they like and then end up with something that could be close to what they thought it was, or in some cases completely bloody different as the monitor they saw the image on wasn't showing anywhere near the true colours! I've never had a situation where I needed to refund the individual involved, but I bet I will one day.

I see what you are saying, but as you know it is critical to get the colours correct when your main subjects are people. Skin tones have to be spot on etc. Viewing on different screens will make the viewing and perception of the image differ. But with wedding photography the customer is expecting a certain end result.

If its done right when you process the image then you have less to worry about when you get the prints from the pro lab to give to the customer.

I agree that they do not see the original and have no comparison. But it has to be better if you have done as much as you can to get it right from the start. Hence my caution before I purchase this monitor!!
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2005
Posts
4,448
brakeinup said:
I see what you are saying, but as you know it is critical to get the colours correct when your main subjects are people. Skin tones have to be spot on etc. Viewing on different screens will make the viewing and perception of the image differ. But with wedding photography the customer is expecting a certain end result.
Well you've hit the nail on the head there. Skin tones were the only thing I could think of where colour accuracy was important - everything else is would seem to be in the eye of the beholder.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,311
Location
Bristol
I have a current Dell 24" which I have calibrated with a Gretagmacbeth Eye1 Display 2. The difference between before and after calibration is staggering. It made me realise that messing about with calibration software like Adobe gamma is totally and utterly pointless - It just takes your colour further off course.

Since calibration:

Skin tones are spot on.
Very easy to spot work done on an un-calibrated screen.
DVD's have much better colour and shadow depth.
I can sit here with a Pantone swatch and its the same on screen.

Interestingly the OcUk forum colours are easy to look at un-calibrated. BUT they are too intense after calibration. Seriously! It's hard to read it.


If you are doing work that needs to be reproduced elsewhere then its worth it. Fair enough not everyone who looks at an image will have a calibrated screen. However if the producer's screen is inaccurate then it will be even more inaccurate on another screen. Also the same with printing stuff out - the print is not quite right so you tweak the image but ultimately you just end up playing games with the image, screen & printer.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2003
Posts
11,890
Location
Northamptonshire
The only things O find with TFTs over CRTs:

1. You have to be sure you are looking at the screen at exaclty the right angle

2. Some colours display completely differently on a CRT compared to a TFT. I remmebr looking at a website once on a CRT and TFT side by side and the colours were quite different. I think they were slightly pastel versions of blue/green.
 
Back
Top Bottom