Decent calibrated monitor recommendations please

[FlyingShrapnel]

Hi all,

This occured to me the other day, if the main way i deliver images is digitally, is there much point for me to invest in a nice monitor (calibrated and IPS etc) when my clients would be viewing my photos on their uncalibrated screens?

Also i have no idea about how calibrating actually works, any pointers to how to do it and perhaps a good ‘entry level’ monitor to the IPS world would be great, thanks!

 

[MWHCVT]

Hi all,

This occured to me the other day, if the main way i deliver images is digitally, is there much point for me to invest in a nice monitor (calibrated and IPS etc) when my clients would be viewing my photos on their uncalibrated screens?

Also i have no idea about how calibrating actually works, any pointers to how to do it and perhaps a good ‘entry level’ monitor to the IPS world would be great, thanks!

While yes your clients will not be using calibrated screens I think that it's still vitally important to at least know what we are putting out as photographers is right, as while your providing clients a digital product it's more than likely they will convert that to a physical product at some point, at least then you'll know they'll get a true colours image...

I use a data colour spyder, but there's load of different options out there

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

While yes your clients will not be using calibrated screens I think that it's still vitally important to at least know what we are putting out as photographers is right, as while your providing clients a digital product it's more than likely they will convert that to a physical product at some point, at least then you'll know they'll get a true colours image...

I use a data colour spyder, but there's load of different options out there

The bit about making sure what we put out is right has completely convinced me now time to choose a monitor!

 

[sep9001]

Loads of Dell ips ones get good reviews. What is your budget just for the monitor?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Hi all,

This occured to me the other day, if the main way i deliver images is digitally, is there much point for me to invest in a nice monitor (calibrated and IPS etc) when my clients would be viewing my photos on their uncalibrated screens?

Because it still gives you confidence that your work is correct. Whether your clients/audience have a calibrated screen is not really the point. Besides... why are you assuming your audience does NOT have a calibrated screen? Who's your audience? Most people's TVs are not calibrated either, but I think you'll find most TV broadcasters still go to great lengths to ensure that colour, gamma and accuracy is maintained

Also i have no idea about how calibrating actually works, any pointers to how to do it and perhaps a good ‘entry level’ monitor to the IPS world would be great, thanks!

It works by the calibration software displaying a series of colour and grey swatches on the screen. These are colours and tones set to specific values. The colorimeter you attach to the screen reads these swatches, and compares the actual colours your screen displays with the expected value for each swatch. It then applies corrections to ensure your screen is displaying the expected values. In cheaper screens, this correction file it creates is a display profile or .ICM file. When you reboot, this file is loaded into your video card's LUT (Look up table) and is used to translate the full range of available colours to remapped values so when displayed on your screen, will conform to the measured values and be correct. This is known as software profiling. The disadvantage with software profiling on cheaper screens, is that it's being calibrated at 8bit level at the GPU, so while colours are more accurate, it can effect tonality of gradients adversely, but accurate colour is more important, so don't worry about that.

High end screens will have their own 12 or 14bit LUT that the calibrator can program directly, so you're actually calibrating the screen, not the video card. This is hardware profiling. This is more accurate and because it at a higher bit depth, has none of the tonality and gradient problems of software profiling. It also means the screen is calibrated independently, no matter what is driving it.

This is a common misconception with most screens. If your screen can not be hardware profiled, you're not actually profiling your monitor - you're actually profiling your video card.


What Matt said is true. Clients may print it, even if you don't! If you also correctly embed a colour profile, most professional printers will reproduce the print as YOU saw it, not how the client sees it, so you have confidence it will be correct.

 

[redsnappa]

If a client print the images they will look pretty much the same as is displayed on the photographer's monitor, as a consequence the printed image will be different to that the client sees when they view the images on their own devices, laptops, tablets, TV etc.

Besides... why are you assuming your audience does NOT have a calibrated screen?

Because you do not need to do a detailed survey to realise that fact. The only people who worry about calibrated monitors are some photographers, those in the graphics industry and some web designers.
Monitor calibration units are industry specific devices are not marketed to the general public that's why you can't buy one in PC World or Currys. It therefor stands to reason that most people displays are not calibrated.
While your in PC World or Curries you will see that the image displayed on most of the TVs, monitors, laptops and tablets will be different.

As long as the colours are close enough and do not vary too much between images most customers will be happy.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If a client print the images they will look pretty much the same as is displayed on the photographer's monitor, as a consequence the printed image will be different to that the client sees when they view the images on their own devices, laptops, tablets, TV etc.

But it's impossible to ensure that every image prints exactly as every client sees it. However, it is possible to ensure your equipment is calibrated to agreed standards. It's not your responsibility to ensure that everyone's display is accurate. All you can do is ensure that YOUR display is, and therefore your images are. Rather that than just abandon all attempts to achieve accuracy in the belief that no matter how wrong it is, it will still be right for some. That's like having a stopped clock and saying "Well.. it's still accurate twice a day"

Because you do not need to do a detailed survey to realise that fact. The only people who worry about calibrated monitors are some photographers, those in the graphics industry and some web designers.
Monitor calibration units are industry specific devices are not marketed to the general public that's why you can't buy one in PC World or Currys. It therefor stands to reason that most people displays are not calibrated.
While your in PC World or Curries you will see that the image displayed on most of the TVs, monitors, laptops and tablets will be different.

And as I said, that doesn't stop broadcasters adhering to agreed standards, so it shouldn't stop you as a photographer. Many displays are reasonably calibrated from new. It's not perfect, and they will still drift with time, but there will still be enough people with "close enough" calibration to benefit from your accuracy.

As long as the colours are close enough and do not vary too much between images most customers will be happy.

indeed, but they'll still be happy if you calibrate, and at least you know it IS accurate, and at least YOU can enjoy your images as they were intended to be, especially if you DO print them one day.

There's no excuse for a professional photographer to be sloppy about colour workflow, no matter who your clients are.


[edit]

Also... don't underestimate the sheer pleasure of working in a well colour managed environment. I often spend great lengths of time looking at images on a range of devices, laptops, un-calibrated cheap screens etc, and when I get home, and look at images on my equipment, it's like my eyes are being gently soothed in some magic lotion. Even if they look different from how the author intended because HE/SHE isn't calibrated, colour is NOT the only advantage to calibration. There's also gamma, contrast, black levels and the actual brightness. The QUALITY of a well calibrated, high quality screen is actually a pleasurable experience, and as you are sat at that screen for long periods of time, it makes a massive difference to how you work.

Those who seem pretty vocal about why you shouldn't calibrate are usually either just unfamiliar with it, so can't be arsed with the learning curve, can't be arsed spending the little extra so convince themselves it's not beneficial, or have just read some crap on the net saying it's pointless.

The fact is, you can get a decent calibrator for the price of a fast, high capacity Lexar CF card. If you've spent hundreds, or possibly thousands on camera gear, and potentially hundreds more on a monitor.... why sit there justifying why you shouldn't spend £100 more to ensure that the very images you are looking at are accurate?

It's a no brainer: No excuse other than actually being skint and you simply cannot afford it. Either that, or you're simply not bothered about accuracy.. which begs the question what are you doing in this thread?

 

[redsnappa]

At no time did I say I was against the calibration of monitors. I just thought it would be sloppy not to educate potential purchaser of the limitations of such devices.

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. A bit of back story to put context into the thread, Im a student and I have started off shooting part time about a year ago. Now I have gained a little bit of momentum locally and within the student community. I have been booked to shoot a few events this summer so I feel like its time to "step up my game" and become more "professional" in my service and the products I put out. I have been using a cheapo stop gap monitor for now which turns itself off when it feels like it :banghead: so whilst I am looking at a new monitor, thought might as well go the whole hog and get a decent one, and that leads me onto the topic of a calibrated monitor

Loads of Dell ips ones get good reviews. What is your budget just for the monitor?

I dont want to spend more than £200, considering the calibrator will be like £100...

Because it still gives you confidence that your work is correct. Whether your clients/audience have a calibrated screen is not really the point. Besides... why are you assuming your audience does NOT have a calibrated screen? Who's your audience? Most people's TVs are not calibrated either, but I think you'll find most TV broadcasters still go to great lengths to ensure that colour, gamma and accuracy is maintained

It works by the calibration software displaying a series of colour and grey swatches on the screen. These are colours and tones set to specific values. The colorimeter you attach to the screen reads these swatches, and compares the actual colours your screen displays with the expected value for each swatch. It then applies corrections to ensure your screen is displaying the expected values. In cheaper screens, this correction file it creates is a display profile or .ICM file. When you reboot, this file is loaded into your video card's LUT (Look up table) and is used to translate the full range of available colours to remapped values so when displayed on your screen, will conform to the measured values and be correct. This is known as software profiling. The disadvantage with software profiling on cheaper screens, is that it's being calibrated at 8bit level at the GPU, so while colours are more accurate, it can effect tonality of gradients adversely, but accurate colour is more important, so don't worry about that.

High end screens will have their own 12 or 14bit LUT that the calibrator can program directly, so you're actually calibrating the screen, not the video card. This is hardware profiling. This is more accurate and because it at a higher bit depth, has none of the tonality and gradient problems of software profiling. It also means the screen is calibrated independently, no matter what is driving it.

This is a common misconception with most screens. If your screen can not be hardware profiled, you're not actually profiling your monitor - you're actually profiling your video card.


What Matt said is true. Clients may print it, even if you don't! If you also correctly embed a colour profile, most professional printers will reproduce the print as YOU saw it, not how the client sees it, so you have confidence it will be correct.

Thanks for the very in depth explanation on how it works, much appreciated!

-snip-
The fact is, you can get a decent calibrator for the price of a fast, high capacity Lexar CF card. If you've spent hundreds, or possibly thousands on camera gear, and potentially hundreds more on a monitor.... why sit there justifying why you shouldn't spend £100 more to ensure that the very images you are looking at are accurate?

It's a no brainer: No excuse other than actually being skint and you simply cannot afford it. Either that, or you're simply not bothered about accuracy.. which begs the question what are you doing in this thread?

As explained above, I am just starting out and feel like its time to improve, and now I understand a calibrated monitor really is a worthy investment
I am of the former type, skint rather than not bothered

 

[Pookeyhead]

At no time did I say I was against the calibration of monitors. I just thought it would be sloppy not to educate potential purchaser of the limitations of such devices.

Not as limited as having no checks and measures to ensure accuracy. That's just utter chaos.

 

[Byker28i]

I use a spyder pro, very good, and you can pick up dell monitors second hand, one was advertised on here recently.
It's really worth investing I. A decent monitor and calibrate it. The difference is incredible, especially when you come to print.

 

[andrewc]

Yes, whilst the people who view your photos may not be using a calibrated screen, making sure the starting point is right is very good idea.

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

AOC seems to have an IPS one for very little money, any thoughts or anyone with experience with it? http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-i2269Vw...id=1401399866&sr=8-5&keywords=aoc+ips+monitor

 

[Pookeyhead]

AOC seems to have an IPS one for very little money, any thoughts or anyone with experience with it? http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-i2269Vwm-Value-21-5-Monitor/dp/B00BDBVCCK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1401399866&sr=8-5&keywords=aoc ips monitor

Please don't assume all a screen has to be in order to be good, is IPS

If yours is actually faulty, it will be better than what you have perhaps. I've used other AOC screens before. A couple have been OK.... by which I mean OK.. not good, or great.. but OK... I've not actually used this one, but have used the 23" version. It barely achieves sRGB gamut, and needs the backlight set to almost 0 to set it to the accepted standard of 120cd/m2, which means that blacks are crushed together, so fine shadow detail will be terrible. Once calibrated, best it could manage was a 390:1 contrast ratio due to this. This all indicated that the panel and circuitry that drives it was designed for televisions, not monitors. A common ploy for Chinese manufacturers, as it saves money, and people who don't know any better think they have a nice computer monitor for a bargain price, when in reality they are getting a cheap 21" television, with half it's insides missing for a rather extortionate price. The one linked to above will be crap, and it's 23" sibling.... is crap.

There'll be tons of people out there who will tell you they're great... but they're just consumers who have no idea what a great monitor looks like so they just think it's great.. "oooh... it's as good as my tele" . There are also people out there who will tell you that a Citroen C1 is a great car. It is not a great car.... it's crap, and this is not a great monitor. It's crap. It will be OK for Mr Average to browse the web, watch iPlayer or do day to day stuff... but you seem to be a professional photographer (I think.. you mentioned clients so I'm assuming you are), so why are you messing about here? If you're that skint... then save some cash first instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel like this.

Because of all the above, there's a very real possibility it won't even calibrate, as I had trouble with the 23" version. The blacks are just too crushed when the back-lighting is reduced to a non-retina burning brightness, so you'll have wasted the money on your calibrator too.

I dont want to spend more than £200, considering the calibrator will be like £100...

Does that mean your monitor budget is £100?... or £200? If it's £100.. forget it. You may be able to buy one that's not faulty like the one you have now, but you'll not get a decent monitor for £100. It's difficult with £200. You'll get a perfectly OK monitor for £200.

I have been using a cheapo stop gap monitor for now which turns itself off when it feels like it :banghead: so whilst I am looking at a new monitor, thought might as well go the whole hog and get a decent one,

Much less than £200 however, and all you'll be getting is a cheapo stop gap monitor. There's genuinely not much worth buying for this kind of money if you want an accurate, calibrated screen.

There's only really one sensible choice, and that's the Dell U2412. For less than £200 if you shop around, It's a proper 16:10 panel, not a 16:9 panel, calibrates well, and a great screen in every respect. Turn off dynamic contrast if you get one though... it's horrible, and anything "auto" should be OFF if you calibrate a sceen. The one thing that lets almost all monitors of this price range down though is the panels are nearly always 6bit +AFRC dithering... which basically means it isn't truly 24 million colours like a true 8 bit panel. You'll need to spend a great deal more to get a genuine 8bit panel and true 16 million colours however.

As explained above, I am just starting out and feel like its time to improve, and now I understand a calibrated monitor really is a worthy investment
I am of the former type, skint rather than not bothered

Ok.. before you run off to spend your money, are you familiar with the whole concept of working in a colour managed workflow? You OK with embedding colour profiles to images, and how to set up Photoshop correctly? You understand the limitations of digital images on non-colour profiled devices, and what the impacts of that are? Do you know how to best mitigate for this? Calibrating your screen is a good idea, but it doesn't mean everything you produce will be bomb-proof. You can still make all the rookie mistakes like embed Adobe RGB1998 because it's "better" and then wonder why your clients are saying the images look washed out on their TV.


BTW.. don't get the Spyder4 Express if you were thinking about it. Crap software, and only single display capable, and is only calibrates to D65 (6500K 0 2.2 gamma) which is fine right now.... as that's what you want, but later, you may want more flexibility. It also only generates ICC v2 profiles and isn't v4 capable. AGain... not an issue right now, but later computer OSs may well drop V2 as a standard, and you'll be left without any calibration.

Get the 4 Pro or higher... should still bes less than £100.

 

[Ozei]

....... Dell U2412. ...... It's a proper 16:10 panel ......

Bring back 16:10 - there aren't enough of them around now .

 

[Nigi]

There's only really one sensible choice, and that's the Dell U2412. For less than £200 if you shop around, It's a proper 16:10 panel, not a 16:9 panel, calibrates well, and a great screen in every respect. Turn off dynamic contrast if you get one though... it's horrible, and anything "auto" should be OFF if you calibrate a sceen. The one thing that lets almost all monitors of this price range down though is the panels are nearly always 6bit +AFRC dithering... which basically means it isn't truly 24 million colours like a true 8 bit panel. You'll need to spend a great deal more to get a genuine 8bit panel and true 16 million colours however.
[/quote
After hours of research happy user of BenQ BL2411 here.
24 in 1920/1200 ips and not worse then dell, even better in fact thanks to lighter anti-glare. Google for reviews. Not as popular as Dell because never sold in USA, but not worse clearly and many ppl complains about poor QA from Dell.

 

[Pookeyhead]

BenQ BL2411

I don't think you can buy it any more. Discontinued some time ago I think. Two versions though... there's one that ends in PT I think... that's still available, but used white LEDs and was narrow gamut instead of the CCFL backlit older version which was much better. If that's still around it's worth a look at, yes. Never actually used one myself though, and I genuinely only recommend what I've used... otherwise you're just taking other people's opinions into account, and some reviews are pretty terrible.

Hard Forums speak quite highly of it though... so that goes some way to convince me, as there are some very knowledgeable guys in there. It is around £250 as I recall though, so unless it's price has dropped it's out of the OP's budget range. Once you get past £250 to £300 then there are a whole host of options available... but sub £200... you're pretty limited, and the Dell U2412 is still the best bang for the buck.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Bring back 16:10 - there aren't enough of them around now .

A lot of monitors use 16:9 panels because they're cheaper and can be shared with a range of TVs of the same size. Even Eizo have jumped on this bandwagon. When this Eizo dies, I'll be going down the NEC Reference series route instead as they still produce 30" 16:10 high end stuff.

 

[Ozei]

A lot of monitors use 16:9 panels because they're cheaper and can be shared with a range of TVs of the same size. Even Eizo have jumped on this bandwagon. When this Eizo dies, I'll be going down the NEC Reference series route instead as they still produce 30" 16:10 high end stuff.

Yes, I noticed that Eizo don't have any 16:10 monitors any more - they're making a big mistake IMO. (n)

It seems strange that the Spectraview Reference 30 & 24-inch models are 16:10 but the 27-inch is 16:9 (link).

How many hours have you got on your 30-inch Eizo?

 

[dejongj]

I use the Spyder elite with primarily a dell 3008wfp. I really like that monitor.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes, I noticed that Eizo don't have any 16:10 monitors any more - they're making a big mistake IMO. (n)

It seems strange that the Spectraview Reference 30 & 24-inch models are 16:10 but the 27-inch is 16:9 (link).

How many hours have you got on your 30-inch Eizo?

Still a relative baby yet

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

Please don't assume all a screen has to be in order to be good, is IPS

If yours is actually faulty, it will be better than what you have perhaps. I've used other AOC screens before. A couple have been OK.... by which I mean OK.. not good, or great.. but OK... I've not actually used this one, but have used the 23" version. It barely achieves sRGB gamut, and needs the backlight set to almost 0 to set it to the accepted standard of 120cd/m2, which means that blacks are crushed together, so fine shadow detail will be terrible. Once calibrated, best it could manage was a 390:1 contrast ratio due to this. This all indicated that the panel and circuitry that drives it was designed for televisions, not monitors. A common ploy for Chinese manufacturers, as it saves money, and people who don't know any better think they have a nice computer monitor for a bargain price, when in reality they are getting a cheap 21" television, with half it's insides missing for a rather extortionate price. The one linked to above will be crap, and it's 23" sibling.... is crap.

There'll be tons of people out there who will tell you they're great... but they're just consumers who have no idea what a great monitor looks like so they just think it's great.. "oooh... it's as good as my tele" . There are also people out there who will tell you that a Citroen C1 is a great car. It is not a great car.... it's crap, and this is not a great monitor. It's crap. It will be OK for Mr Average to browse the web, watch iPlayer or do day to day stuff... but you seem to be a professional photographer (I think.. you mentioned clients so I'm assuming you are), so why are you messing about here? If you're that skint... then save some cash first instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel like this.

Because of all the above, there's a very real possibility it won't even calibrate, as I had trouble with the 23" version. The blacks are just too crushed when the back-lighting is reduced to a non-retina burning brightness, so you'll have wasted the money on your calibrator too.

Does that mean your monitor budget is £100?... or £200? If it's £100.. forget it. You may be able to buy one that's not faulty like the one you have now, but you'll not get a decent monitor for £100. It's difficult with £200. You'll get a perfectly OK monitor for £200.

Much less than £200 however, and all you'll be getting is a cheapo stop gap monitor. There's genuinely not much worth buying for this kind of money if you want an accurate, calibrated screen.

There's only really one sensible choice, and that's the Dell U2412. For less than £200 if you shop around, It's a proper 16:10 panel, not a 16:9 panel, calibrates well, and a great screen in every respect. Turn off dynamic contrast if you get one though... it's horrible, and anything "auto" should be OFF if you calibrate a sceen. The one thing that lets almost all monitors of this price range down though is the panels are nearly always 6bit +AFRC dithering... which basically means it isn't truly 24 million colours like a true 8 bit panel. You'll need to spend a great deal more to get a genuine 8bit panel and true 16 million colours however.

Ok.. before you run off to spend your money, are you familiar with the whole concept of working in a colour managed workflow? You OK with embedding colour profiles to images, and how to set up Photoshop correctly? You understand the limitations of digital images on non-colour profiled devices, and what the impacts of that are? Do you know how to best mitigate for this? Calibrating your screen is a good idea, but it doesn't mean everything you produce will be bomb-proof. You can still make all the rookie mistakes like embed Adobe RGB1998 because it's "better" and then wonder why your clients are saying the images look washed out on their TV.

BTW.. don't get the Spyder4 Express if you were thinking about it. Crap software, and only single display capable, and is only calibrates to D65 (6500K 0 2.2 gamma) which is fine right now.... as that's what you want, but later, you may want more flexibility. It also only generates ICC v2 profiles and isn't v4 capable. AGain... not an issue right now, but later computer OSs may well drop V2 as a standard, and you'll be left without any calibration.

Get the 4 Pro or higher... should still bes less than £100.

Sorry should have explained it better, budget is £200 just for the monitor, and £100 for the calibrator on top of that, so £300 all in. Thank you for your very detailed replies, I will take a look at the Dell U2412 and all the colour management workflow stuff, I am a real noob at all this

 

[Ozei]

Still a relative baby yet

3,307 hours - blimey, that's barely out of foetus stage , mine's coming up to 13,000.

I wonder what the average life of the panel is. (Eizo's warranty appears to be 5 years /30,000 hours for the body and 3 years /10,000 hours for the panel - link). I calibrate mine to 100cd/m2 so maybe the panel will last a bit longer than usual.

 

[boliston]

I guess a typical consumer monitor probably is on about 6 hours per day on average so 3307 hours would equate to a "ball park" age of about 18 months. (based on being used only evenings & weekends)

I "business" monitor almost certainly would be used for more hours per day on average, especially as a lot of employees are too lazy to switch them off when they leave.

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

just to update everyone, i took the plunge and got a Dell u2412m off Aria for just over £200, and got a X-Rite ColorMunki off ebay for less than £100. Very pleased with the "physical" qualities of the dell monitor and now my desk is a bit small for it

calibrated the dell monitor just now, however the white looks a bit grey to my eyes. is that because i have been looking at screens that were too bright previously or have i not done it right?