I fancy an external monitor for photo editing - suggestions

mickledore

mickledore

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,372
Edit My Images
Yes
I've only got a 15" laptop and fancy something like a 24" external monitor for photo editing. No gaming or video/TV watching. There seems to be too much choice out there. Has anyone any particular recommendations?
 
Try a forum search, this has been asked endless times, the answer should become apparent.
 
I have done, and nothing is apparent; hence the question.
Maybe I've searched incorrectly in which case I'd be grateful if you could use your expertise to show me a couple of links.
 
Type in Dell U2413 u2412 into your search ;)
 
Dell Super sharp IPS monitors are in my opinion the best for the money. the support stand is one of the best and easy to adjust. Contrary to what others say I find you can throw colour calibration kits out the window with these monitors they are that good
A pal of mine came some time ago about photography and looked at my IPS monitor and just couldn't believe how good it was, so decided to get one for himself for his professional use.

This link might explain better


Check them out on youtube
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Contrary to what others say I find you can throw colour calibration kits out the window with these monitors they are that good
Click to expand...
No you can't. I have 3 on my desk (2 x U2410s and a U2711) and out of the box, on their factory calibrated settings (i.e. the individual one supposedly done on the screens individually at factory) they all looked different to each other. Now they are profiled and calibrated, they look pretty much the same (the 2410s are for all intents the same, the 2711 has a slightly different shade of deep red which is due to slight gamut differences).
 
realspeed said:
Contrary to what others say I find you can throw colour calibration kits out the window with these monitors they are that good
Click to expand...

I have to say i think thats not the best advice to give, monitors are great out of the box but if he's printing stuff then itll more than likely look different.

if you get a new monitor then i'd definitely buy/borrow a calibrator to get the colours set up properly.

It'll save money if you (as i did) get a load of prints done only to find that they're completely different to what you see on screen.
 
Maybe the above need to do calibration due to having a poor graphics card or even relying on the motherboard one. I have a 1gb MSI 560 TiOC twin frozen40nm,4200mhz GDDR5 880mhz shader 1760mhz 384 core in my computer. Cost around £170 for those interested.
Absolutely useless getting a good monitor without a decent "engine" to drive it


What people forget is that a computer screen is backlite and hard copies arn't, so there is bound to be a slight difference
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Maybe the above need to do calibration due to having a poor graphics card or even relying on the motherboard one. I have a 1gb MSI 560 TiOC twin frozen40nm,4200mhz GDDR5 880mhz shader 1760mhz 384 core in my computer. Cost around £170 for those interested.
Absolutely useless getting a good monitor without a decent "engine" to drive it


What people forget is that a computer screen is backlite and hard copies arn't, so there is bound to be a slight difference
Click to expand...


it hasnt really got anything to do with the graphics card though, as all that does is render the actual view on screen.
The colour space is not set for a specific purpose they are set to be an average over all uses which is why they are often too bright / too contrasty etc.
my pc has on board graphics and the prints are literally identical to the calibrated monitor.

not trying to start an argument bazza, just pointing out that calibration is key if you want the colours to be accurate.
 
realspeed said:
Maybe the above need to do calibration due to having a poor graphics card or even relying on the motherboard one. I have a 1gb MSI 560 TiOC twin frozen40nm,4200mhz GDDR5 880mhz shader 1760mhz 384 core in my computer. Cost around £170 for those interested.
Absolutely useless getting a good monitor without a decent "engine" to drive it


What people forget is that a computer screen is backlite and hard copies arn't, so there is bound to be a slight difference
Click to expand...
Yeah okay a 7850 is poor. The gpu has very little to do with colour accuracy.

Sorry to sound harsh but we've had this argument before please stop spreading this mis-Information. Its misleading.
 
realspeed said:
Maybe the above need to do calibration due to having a poor graphics card or even relying on the motherboard one.
Click to expand...
Bazza please... stop. This is misinformation and is worse than saying nothing... The performance of the GPU has NOTHING to do with the monitor colour output with a modern monitor. A monitor connected digitally will provide EXACTLY the same colour whether fed those values from onboard or the highest end, most expensive graphics card you could lay your hands on. Quality of components on the board is only relevant to display performance if you are connecting by 15 pin D-sub not via HDMI, Display Port or DVI (in case anyone should pull me up on this, there is a DVI analogue mode - DVI-A, but it is only for backwards compatibility and NOT used on the Dell monitors).
 
I use one of the LG IPS monitors and it is excellent for the money, half the price of the Dell when I bought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top