Monitors for Photography

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yv
  • Start date Start date
Yv

Yv

TPer Emerita
Suspended / Banned
Messages
25,725
Name
Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, sometime in the next few weeks I shall hopefully be getting a nice new desktop for my photographs and stuff, but I have a question about monitors, or more specifically, the actual screen. There seems to be two types, shiny and non-shiny or matt finish. Now then, the few times I have seen them in operation, the 'shiny' finish screens seem to have much more clarity, the colours have more 'pop', etc, so I had decided that was what I wanted - until last night, during a late night foray into tescos, where I couldn't resist having a wander round the electrical section. All their monitors were turned off and I noticed the shiny ones had major reflections, whilst the matt didnt - so, my question, are the shiny screens as bad when turned on for reflecting light sources, etc? I don't plan to have it opposite a window or main light source, but I do occasionally use a desk lamp at night, and of course there is the problem of the light shining on a white object that then reflects in the screen.... sorry, I know this might seem silly, but this will be the first time I have spent a substantial amount of money on computing [having always built my own or got s/h stuff], especially on a screen, so want to make sure I don't make any mistakes. :(

Thanks in advance

LLxx
 
Picking a monitor based on the colours having more "pop" is the wrong way to go about it. You want a monitor that will give the best colour reproduction, not the most saturated colours (great for games and office work tho!).

I don't like the glass fronted screens as the reflections, as you rightly thought, can be a pain to deal with - used to hate it with CRTs and forever worked in a darkened room as a result.
 
Thats what I was worried about. I plan to buy a calibration tool at the same time, so I am hoping the colour reproduction will be as accurate as possible. Give me a box full of computer bits and I can build a machine, but totally clueless about monitors - it was never a problem when all I did was office work, but now I find I have awful problems with screens in general looking the way I want, I see my own pics on three different screens and find myself quite shocked by the dramatic difference across the screens, so I just want ONE that is accurate :(
 
You can't get decent CRT's for love nor money anymore so it's TFT or nothing.

Basically you want a monitor fitted with IPS or S-IPS panels, so that's NEC, Apple or EIZO so you're looking at 450 quid upwards unfortunately, anything else is either PVA, MVA (not too bad) or TN panel which aren't much cop for photo editing.
 
paulpierce said:
However its not widescreen, but this isn't an issue for me.
Click to expand...

Don't be put off if it isn't widescreen. A non-widescreen can work well, especially if you use photoshop or lightroom it will give you more height to work with. That means less scrolling.

What ever screen you go for, I would suggest going for something at least 20". It just makes the fun of photo-editing that little bit more easier.
 
Wide screen wasn't an issue I must admit, I dont play games or watch much by way of movies/tv etc on my computer monitor, so standard format is fine by me.

I currently run using a laptop and plug that into a CRT when editing, but space is becoming an issue as I have moved a lot of my work from office office to home office, so it really does have to be a flat panel rather than a replacement CRT. My other half has what seems to be a very good 20" Dell flat screen atm, so also going to do some research into that and if it pushes the right buttons, the other option is to get a real cheap 17" unit and let him use that just for letter writing and usual office stuff and I will have the dell, but until I am in the office and can check what model it is, and its spec, thats just another option atm. Thanks again for the advice guys :thumbs:
 
:shake: OK, sorry guys, but can anyone put this into English for me? Its the spec of MR LL's office monitor, but I cannot makeout whether its good bad or indifferent, I only know its a couple of years old [so certainly not the latest technology] and everything always looks better on it than any other screen i own, but bearing in mind my other screens are tosh, that isnt necessarily any kind of benchmark :shrug:

http://support.euro.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/1901FP/en/specs.htm


I suppose the question is, is this a reasonable monitor to use for now until I can afford a really good one later in the year?
 
Not read the thread fully, but I would highly higly recommend the Dell 2405 or 2407. Extremely good monitors for the price.:thumbs:
 
Until I got my wide screen I had a Dell 19" monitor, It worked ( and still does ) fine.

If you buy beg or borrow a monitor calibrator that'll help.

Shinny screens, I've got one on my Compaq laptop, stay away from them for serious photographic work.

I don't know if Tesco's ( Only on the web site ) are still doing them but they had some Gateway monitors at really low prices. I got a 24" for £299. It will need a decent calibration as it is over bright, but it matches my Dell LCD and CRT monitor very closely.Real bargain
 
Ok, final questions, Slapo, you say a response time of 8m's - is that an optimum, or does it get better if that number is higher and worse of lower [or vice versa]??

Chappers - the Dell is looking like a viable option atm, it does need setting up better as dark areas are a bit too dark atm, but the clarity is so much better than my screens at home - several places have some real cheap 17" units, which could be used in the office, and then later in the year I could get one of these super dooper IPS screens, plus it also means I can spend a bit more now of the computer itself. A calibration tool is a must, Kerso is doing them at a very good price so I may well invest there too.

Now all I have to do is prise his wallet open, extract the credit card and....... :lol:
 
Well, last time I checked there were very few (if any) monitors that had a matrix other than TN that could do below 8 ms or that wouldn't use dithering, as they were 6-bit panels (they display less colours and try to fool human eyes), and the differences aren't really that apparent in most cases as far as 'ghosting' (afterglow) is concerned.
What you're more likely to notice with panels with a fast response (below 8 ms, either gray to gray or black to black) is that there's often banding in gradients they display when there should be none.
As have mentioned, they also tend to be able to display less colours, trying to save that with high values of static and dynamic contrast, which often pronounces the defects of the technology, especially with TN matrices.

That doesn't mean they're bad office monitors, they just suck for photos and artistic stuff a lot.

Also, pixel pitch is somewhat important. You're likely to notice that 20" have a pixel pitch of 0.255, which is the least of LCD monitors of sensible prices these days as far as I know. It results in the image looking smoother, which is particularly apparent when you view lines.

Last but not least, the price difference between a 17" and a 19" LCD monitor isn't really big now. I've had decent experience with Philips 190S7, which some of my friends have and while it's not very good for photos, it makes for a very good office monitor. The new 190S8 shouldn't be worse, but try to google some reviews if you don't find the 190S7 in stock anywhere. The 190B7 and 190P7 should have class I panels, meaning there shouldn't be any bad pixels in their matrices.

One warning: try to avoid widescreen LCDs, especially the cheap ones. They tend to have poor backlighting, with edges being of different brightness that the centre, their panels aren't usually that great either and I could see that last time I had the opportunity to look at one. It was either an Acer, a ViewSonic or a Philips, I can't remember now.
It gets better with bigger ones, e.g. a 24" HP monitor I saw was pretty good, but I could still see the imperfections.

Then again, I've been spoilt by Eizo ;)

Here's a brief user report on the Philips 190S8:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13813 (use ctrl+f to find it).

Philips 200P7ES is well rated, for photo work too, but it's a bit expensive. P is the 'professional' line of Philips' monitor line. S stands for Soho (small office, home office) and is the cheapest line (still better than most low end - middle ranking LCDs of other brands in my experience, though), B stands for Business, they come with zero dead pixel warranty like the P line-up (the 19" ones, that is).

Also, have a look at the list near the end of this page:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide-f2007_4.html#sect0

This article might be worth skim-reading:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide-f2007.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top