Monitor

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Contact:

Monitor

Post by Smokedaddy »

Unfortunately my old Viewsonic monitor is on the blink, so it's time to purchased a monitor. Any suggestions for those in the know? Looking for something for photo editing of course, Photoshop and I'm on a Windows O/S. I'd say a 24" would be minimum.

Deanimator
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: Rocky River, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

I really don't have a specific brand recommendation since I just bought what I could afford.

What I do reccomend is getting two monitors, if your PC has the outputs. It makes things much more convenient.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Deanimator wrote:I really don't have a specific brand recommendation since I just bought what I could afford.

What I do reccomend is getting two monitors, if your PC has the outputs. It makes things much more convenient.
I have always bought Samsung monitors for last 20 years but I've been very happy with my 30" ASUS 2k (2560x1440) monitor. I bought it a year ago and it was pretty cheap.

If I were to need to buy another monitor I'd personally stick with the 30-32" range as it's the biggest I can fit on my desktop, and I'd go with 2K again. Stuff on screen is really small with 4K. Icons and print are hard to see from my normal viewing distance, and images look "better" on 4K because they are effectively downsized.

I would like to be able to view bigger images on-screen though, so who knows, I may go for a 4K next time.

In Samsung for 2K, I'd get this one:

https://www.frys.com/product/9653723?si ... IN_RSLT_PG

And for 4K, I'd get this one:

https://www.frys.com/product/9594052?si ... IN_RSLT_PG

If you want colors to be accurate you'll need to do some calibration work on anything you buy

rolsen
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 1:21 am
Location: Finland

Post by rolsen »

If money isn't tight, I'd recommend to check out the Dell UltraSharp UP2716D, 27" monitor, Adobe RGB, 2560x1440, factory calibrated. I'm very happy with mine, this is my second UltraSharp Dell 27", I had earlier version before.
- Rane

Lou Jost
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

My vote is for the one with the largest color gamut you can afford. It makes a huge difference.

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

I've been using dual monitors for quite a few years and I always purchased NEC monitors. When those died I went with dual ViewSonic monitors and only because I got them from work free. NEC's are out of my budget nowadays.

iconoclastica
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:34 pm
Location: Wageningen, Gelderland

Post by iconoclastica »

When I had to buy a new monitor, Eizos were the only wide gamut ones that truely could display 8 bit colour channel depth. Other monitors available then were realy more like 6 bit. Of course, a lot has changed since. Even second hand the Eizo was more expensive than a new ordinary monitor. But given I have had it for ten years now and I am still satisfied with it, the price per year hasn't been bad at all.

The second monitor is just a cheapy, for non-critical work, poorly colour managed, and in portrait orientation. Ideal for reading mail and pdf, but not this forum :(
--- felix filicis ---

Lou Jost
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I have had several Eizos and they are indeed excellent and worth the price. I like the ones that automatically profile themselves periodically. A little sensor pops up (on a pre-arranged schedule) and the monitor goes through its paces and keeps its color accuracy. My very old Lenovo laptop also does this, though sadly that is a hard feature to find on laptops.

mawyatt
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

The Apple 5K iMac computers have 27" monitors that look really good. Last year I took one of my high resolution chips images on a USB drive and displayed it at the Apple Store on the 5K iMac...WOW!! Don't know what the specs are, but they certainly "look" good.

Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike

Lou Jost
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Seeing a good image on a really good monitor is a real pleasure. Sadly good monitors are rare, and it is often frustrating to work up a great image on a great monitor, and then send it to someone else with an average monitor where it might look poor. Profiling your monitors (and gently reminding others to profile theirs) helps lessen the effect of monitor differences.

mawyatt
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

Lou,

Agree, I have a X-Rite ColorMunki and Datacolor Spyder I use on my older Apple 27" Thunderbolt Monitior and 2 Dell 4K 27" monitors.

Nasim Mansurov really likes the iMac 5K monitors, and he's quite picky when it comes to monitors.

Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Sadly, jpg is the great equalizer.

mawyatt
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

ray_parkhurst wrote:Sadly, jpg is the great equalizer.
Yes it is. That's why I use 16 bit TIFF with serious work and when making viewing comparisons.

Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21397
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I'm currently running with two side-by-side Dell P2415Q monitors, 3840x2160 pixels each. That's a total desktop of 7680x2160 pixels, physically about 42" side-to-side.

The actual pixel density is 185 pixels per inch. But I have Windows set to 175% scaling which is 168 pixels per inch, because I like text a little smaller than Windows default.

Almost all programs gracefully handle the high DPI and fractional scaling. I have a couple of old programs that show painfully small text, but they are very old and I don't use them enough to matter.

The pixels are too small to see individually, which I find very pleasant after decades of looking at the dang things.

When I want to see individual pixels in images, I just scale at 200%, 400%, 600%, whatever is necessary for the situation at hand.

I don't bother to color balance my monitors. My work area is sometimes illuminated by daylight, sometimes fluorescent, often mixed. It's especially interesting today because there are scattered clouds that sometimes block direct sun, sometimes not. With such a changing environment, it makes little difference exactly what colors the monitor is putting out, because the monitor's "white" would seldom match a white card anyway. To get accurate white balancing in my image files, I check that the RGB peaks are aligned in the histogram. For color matching two images, I put both images on the same screen at the same time.
Nasim Mansurov really likes the iMac 5K monitors
Me too. It was purchasing a 27" 5K iMac that prompted me to upgrade all my other monitors.

--Rik

Lou Jost
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I don't bother to color balance my monitors.
Rik, do you mean that you don't bother to calibrate or profile your monitor? Or are you just referring to the pre-sets for color temperature?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic