24" Dell 2405FPW or 20" Apple Cinema Display for new G5?

Hi

 

I'm about to buy one of the new 2.3Ghz G5 Powermacs. My intention is to use it solely for

Photoshop work. I'll be correcting high resolution Imacon scans which will then be printed

on an Epson 2400.

 

I now need to choose a monitor.

 

My budget is 600 British pounds (about 1,000 US dollars). That will buy me a 20" Apple

Cinema Display (549 pounds). It looked tiny in the Apple store sat next to the 23" and a

30" displays, but I guess it'll feel

bigger when I get it home. (I'm currently working on a 17" eMac, which is very slow, and

the screen is way too small.)

 

The 23" Apple Cinema Display, at 950 British pounds, is way out of my budget, but I've

just come across the 24" Dell 2405FPW which can be had for little more than the

20" Cinema Display - 603 pounds from dell.co.uk.

 

It seems to be a well-liked monitor, but is it suitable for the demands of a photographer?

 

(I'll be calibrating the monitor with Basiccolor Display software and the Basiccolor Squid.)

 

Of course, the 24" Dell doesn't look as cool as the 20" Apple, but I think I would be

prepared to sacrifice looks for more screen real-estate. Also I'm intrigued by the option to

rotate

the screen 90 degrees (it seems that this feature

is supported in Tiger).

 

Most of my images are shot in 'portrait' format, so a vertical screen would seem logical.

Does anyone have experience of working like this in Photoshop? Is it useful, or is it a

gimmick? (I would have the screen in normal orientation when I wanted to balance two

images, side-by-side, for my portfolio.)

 

The only negative comments I've found so far about the Dell are that it is maybe too

bright, that it sometimes emits a high-pitched whine, and that it isn't as pretty as the

Apple.

 

Which would you choose?

 

Thanks

 

Elliot

Before buying the soon-to-be-obsolete Powermac G5 what with the Intels coming in a year,

I'd get a 20" iMac G5. Big win in the bang for the buck department, and easy enough to resell

and recoup much of your money when it's time to get the Powermac P4. And I bet the loss

you'd take selling the iMac in a year would be easily offset by how much those 24" monitors

will drop in price in the same time frame.

 

- Robert

I like Robert's proposal - makes a lot of sense for the short-term.

 

I have both the Dell 2405 and ACD 23" - connected to a Dual 2GHz G5. I like the Dell for it's

features and punch. I use it most of the time. But I still drag images over to the ACD for final

levels. The Dell is too bright, even set to 0 and calibrating with a Gretag Eye-One.

 

If you decide on the Dell, be sure and seek out the coupon that lets you get it for US$779. But

really, at this point in time, I'd get the iMac G5 and follow Robert's plan.

I have the Dell and love it. I like the built in card reader as well. COlors are spot on with Monaco Optix XR and I love all the real estate. It is bright but that hasn't caused me any problems.

I should add that the other part of your question, I have a 20" Viewsonic 1600x1200 and it

rotates nicely in Tiger when used with a Mini. Definitely a worthwhile feature. It doesn't work

in portrait mode with my Powerbook though, perhaps understandable.

I wonder how soon the powermacs will really go over to intel as they now are releasing the dual core powermacs. Still, the iMac is a great deal right now especially the latest round, a bit more powerful cpu, slightly faster bus, faster memory, faster vid card with PCI X which will basically just help your 3D and I imagine games? Plus the monitor is fab. I'm bias to the iMac since that's what I'm using (revb). With the monitor calibrated with Spyder2 Pro, its spot on. And it runs PS really smoothly.

Thanks for the comments.

 

Re. the suggestion of buying an iMac - I should have mentioned that the scans I'm getting

off the Imacon are 3200ppi 16bit scans of 6x9 negs. They start off as 400Mb tiffs but

mushroom to about 800Mb when layers are added in Photoshop. If I max out the RAM on

the 20" iMac to 2.5Gb it will cost me 2,000 British pounds. The 2.3Ghz G5 with 2.5Gb of

RAM is cheaper at 1,960 pounds. (Of course, I then have to add a decent monitor.)

 

I'm hoping the G5 will last me at least 3 years. My files won't get bigger - they'll get

smaller as I start to shoot digital. But I do take the point, which I hadn't really considered

before, that once the MacTels come out, my G5 will lose most of it's value.

 

I like the sound of the Dell 2405FPW monitor, but I'm worried about it's brightness. I'm

used to working in Photoshop in a room with the main lights switched off. Beside my

Epson 2400 I have one of these

daylight lamps to assess prints - http://uk.daylightcompany.com/product.plm/21/46

 

The lamp is quite bright - too bright really to match prints to my rather dim eMac monitor.

But maybe not bright enough to illuminate the prints sufficiently to match the Dell

monitor.

 

There again, won't my calibration software (Basiccolor) be able to dim the Dell to whatever

output levels (cd/m) I specify?

 

Thanks for the tips

 

Elliot

First, everyone needs to know one rule when buying from Apple: Don't Buy Their Memory!

 

Go to crucial.com or somewhere else to get memory and you won't pay anything like the

prices Apple charges, and you'll enjoy a lifetime warranty on good third party memory.

 

Second, do you need to do all your processing at the 400 megabyte level? First step I'd do

would be to get in the ballpark of my target resolution rather than try to juggle all those bits.

I say buy the G5, the "Pro" Apple Intels won't be out till 2007. The G5 processor is no joke

and will be around for awhile. Alot of Apple apps are built to use Altivec. Can't go wrong

with Dual cpu or dual core G5. I am thinking about getting a used Dual CPU G5 early next

year. G5 will be around for a while for a few reasons, New apps for the Intel based Macs

will need to written in Xcode so G5 support will be there, current Apple apps run on G5 a

lot of resources went into writing those apps, Dual Core PPC is powerful for what it does.

I will avoid an iMac G5 a Powermac G5 is in the budget.

As far as Monitor goes here is a good link Dell vs Apple

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400

<I>There again, won't my calibration software (Basiccolor) be able to dim the Dell to

whatever output levels (cd/m) I specify?</I><P>

 

It probably will, but by reducing the dynamic range of your color map, as opposed to

reducing the output of the backlight. A little is OK, a lot is not.

Hi Brad. Thanks for your comments.

 

But could you expand a bit more on this:

 

' I like the Dell for it's features and punch. I use it most of the time. But I still drag images

over to the ACD for final levels.'

 

I don't really understand why you wouldn''t do all your Photoshop work on the ACD. I

mean, if the ACD calibrates better, why would you want to adjust your images on the Dell?

 

Thanks

The ACD has some issues of its own. Pink around the edges - and not having a very good

white. This is the first generation (plastic-rimmed) ACD, the newer aluminum wrapped

versions might be better - don't know.

 

The Dell, being really bright is a pleasure to use - on everything from photoshopping, to

writing software, to surfing the web, to watching movies. So, I use it 90% of the time,

even in ps. But before I save any image files I look at them on the ACD and usually do a

levels tweak. Also, it's nice having all that space for running multiple apps.

 

In spite of it being too bright I still like using it - especially at $779. Having a USB hub

and CF reader is nice as well.

'Second, do you need to do all your processing at the 400 megabyte level? First step I'd do

would be to get in the ballpark of my target resolution rather than try to juggle all those

bits.'

 

Hmmm, good point. Two of my friends have much more experience with working with

Imacon scans than I do. One shares your opinion, and argues that it's crazy to be working

with images at such a high resolution when they're primary destination is an 11"x14"

portfolio (my current project). The other has just had an solo exhibition of very large

Lambda prints, and says that whilst his images were originally scanned for magazine/

portfolio use, he's very glad that all his Photoshop work was done with scans done at the

Imacon's maximum resolution

- he does a LOT of Photoshop work on his images and recreating it, after the fact, on fresh

scans would have been difficult. Anyway, the next scanning project I'll be working

on is hopefully destined for a gallery, so I need a computer that can handle big files....

 

Re. my 11x14 portrait portfolio... I've just cut out a piece of mountboard to get an idea of

the

Dell's screen size. Something like 12.7" x 20.3", right? Wow, that's big! That means that if I

flip the screen to portrait mode, I'll be able to view the images life-

size (11x14). Amazing! (And there's room for the Photoshop palettes above or below the

image.)

About editing large files. This is what I do, and it seems to work well. Scan at full

resolution. save a master copy. then I resize that master copy to a smaller, more

manageable file and save that as a seperate file. do all my edits in the form of adjustment

layers on the smaller file. maybe make a a couple of masks. once i'm done editing, I resize

the smaller edit file back to the original size of the scan and drag all my adjustment layers

over to the master file. they line up perfectly on top of the master file, and it looks just like

the smaller edit file, without the processing time.

i want that 2405 soooo bad! Brad, you keep making me drool...

"The ACD has some issues of its own. Pink around the edges - and not having a very good

white. This is the first generation (plastic-rimmed) ACD, the newer aluminum wrapped

versions might be better - don't know."

 

The aluminum version is worse, much worse. Startlingly magenta, and with the added

bonus of a muddy yellow band down each side. Nice.

Brady..Thanx that's great.

I have been thinking long and hard about getting a Dell 2405FPW as well and we're going to have to make our minds up soon as the 30% discount offer ends today!

<p>

I found this small group review featuring the Dell 2405:

<p>

<a href="http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050706/index.html">http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050706/index.html</a>

<p>

and this one featuring the Apple 23" Cinema display:

<p>

<a href="http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050830/index.html">http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050830/index.html</a>

<p>

Neither of them gets a particularly stellar review (which surprised me for the Apple as so many people here swear by them), but the price today (for the Dell) is *very* tempting...

<p>

Let us know what route you choose and how it works out.

Yes, the 30 percent discount offer ends today!

 

I've decided to give the Dell a spin, and I've just ordered one for 600 British Pounds (that's

with the discount - us Brits always have to pay more!)

 

Dell have a 7 day returns policy, here in the UK, so I have a week to test out the display

and see if is suitable for my needs.

 

My main concern is the brightness of the display.

 

I couldn't care less about ISO proofing standards - who want's to work in the dark!? - but

it is important to me that I can place an Epson 2400 print in my viewing area, and get a

good match with what I see on screen. My eMac, which calibrates at about 115 cd/m2, is

too dim to get a good match. I fear that the Dell will be too bright. Let's see...

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

Ellliot

 

(Brady, I had already figured out that workflow - it helps a bit, but adjustment layers and

masks are not particularly taxing to my under-powered computer, even with a huge file.

It's features like the healing brush, rotation, usm, resizing, saving etc that my computer

struggles with (e.g. 10 seconds to spot a tiny speck with the healing brush), and all of

these things need to be done on the master file.)

Steve, I wouldn't put too much stock into Tom'shardware when it comes to evaluating

photography related equipment. All the stuff they like has pretty much nothing to do with

how a professional or serious user is going to use such a monitor. He sounds shocked that

you have to use a 3rd party calibrator. Well, you basically are going to have a fair struggle if

you don't fine tune calibration on your monitor and you really need a spyder type set up to

do it. All they look at is speed and bells and whistles. They are great to tell you the fastest

vid for gaming and the fastest processor for err gaming.

Well I take your point Barry, but at least the Tom's reviews do actually mention photographic use! Most reviews just seem to concentrate on videos or gaming - 'wow! look at the contrast on this thing' or 'how could you miss with a bezel as stylish as that' :)

 

I decided I would wait as I don't have the budget for it right now. I found that Scan computers (in the UK) sell the Dell at about 25% off list on a regular basis, so missing the 30% isn't such a big deal. Although the Dell price has gone back up to GBP 942 today, I reckon they'll lower their list price before too long as right now it's head-to-head against the Apple (pricewise) which is perceived to be a better monitor.

Have a look at this side-by-side review of the two:

 

<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400">Anandtech Review</a>

I just hooked up the 20" Dell 2005FPW, calibrated it with Coloreyes (updated Basiccolor) &

it is very similar to my 20" Apple cinema screen. Without proper calibration, its MUCH to

bright. For the discounted cost, its unbeatable, to the point that I just ordered the 24"

too. I will admit to doing my photoshop work on a Lacie crt though, as I still find it to

provide better shadow information and smoother gradations than any of my flat panels.

Perhaps the Lacie 312 or Eizo is needed for critical colour work, IMHO.