Help with Monitor for Photo Editing

<p>I know monitors for photo editing is an ongoing topic. What I am asking about is whether the Dell Ultrasharp 24" is a good photo editing monitor. Not the best but one that I can calibrate and use with Lightroom. Thanks so much.</p>

<p>It <em>might</em> be good enough for you. <br>

It's <strong>not</strong> good enough for me. That's why I use a SpectraView PA series. </p>

Helpful answer...

 

Dell makes great work horses. Which 24" are you considering?

<p>I'm with Andrew on this. The NEC PA272W rocks....and I wouldn't go to anything else. Sure, there might be more expensive units....</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Dave, ask Dell if they provide these features compared to SpectraView:</p>

<ol>

<li>Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's and most other's are not (sRGB like gamut) with the exception of the new iMac P3 displays. But SpectraView can emulate sRGB with a push of a button. The new P3 iMac cannot. Best of both worlds!</li>

<li>SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, many other's do not. These high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.</li>

<li>Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run far longer than CCFL.</li>

<li>SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty.</li>

<li>SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter).</li>

<li>SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compensation for operating time and temperature.</li>

<li>SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this.</li>

<li>SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: “<em>SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all of the necessary settings are made by the software“. </em>Apple and other's has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you have to pay for extra do this. This is an attribute built from the ground up in SpectraView to serve as a 'reference display system' ala Barco, PressView, Sony Artisan of the past.</li>

<li>SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration. The price you pay for software and colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly <strong>less</strong> than buying the hardware and software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.</li>

<li>SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration.</li>

<li>SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly, so it can simulate a non wide gamut display (sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)</li>

<li>SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, few others can provide this control over black. Real useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers).</li>

<li>SpectraView has Network support (Windows only).</li>

<li>SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake.</li>

<li>SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90 degrees for Portrait.</li>

<li>Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).</li>

</ol>

<p>You want a so called <em>'work horse</em>' (what ever that implies as a display feature; silly*) <strong>or</strong> a true, state of the art color reference display system. The above facts explain what that entails. As I said, that's why I have no issue spending money on one of the most critical pieces of equipment in the digital darkroom and one that can last many years.</p>

<p>*<em>The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to share it!</em> - The Digital Dog</p>

<p>Any Photo.net thread with a post from Andrew is a good thread, and so is this one, but it is also a very strange thread.</p>

<p>The OP wants to know if a Dell UltraSharp is good but not the best, and then several posts, including Andrew's, confirm that it is not the best. Meaning what, that the OP's plan is a good one? Or, a bad one? Not at all clear.</p>

<p>As the only one of the bunch here so far who has chosen an UltraSharp, let me say that it is (1) easily calibrated, (2) works with Lightroom, and (3) is not the best. It is also very reasonably priced, and, in my view (!) is a fine value that is clearly a cut above the more generic monitors, for those carefully monitoring (!) their budget. If it's in your price range and he others mentioned here aren't, then go with the UltraSharp and you'll be very happy.</p>

<p>With no doubt Dell Ultrasharp 24" can be used for photo editing. With assumed ips panel it should be generation ahead of first lcd monitors.</p>

<p>However some Ultrasharp 24" models have 6+ bit tones and some have genuine 8 bit tones. If budget allows I would search for 8 bit model. Some NECs with certain display adapters with certain software provide 10 bit tones.</p>

<p>The SpectraViews are all high bit (more than 8-bits per color). That takes place inside the panel itself and greatly reduces banding in anything but a specially built gradient designed for testing a full high bit display path (I can provide a link if anyone's interested). In terms of cables, it's true that this is necessary if and when one is attempting a full, high bit display path. A full, high bit display path involves the graphic card, the OS and the specific application; <strong>all</strong> must support high bit data. So you don't have to own a graphic card that's high bit to take advantage of massively reduced banding with a display like SpectraView where it's high bit internally. The advise about 6+ bit display is spot on, avoid them! You will likely see banding, even when editing high bit data where none should be visible (skies, a chrome bumper, those kinds of images).<br>

<strong>Any</strong> display can work with LR (even a grayscale display; I'd not recommend that <g>).<br>

<strong>Any</strong> display can be calibrated and profiled. Some better than others. The instrument and software play a role as well. <br>

No display I'm aware of falls into the Equine family nor is specified by the manufacture to do so <g></p>

<p>Yes, the Dell Ultrasharp is a good monitor although some will dismiss it as it is not a wide gamut monitor. Otherwise it works nicely and can be calibrated using Xrite etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP wants to know if a Dell UltraSharp is good but not the best, and then several posts, including Andrew's, confirm that it is not the best. Meaning what...? Not at all clear.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Blimey, it's really clear here. He's a troll laying his bait. And you took it. Now so have I ...</p>

<p>Ultrasharps are a great line of monitors. They calibrate nicely, can be found in 10-bit and RGB; depends on your budget. Over the years I've had two 24" U2410's and three 27" Ultrasharps. I still use two of them. It's been a great year 2016 and I might treat myself to a UP3214Q if the accountant (wife) lets me. <br>

<br>

99.99% of photographers send work to the net today and is displayed on peoples crapola phones and laptops. The other 0.01% send prints to an Epson or Costco and appreciate wysiwyg. An Ultrasharp is more than capable for either group. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> They calibrate nicely, can be found in 10-bit and RGB...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every display is RGB Eric. I believe you're missing something above (again). sRGB perhaps? <br>

<em>Calibrate nicely</em>? What does that mean Eric? Why not provide a useful metric in deltaE between reference and output, something easily done with a SpectraView. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>99.99% of photographers send work to the net today and is displayed on peoples crapola phones and laptops.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That figure is one you made up or you can provide proof of concept? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The other 0.01% send prints to an Epson or Costco and appreciate wysiwyg. An Ultrasharp is more than capable for either group.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That figure is made up or you can provide proof of concept? <br>

“<em>There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true</em>.” ― Søren Kierkegaard</p>

 

<p> </p>

<p>Is the Dell Ultra-Sharp 24" good enough for editing? That depends. If you are a professional whose livelihood depends upon customers accepting your work or an amateur who regularly submits work to contests for jury judging, possibly not.</p>

<p>I am neither. I have been using a Dell U2410 since 2010. I calibrate and profile using a Spyder 3. I edit in Photoshop, convert to Costco's profile, and have my images printed by Costco (I'm one of the 0.01% <grin>). My prints match the image on my screen. That's good enough for me.</p>

<p>Is the Ultra Sharp good enough? It is for me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Blimey, it's really clear here. He's a troll laying his bait. And you took it. Now so have I ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's Eric code for, <strong>facts</strong> were provided about the advantages of the display I recommended for myself (and other's who have the budget), so that makes me a troll laying bait. <br /> Meanwhile, examine Eric's text which includes made up stat's (unless he's going to back them up), the inability to understand basic color management (misunderstanding all such displays are RGB and his inability to define what flavor of RGB he's referring to) and his idea that Equines and displays are somehow related <g>.<br /> Someone <em>could</em> ask him if he's ever owned a professional color reference display system. Like the unit's I've owned over the course of 20 years; <em>Barco Reference V,</em> several <em>Radius PressViews, Sony Artisan</em> and several <em>SpectraViews</em>.Someone <em>could</em> ask Eric if he's owned <strong>every</strong> Dell in the <em>Ultrasharps</em> line which he states are " <em>all</em> <em>great</em>". <br /> Brooks post, unlike Eric's, provides IMHO, some sensible advise for those on a budget and what they can expect. My text is factual for those that may not know why it <em>may</em> be justifiable to raise their budget <em>if</em> possible.<br /> Eric's posts are nearly all filled with misinformation and, the troll-like text. I'd hope and expect that's obvious to everyone <strong>but</strong> Eric.<br /><br /></p>

<p>What do you do with your edited photos?<br />If you post them online, email them, or download them to a tablet, that monitor should be fine.<br />If you print occasionally, via a service shop or a "consumer" level inkjet printer at home, that monitor should be fine.<br />If you print on quality papers through a high-quality printer (yours or a high-level service like Bayphoto.com), then you should get a NEC PA or Eizo CX/CG monitor. You could get by with the Dell if you are willing to make photo editing for print quite labor intensive and are willing to study the details of the method -- but those are big if's.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Andrew Rodney,<br />I current,y have a Late 2012 21" iMac with a NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 512 MB Video card on board.<br>

I would like to eventually up the level of the Color Management in my workflow a notch with a better display and was wondering if I'd be wasting the capabilities of the SpectraViewPA 27" monitor with any limitations my current iMac Video card, and the Mac OS, as you pointed out, might impose on the output to the Monitor?<br /><br /><br>

I rarely have had problems matching output, but my work is getting more complex and sophisticated, and I'm also doing more work for commercial clients and want the best output from the best workflow setup I can afford.<br /><br />Thanks, I know i'm piggybacking to the OP, but I greatly honor your opinions.<br /><br />John Thurston</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to eventually up the level of the Color Management in my workflow a notch with a better display and was wondering if I'd be wasting the capabilities of the SpectraViewPA 27" monitor with any limitations my current iMac Video card, and the Mac OS, as you pointed out, might impose on the output to the Monitor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a word no. I'm driving a PA272W from a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Early 2013), no issues. You DO want to hook up this unit via a "<em>Thunderbolt</em>" (DisplayPort) cable which is supplied in the box. My MBP uses the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB but I've driven TWO such displays from it. So I don't see any reason why you can't drive at least one at max resolution IF you desire. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone. Interesting but not particularly helpful in terms of my original query.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting but not particularly helpful in terms of my original query.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, only you can decide what is both an appropriate budget and what you'll be happy with. <br>

You asked: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I am asking about is whether the Dell Ultrasharp 24" is a good photo editing monitor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For some of us, <strong>no</strong>. For example Purity control over the display is critical to me when editing photo's. For some of us, having the ability to calibrate a display to different aim points, based on the output which differs, then being able to load both the calibration and profile on the fly (which requires electronics inside the display and matted software) is necessary. <br>

Buy your Dell. Build a full screen image that's totally neutral gray (Lstar 50 for example). View in in Photoshop in full screen mode; no palettes, no menus. Does it appear neutral everywhere? Maybe Eric can tell you this based on every Ultra-Sharp in the line but don't hold your breath on that one <g>. <br>

Here's another way you can test the qualities of the display and it's calibration based on how well it renders black:<br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/20Testing%20your%20display.pdf</p>

<p>Andrew: How do you do it with a PA242W? (16. Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).)</p>

<p>Dave DeJoy,<br>

With the clear premise that it is indeed not the best, but a lot cheaper than a NEC monitor, I can state that I've been pleased so far with my Dell UltraSharp U2412M. It is calibrated with a Spyder 4 Pro, which again isn't best and has issues with wide gamut, which the Dell isn't.</p>

<p>While Andrew is right is his assessments, it's worth noting that for many of us - non-professionals with a decent printer and a bidget to respect - getting things 100% calibrated end to end is a tad costly, and not always strictly necessary. Would I prefer to have it 100% correct? Sure, and I'd follow the advice given here. But at this moment, i cannot justify the spending, and my prints do turn out awfully close to my screen, so I'm quite confident I have a set-up that is workable <em>for my needs</em>.</p>

<p>In my view, on a more limited budgets, the Dells are a good choice, as long as you are aware of its limitations.</p>

<p>I'd get one and see. I am prepared to bet that you will find it completely satisfactory. Do you have a 50MP camera, and do you only shoot with Zeiss Otus lenses on a tripod? If not, then I try one and see. The analogy does not exactly hold, but it may give you the idea of how the Ultrasharp relates to a wide-gamut monitor.</p>

<p>Yes David, a lot of noise from our resident hater that has no Dell experience. But several people have been helpful and put in a good effort though.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is the Dell Ultra-Sharp 24" good enough for editing? That depends. If you are a professional whose livelihood depends upon customers accepting your work or an amateur who regularly submits work to contests for jury judging, possibly not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooks, in what particular circumstances would a client opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell or a $1200 NEC? If a NEC makes a difference over a Dell with your Epson printing, I don't think the better NEC monitor is a solution. And if you're like Andrew and only using a NEC to embed jpgs into pdfs for web documents on colour management, an NEC is a nice luxury but it is unnecessary. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes David, a lot of noise from our resident hater that has no Dell experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually that's a false statement, another you've pulled out of your rear. And from one who's got no experience with reference displays, or knows how to define the color space and gamut of a display and would like us to believe he's tested and used the <strong>entire</strong> line of Ultra-Sharps. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Brooks, in what particular circumstances would a client opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell or a $1200 NEC?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooks could ask you, someone with no experience with the NEC the same question. It's pointless if he does. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you're like Andrew and only using a NEC to embed jpgs into pdfs for web documents on colour management, an NEC is a nice luxury but it is unnecessary.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The narrower the mind, the broader the statement. Mistaken again, text that's assumptions without fact. <br>

Don't you ever get tired of posting text, few ever take seriously, especially being called out for statements you can't backup (<em>99.99% of photographers send work to the net today and is displayed on peoples crapola phones and laptops. The other 0.01% send prints to an Epson or Costco and appreciate wysiwyg</em>)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew: How do you do it with a PA242W? (16. Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't. The idea is to view two different video sources as outlined on page 14 of the Mulitprofiler manual:</p>

 

 

 

<p>The PIP panel controls the settings for the Picture- In-Picture feature on the monitor. <br>

The PIP window feature allows: <br>

• Two different video inputs to be viewed simultaneously. For example, if you have two PCs connected to the monitor, you can view the video from both at the same time. <br>

• Two different Picture Modes to be viewed simultaneously with either the same or different video inputs. For example, if you want to view and compare the current screen image as if it were displayed on an sRGB gamut monitor. <br>

• A Color Vision Emulation to be applied. This is useful for viewing how the screen image will be perceived by someone with a color vision de ciency. </p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone ever wonder how photographers managed to make great photographs before all this monitor calibration technic geek bs?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Polaroids. </p>