Monitor

Hello

 

I have a Monitor that came with my pc ( gateway from best buy) and it is not impressive at all n terms of quality, further it has been giving

me problem. Are there any monitors that you guys can recommend that would go with pretty much any PC? I d like a monitor that i could

calibrate, or hopefully come calibrated and stay that way ( is that possible?).

 

I do a lot of scanning and after i edit my photos they turn out completely different on other monitors...

also while i am at it, is there anything you can do to the photos in photoshop that would make the picture more stanle across different

monitors? Nowadays people use different monitors with really varying brightness and quality, so i wonder how come some pictures look

just about the same across all of them ( say professional photos on websites) while mine change so dramatically...

 

 

I apologize for the naive questions... I was mainly a film guy and did not worry about this stuff before...

 

 

Thanks a lot

 

JK

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I do mainly B&W (occasional colors too), and that I am not techy at all, and prefer to use

something that does mot need constant investment/ calibration, and here are the characteristics of my current monitor:

 

Widescreen 1440 * 900 resolution

 

720p hd- ready

19" screen

<p>I've never understood what is almost an obsession for calibrating monitors.<br>

No matter how carefully you calibrate YOUR monitor, then on other peoples, unless they too are properly calibrated, it will appear different as you say.<br>

What seems ten times more important to me is to calibrate your setup (screen and printer) so that prints come out looking exactly the same as the screen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is there anything you can do to the photos in photoshop that would make the picture more stanle across different monitors?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Most people do not have calibrated screens, so there is not much you can do about it, apart from delivering the best you can (which you'll do if your screen is calibrated).<br>

Note that calibration does not need a constant involvement; you do it on a regular interval, and the process is really easy. I'm using a Spyder 2 Express, calibrate monthly - so once a month, I have to hook up the device and click a wizard some 6 times - and that's it. You can use these devices on any screen - so a monitor does not need any specific features to be compatible with calibration. The investment is one time, buying the calibration tool (Spyder, Huey, X-Rite are the most common ones).<br>

With regards to replacing your monitor: the connectors for monitors are standard, so any monitor would work. The first thing to know is your budget, how large you want the screen to be and if you have a minimal resolution you want/need. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to give you an advice.</p>

<p>___<br>

Chris,<br>

Calibrating your own monitor ensures you're looking at quite reliable colours, while editing and while judging what to send out to the world. That this reliability does not carry forwards, doesn't mean it is a good idea to start off with unreliable data. A bit like "<em>Ah, I'll just tell you some random lies, because you'll mistake quoting me anyway</em>"... not a very sound approach, in my view.<br>

Aside that, the performance of my screen after calibration is a lot better also in terms of clarity (especially dark areas show more details). So it's not a silly obsession that only would make sense if you print.</p>

<p>Hi JK, well firstly even if you did buy a super duper monitor I believe that you would have even more discrepancy between between your images on screen and others. reason being, your monitor is much better. Images appearing differently on other peoples' screens is just a matter of fact - but since you have a rotten monitor as you say, then this problem is accentuated I suppose. As for making an image more 'stable' across other platforms this is absolutely not really possible. Unless the other viewer has photoshop and can view your image in the same ICC profile as you edited in on your photoshop, then consistency is not really possible. You asked if a monitor stays calibrated, no, it takes a little time, but the monitor gradually loses brightness and colours alter slightly as do tonal appearances. This is also a way of life and for serious editing can be stabilized through regular calibration. The idea being that calibration produces absolute consistency on your screen all the year around. Calibration does not insure that what you see on your screen you get on the printer, though this is a natural consequence when factors such as viewing conditions and colour management policies are correctly assigned. I can not recommend monitors sorry. Lastly, are you viewing your images on screen only? Or have you printed some out? If the latter what is the situation - are they satisfactory?<br>

<br /> Oh and Chris Letts - Hi there, most of us are not obsessed with calibration, it's just a tool that helps us save paper and time and gives us insurance that as we edit we are going to get a good print. And those that are obsessed I give my thanks and appreciation because without their obsession we could not learn from them and we are spared days of infuriating investigations into the whats wheres and whys.</p>

<p>other Chris (!) -<em> we are going to get a good print</em> - that's exactly it - and you said yourself - just calibrating the monitor won't necessarily give you a good print - you have to 'calibrate' the printer too (which might mean using calibration software, or by 'trial and error' making adjustment to the printer setup). A lot of postings refer only to monitor calibration, which I still say is less important. I think we roughly agree really !</p>

<p>I think monitor calibration is by far the most important if you want to print what you see. It is correct that you cannot make all your images appear the same on everyone else's monitor but this is less important. The printer-supplied ICC profiles and a bit of trial and error on the PS or Lightroom settings will make your prints match nicely, but you can't do that if your monitor is not calibrated.</p>

<p>I hope that J K is not put off, I hope that he can pick up the tips from this discussion. Chris Letts, calibrating your printer? I hope that you mean by this that you acquire custom profiles for each individual paper. Personally I find that downloading the generic ICC profile for a particular paper is more than sufficient and of course no money is spent. This is by far more than enough for most semi-professional photographers. You know the important issue is always when somebody else looks at the image, when they see it for the first time they invariably think it is Perfect. I make a habit of no comparing my print with the screen UNTIL I have seen the printed version. If I like the print version and go back and see a tone or a colour slightly shifted then I do not mind. It is when we get so hung up on screen print compatibility that the pleasure of the print dies. There is no need for utter compatibility really, after all, there is absolutely nothing in the darkroom that we can compare a print to except our imagination about how it should look; and it is impossible to compare a darkroom print with anything except personal taste and aesthetics. That is the disadvantage of Computer digital photography, we can be enslaved to comparison as opposed to just looking at the print and asking others if they like it and whether we like it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never understood what is almost an obsession for calibrating monitors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WYSIWYG? Works for lots of people who would rather not have to make multiple prints which is kind of expensive. <br>

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/software-tips-and-techniques/9785</p>

Thank you all for your responses. Well My obsession with screens is due to the fact that I maintain a photoblog, so the

final "product" for me is a jpeg image on the screen, and i rarely print. When i do print digitally, i send it to a lab, so yes i is

useful in that case to calibrate as i assume this would minimize surprises at the lab.

 

So you all spoke with a clear one voice on the question of whether there is something i can do to make my images more

stables across different screens. The answer seems to be no. I remember once someone told me that if i save my b&w

pics under a color RGB mode thus would help, and i somehow felt it did... Is that BS?

 

No one commented on the specs of my screen, is that something that is decent enough to work with? I have no problem

spending 200-350 on a screen if that would help improve my results...it seems from what is said above that i do not need

to get a new screen though to calibrate, although i thought one would at least need a screen where one can have a good

control over all parameters involved...

 

 

Thanks a lot for your help

<p><<< I remember once someone told me that if i save my b&w pics under a color RGB mode thus would help>>><br>

All Screens throughout the world view all images within the s'RGB space regardless of whether the image is tagged with that space or not, whether it is pink yellow or black and white. Yes save all black and white images in s'RGB is fine but this is not necessary for black and white IF, that is, you edit the photo in Gamma 2.2 as I do. Gamma 2.2 is the same space as s'RGB that is why. I left the black and white conversion layers in photoshop a long time ago when I decided to analyse the differences in various ways of converting from colour to black and white and effects of enlargement and tone retentions between conversions and further editing in photoshop. After many days there was conclusive results that favoured the B/W conversion in camera RAW and put it into gamma 2.2 space and then edit in photoshop, there were distinct improvements. I have never had any disappointments on web views or other peoples' screens. So s'RGB for colour most definitely and if editing in Gamma 2.2 then no need to convert to the s'RGB profile.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All Screens throughout the world view all images within the s'RGB space regardless of whether the image is tagged with that space or not...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Absolutely untrue! You need to study up a tad and understand what sRGB is. And what it's based upon. And how there are a nice group of wide gamut displays like the one I'm using now that isn't anything like sRGB (natively). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gamma 2.2 is the same space as s'RGB that is why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF you want to get picky, it's a TRC, not Gamma of 2.2. <br>

<br>

Getting back OT, unless the audience is using an ICC aware web browser AND calibrates and profiles their display, all bets are off in terms of what others view. Color or B&W, sRGB or untagged. </p>

<p>No Rodney I do not want to get picky! How many people are familiar with TRC, I'm not. Suffice it to say that s'RGB and Gamma 2.2 are the same space for all intense and purposes for photographers wanting to know whether there is a difference between these two or not, that is why when black and white editing is done, photographers are assured that if they have edited in this space it will display correctly within an s"RGB profile. As for wider gamut displays, yes I forgot to add that in, I was thinking of the majority of the population, few people have these displays. So it was for general purposes that I was talking, maybe I should have included that bit of information in so as to account for Image Colour and Colour management experts, such as yourself, reading my post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>photographers are assured that if they have edited in this space it will display correctly within an s"RGB profile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it will not! </p>

<p>Well mine do.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No matter how carefully you calibrate YOUR monitor, then on other peoples, unless they too are properly calibrated, it will <strong>appear different</strong> as you say.<br>

All Screens throughout the world view all images within the s'RGB space regardless of whether the image is tagged with that space or not<br>

photographers are <strong>assured</strong> that if they have edited in this space it will display <strong>correctly</strong> within an s"RGB profile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Talk about confusion!</p>

<p>You have taken quotes from separate answers and joined them together thereby giving the illusion that I am contradicting myself. The latter comment that you highlight, within the context of answering you, is certainly not implying that it will display correctly on everyone's screen. I said it within the context of referring to the Gamma 2.2. Journalists do the same thing you know....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have taken quotes from separate answers and joined them together thereby giving the illusion that I am contradicting myself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, just that the poor OP is getting conflicting advise, some of it based on misunderstanding of color management! <br>

Further the gamma value that keeps popping up is totally immaterial. You can have a 2.2 TRC gamma of a working space that is a mile off from sRGB and guess what? You'll still have the same color issues the OP is asking about. </p>

<p>Firstly, the s'RGB space that comes with most consumer monitors has a Tonal Response Curve equal to 2.2. So does Adobe RGB, (I did not know that TRC was short hand for this). I am not interested in giving the OP a lecture on Colour management but simply saying what can be understood; that if you edit an image in Grayscale 2.2 in camera raw, this is absolutely 100 PERCENT compatible with s'RGB colour space. This is not a science or Physics lecture, this is about what I believe the OP would already be familiar with. So for example introducing shorthand he would not understand - TRC, he would probably not understand Tonal response Curve either and in fact he has no need to understand it. He only needs to know the basics to begin with. That editing in s'RGB or gamma 2.2 that comes with the default settings on a monitor is compatible, the former for colour, the latter for black and white if he so chooses from camera raw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Firstly, the s'RGB space that comes with most consumer monitors has a Tonal Response Curve equal to 2.2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know where you get the idea that most consumer (or any) display’s equal a 2.2 gamma or TRC. They all have a native gamma that may be close. sRGB has a Tone Response Curve and doesn't follow the Gamma formula. There's a bump (edit) in the curve towards the shadow end. Adobe RGB doesn't have this, it <strong>does</strong> follow the Gamma formula and sRGB doesn't. The two are <strong>NOT</strong> the same, they don't have to be. In fact the TRC/Gamma of a display, a working space and even output space do NOT need to match! </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I am not interested in giving the OP a lecture on Colour management but simply saying what can be understood; that if you edit an image in Grayscale 2.2 in camera raw, this is absolutely 100 PERCENT compatible with s'RGB colour space.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, that's not true, they are not the same nor need to be. There is NO 2.2 Grayscale option in Adobe Camera Raw. There are four working space options all in RGB. As for compatible, what does that mean? Again, the gamma settings, even the working spaces used in ICC aware applications <strong>do NOT have to match</strong>. On my Wide Gamut display, which unless calibrated and castrated, isn't anything like sRGB and I have no issues viewing any RGB working space in any gamma (even 1.0) in color managed applications. All <em>some</em> have done here is confuse the issue by misunderstanding color management and confusing anyone who isn't up to speed on the subject! In terms of this discussion and the OP's questions, gamma is a meaningless diversion!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That editing in s'RGB or gamma 2.2 that comes with the default settings on a monitor is compatible, the former for colour, the latter for black and white if he so chooses from camera raw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's rubbish. There is no default setting on any display that's worth discussing or we'd just take em out of the box, hook them up and they would all match. They don't by a long shot, that is <strong>why</strong> we calibrate and profile them (two distinctly different processes). <br>

It doesn't matter if you or the OP have a circa 1994 CRT with the phosphor primaries that sRGB specifies or a brand new LCD that exceeds the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998). <strong>IF</strong> the application is color managed <strong>AND</strong> the display is profiled and calibrated, <strong>ANY</strong> RGB working space (or CMYK space for that matter) will be properly previewed. Outside of an ICC aware application even with sRGB, <strong>there is no guarantee that the preview is correct or matches ICC aware applications</strong>. That's not rocket science and it's the facts. <br>

</p>

<p><<<That's not rocket science and it's the facts. >>> It is Rocket science to people who do not have an understanding about the wiring of a motor engine, including myself, very very few people achieve your level of knowledge, we do not make a second career of it. And actually I kept saying camera raw, my mistake, throughout I should have said Adobe Bridge, but since I often refer erroneously to Adobe Bridge as camera raw (and I hope you understand why) it has become a bad habit. So gamma 2.2 or grayscale 2.2 is a profile within that software as I know you are aware. People like us have learned everything we can through the web, often though recommended sites well know to all photographers, I may have picked up erroneous terminology over the years and certainly do not have the mental energy to study in depth the colour management issues, but the fact remains, I use gamma 2.2 from adobe bridge, and my images are edited within that space - whatever the hell its mathematics are, they go very well and very compatible with s"RGB for transferring to the web and my websites. I know of others who do the same and they have no problems. So whatever the blasted intracacies and mathematical algorithms there are that split our understanding and undermine it , it simply does not matter our images are perfectly tuned to the screen and to the printed versions. And yes we all use strict colour management policies and understand ICC profiles enough to perform our tasks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use gamma 2.2 from adobe bridge, and my images are edited within that space - whatever the hell its mathematics are, they go very well and very compatible with s"RGB for transferring to the web and my websites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is really simple and has been written above. It doesn't matter squat what the gamma is. It doesn't matter if the document is in sRGB or not. IF you take tagged images into an ICC aware application, a dozen of them, you'll get the same previews which are '<em>correct</em>' (at least if the display is properly calibrated). <br>

<br>

OUTSIDE ICC aware application’s it is chaos. The numbers have no meaning. The display profile isn't understood. On the same system, whether you use sRGB or something else, what YOU see and what other's see is a total crap shoot. Saving in sRGB is the least bad way to share images with people that don't calibrate their displays or use ICC aware applications but <strong>IN NO WAY</strong> does this guarantee that others will see what you see. Period. That's what the OP was asking about. Going down a gamma or Grayscale rabbit hole makes zero difference. </p>

<p>Rodney, firstly let me emphasize that I know you are a respected person in this field, I do not dispute what you have said above at all in the last post. However allow me the kindness of pointing out that I began this 2.2/ s'RGB conversation in response to this question by the OP : <<I remember once someone told me that if i save my b&w pics under a color RGB mode thus would help, and i somehow felt it did... Is that BS?>> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><<I remember once someone told me that if i save my b&w pics under a color RGB mode thus would help, and i somehow felt it did... Is that BS?>></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is BS as a standalone statement. Depends on the <strong>use</strong> of the document. In RGB working spaces, R=G=B is neutral. It 'looks' B&W using two more channels than necessary depending on what you want to do with the image. Print it on an ink jet? Send RGB (and depending on the mode the printer uses, it might be somewhat neutral or might not). </p>