New Monitor choice and QC advice for buyer

[digitaldog]

<p>The ColorMunki display is a fine colorimeter mated with piss poor software and is a far, far cry from the calibration capabilities of SpectraView. At the very least, get the same hardware with superior software and faster measuring speeds with the i1Display-2. Still not in the same league as SpectraView but closer. If you're going to do it, do it right (get a visual match to the output):</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

[ellery]

<p>Nick, I know where you are coming from.<br /><br />To answer your question...yes...I can afford it....it will not be a huge burdeon really, BUT, that does not mean that I want to let the money go if I find it excessively superfluous.<br /><br />For better purposes of comparison Nick....when you say "LG IPS monitor"...which model are you thinking about....standard gamut, wide gamut?<br /><br />If we are talking about an LG example such as the Dell 2410 or some of the other "budget" varieties...then we are talking about 450 bucks for the monitor, 200 for the calibrations stuff (so we are talking about 600-700 bucks in the end)...does that sound about right?<br /><br />So the difference there with the NEC is 300 dollars - perhaps 400 depending on the specific 24 inch monitor.<br /><br />Now, if we are talking IPS standard gamut monitors in the 24 inch range, the savings are even more deep....<br /><br />Just want to be clear about what type of monitor that you feel will meet my needs?<br /><br />If we are talking about buying an even better printer than my current one...."a good epson printer"....them it is likely safe to say that its color gamut will be fairly noticeably larger than sRGB (im thinking like the epson 2880 perhaps? or R3000?) - in which case Andrew's argument for wide gamut is strong correct?<br /><br />Still, its worth considering.....say a dell 2410 + colormunki vs. NEC PA241 - these are not very comparable I understand.....but "for my purposes" - perhaps it would fit the bill just fine....<br /><br />Perhaps Andrew will highlight the functional difference between say the Dell 2412, Dell 2410, and NEC PA 241w as it relates to enthusiast photographers non-professionals?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>IF your goal is even reasonable WYSIWYG, IF your goal is to edit an image using anything but pure numbers (good luck), <strong>the most critical piece of the digital darkroom equipment is the display.</strong><br>

You can buy cheap displays like you can put a cheap lens on your camera. <br>

I'm shocked at pro's and consumers who work at photography and will gladly spend the extra money saved on a cheap display on more RAM. As if saving a few seconds (more like nanoseconds) to get a print that doesn't look like what you expected was a good investment. It isn't. </p>

[ellery]

<p>including p221w vs. dell 2410 + colormunki or whatever....</p>

[ellery]

<p>Andrew (and keep in mind I am not an authority on this subject) - but I am skeptical of the assertion that you cannot get "reasonable WYSIWYG" on a dell 2410 or 2713? Perhaps I am mistaken.<br /><br />I recall the tft central reviews as such, and the color accuracy were (as I recall) at least "reasonbly accurat"...<br /><br />Is there objective testing of such monitors that shows that these monitors are woefully inadequate for enthusiasts?</p>

[ellery]

<p>IF I were to choose something like a dell 2410, it would not be because I was accepting a compromise that would not let me reasonably achieve WYSIWYG....instead it would be under the assumption that it in fact would let me do just that...<br /><br />Now wheter or not that assumption is accurate is what I am interested in discussing:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2410.htm">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2410.htm</a><br /><br />"Pros<br>

Good colour reproduction once calibrated. 10-bit internal processing also helps ensure smooth gradients"<br /><br />It does however list under cons:<br /><br />"</p>

<table width="85%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="middle" width="50%" height="41">

<p>Inability to get decent calibration results from 'custom' profile</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p><br /><br />so perhaps that makes your point?</p>

[ellery]

<p>Its not so much "cheaping out" that drives people to make this decision Andrew...it is the assumption that the NEC PA monitors...or standard vs. wide gamut...or whatever....that they would not realize a difference as such and thus the money spent would be superfluous.<br /><br />I have no issue with spending the money IF I find the arguments and rationale that it will indeed serve my desires more fully. So far, your arguments are winning the day, but at the same time, I like stress testing them and hopefully seeing how it holds up so that I can make as informed a decision as possible..<br /><br />It just seems that for many consumers (like myself) - there simly is enough information in reviews (TFT central, and others) that would make an enthusiast photographer feel comfortable buying such a budget monitor and that it would indeed give you quite reasonable color accuracy....<br /><br />If this assumption is quite wrong (which you seem to think it is) - then these review sites are doing a poor job.<br /><br />When they review the PA series, they play it up mainly to something professionals would want, thus the higher premium....<br /><br />I think you can see how that verbiage would lead people to not "cheap out"...but that it would make them say "well, im an avid enthusiast, but perhaps I would not realize the difference?"</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Couple points. <br>

You have a budget and you have to stick with it or adjust somewhere else. <br>

The technology is changing, what we see in 3-5 years is questionable, but you should get that out of a good display. In the case of the SpectraView II, this is a system, not just a display itself. It is built from the ground up to provide capabilities that are not found in other displays with add on solutions (Eizo is also in this class of "Smart Monitors"). You are paying for pick of the litter panels (there are only 3 makers and everyone has to divvy up among them). You are getting a system where calibration is produced within the panel using the display electronics mated with software and a measuring instrument which is mated for that panel type. The instruments again are purchased (in this case from X-rite) but to NEC's spec's IF you get the bundle which is display+software+colorimeter. Sometimes that costs a bit less than using 3rd party when you <strong>remove</strong> the display. IOW, bundle cost less than Colorimeter with software from 3rd party. </p>

<p>The solution allows you full control over calibration aim points: targets. You can control the contrast ratio so that if you are working on Matt paper with 150:1 contrast ratio, you can set that in the display as it controls black! The silly contrast ratio's you read about in reviews are wonderful for video or games. Awful for soft proofing to a print which has a tiny contrast ratio (no more than 350:1, tad more). So IF you want ultimate control over a print to screen match, you'll build a calibration for that media. You can build another for glossy paper with a 350:1 ratio. Two calibrations, two ICC profiles, you can switch between them on the fly! The electronics, software and ICC profile(s) are all under the smart monitor control. </p>

<p>You get what you pay for. I can't say if having this kind of control over WYSIWYG is important to you or others, I can only let you know what's out there and what the money gets you (this is only a snippet of what the system can do, there's a lot more). </p>

<p>I've seen serious photo enthusiasts with serious equipment so it isn't like some can't afford these tools. But again, if your budge doesn't permit the equivalent of an expensive lens, it doesn't permit it.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I recall the tft central reviews as such, and the color accuracy were (as I recall) at least "reasonbly accurat"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By and large, the term is a buzz word and is meaningless without full explanation. <br>

Accurate using what metric? dE and what formula? How many patches and where in color space? You can feed a display colors that you can pretty much be sure will fall within low dE values and the opposite. For example, very dark saturated colors are much more difficult to display than colors with higher Lstar values. What is the upper unacceptable level of dE? How was the differences measured? You can't measure errors using the same instrument you used in the first place (that wouldn't account for measuring errors. You have to have a higher grade reference to compare the first to). </p>

<p>Big rabbit hole. You don't really want to go there...</p>

[ellery]

<p>My limited understanding in what I have read so far is that dE of >1 starts to get more and more progressively noticeable...from very very minor, perhaps nearly impercievable, to increasingly obvious.<br /><br />The TFT central site shows dE measurements of these various panels...the Dell 2410's was as I recall like 0.2 once calibrated (although in the review it was kinda weird and seemingly difficult to calibrate, worth pointing out perhaps). <br /><br />Are such values severely incorrect? I have no idea...it all has been a big rabbit hole to me...but im learning slowly here.<br /><br />Let me ask a more direct question - have you any emperical data Andrew that would back up the idea that monitors like the Dell 2410 or 2413 will not allow you to achieve WYSIWYG? Clearly as you have stated, they are not an equal to the NEC PA panels, TFT clearly state this as well....but they do not seem to go as far as suggesting that these lower cost alternatives are woefully unable and innacurate...your narrative seems much more dichotomous - that there are these monitors that will allow WYSIWYG and the one below that will very unlikely not.<br /><br />Again, if that is true, that is fine....but I am still processing how that could be the case...perhaps in the end it is too deep a rabbit hole for me to understand - which leaves people like me to take one opinion or the other almost entirely on authority...uncomfortable.<br /><br />Im pretty sold though on the NEC 241w at this point...it wont be too much of a strain on my budget...I have the money and I like how easy or near a "smart monitor" it is...but ultimately I am still curious if the difference for me is a bit superfluous to be honest...but I rather air on the side of spending a bit more (in my case) when I will be spending already a decent chunck already....ill still be able to pick up a printer a a couple months no prob...and in the meantime I think I have a lab with wider gamut printers I can tinker with (likely for near free). Should be fun.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Are such values severely incorrect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, not enough data. I asked what two instruments are used to calculate original instrument measurement errors. Where in the display is the data taken? It's all rabbit hole stuff. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>have you any emperical data Andrew that would back up the idea that monitors like the Dell 2410 or 2413 will not allow you to achieve WYSIWYG?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, it's a bit more complex that that. Depends on the software and hardware used for calibration for one. They are not all the same, most do not provide the kind of customizing of target values you'll see expect with very high end packages. I mentioned that due to the control over black within the panel, we now have the option of altering the contrast ratio. Can the Dell do this? Maybe if mated to the correct software. Does it provide that level of control to any 3rd party? Kind of doubt it. </p>

<p>Did you read the Prints are Too Dark article and see how what options are provided to control calibration directly relate to the ability to match a print and a display. </p>

[ellery]

I'll be brief as I am on iPhone - but what I heard was that you are not sure if te dells could give you "WYSIWYG"

 

You are skeptical but you are not empirically sure?

[david_ralph1]

<p>http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0210nec/<br>

<br />I did what you are doing nearly three years ago. I got Nec Multisync P221W, with Spectraview software and colorimeter. The only thing I regret is not getting more real estate to look at. If you want to make great prints, a wide gamut, calibrated display is the only way to go, at least in my opinion. This February 2010, David Brooks article in Shutterbug put it over the top for me, though I had pretty well settled on getting a calibrated NEC before then. The larger Necs are used by some of the pro print makers. Presumably, for this site population anyway, the print is the goal. I like to enter shows from time to time, and I want the print right. Oh yeah, three year warranty on the Nec. Mine arrived after online order from B&H with a broken colorimeter, and which was replaced by Nec in an instant.</p>

<p>With the outstanding exception of the British site, most of the other technical reviews out there are aimed at gamers and other non-photographic purposes. The British site is highly technical, and does measure the NECs in particular.<br>

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[ellery]

<p>now to just decide 24 vs. 27 inch<br /><br />It will be hard to not just spring for the 27 inch - its very likely to happen :)<br /><br />Ill give you all an update in June.....</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Both reviews leave a lot to be desired and have a pile of marketing hype in there. The UK review strives to be '<em>accurate</em>' and appear to be a bit more on the right track but I agree neither review fully understands the points about calibration "<em>accuracy</em>" and there's undue marketing nonsense included (example from Brooks: <em>It has internal 10-bit LUTs (Look Up Tables) that support displaying 16.7 million colors out of a palette of 1.05 billion for lossless, smooth image display.) </em>Hopefully some will realize that this is simply numbers based on simple math and has zero bearing on what we human's <strong>can see</strong>, a far cry from those numbers. In fact, if we had a true 24-bit system, who's math provides us with 16.7 million possible colors, the facts are, we human's can recognize a fraction of those colors. Maybe 10 million colors depending on who you ask. So if big numbers impress you to buy one system over another, the marketing hype has worked. Note that there <strong>are</strong> advantages to high bit color, for editing image data and for displaying it but within reason! </p>

<p>The UK site uses a really old and not very good colorimeter that's at 7 years old and using technology not appropriate for use in some modern display systems! They should be using both a good colorimeter (state of the art for desktop priced Colorimeters would be the i1Display-2 with multiple and upgradable filter primaries) and perhaps a reference spectroradiometer to check the first device. <strong>Any</strong> calculating of accuracy using the <strong>same</strong> instrument is bogus! IF you assume your foot is exactly 12 inches and measure out a foundation for a house 10 times, without using a known reference (a ruler), your foundation may be off X number of inches 10 times. Measuring it an 11th time isn't going to fix inaccuracy in the measuring process! </p>

<p>The UK site uses what, 16 colors for accuracy measurements? Not enough colors! And none seem very challenging in terms of my dark saturated color suggestion. They measured the device out of the box and found it was more accurate after calibration. Duh! That's <em>why</em> we calibrate display systems and do so regularly. Seeing a trend report, how long calibration stays in effect would be more useful than seeing how a display that can be calibrated isn't calibrated out of the box! Waste of time. </p>

<p>In terms of how to calibrate a display system and target values, David Brook's hasn't a clue. He and I have tried to come to terms about this but he's not up to speed here. His misunderstanding of targeting a display luminance (cd/m2) was the emphasis for my piece on '<em>why are my prints too dark</em>' which is really an issue of a display being <strong>too bright compared to print viewing conditions.</strong> He's still unable to connect those simple dots! Anyone, anywhere that blankly recommends any target, especially cd/m2 <strong>without</strong> first understanding and taking the print viewing conditions in mind is spitting out recommendations based on ignorance and Brooks has been complaining about this problem which he's created for himself! </p>

[ellery]

<p>fascinating......<br /><br />problem in this area it seems, is that it is lacking in a big way in what mainstream science has (although it is not obviously perfect) and that is proper peer review and meaningful criticism of methods and proper gatekeepers as such to prevent publishing of data that is based on poor methodology.<br /><br />This (assuming you are correct, and I at this point am not going to take issue with this assumption tbh, have found your points persuasive) is unfortunately for consumers like myself.<br /><br />It leaves us just as incapable spectators hearing people that are presumably proper experts in this area to argue about the important minutia of such a complicated topic.<br /><br />It is simply much more comforting to have published data to prove a point (say that Dell 2410 cannot produce WYSIWYG) - but it would appear that such proper scientific data (not just anecdotal data) is not available to adequately asnwer these questions?<br /><br />In light of all of that, im going to go with NEC because of the anecdotal data that I can semi meta analyze todether from the web, I feel good that it will produce....this bit of comfort at a premium, but the rationale seems legit...and luckily I do have the cash so it wont be a strain - not the case for many enthusiasts....I feel sorry for them <br /><br />Thanks for the guidance and your expert opinion...I truly mean that...I hope you do not mind the inquisition - I appreciate your candor.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Andrew, I read your article back in late 2010 on Lula. Nicely laid out. But, your article was not around when I opted for the Nec Spectraview earlier that year. For a lot of searching on the Net, there were precious few readable articles for someone looking for a mid price range, wide gamut monitor which was tailored for print making. The bottom line for what tool to get without breaking the bank was the Nec. Folks like Jeff Schewe recommending the item helped me with that decision too. As to the brightness/dark struggle, yep the print viewing environment is a consideration. Some would say the monitor viewing environment is a factor as well. I have found that several different people have suggested a baseline brightness setting that becomes a reference point, and then cook to taste for one's environment, sensibility and the nature of the print. YMMV.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Found the article linked below a pretty interesting investigation on a wide range of monitor brands for photo editing:</p>

<p>http://www.lightandmatter.org/2011/equipment-reviews/best-monitors-for-photo-editing-is-it-really-that-important/</p>

<p>Was surprised there were that many IPS monitors under $300 out on the market, now, though with LED backlighting, some with matte and gloss finishes. YouTube even has decent reviews of some of the monitors listed.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's a comparison study with photos of a $750 NEC vs a $269 Dell UltraSharp U2412M:</p>

<p>http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037563158</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And here's the visual differences between a calibrated $1450 NEC PA271W-SV vs uncalibrated Dell U2412M:</p>

<p>http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1615513&highlight=u2412&page=96</p>

[ellery]

<p>the 2412 is not wide gamut.....comparing sRGB images between these two seems pointless....unless I am misunderstanding....<br /><br /><br />How can you showcase via photos on the net the differences in wide gamut vs. standard gamut by taking a side by side photo of the two monitors and posting that as sRGB on the www??<br /><br />You would need to see the monitors in person side by side.....or see prints in person side by side....or compare some form of data otherwise.<br /><br />These threads also seem to not at all address the root issue of "WYSIWYG".....<br /><br />I felt it really strange to read how people with enthusiasm stating something to the degree of "heck, I almost bought the dell 2413 or 2410 (wide gamuts), I went ahead and bought 2412 (standard gamut)".....</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>People who post information about monitors which are not wide gamut and which are not calibrated, really do not understand the utility and importance of that ability to making a fine art photographic print. Much of the information posted here from reliable sources has gone right by them. E.g., anyone not editing in the Prophoto RGB color space is not even seeing a lot of the data in their raw image; sRGB is technically deficient for this purpose.</p>

<p>For such folks, I suggest buying no monitor at all. That will avoid purposeless wasting of money and the time of the original poster and the rest of us. Instead, a far better use for the money is to purchase and acquire education and training on how to make a fine art print. One good starting point is this well respected video series:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/tutorials/camera_to_print_and_screen.shtml</p>

<p>BTW, Jeff Schewe is partners with Andrew Rodney, above, and several other notables, such as the late Bruce <br />Fraser and Martin Evening, in the Pixelgenius venture which produced the Photokit Sharpener plugin, without which I do not print anything that I care about. Until one is familiar with the information in that series, one is not really in a place to recommend a monitor for the production of fine art print. If you did not read and understand the link Andrew posted, why even post here at this point?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How can you showcase via photos on the net the differences in wide gamut vs. standard gamut by taking a side by side photo of the two monitors and posting that as sRGB on the www??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't (or let's say, you shouldn't). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You would need to see the monitors in person side by side.....or see prints in person side by side....or compare some form of data otherwise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>People who post information about monitors which are not wide gamut and which are not calibrated, really do not understand the utility and importance of that ability to making a fine art photographic print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right on. But most sites discussing displays are not aimed at this group, most who do care about what they see on a display having some resemblance based on reality. I stopped in my tracks on the one site that discussed 'eye ball calibration.' That statement disqualified the review IMHO based on my needs for WYSIWYG, or at least the goal of a match. </p>

[ellery]

<p>thanks David - i too think andrews video clarifies such things<br /><br />ill check out that video series out for sure once i finish the book i started last week related to nature photography<br /><br />a bit pricey at 60 bucks but for 12 hours of instruction not bad at all<br /><br />question, my digital workflow (at the moment) is fairly simple....mainly capture NX2 for RAW editing, and occassionally PS elements for a bit of cloning, spot healing brush (I like it better than the NX2 version of the same tool for blemishes)....<br /><br />If I watch such a DVD will it make sense for an NX2 user? <br /><br />Sorry, a bit of a tangent for this, but I will be looking to evaluating my approaches as I try to do more printing this year. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Ellery, I provided those links to give you an idea what's out there, the level of demand for quality displays and what can go wrong with cheap monitors seeing you did read further on in those threads. Those Hardforum threads use calibration equipment on some of them.</p>

<p>The photos were to show some of the anomalies like backlight bleeding and screen non-uniformity which you'll run into with any brand display including NEC within the same model. There is a lot of information online you can access instead of relying on a couple of review websites and one digital guru which you seem to have doubts. Finding real world users and what they experience with any said display will give you an idea of what's in store when buying online. </p>

<p>The contributors on those forums aren't complete idiots if they like to use those expensive displays for playing video games and go to the trouble of buying an Xrite i1Display Pro to calibrate them. Some of the contributors have graphic art jobs which requires all displays be calibrated. </p>

<p>BTW the U2412M uses a 6 bit table instead of standard 8 bit to get the millions of colors. <strong>Another gotcha' I later found out.</strong> There's a ton of IPS monitors out on the market, now, and they all have variations that can bite you in the butt that has nothing to do with great color. Some of them are built pretty flimsy with others having limited adjustable height stands. Some are too bright. </p>

<p>I'm one of those who now regrets buying the cheap sRGB gamut Dell 2209WA a couple of years ago on Amazon when it went for $300. About several months after I reviewed it posting photos of it calibrated in a PN thread here...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00WAfF</p>

<p>...the price jumped to $600. I had to send the Dell back to the manufacturer because of color temp non-uniformity and got a <strong>refurb </strong>which is Dell's policy I'm not too thrilled about.</p>

<p>Now I've developed other non-uniformity problems that weren't covered on Hardforum threads. (See below).</p><div></div>