Which monitor to get?

digitaldog · July 3, 2014

Good article and the ending is especially telling (I'm in agreement):

For those that can't afford an Eizo/NEC Save up a bit longer. Honestly - this is the best advice we can give you. It's not worth spending $500 on a Dell now only to find that it's $500 you should have put to an Eizo or NEC monitor. If you love imaging, and/or make your living from it, a good monitor is essential.

</blockquote>

OK Tim, read that article of which I have absolutely no input and I think you'll see the authors and I are in agreement. Bit depth, gamut, purity, warranty etc are all covered there as I've outlined above for the SpectraView. I'm not making this stuff up.

leo s. · July 3, 2014

Thanks to all for the in-depth discussion, which has been very informative for me. I have to admit (and perhaps I should have stated this in my opening post) but I'm not really doing anything super-critical with my images right now - I don't even have a printer connected at the moment! I don't need a monitor that is "95+%" accurate, so a Dell (which may not be quite as accurate) is the front runner for me right now. As with most photographic products, it seems you pay a premium to get that last 5% quality, and for me paying 4x the price for that last 5% is a bit much at this point in time.

If I find I need a better monitor later that's also no big deal to me since I can just upgrade one of the other PCs (I'm currently building a couple more PCs and have not really thought about individual monitors for them) with the Dell, and get a better monitor for more critical work.

EricM · July 3, 2014

As with most photographic products, it seems you pay a premium to get that last 5% quality, and for me paying 4x the price for that last 5% is a bit much at this point in time.

</blockquote>

That's right, Leo. And the clincher is, the second you move a slider or two in LR, or add a funky preset and get creative, it matters not if it's a $500 Dell or a $1500 Eizo...

digitaldog · July 3, 2014

And the clincher is, the second you move a slider or two in LR, or add a funky preset and get creative, it matters not if it's a $500 Dell or a $1500 Eizo...

</blockquote>

Right, assuming you don't care that the display and the results from the numbers don't match. Many of us do, we don't edit blindly.

So you ready to let us know how you came to this conclusion using the scientific method:

If all three were running side by side, I doubt anyone could point out which is the NEC, Eizo, or Dell.

</blockquote>

You doubt, you know, you're assuming?

EricM · July 3, 2014

Many of us do, we don't edit blindly.

</blockquote>

We? Lol, you don't even make photos for the fun of it.

digitaldog · July 3, 2014

We? Lol, you don't even make photos for fun of it.

</blockquote>

Eric, you have absolutely no idea what I do, shoot or why. Like your post above, you prefer to just make up stuff, then sell it as facts. FWIW, just today I was shooting a job for a huge company that makes printers. But don't let the actual facts of which you have no awareness of get in the way of posting comments that have no factual basis. Again, you're assuming, something you do far too often publicly. It's why you refuse to answer the questions addressed to you, it puts holes in your make-believe.

Tim_Lookingbill · July 3, 2014

So you ready to let us know how you came to this conclusion using the scientific method:

</blockquote>

Andrew, you haven't been anywhere within 5 miles of the scientific method the 10 or so years I've participated in discussions (er...beating dead horses) with you about display price vs performance.

You're an author of articles going back at least to when I read your contributions in Photo Electronic Imaging magazine in the late '90's. You're not a scientist.

To get back on topic I'ld suggest Leo check out at Best Buy the LG 27ea63v-p IPS 8bit sRGB gamut LED display which cost me around $330. It's calibrated at the factory with a high end Minolta Color Analyzer which I verified as accurate using my ColorMunki Display. It has a native resolution of 1920x1080.

Mike D · July 3, 2014

After shooting and processing RAW images, I go back to Photoshop 6 and run "Curves....auto" just to see if I have processed the image correctly. After working on an image for a long time, I get too familiar with the image and lose my balance on brightness and sometimes color. Performing auto curves at the end of the post processing process is like double checking homework. I then print the image on an Epson 3880 using the included Epson profile for Epson ink and Epson paper. I am very satisfied with the results of what the monitor looks like although it is often pretty close if not perfect. (Note, I don't use "Curves Auto" at the beginning of the post processing process.) The moral of the story is that any of the monitors above will probably meet the poster's requirements. In my case, it's mostly user error.

digitaldog · July 3, 2014

Andrew, you haven't been anywhere within 5 miles of the scientific method the 10 or so years I've participated in discussions (er...beating dead horses) with you about display price vs performance.

</blockquote>

Really. So let's just stick to THIS topic and posts. What here that I posted about anything isn't in your opinion not correct? The data about SpectraView technology you asked me to provide? Meanwhile, you've once again failed to even attempt to prove your point after now my 3rd request to backup what you wrote and how you came to that conclusion. So Tim, be the adult in the room and tell us how you came to this conclusion. You set up how many displays of different makes all in a row then sent what data to come up with this point you feel we should believe:

I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.

</blockquote>

You came to that conclusion exactly how?

You're an author of articles going back at least to when I read your contributions in Photo Electronic Imaging magazine in the late '90's. You're not a scientist.

</blockquote>

I never claimed to be. But if I were you, trying to convince people here that "there isn't a huge difference in display" I'd do this by gathering a group together, hooking them up and either just viewing them or measuring them to come to such a conclusion. Then I'd share my data for others, that's called peer review. On the other hand, you came up with this theory by???? The scientific system doesn't require someone be a scientist but undertand how to evaluate technology without pulling BS out of their rear. I kind of suspect you might have done this with your statement and I'm danm sure Eric hasn't a clue and is again just making stuff up. And yes, that's why for 20+ years I've been the tech editor at two magazines that deal with imaging technology (you?). I've been paid to travel the world educating users on the technology (you?). I've been testing software and hardware for dozens of high tech companies since the early 90's (you?).

It's calibrated at the factory with a high end Minolta Color Analyzer which I verified as accurate using my ColorMunki Display.

</blockquote>

Calibrated to what? And all those other displays that are not calibrated this way, your take and that of Eric's which you'd like us to believe without an ounce of proof, this and other units you haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays. Calibrated, not calibrated, they don't have much difference, your words. So again Tim, we can take this at face value or you can explain how you came to this conclusion. Where are those famous Tim Lookingbill photo's of displays you love to post here and on LuLa to prove your point? What multiple display systems did you evaluate and how to come to this conclusion? Since you haven't provided such answers after multiple requests, I don't think you can. But like Eric, you can attempt to change the subject, continue to ask me questions and expect us to forget you made a statement you can't prove.\

Tim, you ever own a Barco, PressView, Artisan, Eizo or SpectraView? I kind of thought so....

Tim_Lookingbill · July 4, 2014

Andrew, I'll leave it to you to show us the huge differences between low and high quality displays seeing you can afford all those you mentioned. I and quite few others here are in the same boat financially.

Take a photograph of the differences and post them here. We'll leave it to the honor system that you'll be honest on how they actually appear post processing them to look as you see them in your studio.

But I predict you'll dismiss that request with your typical condescending (speak for all) manner as being a pointless task that won't prove anything. But I will admit that isn't using the scientific method, but then I haven't seen you apply it to any of your claims about device performance either.

Oh, BTW, whatever became of Photo Electronics Imaging magazine? That was a very informative publication back in the day.

leo s. · July 4, 2014

I just ordered the Dell UltraSharp U2412M - 24". It was either that or the LG 27ea63v-p, and I could only find that for sale outside the UK.

Thanks again to all who replied for all the help, advice, and lively discussion.

Leo

Tim_Lookingbill · July 4, 2014

Leo, that's good to hear. I bet both use the same panel build.

All in all the LED is the way to go anyway because my previous display I thought was a best buy was a Dell 2209WA CCFL back light ISP panel and its heat coming off the back panel tended to warp the panel internals (I'm having to assume by observation) to where I got color uniformity issues and shadowy artifacts after 3 years of use.

LED's are so much better to deal with. No heat!

digitaldog · July 4, 2014

Andrew, I'll leave it to you to show us the huge differences between low and high quality displays seeing you can afford all those you mentioned.

</blockquote>

I'll do that! And you can continue ignore requests for how you came to your own conclusions since apparently you didn't do any such testing. I guess that's the difference between us. I'm more than willing to setup two displays and run them thorough the same graphic system with the same image and for your pleasure, take a photo of the two. Frankly measuring a couple patches (or hundreds) in BableColor and providing a dE matrix is 'better science' by far, but you prefer to look at images so I'll work on that. Give me a couple days.

But I predict you'll dismiss that request with your typical condescending (speak for all) manner as being a pointless task that won't prove anything.

</blockquote>

That's possible (that it will not prove anything) but at least I'll have done a real test, not make something up as a few posters here seem to prefer to do. Unless again, for at least the forth time, you'll tell us what process YOU used to come up with the statement: I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.

You want to come up with a matrix or dE value that you define as "huge"?

And further, to ask YOU questions you'll ignore, I assume the answer is no, you've got no experience with a Barco, PressView, Artisan or SpectraView. Meaning you've again formed an opinion with questionable (if any) experience on such products.

Oh, BTW, whatever became of Photo Electronics Imaging magazine?

</blockquote>

Oh boy, more of your questions to answer but no quid pro quo but what the heck. It merged into the PPA magazine of which I too was the tech editor until I think about 5-6 years ago. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=quid+pro+quo&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"> </a> http://www.ppmag.com

Nick D. · July 4, 2014

DellTM UltraSharp U2413, looks nice, wide gamut, reasonable price.

digitaldog · July 4, 2014

I bet both use the same panel build.

</blockquote>

More conjecture? It's possible, but why guess?

I got color uniformity issues

</blockquote>

ColorComp in SpectraView would address that. Not that color uniformity is important....

So your track record in terms of buying a display is questionable it seems....

Tim_Lookingbill · July 4, 2014

So your track record in terms of buying a display is questionable it seems....

</blockquote>

As good as it gets for a hobbyist who can't afford a Barco, Artisan or Spectraview NEC which is what appears comprises most of the contributors of this thread if not most of PN memberships, which begs the question whether you have the ability to realize you might be playing to the wrong crowd here.

Look forward to the comparison photos showing the huge differences between a calibrated/profiled low cost vs a more expensive high end display. Something I've been waiting for you to do for the many years you've been pushing them in many similar online discussions.

digitaldog · July 4, 2014

As good as it gets for a hobbyist who can't afford a Barco, Artisan or Spectraview NEC which is what appears comprises most of the contributors of this thread if not most of PN memberships, which begs the question whether you have the ability to realize you might be playing to the wrong crowd here.

</blockquote>

Good to know you are making comments without due experience and arguing with someone who does. All while ignoring the questions asked of you to easily dismiss your points! And hobbyist or not, facts about technology are facts.

Look forward to the comparison photos showing the huge differences between a calibrated/profiled low cost vs a more expensive high end display.

</blockquote>

As I look forward to you answering my one question about your impression about displays, some of which you have zero experience with.

You are pretty good at giving readers here and elsewhere your two cents on what display to buy, all while admitting you wasted your money on a display with purity issues! Telling, very telling!

digitaldog · July 5, 2014

Tim, for your viewing. Two differing displays (Apple Cinema and PA272W). Both getting the same RGB data in a color managed app. Quick and dirty shots but identical manual exposure shot raw, no alterations what so ever in LR. Size of the two isn't identical, sorry but I've attempted to make them as close as possible via resample in Photoshop. Moiré pattern observed, not much I can do about that. In Photoshop I measured a few patches: the green on the Macbeth and the neutral. Took RGB values and converted to Lab so I can use Bruce Lindblooms dE calculator. The green dE difference IS significant, dE 2000 value of 9.77! Gray which is critical has a dE of 9.6. I suspect we'll see similar delta's with other colors considering how different green and gray are. For lurkers, a dE of 1 is just at a level most human observers notice a differece. In Print production, it's often agreed that a dE of less than 6 is an acceptable match (usually betweeen two proofs) again the formula and actual colors differ in how we observe a mismatch (grays are far more noticeable and objectionable with lower dE values than higher dE saturated colors). Is a gray that's differing nearly 10 dE huge? Well it's a significant mismatch. You can add any adjective you wish (huge, large, visibly unacceptable). The two absolutely do not match when sent the same RGB data! <img src="http://www.digitaldog.net/files/TwoDisplays.jpg" alt="" />

Then there are visible differences in tonal separation and detail (model with black hair). Look at the mismatch of the Adobe building. The dog with gray bkgnd is IMHO a huge difference, one is very neutral, the other isn't. Viewing the two displays, there's no difference I see compared to what I've witnessed looking at multiple TV's getting the same signal; a visble and easily noticeable mismatch.

As good as it gets for a hobbyist who can't afford a Barco, Artisan or Spectraview NEC which is what appears comprises most of the contributors of this thread if not most of PN memberships, which begs the question whether you have the ability to realize you might be playing to the wrong crowd here.

</blockquote>

More unfounded assumptions, neither of us know the audience in total at PN. Doesn't matter to me if this is the right or wrong crowd. What matters are statements that appear to be totally made up without any basis of fact:

I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.

</blockquote>

It's clear you have no experience by your own admission to the high end displays discussed in this tread!

dag_fosse · July 5, 2014

I had to sign up just to say this:

We all have budgets, and yes, an NEC PA or an Eizo CG/CX is expensive. But often I notice that people will spend that amount on computer hardware without blinking - but for a display it's "outrageous". In fact it's much more productive to have a cheap computer and a good display, than the other way round.

Two things set these displays apart from the rest. One is tight tolerances and extensive quality control, which is exactly where the others will cut costs because it doesn't appear in the specifications. So that's how they can sell at low prices and still look stellar on paper.

The other is an integrated and "smart" calibration/profiling system that communicates directly with the display at 14 or 16 bit depth and gives a degree of control and precision simply not achievable with third party "generic" calibrators. I have and use both Eizo ColorNavigator (on an Eizo CG246), and NEC Spectraview II (on an NEC P232) - and this is what transforms a good display into what Andrew calls a reference display system. And that's a very accurate description.

What these display systems do is take out all the guesswork. Once you've been there, you don't want to go back.

Tim_Lookingbill · July 5, 2014

The Apple Cinema display looks that bad?! Is it calibrated/profiled? If so, then you're right. That's a huge difference.

Downloaded and viewed in Photoshop your test image next to your posted image on my LG 27" and I'm having to assume your quick and dirty edits didn't quite make your NEC display a shining example of quality either.

I did a thorough edit and I'm getting more opened up shadows on my display and not as much cyan especially in the dog in snow pic. Is your NEC's color temp on the coolish side?

If it's not as accurate as you've made it then your NEC and my LG are pretty much the same.<div></div>

joe_c5 · July 5, 2014

I'm going to regret posting, but in many cases all that is important about a display is how well it is profiled. For some images with a wide gamut, it may be important that the monitor also have a wide gamut.

Calibration, and in particular some of the features allowing calibrations to be quickly changed, might possibly save some time, but in general it will not make images displayed with a look up table based profile significantly more accurate.

Consider how few printers are calibrated for different papers or inks. Most are only profiled for different papers or inks. I don't read about a whole lot of concern that the printers are not being recalibrated.

Nick D. · July 5, 2014

I think OP got his monitor ordered.

I am using Dell and I agree, NEC Spectraview 2 and Eizo are better. But I can't convince my wife, that this is only reason, why I didn't got Pulitzer prize yet.

digitaldog · July 5, 2014

But I can't convince my wife, that this is only reason, why I didn't got Pulitzer prize yet.

</blockquote>

As someone who just had his 25th wedding anniversary, and it's been a pretty good 25 years, there are some instances where they's no convincing.

digitaldog · July 5, 2014

Downloaded and viewed in Photoshop your test image next to your posted image on my LG 27" and I'm having to assume your quick and dirty edits didn't quite make your NEC display a shining example of quality either.

</blockquote>

You downloaded a JPEG in sRGB from shot on a camera in raw but with no edits or custom DNG profile, and from that image, you are making quality judgements about what emits from that display? With the RGB numbers from neutrals AND the fact (fly on out to Santa Fe and see it) that this display matches my prints under controlled print viewing condtions?

If it's not as accurate as you've made it then your NEC and my LG are pretty much the same.

</blockquote>

I have no idea what you mean by accurate.

dag_fosse · July 5, 2014

Calibration, and in particular some of the features allowing calibrations to be quickly changed, might possibly save some time, but in general it will not make images displayed with a look up table based profile significantly more accurate.

</blockquote>

The important part of calibration is where you set the targets, and these will vary with different output. You want the white point to visually match paper white, and the black point to match the paper/process contrast range.

Profiling works within and relative to those targets.

Sign In

Which monitor to get?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in