Computer Monitors for Editing

[Nicks Pics]

Since you all do nothing much better here than advise other people about photography equipment, I thought I'd ask what the minimum resolution for a monitor should be for image editing. Is 1920 x 1080 fair, or would you go bigger? Also, what about contrast ratio? I assume higher numbers XXXX : 1 are better right?

You don't need to spend too much time on this subject, but thanks in advance!

[pnodrog]

Try and get a IPS (several versions eg e-IPs p-IPS AH-IPS etc but all have IPS in the name) contrast ratio is less important than colour space. Many will be sRGB but the better ones will support adobeRGB (aRGB). The bigger the better... I prefer at least 1920x1200 24" or higher.

[Nicks Pics]

Thank you L. Paul. I try to find out what I can by researching on my own, so I had come across the fact that IPS is preferable, but hadn't looked into the color space thing. Now I'll know to look for that too. Thank you for your comments about size too.

[LocalHero1953]

If you haven't found it yet, visit www.tftcentral.co.uk, which I find to be a comprehensive source of information on alternative monitors and monitor technology.

[ajohnw]

he dot pitch is more important than the resolution in some ways. 1920x1080 are available in several sizes. IHMO these are fine when the dot pitch is around 100 dpi. It varies so that is never an exact figure. This sort of resolution is suitable for viewing from 500mm or so. Not perfect in theory but fine in practice. In theory it aught to b 750mm.

Some people run a dual monitor set up rather than a single large one. Mine is a 27in 2,560x1440 as I prefer one large screen down to space but if I had the space I suspect that I would still prefer one large monitor.

The contrast ratio's quoted for screens are a bit meaningless for photo editing. They assume max eye searing brightness and maybe curious monitor settings. The important thing really is viewing angles and how well they calibrate. The best site to investigate this sort of thing before buying is this one

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

I don't know of another one that tests to this extent which is what is needed really.

It's safe to assume that various sizes in the same range of monitors will give similar results - the manufacturers sometimes do mention the type of panel fitted. There are basically 2 types that are good. One originated by LG and another by Samsung.

Personally I wouldn't be worried about buying a purely sRGB screen. There seems to be an assumption that this implies a lower quality panel. Not so it depends on the make and price. I also wouldn't be worried if something like 98% sRGB coverage crops up. Even less really. Having been there I'm sure no one would notice any difference. LED monitors seem to have improved this area and are to be preferred as the backlight is more stable.

One bad aspect of size is the 16:9 ratio. This is why I went for 27in as it give plenty of image height. As it turns out the spare space at the side is also useful.

I favour Dell's products on both quality and price. It's nice to buy a monitor with a 3 year warantee plus zero dead pixels. The ones to look for come pre calibrated. From memory that is all of the ultrasharp range. The factory calibration isn't as good as it could be but in practice isn't that bad.

When you get round to calibrating your monitor the chances are that you may get different results to the ones shown on tftcentral. Not to worry colourimeters are only so accurate and the ones they use are rather expensive. The hardest thing to measure is the gamut coverage. It really needs a calibrated spectrometer. These are a little pricey.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I think John makes a lot of vailid points and I also suggest looking at the Dell Ultrasharp line, but stick to the AdobeRGB compatible screens. Every time I look, they seem to be the best value for money. I'm also an advocate of the dual screen setup; I have a main working screen in front of me and park secondary programs as well as some of the break-away menus from Photoshop there. It really reduces the clutter on my main screen.

I was working on a fairly brightly coloured image last week and was amazed at how much duller it was on an sRGB display than on the AdobeRGB one. Remember; sRGB shows around 1/3 of the colours that humans can see whereas AbobeRGB can show just over 1/2 of the colours we can see. This tends to be on the more vibrant side of the spectrum, especially the blues and greens, but also the reds.



This image really "pops" on my AdobeRGB screen (using the ProPhoto or AdobeRGB colour spaces), but is relatively dull on my sRGB one (or when I convert to sRGB for display on the internet). This is the sRGB version. Boosting the saturation helps, but does not show the colours as well and has other unwanted side effects.

[NorthernFocus]

A lot depends on how "serious" you are about your PP. And what is the primary medium you use your images on. If you want to "soft proof" for traditional or metal prints, then as John suggested, pixel pitch is as or more important than pixel count. For years I did just fine with a 23in. 1920x1080 RGB monitor. When I started into serious printing I went up a notch to 27in. 2560x1440 and it makes a huge difference in workability. I stuck with 27in rather than 30in due to the tighter pixel pitch. I second the Dell Ultrasharp recommendation. Great value particularly if you can be patient and wait for them to run a special.

[ajohnw]

I think you will find a 23in 1920x1080 screen is more or less 100 dpi Dan. My last monitor was one and that's as I remember it. Also my calculator which sometimes miss behaves suggests 98 dpi. I see this as a visual aspect not soft proofing but on the other hand this sort of pixel pitch is probably essential for that.

I found the 1080 pixel aspect limiting even on the web etc so went to 27 as the squarer aspect ratio screens have more or less disappeared. I think 30in at around 100 dpi are also available. Maybe I will buy one next time.

Specials crop up on Ebay at regular intervals in the UK - well some one is generally selling them at reduced prices with the warrantee which I feel is worth having. It pays to read the listings carefully in that respect. Some are sold with seller warantees at times.

Dell also produce a hardware calibrated one now but it can only be calibrated with a certain make of colourimeter. I'm hoping that the open source people hack that at some point.

John
-

[Nicks Pics]

Very much appreciate every one's recommendations. It is often hard to pick these kinds of things, but your suggestions will give me some more guidelines for what I should be look for.

The hardest thing to measure is the gamut coverage. It really needs a calibrated spectrometer. These are a little pricey.

Do monitors come pre-calibrated for gamut coverage?

Does one usually process an image differently for printing or web display?

Thanks again!

[ajohnw]

Very much appreciate every one's recommendations. It is often hard to pick these kinds of things, but your suggestions will give me some more guidelines for what I should be look for.

Do monitors come pre-calibrated for gamut coverage?

Does one usually process an image differently for printing or web display?

Thanks again!

All I meant by that comment is to forget trying to measure gamut coverage unless you want to spend more money on screen calibration gear than probably on a screen itself. If you look at the reviews on the site I linked to they will state the manufacturers and even measure gamut coverage before and after calibration. If you do want to spend lots in this area note that the review site uses 2 types. Spectrometers can be very precise colour wise but no so good measuring very low light levels.

The Dell calibrations as supplied are pretty good. I ran my monitor using it as supplied for several months. When I calibrated it the most noticeable improvement was dynamic range rather than colour fidelity.

At some point most people buy a colourimeter. Mine is an xrite colormunki display. These are fairly popular, reasonably priced and come with the ability to measure ambient light.. The ambient light aspect isn't fantastically important but I went for that in case it is and also to measure colour temperature if I ever calibrate my camera. My previous one was older and 2nd hand. This left some doubt to it's suitability for use on LED monitors. It seems they need slightly different filters in them. At the time I bought the xrite unit was one of the few that were definitely right. This site is pretty good on colour management, profiling etc and colourimeter reviews

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews.html

I cross posted with you concerning dot pitch so hope you read that but basically I see the min resolution for a 23in monitor as being 1920x1080 - about 98 ppi. Adding a little more to the other post - my previous monitors have had more that 1080 vertical in the past so I found that aspect a bit of a nuisance. 27in is a whole lot better providing it's not a low resolution one.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...I see this as a visual aspect not soft proofing....

Isn't soft proofing by definition visual? Not sure of the technical/dictionary definition, but by my own definition soft proofing is essentially getting an idea on screen of what a final print is going to look like without wasting paper/ink. Which is extremely difficult with colors regardless of technical accuracy simply due to the difference in transmitted and reflected light. Where the pitch comes in is getting an idea of how the sharpness is going to translate. But in both cases, it is really one's mind that has to be calibrated to the understanding of what an image needs to look like on screen in order to translate to what one wants in print. I'm sure there are technical means of insuring the translation, but for most of us it is a visual process with judgment applied.

[ajohnw]

Isn't soft proofing by definition visual? Not sure of the technical/dictionary definition, but by my own definition soft proofing is essentially getting an idea on screen of what a final print is going to look like without wasting paper/ink. Which is extremely difficult with colors regardless of technical accuracy simply due to the difference in transmitted and reflected light. Where the pitch comes in is getting an idea of how the sharpness is going to translate. But in both cases, it is really one's mind that has to be calibrated to the understanding of what an image needs to look like on screen in order to translate to what one wants in print. I'm sure there are technical means of insuring the translation, but for most of us it is a visual process with judgment applied.

Not really Dan I am more concerned about how visible the pixels are.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...Does one usually process an image differently for printing or web display?...

I won't speak for others but what I find is that brightness, color saturation, and sharpening all need adjustment for printing if they have been processed to be visually "accurate" on screen. In my own workflow, brightness and saturation both need a 10-15 percent kick to account for the difference in transmitted light from a monitor vs. reflected light off of a printed medium. The low end of the range for metal prints and the high end for canvas.

I'll leave the sharpening discussion alone as it is well handled in multiple tutorials and thread contributions by Colin.

[Nicks Pics]

May I also ask what price range you folks would usually use for a decent monitor?

[chauncey]

All that has been said is true, but...the print is the telling result. The only thing a monitor,
does is give an indication of what that print will look like. I would suggest that you read this...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...too_dark.shtml
and follow this guys advice http://digitaldog.net/
Monitors...http://www.cnet.com/topics/monitors/best-monitors/

[Kodiak]

May I also ask what price range you folks would usually use for a decent monitor?

Are you all on Windows… or what? At the studio, we have two calibrated
27" cinema displays for all our workflows. A grand each and your good for
many year. For a "seasoned" guy like me, eye fatigue is a bad, bad thing.
I did not experience any since we use them!

[NorthernFocus]

May I also ask what price range you folks would usually use for a decent monitor?

I'm a notorious cheapskate. I bided my time for sale prices and ended up paying something less than $600 for the Dell Ultrasharp 27in(don't have the model number at hand right now) that I now use. I think the similar 30in 2560x1600 was nearly three times the price at the time.

[ajohnw]

May I also ask what price range you folks would usually use for a decent monitor?

A 27in Dell Ultrasharp in the uk is around £550 - £600. You can probably reckon on the same numbers for USD.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Brand-New-...item3ccee3a020

That is the sRGB and aRGB model. The same model number but with an M added to the end, the sRGB model should be something like maybe £100 cheaper..

Many of the 23in screens will be 1920x1080. The review site will show cheaper monitors that will calibrate to similar levels as the Dell but you will need to buy a colourimeter. The site is also a good one for obtaining sensible brightness and contrast settings. They also have profile files on site for all monitors that they have tested. Some people use these to avoid buying a colourimeter.

john
-

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for the help everybody. So what was the consensus on whether an aRGB supporting monitor was necessary or not? Or, maybe there wasn't one Anyway, I was of the general idea that aRGB was less vibrant on screens, or inter net, but aRGB is the file type you should print from, but you don't need an aRGB screen to save a file in aRGB, but maybe it would help you work in aRGB? Do I have it right?

Chauncy, Thanks for the links, they look like helpful information.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the help everybody. So what was the consensus on whether an aRGB supporting monitor was necessary or not? Or, maybe there wasn't one Anyway, I was of the general idea that aRGB was less vibrant on screens, or inter net, but aRGB is the file type you should print from, but you don't need an aRGB screen to save a file in aRGB, but maybe it would help you work in aRGB? Do I have it right?

Chauncy, Thanks for the links, they look like helpful information.

Consensus on CiC? Sounds like long-shot wishfull thinking. Just as an aside, I'm also on a Dell 27" Ultrasharp.

A sRGB file displayed on an AdobeRGB screen will look fine, just as an AdobeRGB file will look fine on it. It doesn't work the other way around an AdobeRGB image looks muddy displayed on a sRGB screen. Just to add to my previous notel I also have a 24" sRGB screen; as I use a dual screen setup. Both screens have been calibrated and profiled.

From a printing standpoint, most commercial printers are sRGB only, so unless you are planning to print your own on a colour photo printer, you are going to have to output your images as sRGB or again; AdobeRGB images witll look muddy printed by a commercial printer. I generally print my own, so I don't have this restriction, and yes, you can see the difference in the final product. The AdobeRGB print can produce roughtly 50% more visible colours than sRGB and these tend to be the more brilliant colours, so it can be quite apparent in your end product.

Nicely said; a higher gamut product can handle a lower own, with no negative issues. On the other hand, go with the lower end one, and there is no way that the wider gamut can be displayed. Whether this is worth it to you, only you can say.