boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I recently paged through my Flickr postings on my Sony TV. The images were better than on my Dell monitor on my desktop. Which begs the question, what are the good monitors now?
Monitors Advice
- Thread starter boojum
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 4K
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The correct monitor is NOT, repeat NOT the one that makes the pictures look 'good.' It is the monitor that displays them ACCURATELY. There is a gigantic difference between those two standards.
Televisions are designed to give a bright, contrasty, highly saturated image so that movies and TV shows look good when viewed in brightly lit homes. If you edited photos on such a screen, then printed them, your prints would look nothing like what the screen showed. They would be very dark and flat.
Most consumer computer screens are not great for photo and graphics work either for the same reasons that TVs aren't. There are computer screens made for photo editing. They come with a calibration sensor and software that internally calibrates the screen and many of them have a much wider color gamut than TVs and consumer monitors. A good, properly calibrated screen that was made for photo work will be dim and low in contrast compared to a television, but the image on the screen will match the prints you make of your photos, allowing accurate editing. This is also important if you sell photos for stock photo purposes or if you publish your work.
Televisions are designed to give a bright, contrasty, highly saturated image so that movies and TV shows look good when viewed in brightly lit homes. If you edited photos on such a screen, then printed them, your prints would look nothing like what the screen showed. They would be very dark and flat.
Most consumer computer screens are not great for photo and graphics work either for the same reasons that TVs aren't. There are computer screens made for photo editing. They come with a calibration sensor and software that internally calibrates the screen and many of them have a much wider color gamut than TVs and consumer monitors. A good, properly calibrated screen that was made for photo work will be dim and low in contrast compared to a television, but the image on the screen will match the prints you make of your photos, allowing accurate editing. This is also important if you sell photos for stock photo purposes or if you publish your work.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Here are some recommended screens.
Benq 27" monitor
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1481844-REG/benq_27_sw270c_professional_ips.html
Benq 32" monitor
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1534852-REG/benq_sw321c_32_4k_hlg_dci_p3.html
NEC 24" (this is the one I have)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1368967-REG/nec_multisync_pa243w_sv_24_wide.html
NEC 31"
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1522598-REG/nec_pa311d_bk_sv_31_color_critical_desktop.html
Eizo 27"
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...2731_bk_cnx_coloredge_cs2731_27_hardware.html
There were not many on B&H's website, many of the good monitors have been out of stock a long time, unfortunately. These monitors are not cheap, but they really are worth it if you want your images to be accurately edited so they'll print the way you want them to look.
• Eizo Coloredge screens are regarded as the very best, but at very high prices.
• NEC Specraview screens are a little less costly and in my opinion are 95% as good as the Eizos. I've used NEC Spectraview screens for more than 20 years. Last year, I bought a new one for my son, who is also a professional artist, as a Christmas gift. His old NEC Spectraview screen, which I had given him when he was in high school, had worn out (I had bought the screen new in 2006, it lasted a long time!.)
• The Benq screens are very inexpensive compared to the NEC and Eizo screens. They cover the Adobe RGB color gamut, like the more expensive screens I recommended and have built in calibration as well. I have not seen one in person, but they seem to be well regarded. Even if not quite up to the standards of the NEC or Eizo offerings, they'll be better than any consumer monitor for photo work,
Benq 27" monitor
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1481844-REG/benq_27_sw270c_professional_ips.html
Benq 32" monitor
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1534852-REG/benq_sw321c_32_4k_hlg_dci_p3.html
NEC 24" (this is the one I have)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1368967-REG/nec_multisync_pa243w_sv_24_wide.html
NEC 31"
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1522598-REG/nec_pa311d_bk_sv_31_color_critical_desktop.html
Eizo 27"
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...2731_bk_cnx_coloredge_cs2731_27_hardware.html
There were not many on B&H's website, many of the good monitors have been out of stock a long time, unfortunately. These monitors are not cheap, but they really are worth it if you want your images to be accurately edited so they'll print the way you want them to look.
• Eizo Coloredge screens are regarded as the very best, but at very high prices.
• NEC Specraview screens are a little less costly and in my opinion are 95% as good as the Eizos. I've used NEC Spectraview screens for more than 20 years. Last year, I bought a new one for my son, who is also a professional artist, as a Christmas gift. His old NEC Spectraview screen, which I had given him when he was in high school, had worn out (I had bought the screen new in 2006, it lasted a long time!.)
• The Benq screens are very inexpensive compared to the NEC and Eizo screens. They cover the Adobe RGB color gamut, like the more expensive screens I recommended and have built in calibration as well. I have not seen one in person, but they seem to be well regarded. Even if not quite up to the standards of the NEC or Eizo offerings, they'll be better than any consumer monitor for photo work,
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I know of Benq and had thought about them. They seem a standard for display. And I will check out the other two. Thank you.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Oooops! Just got a look at the non-Benq prices. Woohoo.
Question, if there is a 16 bit color lookup table but a 10 bit color gradiation panel what the hell am I looking at? Is this just marketing mumbo-jumbo?
Question, if there is a 16 bit color lookup table but a 10 bit color gradiation panel what the hell am I looking at? Is this just marketing mumbo-jumbo?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Most monitors only display 8 bit color. That's really all the human eye can see anyway. The reason for having higher bit internal gradation is that it allows the monitor to be calibrated while still retaining the full range of colors. Changing a monitor's gamma or white balance reduces the number of colors it can display, so the 10 or 12 bit internal gradation protects against that loss being visible to you.
About the prices; yeah they're a lot. Especially the Eizo screens. My son and I are both professionals who earn our livings using our screens; I'm a photographer and he is a commercial illustrator, so it was worth it for us to spend the money for high-end screens. I've tried working with cheap consumer screens and they're truly awful for photo and graphics work. Nearly impossible to calibrate them properly; they just aren't capable of the accuracy needed and they display much smaller color gamuts, too.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
AM I correct that the Benq is a good monitor? It seems a good compromise and has had good reviews. I am a rank hobbyist of mediocre talent so this is not really required so much as desired.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I haven't used one personally; but my guess would be that it probably isn't quite as good as the NEC screens, but it is still going to be far superior to any screen that wasn't designed to be used for graphics work. You're not a professional depending on absolute perfection in your equipment to feed your family; it'll work fine for you.
Make sure you set up the calibration on whatever screen you get. The monitors I listed all come with software and a color sensor that internally calibrates the screen. This needs to be done every week or two, as all screens drift slightly over time. The software will ask you for what brightness level, white point, and other settings you want. Here's what you should choose:
White Point: Choose D65. If that's not an option, choose 6500k. 6500k and D65 are virtually identical but for some reason some software includes both as an option and some only includes one of them.
Contrast Ratio: If this is an option, choose "Native" or "Default."
Brightness: Choose 100 as your brightness level. This setting is not an absolute; you may want it a little higher or lower. Those who work in very brightly lit offices sometimes find that setting the screen to a slightly higher setting, like 110 or 120, gives better matching between screen and prints, while those who work in very dimly lit spaces (and I mean nearly total darkness) find the screen is more accurate set a little dimmer, like 90 or 80. You'll have to edit some photos then print them to check this. 99% of the time, a setting of 100 for brightness works perfectly.
Gamma: Set this to 2.2
Be aware that after calibrating the screen, pictures you edited before will likely look bad on it. They'll probably look too dark and the color balance may be off. This does not mean that the monitor is bad; it means the photos were edited badly and need adjusted because your previous screen was too bright.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
On the street we'd say, "Aren't you the righteous dude!" That's a lot of core info I will need. Benq seems the way to go. I have seen it on other pro's desks and it seems a good balance of quality and price. I am just a hack so I am beyond my depth with cameras and lenses so I may as well complete the circle with monitor. Next? New printer?
I have an old Epson tank printer with clogged jets. I will try soaking the jets on an ammonia soaked paper towel to clean them up.
Thanks for the help.
I have an old Epson tank printer with clogged jets. I will try soaking the jets on an ammonia soaked paper towel to clean them up.
Thanks for the help.
CMur12
Veteran
Chris, thanks for all the helpful information and for specific examples of qualifying monitors.
I have often thought about this, but had no idea where to start looking.
- Murray
I have often thought about this, but had no idea where to start looking.
- Murray
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Glad I could help. There's not much good info about this stuff online. I need to write a tutorial on it for my website.
Glenn2
Well-known
I bought the 27” Benq monitor Chris mentions and am very pleased with it. Had to update my calibration hardware to a version supported by W10 but no problems calibrating.
Only negative seems to be that they don’t include a full size display port cable, although other cables including usb-c are included.
Glenn
Only negative seems to be that they don’t include a full size display port cable, although other cables including usb-c are included.
Glenn
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Hmmm. Can I run the Benq in Linux? I will have to do some research.
G Dogg
Established
BenQ is a great monitor, can be calibrated, and good color gamut. I use the 27" and have had it for 3 years. No complaints
retinax
Well-known
Unless I missed something with new monitors, screens are completely independent of OS - the computer spits out a standardised signal. In general with USB-C/thunderbolt etc. things got a little messy as there is no longer one connector=one protocol, but surely monitors should still work if you have the right connectors?!
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Guys, that is great news. I have even less excuse now to not buy one. Rationalizing it on the basis of need or personal talent will not work so I will just have to chalk it up to self-indulgence and hobby support. Cheaper than a new set of driving woods, I guess. Just as well, I do not play golf. ;o)
dexdog
Veteran
I have had a 27 inch Benq for about 6 months, and I am really impressed with it. This was a replacement for my 12 year old Dell 19 inch monitor. I got this one because i wanted the higher resolution screen, but am also happy with the colors too, even though I do not use the hockey puck controller, and only use one calibration. A great monitor for the price.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
It looks like the choice has been made. That Benq looks like a winner. However I just saw this at B&H as their biggest seller. Any comment? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1547779-REG/dell_27_u2720q_ultrasharp_4k.html
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That is not a good monitor for photo editing. It only covers the small sRGB color gamut and doesn't have built-in calibration capability. Get the Benq, its better in every way. The Dell has higher resolution, but that is not important for photo editing; color accuracy, color gamut, and calibration capability are far more important. Note that none of the good editing screens have the high resolution of the Dell.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
All these companies make 4k monitors for photo editing, they are just more expensive than the 1440p versions. Personally I wouldn’t buy a 27” 1440p monitor in 2022, no matter how good it is. Just not enough pixel density. To each their own though.
Similar threads
