Best monitor for photo editing

[konicaman]

I am looking for a new monitor suitable for photo editing. Facts to consider:
I am using a Matrox Mill. p690 graphics card - running both Linux and Windows XP
Would prefer 4:3 format
Not too big, probably around 19-21" - only got a small desk for my digital darkroom.
Budget max. 8-900 US$

Any suggestions?

 

[gavinlg]

Look in the Eizo range, they are the best and have something in that size and price if I recall. Otherwise, NEC is the other brand that is up top of the pile - they also make something like that.

 

[x-ray]

I investigated new monitors last year and considered Eizo and Lacie. I found more good reviews on the Lacie. I wound up purchasing a referb model 324 and could not be happier. Superb monitor. I profile it with a Spyder 3 and the color is dead on. I think the 324 referb is now down to around $500. A good friend just purchased one and really loves it.

I waslooking to replace my Lacie Electron Blue 22" CRT and had never seen a LCD that looked good until I found the 324. The transition was extremely easy and now I don't think I could go back to a CRT.

 

[Steve Karr]

Hi,
Well I work as a Digital Tech & retoucher and I (and everyone serious in my bus.) uses the last generation Apple 23 or Eizo's.

Because of your budget lets talk of the Apple. They are accurate. Period. No really Period. Just Spyder or whatever them and you are good to go.
The new ones are sexy ( I have 1 too ) but like Bose speakers they are tuned for your listening pleasure not what's truly in the track. Try to Spyder one of those suckers and see.

Apple Cinema 23's are matte finish, true to tone & accurate. And $500 on CL or eBay all day long.

My 12 cents.

Steve

 

[astro8]

.

Because of your budget lets talk of the Apple. They are accurate. Period. No really Period. Just Spyder or whatever them and you are good to go.

Steve

I second this opinion.

I print to large format printers all day. We have a calibrated workflow...but for extra color critical work I check it on an Apple Cinema 23" before I send to print ...just to be sure to be sure.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Hi,
Well I work as a Digital Tech & retoucher and I (and everyone serious in my bus.) uses the last generation Apple 23 or Eizo's.

Because of your budget lets talk of the Apple. They are accurate. Period. No really Period. Just Spyder or whatever them and you are good to go.
The new ones are sexy ( I have 1 too ) but like Bose speakers they are tuned for your listening pleasure not what's truly in the track. Try to Spyder one of those suckers and see.

Apple Cinema 23's are matte finish, true to tone & accurate. And $500 on CL or eBay all day long.

My 12 cents.

Steve

Steve,

Can you elaborate a bit more on exactly which model/generation of the monitor you are referring to? I am not an Apple user and not that familiar with Apple products. Or is there only one Apple Cinema 23" monitor as I see now Apple is offering a 24" and 27".

Thanks!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Apple LCDs I have worked with were nowhere near the NEC self-calibrating spectraview LCDs like the 2190uxi that I bought 4 yrs ago. Nowhere near, except in the inflated prices. Even calibrated with a 'spyder' they're too bright and the color is not as accurate to the prints.

 

[robklurfield]

Whoa! Those Spectra Views are expensive.

What would you recommend for less money?

The Apple LCDs I have worked with were nowhere near the NEC self-calibrating spectraview LCDs like the 2190uxi that I bought 4 yrs ago. Nowhere near, except in the inflated prices. Even calibrated with a 'spyder' they're too bright and the color is not as accurate to the prints.

 

[Jmck]

I purchased a NEC P221-W with SpectraView II Calibration System the last part of 2009 and have 1600 plus hours on it, and am very happy with it.
Shop around I gave $700.00 for mine and the last time i checked they where going for around $500.00.

 

[Steve Karr]

Hi everyone,
We started a Ford/Chevy thread here I think.

This is what I know...

In the Ad/publishing world 90% of designers, art directors, photographer & retouchers have Apples. So when we calibrate using the same tools (Xrite or Spyders) we get consistent color in NY, LA - where ever you are. Simple & professional.

When you bring "other" brands into the mix with their version of calibration and response to files all bets are off on matching. If you are a one man shop sure, no problem. But in a stream of 10-20 people who have to make decisions on an image we can't afford "it doesn't look right on my screen". I've been there a thousand times with clients with PC's or non standard workflow. There's a reason they still make the 30" (I have 1) the same way they did in '05, they just work.

There are 30 brands at Best Buy or on the internet, but only one Apple company, with quality control of everything that leaves the factory.

http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-Ci...5.html&pltid=5a9463382321e2d8e67816dd517102e1

... It's about a standard because it works.

Now Eizo .... There's the real choice, but $6k is a bit rich for the above average person.

Anyhow, good luck!

Steve

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hi everyone,
We started a Ford/Chevy thread here I think.

This is what I know...

In the Ad/publishing world 90% of designers, art directors, photographer & retouchers have Apples. So when we calibrate using the same tools (Xrite or Spyders) we get consistent color in NY, LA - where ever you are. Simple & professional.

When you bring "other" brands into the mix with their version of calibration and response to files all bets are off on matching. If you are a one man shop sure, no problem. But in a stream of 10-20 people who have to make decisions on an image we can't afford "it doesn't look right on my screen". I've been there a thousand times with clients with PC's or non standard workflow. There's a reason they still make the 30" (I have 1) the same way they did in '05, they just work.

There are 30 brands at Best Buy or on the internet, but only one Apple company, with quality control of everything that leaves the factory.

http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-Ci...5.html&pltid=5a9463382321e2d8e67816dd517102e1

... It's about a standard because it works.

Now Eizo .... There's the real choice, but $6k is a bit rich for the above average person.

Anyhow, good luck!

Steve

Steve, with all due respect, you have no idea how color management works if you believe a word of what you wrote. When doing print design work, how something looks on someone else's monitor is irrelevant. All that matters is that the print comes out looking like what the designer saw on his screen.

I've worked with a lot of people using the Apple screens and they're a pain in the ass because none of those people ever had their screen calibrated right, so they all had kludges they used to get prints looking like they saw on the screen, like a curve they'd apply to everything to lighten the print, or they depend on the printing company to fix their files so they print right on the press. (most of them had the screens way too bright, cause that's how Apple's 'quality' sets them at the factory....to be bright, not accurate for print design work). If you do have your Apple screens calibrated right, there is no advantage to using an Apple screen over a better one that has more accurate dark tone reproduction, a larger color gamut, and a higher bit depth. The stone cold fact is that Apple's screens are not pro graphics screens no matter how much the company's marketing division wants to make you believe it.

Apple's screens are mid-level general purpose screens in really pretty housings at high prices. If you have a screen made for graphics work, one that's self calibrating like the NEC Spectraview and the Eizos and the old and much missed Sony Artisan and Barco color reference monitors, your screen won't match the masses with their pretty screens, but they WILL match your printed work from your inkjet or the offset press because that is what matters to designers, and they'll match perfectly with no workarounds or compromise.

Apple's monitors are not a 'standard'. The standard is the gamma, brightness, color temp settings.

 

[Matus]

I would only add that if the udget is $800 than you have only about $650 for the monitor as the Spyder (which you simply need - some of the simpler versions should suffice) costs a bit.

I was in a similar situation, just with smaller budget 2 years ago and I got NEC MultiSync LCD 2170NX. Refurbished for 180 euro. I am perfectly fine with it (I am not a pro tough). What was important to me is that it has IPS panel which is much better for color work than the TN which is used in most monitors.

You may want to check the following list of current IPS (and its clones) monitors:
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php

Just be careful before you buy - some models were/are made with 2 different panes and you may not be able to find it out as they bare the same name.

EDIT: if you plan to use only one monitor for photo editing that I would recommend to look for wide screen monitors of ~ 24" as you need some space for the tool windows. I use the NEC together with my MacBook so I keep all the Photoshop tools on the Mac screen an use the full area of the NEC for the image.

 

[Jamie123]

I am looking for a new monitor suitable for photo editing. Facts to consider:
I am using a Matrox Mill. p690 graphics card - running both Linux and Windows XP
Would prefer 4:3 format
Not too big, probably around 19-21" - only got a small desk for my digital darkroom.
Budget max. 8-900 US$

Any suggestions?

Consider getting a 16:9 screen anyways. They're quite nice, IMO, as the extra width gives you enough room for the tools and other palettes in photoshop.

 

[JayGannon]

Steve, with all due respect, you have no idea how color management works if you believe a word of what you wrote. When doing print design work, how something looks on someone else's monitor is irrelevant. All that matters is that the print comes out looking like what the designer saw on his screen.

I've worked with a lot of people using the Apple screens and they're a pain in the ass because none of those people ever had their screen calibrated right, so they all had kludges they used to get prints looking like they saw on the screen, like a curve they'd apply to everything to lighten the print, or they depend on the printing company to fix their files so they print right on the press. (most of them had the screens way too bright, cause that's how Apple's 'quality' sets them at the factory....to be bright, not accurate for print design work). If you do have your Apple screens calibrated right, there is no advantage to using an Apple screen over a better one that has more accurate dark tone reproduction, a larger color gamut, and a higher bit depth. The stone cold fact is that Apple's screens are not pro graphics screens no matter how much the company's marketing division wants to make you believe it.

Apple's screens are mid-level general purpose screens in really pretty housings at high prices. If you have a screen made for graphics work, one that's self calibrating like the NEC Spectraview and the Eizos and the old and much missed Sony Artisan and Barco color reference monitors, your screen won't match the masses with their pretty screens, but they WILL match your printed work from your inkjet or the offset press because that is what matters to designers, and they'll match perfectly with no workarounds or compromise.

Apple's monitors are not a 'standard'. The standard is the gamma, brightness, color temp settings.

Sorry Chris but you appear to be the one who doesnt understand color managment in a business with more than one screen. Of course consistency between monitors is important, not everyone prints on an inkjet at home, so having consistency between your design system, your proofing system and your output system is critical.

Apples 23"s are by far the most used screens in color critical situations, they are the most used in print and photography while Panasonic Pro Plasmas are the most used in motion picture work, Sony Artisan and Barco are used by people with too much money and who fall for prices not quality. Go into any print house or any post production studio in LA and you will see Apple 23"'s and Panny 11 and 12 series plasmas, they are the 2 industury standards for color accurate work.

 

[doobedy]

Sorry Chris but you appear to be the one who doesnt understand color managment in a business with more than one screen. Of course consistency between monitors is important, not everyone prints on an inkjet at home, so having consistency between your design system, your proofing system and your output system is critical.

Apples 23"s are by far the most used screens in color critical situations, they are the most used in print and photography while Panasonic Pro Plasmas are the most used in motion picture work, Sony Artisan and Barco are used by people with too much money and who fall for prices not quality. Go into any print house or any post production studio in LA and you will see Apple 23"'s and Panny 11 and 12 series plasmas, they are the 2 industury standards for color accurate work.

This is all true, but the important thing to note is that Apple uses good panels in their flagship monitors.

Personally I'd shop for whatever Dell monitor uses an IPS panel that fits your size requirements, or a used Apple. I have both at home, and they match each other perfectly once calibrated. Just avoid consumer TN displays. The list linked above looks like a great start, and your budget actually is about 2-3x what you will need.

And forget about 4:3, monitors are wide now 😎

 

[gavinlg]

I'm going to agree with Chris here - Don't get me wrong I love (and use) apple stuff, and they have great quality control and build quality etc, but for a real color calibrated workstation monitor, they don't compare to the specialized EIZO and NEC monitors - both of which are significantly more stable, accurate and (most importantly) every parameter can be adjusted. The apple and dell screens are very good consumer screens, but their brightness is way too high natively and the adjustments available to the user are extremely slim.

And Chris is also correct in that accuracy is most important with PRINT as a final goal. if you match 10 monitors in a studio to print output, they will all be similar enough to work with, and they'll look great on everyone else's overly bright, overly saturated and overly contrasty consumer screens.

That being said, using apple monitors CAN work fine - I've been able to get mine very accurate with prints using a spyder3 calibration unit - but I will buy and Eizo or an NEC when I can. They're just undoubtably better.

 

[JayGannon]

I'm going to agree with Chris here - Don't get me wrong I love (and use) apple stuff, and they have great quality control and build quality etc, but for a real color calibrated workstation monitor, they don't compare to the specialized EIZO and NEC monitors - both of which are significantly more stable, accurate and (most importantly) every parameter can be adjusted. The apple and dell screens are very good consumer screens, but their brightness is way too high natively and the adjustments available to the user are extremely slim.

And Chris is also correct in that accuracy is most important with PRINT as a final goal. if you match 10 monitors in a studio to print output, they will all be similar enough to work with, and they'll look great on everyone else's overly bright, overly saturated and overly contrasty consumer screens.

That being said, using apple monitors CAN work fine - I've been able to get mine very accurate with prints using a spyder3 calibration unit - but I will buy and Eizo or an NEC when I can. They're just undoubtably better.

I am not outting down Eizo or NEC, I am just saying the Apple when calibrated is the industury standard. Generally their calibrated once a month by a professional calibrator using a 10 grand probe/coloimeter.

 

[sevo]

Generally their calibrated once a month by a professional calibrator using a 10 grand probe/coloimeter.

Surprising given that the most expensive monitor colorimeters are well below a thousand - anything above is reflective/print, and not suitable for a monitor (or only so by coming bundled with a screen wart you could have bought separately for 200).

 

[JayGannon]

I think you'll find that good non contact probes start at about 5 thousand and go very far up from there.
http://www.curtpalme.com/ChromaPure_Hubble.shtm

 

[StuartR]

I am also going to agree with Chris. The question is titled "Best monitor for photo editing" and those are definitely Eizo, LaCie, NEC or Quad, not Apple. If he wants to match everyone else's monitor in a print house office, then fine, there ARE a lot of Apple monitors there. But that is not about them being better. It is about them being cheap compared to graphics panels and looking good. I use an Eizo, and before that I had the Apple 23" monitor. There is no contest! It is not just about calibration either, as the Apple panels do not have the evenness and consistency of the high end panels. If you look at a lot of Apple monitors, you find they are brighter in the corners or they have uneven areas of illumination or color response. The Eizos do not suffer from this. They also perform much better at 5000K, which is much more useful for printing.

Anyway, rather than go on about Eizo, I would just recommend getting a monitor that is made for graphics, particularly an IPS panel. Even used if that is a possibility -- maybe a used CG-210 if you can find one...