photography monitor

Forums › Digital Imaging › photography monitor

nathanbarlow

48 posts

Geek

#105022 25-Jun-2012 17:41

Hi all,

Trying to get some advice on which monitor to buy as an external monitor for my laptop.

minimum specs:
- 1920 x 1080
- 24 inch
- HDMI capable
- response time suitable for films and some light gaming
- IPS panel
- LED back light

I'm not adverse to the idea of 1920 x 1200 as that gives me more real estate - but unsure if
laptop will handle that high. Laptop definitely will handle 1080p.

Usage:
- Photography editing (i have hardware calibration kit)
- watching DVDs and BluRays

- Light gaming (more likely to game on my laptop screen though)

Looking at:

-Dell U2410

- Dell U2412M (http://www.dell.com/nz/slgov/p/dell-u2412m/pd)

- HP ZR2440W (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-5163690.html?dnr=1)

Could I get some advice or suggestions on monitors aimed at photography (ie color accuracy needs to be good)

Thanks in advance
nathan

1 | 2

7297 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#646039 25-Jun-2012 18:21

They would be the ones to look at so on the right track. Mine is a PVA Dell which is still up there with the colours.

Last time I looked 22-23 tend to be the 1920x1080 sizings. With 24s and over leaning toward 1200 high.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646042 25-Jun-2012 18:24

Which calibration kit do you have? My DTP94 wouldn't work properly with my new Dell LED monitor, but the Spyder 3/4 are good.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk is the best monitor review site I know of. 24" is pretty big, I have a Dell LED IPS monitor (IPS is important) and it's plenty big for me.

nathanbarlow

48 posts

Geek

#646076 25-Jun-2012 20:15

hi thanks for the replies.

im using a spyder3

timmaayy - what size moniter are you using? and what do you use it primarily for?

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646087 25-Jun-2012 20:27

22" Dell IPS LED - U2212HM. I'm a professional photographer, I use it for processing images. Spyder 3 express here, works well.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646108 25-Jun-2012 21:30

I ran a 10m HDMI cable under the house from where my laptop is stationed to my 46" Bravia and now tend to do my lightroom processing through that. Not specifically designed for photography but great colour renditions.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646109 25-Jun-2012 21:44

Accurate color and bright, vivid color are quite different. If you edit on a TV things can look way out of whack on monitors, especially calibrated ones. Editing on a calibrated monitor means you have some confidence that the majority of people will see the photo more or less how you want it to be.

Plus TVs are pretty poor resolution.

bfginger

1268 posts

Uber Geek

#646513 26-Jun-2012 17:15

Not all IPS panels are created equal. Most IPS LCDs have 6 bit panels and do a dithering process to increase perceived colour depth so they can market them as having "8 bit" panels when they don't. You want a true 8 or 10 bit panel for photographic work.

The Dell U2412M, HP ZR2440W and Dell U2212HM are all 6 bit panels with dithering. Anything that is "e-IPS" is very likely to be 6 bit.

The Dell U2410 is an 8 bit panel with dithering. The ViewSonic VP2655WB specifications list wider colour reproduction, 2 more inches and 1ms faster response times than the U2410 but I can't be certain it's really a better monitor. But it does cost more.

A 2560x1600 LCD with a 10 bit panel is more ideal for serious photo editing.

Don't leave a space after the text when submitting a search on tftcentral or it won't give any results

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646514 26-Jun-2012 17:22

I search tftcentral with google.

I don't know exactly which IPS my monitor is, but my prints look like my monitor shows and it's served me well for the six months or so since I bought it.

mattwnz

20149 posts

Uber Geek

#646515 26-Jun-2012 17:25

The Dell UltraSharp U2410 is possibly what you want for photography work. It is an 8 bit IPS panel. It is not LED though. It is often on special, and I think it is a good compromise between the cheaper 6 bit IPS panels, and the very expensive 10-bit ones. But it is a very good monitor and the colours are better than the PVA monitor I also have.

KennyM

221 posts

Master Geek

#646691 26-Jun-2012 22:01

My flatmate has just ordered one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120878749173&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:US:3160

Apparently they have been getting good reviews from gamers. hopefully ill be able to have a go in it when it arrives!

Edit:
Does say it wont connect to a laptop tho

mattwnz

20149 posts

Uber Geek

#646738 26-Jun-2012 23:20

KennyM: My flatmate has just ordered one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120878749173&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:US:3160

Apparently they have been getting good reviews from gamers. hopefully ill be able to have a go in it when it arrives!

Edit:
Does say it wont connect to a laptop tho

It may not be the best for photography work though, as I think it will be 6 bit. At least with dells you know what you are getting and they have a good warranty system. Mine had a 5 year one, and my first dell monitior failed after 2.5 years, and it was switched for a new refurbished one.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#646741 27-Jun-2012 00:06

LED doesn't actually provide anything positive to LCD accuracy, at least not several years ago anyway. CCFL backlights are usually more able to deliver more accurate colour, due to them being a more mature form of backlight and I guess more adaptive? Only problem is that they 'drift' over time, for example slowly colour shift and get dimmer, and they are also less bright than most LED displays.

Dell is the best in my opinion before you go to a super high end display, but only the high end Dells. U2410 for example. Also if your Spyder provides an option to sample ambient light, In my experience it just messes everything up.

6bit v 8bit is important, but not as important as a calibrated display - unless you are working with very large commercial clients, it's unlikely that they will have the technology to see the difference. Remember that if you are using a laptop, Display port offers higher quality image via large bit depth, then DVI/HDMI, then VGA.

Also remember that if you are going to be using a laptop with Nvidia Optimus, it constantly will mess with your calibration, but there is a work around which you can find on google.

You can also can make things better for yourself if you always edit in 16Bit, which is higher than most cameras, but it allows you to have more flexibility in photoshop with intensive edits - If you are doing consumer work though - Probably not a big deal. Edit in Adobe RGB 1998, BUT remember that Adobe RGB has a larger amount of gamut, or colours than a regular consumer monitor so the image will look crap for most people and the web if you don't convert to sRGB first before delivery to client. If you are dealing with a commercial client then deliver in whatever format they ask for, and if they don't ask for a format, sRGB.

:))

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646775 27-Jun-2012 07:35

I have a different position that macuser. Anyone who doesn't understand color profiles and color management should do everything in sRgb, it's just too easy to mess up your color by not knowing what you're doing. For example all images on the web must be sRgb, and most consumer labs ignore color profiles so images in Adobe RGB even with the profile embedded will have very muted color.

Editing in 16 bits is generally not necessary, unless you're making changes to large areas of solid colors that could result in banding. Of the say 200,000 wedding photos I've processed only three have needed editing in 16 bit mode, all were vignettes of a clear sky.

If you shoot RAW then raw converters work in 16 bits internally, so the vast bulk of your changes will be done in 16 bit anyway. Jpegs are only 8 bit.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#646927 27-Jun-2012 12:10

timmmay: I have a different position that macuser. Anyone who doesn't understand color profiles and color management should do everything in sRgb, it's just too easy to mess up your color by not knowing what you're doing. For example all images on the web must be sRgb, and most consumer labs ignore color profiles so images in Adobe RGB even with the profile embedded will have very muted color.

Editing in 16 bits is generally not necessary, unless you're making changes to large areas of solid colors that could result in banding. Of the say 200,000 wedding photos I've processed only three have needed editing in 16 bit mode, all were vignettes of a clear sky.

If you shoot RAW then raw converters work in 16 bits internally, so the vast bulk of your changes will be done in 16 bit anyway. Jpegs are only 8 bit.

Yeah in your case, your workflow for weddings/consumer work is perfect, it depends more on the purpose of the clients purpose with the image. No point making a larger file, or a professional colour profile for something that doesn't need it. Overkill.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#646937 27-Jun-2012 12:33

I would think the only reason to do more would be for really, really critical color matching, say for multinational companies who have very specific color requirements. What I do would be easily good enough for 99% of commercial clients.

I have a fairly in depth knowledge of color management. There's a lot of misinformation around, such as "most people should use Adobe RGB as it has a wider gamut" and "use a high end monitor so you can see all the colors in the color space". It's easy to mess things up with Adobe RGB if you don't know what you're doing, and you also have to consider the gamut of the output device - most labs are around sRgb, you need a high end inkjet to get to Adobe RGB. Also, just because a color's out of gamut on your monitor that doesn't mean a high end inkjet printer won't print it.

Most people want pleasing color, not accurate color, the main thing is to have control over what people see.

1 | 2