Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
If you had $1000 to spend on a monitor...
Which one would you buy if you were just using it for retouching? Or should i keep saving and get something more expensive? Also do i need 30 inch or is 24 ok? Aug 31 13 05:20 pm Link Keep saving and get the one of the new NEC models, the PA242w or the PA272W To help choose a new monitor, check here. Aug 31 13 05:34 pm Link I'd buy a large HD flatscreen tv, and use it for both tv and a computer screen. Aug 31 13 05:42 pm Link Jute of Memphis wrote: Well that would be a disaster as far as computer screen goes. Aug 31 13 05:43 pm Link Pictus wrote: What's your opinion of new iMacs displayes? Yay or nay? Aug 31 13 05:43 pm Link Save up the other $900 and get a 27" iMac. Aug 31 13 05:46 pm Link Jute of Memphis wrote: I do something similar lol Aug 31 13 05:53 pm Link cwwmbm wrote: I do not know them, but they do not have a programmable hardware internal LUT right? Aug 31 13 06:06 pm Link Pictus wrote: I do not even know what that is, I guess a lot of studying to do Aug 31 13 06:07 pm Link http://www.imagescience.com.au/products … ecked.html Guess ill keep saving as this looks exactly like what im looking for. Aug 31 13 06:08 pm Link cwwmbm wrote: In the ordinary monitors the calibration is done in the graphics card LUT Aug 31 13 06:19 pm Link cwwmbm wrote: Actually, an good 1080p HD TV (LCD or LED) performs both functions very well and in fact for movie and photo editing pros use both, because users generally view them on an HD TV not a computer monitor. So video and event stills need to be optimized for these displays. What looks good on your compute monitor may not look nearly as good when displayed on a large screen Aug 31 13 06:46 pm Link Even a "good" HDTV has a fraction of the resolution of a mid quality computer display. 1080P is actually pretty low quality for a computer display. Before I dumped a bunch of money into an expensive monitor I would make sure I had my current setup properly calibrated. Things like changes in ambient light and differences in printer profiles can have huge effects on your image output that has nothing to do with your monitor. Aug 31 13 07:18 pm Link Beautifully Soft Focus wrote: Generally, people view photos printed. Aug 31 13 07:22 pm Link Eizo or NEC would be on my list as first choice. See this on monitors, second question: http://www.inkjetmall.com/tech/content. … Management Aug 31 13 07:45 pm Link I can't tell you how overrated the pro-color monitors are. It's like buying a gold-plated hammer to pound a nail. Aug 31 13 08:58 pm Link Brick Wilson wrote: That's right, you probably can't Aug 31 13 10:20 pm Link love my dell and my clients can see what I see from whatever angle, and the mac is great, but too glossy...Mo Aug 31 13 10:26 pm Link Brick Wilson wrote: Ok Brick, you say that pro monitors are overrated. How about giving an opinion on what would be a good way to spend $1,000 on a monitor? That would make your answer *way* more helpful. Aug 31 13 10:33 pm Link cwwmbm wrote: I assume that's an emphasis on the word 'you' directed at Brick Wilson. Sep 01 13 02:48 am Link Pictus wrote: This guy is bang on the money with what he's saying ... I own and use dual 24" NEC PA's hand picked/factory calibrated monitors. Sep 01 13 03:07 am Link Dell makes pretty good screens, they probably hit the top of the price/performance category. If given $1000 for a new monitor, Id probably grab this: http://m.dell.com/mt/accessories.us.del … t_redirect Sep 01 13 07:13 am Link Pictus wrote: I purchased the NEC PA241w a month ago and could not be happier. It is solidly built, turns vertical and horizontal, and came with the Spectra Sensor Pro for calibration. You had a budget and the larger monitors are double to triple the price. I got mine for just under 1K at B&H in New York. Sep 01 13 07:25 am Link Pictus wrote: I would assume that a PRO monitor would be valuable when editing for print. If the image is only going to be viewed on a monitor, the tonal quality of the will be affected by the monitor that the user is viewing. Sep 01 13 07:25 am Link For that kind of money, you could do what I've done... 3 used HPLP2475W monitors set up vertically, driven by one NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 video card. Sep 01 13 07:40 am Link Sep 01 13 08:51 am Link Robb Mann wrote: The U2713h is good for the price, but it is not at the same level as NEC/Eizo Sep 01 13 09:34 am Link rdallasPhotography wrote: The current PRO monitors will show more shadows/highlights details, no banding and true neutral shadows with no color casts, the black will be black and not dark green/red/blue... Sep 01 13 09:47 am Link I use an HDTV it's 1920x1080 (37") which is better than my View Sonic HD monitor that was 720x1080. It has a much better resolution from what I can see. Is there a difference between a computer monitor and a true HDTV? I find this television has more options to adjust as far as color, temperature, contrast is amazing too. Just asking. I have no idea... Sep 01 13 09:53 am Link Short answer... TV sucks! Sep 01 13 10:14 am Link pdxROCKpix wrote: The new iMacs, IMHO, are a step down from the previous models (no Optical drive, for one big thing). If I were getting an iMac today, I'd find one on E-Bay that has the optical drive. Sep 01 13 10:23 am Link Ok so y'all hated on the TV monitors ... but here the thing, y'all are kinda behind; 4k HD TV monitors (50") can be had for as little as $1400. With 3840 x 2160 resolution they probably exceed the capacity of the OP computer's graphics card. I am just saying. Personally my next purchase will be a Sony XBR 4K Ultra HD TV which I will use for both editing and entertainment Sep 01 13 10:35 am Link Beautifully Soft Focus wrote: And with that you will have images as pretty as Sony wants you to see them, but not a proper representation of the color profile/RGB values that the image is in. Sep 01 13 10:49 am Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: No, the emphasis is on "can't" As in, it's not true. Sep 01 13 12:01 pm Link The Dell and NEC recommendations are great. For $1000, however, I'd suggest two Dell U2410's plus a ColorMunki with Passport color checker. The two monitors actually give more real estate and versatility. Calibration is essential, especially for print work, hence the ColorMunki which also requires some time to learn and tweak. Edit: The U2413 is the current model and may put you over $1000. U2410 actually has more inputs, so a bargain if you can still find them. Sep 01 13 03:03 pm Link As a side note- unless you have complete anal-retentive control over how the viewer will see your work, there is no sense in even spending more than $500 for a monitor (even then there are nice monitors in that range). If you are going to print the printing process/surface will affect color, as will the lighting under which it is viewed. If you are going to web you are dealing with a million differently calibrated monitors viewing your work. Sep 01 13 03:53 pm Link NapaDesignAssoc wrote: I thought I heard/read that those Dell's are only compatible with the X-rite i1DisplayPro, in which case, the ColorMunki seems like an odd suggestion, when it seems like their more expensive product is the one that works with that? Sep 01 13 06:07 pm Link RP Nudes wrote: I'm not saying that professional monitors are a ripoff in their own right. It's that a typical photographer or retoucher probably doesn't need one. You'll read a lot of people who champion them here, but in some cases the emperor has no clothes - they spent a lot of money and need to justify it. I find the benefits are illusory given that they're 4-10 times more expensive than a generic monitor. Sep 01 13 07:30 pm Link Lots of different opinions. Im now not sure if i really need a $1000 monitor. I am using it to do fashion editorials to submit to fashion magazines. I will never print anything myself. Do I really need a $1000 monitor for that? Or will one of the Dells people are suggesting be fine? I would never use wide gamut. Sep 02 13 02:09 am Link Dell UltraSharp U2713H 27-inch Widescreen. $999.99 Sep 02 13 02:58 am Link |