login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > If you had $1000 to spend on a monitor... Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
Sonn
Posts: 338
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


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  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


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  Quote 
Photographer
Jute of Memphis
Posts: 27
Memphis, Tennessee, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Jute of Memphis wrote:
I'd buy a large HD flatscreen tv, and use it for both tv and  a computer screen.

Well that would be a disaster as far as computer screen goes.

Aug 31 13 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Pictus wrote:
Keep saving and get the one of the new NEC models, the PA242w or the PA272W

To help choose a new monitor, check here.

What's your opinion of new iMacs displayes? Yay or nay?

Aug 31 13 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pdxROCKpix
Posts: 118
Hillsboro, Oregon, US


Save up the other $900 and get a 27" iMac.
Aug 31 13 05:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sonn
Posts: 338
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Jute of Memphis wrote:
I'd buy a large HD flatscreen tv, and use it for both tv and  a computer screen.

I do something similar lol
I use a large HD tv and a pc screen side by side however there a massive difference between the two. The tv has less dynamic range and slightly less saturation. Also my pc monitor gives things a slight yellow colour cast.

My mobile phone makes images look different again by adding more contrast and brightness.

Hence why now i just want to buy one properly calibrated good pc monitor and use that.

Aug 31 13 05:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


cwwmbm wrote:
What's your opinion of new iMacs displayes? Yay or nay?

I do not know them, but they do not have a programmable hardware internal LUT right?
So you be better served with one that has, like the NEC PA series...

Aug 31 13 06:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Pictus wrote:

I do not know them, but they do not have a hardware programmable internal LUT right?
So you be better served with one that has, like the NEC PA series...

I do not even know what that is, I guess a lot of studying to do smile

Aug 31 13 06:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sonn
Posts: 338
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


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  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


cwwmbm wrote:
I do not even know what that is, I guess a lot of studying to do smile

In the ordinary monitors the calibration is done in the graphics card LUT
and it is limited to 8 bits(*1), that is bad you loose tones.
In the PRO monitors it its done in its internal LUT, the NEC PA is 14 bits, WAY better...
Look http://www.eizo.com/global/library/basi … index.html

(*1) In Windows 7/8 + a PRO graphic card like Nvidia Quadro or ATI FirePro can be 10 bits.  http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/quest … ut+Support

Aug 31 13 06:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Beautifully Soft Focus
Posts: 528
Peoria, Illinois, US


cwwmbm wrote:

Well that would be a disaster as far as computer screen goes.

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 wink

Be easy,

Alvin

Aug 31 13 06:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pdxROCKpix
Posts: 118
Hillsboro, Oregon, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Beautifully Soft Focus 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 wink

Be easy,

Alvin

Generally, people view photos printed.

Aug 31 13 07:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 1,806
Bakersfield, California, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Brick Wilson
Posts: 370
Carol Stream, Illinois, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Brick Wilson wrote:
I can't tell you how overrated the pro-color monitors are. It's like buying a gold-plated hammer to pound a nail.

That's right, you probably can't

Aug 31 13 10:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mophotoart
Posts: 622
Wichita, Kansas, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
RP Nudes
Posts: 41
Chicago, Illinois, US


Brick Wilson wrote:
I can't tell you how overrated the pro-color monitors are. It's like buying a gold-plated hammer to pound a nail.

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  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,406
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


cwwmbm wrote:
That's right, you probably can't

I assume that's an emphasis on the word 'you' directed at Brick Wilson.

Edit; must apologise I tried viewing images on a TV screen.

Sep 01 13 02:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Liquid Lace Studios
Posts: 196
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia


Pictus wrote:
In the ordinary monitors the calibration is done in the graphics card LUT
and it is limited to 8 bits(*1), that is bad you loose tones.
In the PRO monitors it its done in its internal LUT, the NEC PA is 14 bits, WAY better...
Look http://www.eizo.com/global/library/basi … index.html

(*1) In Windows 7/8 + a PRO graphic card like Nvidia Quadro or ATI FirePro can be 10 bits.  http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/quest … ut+Support

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.

Go to http://www.imagescience.com.au/ for some required reading.

Sep 01 13 03:07 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,273
Baltimore, Maryland, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Photeus Photography
Posts: 80
Saint Charles, Missouri, US


Pictus wrote:
Keep saving and get the one of the new NEC models, the PA242w or the PA272W

To help choose a new monitor, check here.

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. 

Again, I am retouching touchy studio portraits for publication and the colors have been spot on.  The gray scale is very good and gets about 11 or 12 out of 15 shades which is a lot better than my previous monitors.

As far as wide-gamut displays go, this one works great for me an I had the same budget as you do.

By the way, the reason that you calibrate the monitor is so that you can edit images that are part of a system that prints what you see on your monitor. This is not about viewing images with clients on a monitor, use an HD TV for that, but to edit and print what you see, you need a system that uses calibration and paper profiles for the paper that you are printing on.  I am over simplifying, but this is not about a pretty monitor image, it is about accurate colors across the workflow.

Best regards,

Mike

Sep 01 13 07:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rdallasPhotography
Posts: 965
Norristown, Pennsylvania, US


Pictus wrote:

In the ordinary monitors the calibration is done in the graphics card LUT
and it is limited to 8 bits(*1), that is bad you loose tones.
In the PRO monitors it its done in its internal LUT, the NEC PA is 14 bits, WAY better...
Look http://www.eizo.com/global/library/basi … index.html

(*1) In Windows 7/8 + a PRO graphic card like Nvidia Quadro or ATI FirePro can be 10 bits.  http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/quest … ut+Support

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  Quote 
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 2,108
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom


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  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,421
Columbus, Ohio, US


Pictus wrote:
Keep saving and get the one of the new NEC models, the PA242w or the PA272W

]

THIS
/thread

Sep 01 13 08:51 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


Robb Mann wrote:
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

The U2713h is good for the price, but it is not at the same level as NEC/Eizo sad
As you can see in the reviews(links below), the Panel Uniformity is not good, the
hardware calibration does not offer much options and besides the luminosity variation
you may(or not) get also some color casts at some parts of the panel, precision is always expensive sad

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713h.htm
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2 … 2713h.html

Sep 01 13 09:34 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


rdallasPhotography 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.

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...

The PRO monitor can be calibrated with other parameters different from its native state and the result will be good, look at the UGRA test.

Sep 01 13 09:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marin Photography NYC
Posts: 7,107
New York, New York, US


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...  big_smile
Sep 01 13 09:53 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Pictus
Posts: 991
Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


Short answer... TV sucks!
Sep 01 13 10:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,334
Sisters, Oregon, US


pdxROCKpix wrote:
Save up the other $900 and get a 27" iMac.

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.

I have a 27" iMac (2011).  The computer is good, but I am frankly really bothered by the glossy surface.  However, I live in a house with lots of windows so there are lots of reflections.  If I lived in a cave the answer might be different.

I see that 3M now offers an 'anti glare' screen cover (adhesive).  Bears looking in to.

I also have a 30" Apple Cinema Display.  It does not have a glossy surface and it has fabulous resolution (great detail for editing photos).  The downside of the Cinema Displays is that they require three cables to hook them up.  For a while, I think they made Thunderbolt displays that had non-glare screen surfaces, but I'm not 100% sure of that.

Sep 01 13 10:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Beautifully Soft Focus
Posts: 528
Peoria, Illinois, US


Ok so y'all hated on the TV monitors sad ... 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 smile which I will use for both editing and entertainment wink
Sep 01 13 10:35 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
FLEXmanta
Posts: 1,001
Madrid, Madrid, Spain


Beautifully Soft Focus wrote:
Ok so y'all hated on the TV monitors sad ... 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 smile which I will use for both editing and entertainment wink

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.

Also, you will not be able to simulate an output profiles, like it's expected from anyone who's work ends up on paper most of the times.

But if this is your hobby and the quality of your work is less important of how much fun you have, go ahead and buy a monitor that is kickass for gaming and watching movies. Trust me, I'd do the exact same thing if this was my hobby.


BUT, this is a retouching forum, so, when someone asks for advice on a 1000€ monitor, it is our responsability to recommend a graphic work oriented piece of equipment, not a fun oriented TV set. For that amount, it's a no-brainer. You get a NEC PA271W, or a slightly smaller NEC PA unit and spend the rest on a colorimeter and dinner with the lady.

Sep 01 13 10:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
cwwmbm
Posts: 425
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


c_h_r_i_s wrote:

I assume that's an emphasis on the word 'you' directed at Brick Wilson.

No, the emphasis is on "can't" smile As in, it's not true.

Sep 01 13 12:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NapaDesignAssoc
Posts: 4
Napa, California, US


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  Quote 
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 525
Buffalo, New York, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,961
Portland, Oregon, US


NapaDesignAssoc wrote:
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.

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  Quote 
Photographer
Brick Wilson
Posts: 370
Carol Stream, Illinois, US


RP Nudes 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.

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.

1. Buying a wide gamut monitor by itself won't change what you see. Do you also have a pro 10 bit video card? Do you also have a calibration device? Without both of these things, an extremely expensive monitor will look exactly the same as a cheap one.

2. The image is the image whether you see it or not. You don't "lose" detail in the shadows with a standard monitor. You just get a dithered or blended image. Use the eyedropper on a color and get a value. If you know the values, you know exactly how your image will print.

3. Speaking of printing: it's the printer that already has the smaller much gamut, not the monitor. How many million extra colors you see is irrelevant if your printer can't print them.

4. And most importantly - who is your customer?

Are you sending your files straight to Fortune 500 corporate imaging headquarters, where exact color calibration is crucial? Then you might need a pro setup. Or are you sending JPGs to your model who will look at it on her iPhone? What really matters isn't how your image looks on your perfect setup, but how it looks to an average person on an average monitor. That's who's going to judge your work in most cases.

Sep 01 13 07:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sonn
Posts: 338
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


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  Quote 
Retoucher
Zarihs
Posts: 22
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland


Dell UltraSharp U2713H 27-inch Widescreen.
$999.99
Sep 02 13 02:58 am  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers