Looking for a good monitor

[Goshdern]

I recently purchased a zr30w and already had a spyder3 pro.  It's an IPS monitor and I suggest you check it out.  The view angle is amazing!  No distortion at any angle you sit at.  It WILL need calibration!

Paid $1k usd (edit: that's US dollars not used) for mine.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thank you everyone for your input.

Perfect!  So you're saying that if I calibrate my monitor, I can then send that profile to the printer and my prints will look like what is on my screen?  This is my goal ultimately.

Also, I must say I lean naturally to the Apple display since I am a Mac guy.  However, if a monitor in my price range would be noticeable better, I would go for that one.

Calibrating a monitor does not guarantee that colors on your printer will match.  You cannot use a monitor profile to print!

You must start with a accurately calibrated monitor before messing with printer profiles, or you will chase your tail.  Printer profiles vary according to the ink used and the paper.  Its pretty complex.

I have a Spyder 3 SR which includes both monitor and printer calibration, however, in my opinion, its best to just calibrate your monitor and use the proper paper profile on your printer, it is very difficult for me to match the out of the box printer calibration for my Epson 3880 with the Spyder Printer calibration tool, and it set me back a good piece of change. 

[92101media]

I voted for the 27" Dell Ultrasharp before, and i'll do it again.

Just a tad more expensive than the 24" version, for a lot better colour and more real-estate.

Half the price of the 30" version for an extra 160 pixels along the top and 99% vs 96% adobergb coverage. I'd get 2x 27"ers before i got one 30".

That's opposite of the non-sale pricing in the U.S.

u2410 = $500
u2711 = $999
u3011 = $1299

So the 27" is double the price of the 24", whereas the 30" is only a couple hundred more than the 27".

Lots of people like the Dell UltraSharp series. However, there also seem to be a large number of complaints that Dell has been particularly heavy handed with the anti-glare coating, with some complaining that it results in making the screen seem fuzzy, kinda like looking through a mesh screen door. Some of Dell's lower-end 23" & 24" IPS displays seem like good bargains, but many don't include an HDMI input (just DVI & DisplayPort). That makes those models a non-starter for me, but others may not care.

[dr croubie]

I voted for the 27" Dell Ultrasharp before, and i'll do it again.

Just a tad more expensive than the 24" version, for a lot better colour and more real-estate.

Half the price of the 30" version for an extra 160 pixels along the top and 99% vs 96% adobergb coverage. I'd get 2x 27"ers before i got one 30".

That's opposite of the non-sale pricing in the U.S.

u2410 = $500
u2711 = $999
u3011 = $1299

I was wondering why someone in another thread didn't accept that the 27" was the sweetspot price.
We've got in Aus:
24" $700
27" $800
30" $1600
(and the 24"LED is $400, but that's not as good a monitor, give it a few revisions and the LEDs might get up to scratch, the tech is too new for now though)

[libertyranger]

One last question:

Does anyone know a good calibrater that will work well with the Apple Thunderbolt display?  If I go with this display, I know I will need to calibrate it.  I just got some prints today and they in no way match my current monitor.  So I'd expect the same to be true for any monitor that is not calibrated.

[wopbv4]

Hi,

even if you have a perfectly calibrated monitor , there is no guarantee that you will get good prints. Printing is the last step of the digital workflow and it is often underestimated how difficult this is.
Each printer has a specific colour range (gamut) which will only partially overlay on top of the gamut of the display, so the mapping is not one on one. Furthermore, the combination of paper, type inkjet (dye vs pigment), printer settings in Photoshop..... make a hell of a difference.
A good test is to make a picture of a Xrite colorchecker (or similar), process your RAW file as best as you can and then print it. The white balance is set on the THIRD grey field from the left on the Xrite chart

I mentioned before that colour management is very tricky, there is a real good book that explains all of this well:
The Digital Photography Workflow Handbook, from RockyNook, author Gulbins, Steinmueller

[wopbv4]

Hi, I forgot.
If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!

[libertyranger]

Hi, I forgot.
If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!

I've done a lot of research since reading this thread.  It appears that most labs print from the sRGB color space.  My Canon Pixma Pro9000 (just received yesterday) offers to print in both sRGB and Adobe RGB.  Since my monitor is a low end HP monitor, it would probably be best to stick to sRGB correct?  I don't have any calibration devices and I know that my current monitor would not be able to render Adobe RGB fully. 

When it comes to a new monitor a lot of high end monitors show near 100% coverage of Adobe RGB and sometimes more.  For calibration, does that mean I should calibrate my monitor to Adobe RGB or sRGB?

[dr croubie]

Hi, I forgot.
If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!

I've done a lot of research since reading this thread.  It appears that most labs print from the sRGB color space.  My Canon Pixma Pro9000 (just received yesterday) offers to print in both sRGB and Adobe RGB.  Since my monitor is a low end HP monitor, it would probably be best to stick to sRGB correct?  I don't have any calibration devices and I know that my current monitor would not be able to render Adobe RGB fully. 

When it comes to a new monitor a lot of high end monitors show near 100% coverage of Adobe RGB and sometimes more.  For calibration, does that mean I should calibrate my monitor to Adobe RGB or sRGB?

I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...

[Halfrack]

Go with the Apple Thunderbolt display - you'll want the wired ports on the back of it (firewire800, USB2, gigabit ethernet).  Toss in the built in power and it's as good as it'll get.

An option would be to get a new iMac and use it as a stand alone mac, or connect up your Air via Thunderbolt and use it as an external display.

I put in 10 of the 24" Dell Ultrasharp monitors and had a hard time not purchasing one.  Yes, the Apple ones are pricy, but snag one off their 'sale' side for $850.

[thepancakeman]

I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...

I've been thinking about switching to AdobeRGB, but in reading thru your chain/workflow above brings to mind the question of--what happens to/how do you handle images that are delivered to clients as digital instead of prints?  Do you just convert and go, or would you have to redo any/all color corrections, etc?

[dr croubie]

I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...

I've been thinking about switching to AdobeRGB, but in reading thru your chain/workflow above brings to mind the question of--what happens to/how do you handle images that are delivered to clients as digital instead of prints?  Do you just convert and go, or would you have to redo any/all color corrections, etc?

No idea, so I just stay away from either (selling digital prints and using AdobeRGB.
I'd say the best way is to tick the "embed ICC Profile in image" in the 'convert and save' dialogue in DPP, which I always do. Then when it opens up in GIMP or whatever, it has a progress bar of "converting from sRGB v1.31 (Canon) to sRGB (built-in)", ie, GIMP is converting the embedded Colour profile of the photo to the colour profile of the computer. They're both the same sRGB colour profile so that's probably not needed though.

If you sell a digital copy to someone with an embedded AdobeRGB profile, if they open it with the right program (gimp, firefox, photoshop), then it will read the embedded profile and convert it to the working space of the client's computer. If the client is using sRGB (more than likely), it will look 'ok', but it won't look 'exactly' the same as what you see on your system using AdobeRGB because you're seeing more greens than they will.
If, however, the client opens it in the 'wrong' program that doesn't read colour profiles (i'm looking at you, internet explorer), then it's just going to look crap. Client eductaion is the only way around that...

[Halfrack]

Hi, I forgot.
If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!

Handy list of ICC profiled shops:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

[libertyranger]

Great advice here!  Thanks so much.  Think I'll be sticking with sRGB.

Next question:

Got my Pixma Pro9000 Mark ii hooked up and printed a couple 8 x 10's.  The color in the prints is definitely not accurate to what I a seeing on my computer monitor.   So what would fix this?

Calibrating my monitor?  Or do I need to do something with the printer settings.

Mike

[wopbv4]

Libertyranger,

you have arrived at a point where you will need a lot of determination to get it right, so don't give up!!

One bit of advise, when you print in Photoshop, in the print dialog:
In print settings, fourth setting from the top , go to "quality and media" and select the right Media type and set quality to high. SAVE.
In the colour management box:
tick document
Photoshop manages colors
Printer profile should be the same as the media you selected before. If you do not have the profile, download it
Relative colorimetric
tick black point compensation

At least this way, you know that you use the right ICC profile for the paper.

Your Pro9000 as it is DYE based printed, should give you very vibrant prints, trust me , it is a GOOD printer.

as I mentioned before, print a test chart and compare.
I know that I am repeating myself, put set the brightness of your monitor as low as possible.