Let's talk about photographer-friendly monitors

[gigabellone]

I can't stand my monitor anymore, i need something better. The one i have now is a Samsung P2470HD: 24", 1920x1080, TN panel, fixed pedestal with no height/tilt setting. It's clearly not suited for photo retouching. I keep reading everywhere that IPS panels have better color accuracy, so i guess that would be my choice. I don't want to go below 24", and i'm considering 27" panels as well. My working distance is about half meter (1.5 ft) so i don't really know if it's a good idea to use a monitor larger than 24". Regarding the resolution, i think i could use some more screen space, so i think that monitors with a resolution of 2560x1440 would be the right choice. There is also a brand new 24" 4k monitor from Dell, but i don't really know if it's worth it. Maybe some retina display users can give some feedback regarding very high resolution monitors. There are also some cheap 29" 2560x1080 (21:9), has anyone got any experience with them?
Then there's the color space issue: someday i would like to be skilled enough to make pictures worth printing, will sRGB be enough in that case?
As you can see, i'm really confused. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't want to spend more than 500€.
Is there some brand/model you would recommend?

 

[KateH]

The 2560x1440 route is a reasonable one, and what most people seem to be going with lately. You will be limited to 27" panels at that resolution though.

I own the Dell 24" 4K monitor (UP2414Q) and have kind of mixed feelings about it.
The image quality and ergonomics are second to none and that's what's kept me using it. At ~200ppi, you get a screen image that's just unbelievably sharp & smooth and close to print resolution. Color rendition is also fantastic as the panel is rated for 100% sRGB and 99% AdobeRGB and comes calibrated from the factory. Really, I cannot overstate how nice the IQ is. Only the 5K iMac is nicer, and that comes with a massive price tag. Build quality is great, with lots of aluminum and what plastic there is doesn't feel cheap. The stand (which is all aluminum) does tilt, swivel, rise/fall and rotate and has an orientation sensor that can enable desktop auto-rotation in Windows. There's even a USB 3.0 hub and an SD cardreader built in.

There are two big downsides though, one of which would be a deal-breaker for me if everything else about the display wasn't so fantastic. The first is scaling, which is just a Windows thing and has nothing to do with this particular display. Under Windows 8.1, most GUI elements and text scale up nicely and look beautifully smooth, but occasionally there will be a window that's simply pixel-doubled and looks visibly blocky & blurry. This is mostly an issue with older software. Most Adobe software that photographers would be likely to use (Lightroom, Photoshop CC 2014 & Illustrator CC) scale up nicely- Lightroom in particular works great with HiDPI displays. Première CC and Audition do not scale up at all however, and the GUI elements are so tiny as to be nearly unusable. That said, I don't see the scaling as a significant problem for my uses and apparently Windows 10 will offer significantly improved support for HiDPI displays.

The second issue, and the critical one that almost made me switch to a 2560x1440 display (until I looked at a 1440P panel and realized how much I'd miss the extra resolution!) relates to how the Dell connects to the computer. The short version is, if you're using HDMI (there is no DVI) then you're limited to 30hz refresh rate (a bit choppy but not too bad for photo editing; unusable for gaming) and if you connect with DisplayPort then 60hz is possible- but there's a known firmware bug that prevents the display from reconnecting when the computer wakes from sleep. So, every single time the computer wakes I have to power cycle the monitor several times and occasionally restart the whole computer. Very frustrating!

I don't regret buying the 2414Q and the IQ and ergonomics are just so good, but I find it a bit hard to wholeheartedly recommend. 4K is just not quite ready I think. Later this year when Windows 10 arrives with better scaling, and computers and monitors with HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3 start shipping , then 4K will 100% be the way to go. Until then it's probably worth it for a photog but the experience is a bit mixed (especially with Dell's atrocious firmware problems- this is not their only monitor to have DisplayPort issues).

 

[danski0224]

Do you have a display calibration tool? Doing photo editing without one is pretty much pointless.

Why limit yourself with sRGB?

I would suspect that almost any current production monitor with an IPS panel will suit your needs when used with a calibrator.

I happen to like 16"10 over 16:9 for the extra pixels.

As far as 4k goes, there seems to be many gotchas with current tech. Seems like most (if not all) need 2 connections for the data over ~30hz. The Dell is the most promising, but also promises to be quite buggy.

The LG cinema display is getting good reviews and HP recently announced several 4k/5k displays. Both are probably over your budget.

I have a Dell u3014 and the price on those has come down. Yes, mine acts up once in a while, but not often. I have come close to getting a second.

Given your budget, I'd just get something in a size you want with an IPS panel and LED backlighting, and use the rest for a display calibrator. It will be a huge improvement over what you have now.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I agree with the remarks about a calibrator. I have an LG 27EA33 (out of production now) and an x-rite i1 pro, you can get both well within your budget and be at that comfortable point between getting good performance without getting into diminishing returns.

Jim

 

[tpatana]

I have the Dell 3011. It's pretty cool, but also pricey. I think many 27" models are good point between quality/size and price. If I'd had to buy something today, I'd probably get 2x 27". Now I have the 30", and another 24" Dell for side (on portrait orientation).

 

[gigabellone]

The 2560x1440 route is a reasonable one, and what most people seem to be going with lately. You will be limited to 27" panels at that resolution though.

I own the Dell 24" 4K monitor (UP2414Q) and have kind of mixed feelings about it.
The image quality and ergonomics are second to none and that's what's kept me using it. At ~200ppi, you get a screen image that's just unbelievably sharp & smooth and close to print resolution. Color rendition is also fantastic as the panel is rated for 100% sRGB and 99% AdobeRGB and comes calibrated from the factory. Really, I cannot overstate how nice the IQ is. Only the 5K iMac is nicer, and that comes with a massive price tag. Build quality is great, with lots of aluminum and what plastic there is doesn't feel cheap. The stand (which is all aluminum) does tilt, swivel, rise/fall and rotate and has an orientation sensor that can enable desktop auto-rotation in Windows. There's even a USB 3.0 hub and an SD cardreader built in.

There are two big downsides though, one of which would be a deal-breaker for me if everything else about the display wasn't so fantastic. The first is scaling, which is just a Windows thing and has nothing to do with this particular display. Under Windows 8.1, most GUI elements and text scale up nicely and look beautifully smooth, but occasionally there will be a window that's simply pixel-doubled and looks visibly blocky & blurry. This is mostly an issue with older software. Most Adobe software that photographers would be likely to use (Lightroom, Photoshop CC 2014 & Illustrator CC) scale up nicely- Lightroom in particular works great with HiDPI displays. Première CC and Audition do not scale up at all however, and the GUI elements are so tiny as to be nearly unusable. That said, I don't see the scaling as a significant problem for my uses and apparently Windows 10 will offer significantly improved support for HiDPI displays.

The second issue, and the critical one that almost made me switch to a 2560x1440 display (until I looked at a 1440P panel and realized how much I'd miss the extra resolution!) relates to how the Dell connects to the computer. The short version is, if you're using HDMI (there is no DVI) then you're limited to 30hz refresh rate (a bit choppy but not too bad for photo editing; unusable for gaming) and if you connect with DisplayPort then 60hz is possible- but there's a known firmware bug that prevents the display from reconnecting when the computer wakes from sleep. So, every single time the computer wakes I have to power cycle the monitor several times and occasionally restart the whole computer. Very frustrating!

I don't regret buying the 2414Q and the IQ and ergonomics are just so good, but I find it a bit hard to wholeheartedly recommend. 4K is just not quite ready I think. Later this year when Windows 10 arrives with better scaling, and computers and monitors with HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3 start shipping , then 4K will 100% be the way to go. Until then it's probably worth it for a photog but the experience is a bit mixed (especially with Dell's atrocious firmware problems- this is not their only monitor to have DisplayPort issues).

You almost talked me into buying the Dell, but the sleep mode bug is a real gamebreaker for me. Looks like it's easily fixable with a firmware upgrade, but i will not consider the monitor until Dell releases the patch.

Do you have a display calibration tool? Doing photo editing without one is pretty much pointless.

Why limit yourself with sRGB?

I would suspect that almost any current production monitor with an IPS panel will suit your needs when used with a calibrator.

I happen to like 16"10 over 16:9 for the extra pixels.

As far as 4k goes, there seems to be many gotchas with current tech. Seems like most (if not all) need 2 connections for the data over ~30hz. The Dell is the most promising, but also promises to be quite buggy.

The LG cinema display is getting good reviews and HP recently announced several 4k/5k displays. Both are probably over your budget.

I have a Dell u3014 and the price on those has come down. Yes, mine acts up once in a while, but not often. I have come close to getting a second.

Given your budget, I'd just get something in a size you want with an IPS panel and LED backlighting, and use the rest for a display calibrator. It will be a huge improvement over what you have now.

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.

I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?

I would need to get another another monitor anyway, because the one i have now lacks tilt/height settings, and i either have to sit straight and get weird colors, or hunch the back to get a correct angle of view.
3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor. The hdmi on my motherboard supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, so going higher than that would require a dedicated video card.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?

I would need to get another another monitor anyway, because the one i have now lacks tilt/height settings, and i either have to sit straight and get weird colors, or hunch the back to get a correct angle of view.
3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor. The hdmi on my motherboard supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, so going higher than that would require a dedicated video card.

The bucks-up self-calibrating ones will monitor (sorry) themselves, but the calibrator device only sees one part of the screen where with an external calibrator you can spot-check the entire display for uniformity. Factory-calibrated is great for when the display leaves the factory with a few minutes' run time, but I wouldn't take much from it.

The lighting in your room (which will mix with the light coming from your display) will affect your calibration, I can't tell you what is ideal but I have white walls in my office and it is lit with GE Reveal incandescent lamps which seem to work well.

The i1 display pro I have can measure screen flare as part of the calibration process, and it can monitor ambient light level (if perhaps not colour) and adjust the brightness to match.

Finally I've found HDMI troublesome for getting calibration routines to deliver good results where DVI has worked; that is only my experience though, your results may vary.

Jim

 

[gigabellone]

The matter gets even more confusing. ;D
Is there a direct correlation between color bit depth and the color gamut? I see several monitors, mostly from Dell, that are true 8bit (instead of 6bit + frc) but can't display a wide color gamut. Moreover, several monitors have 8 bit + frc panels capable of displaying over 1 billion of colors, like the 10bit panels. I read that to enable a 10 bit workflow, proper hw and sw are needed, is it the same for 8bit+frc panels?

 

[danski0224]

Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0

If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.

 

[Zv]

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.

This. Calibrate your monitor.

Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??

 

[gigabellone]

Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0

If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.

My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".

This. Calibrate your monitor.

Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??

Yes, i've put thought into this as well. Most of my pictures would be shared online, but i would like to be able to print those i care the most for. Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?

 

[Pieces Of E]

Take a look at HP Dreamcolor z24x. It's an awesome monitor and is 99% Adobe RGB color space(which I shoot as my default color space). If you can afford it, they also make a 27 inch. No calibration needed, but it's there if you are a tinkerer, which I am not and don't need it.

 

[Zv]

Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0

If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.

My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".

This. Calibrate your monitor.

Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??

Yes, i've put thought into this as well. Most of my pictures would be shared online, but i would like to be able to print those i care the most for. Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?

You don't. You just test print until you get something that closely resembles what you want!

But seriously - you can talk to the lab and ask them how to go about it and what settings you should use etc. they might provide you with an ICC profile for your monitor.

 

[tolusina]

.......Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?.........

TLR version...
Ask the service for icc profiles, if they have none to offer (or seem clueless), find another service.
- - -


As I understand it, printers are not calibrated in the sense that actual print output capabilities can be corrected, a printer can only print what it is able to.

Printers can and preferably should be profiled.
Profiling should be done for each specific printer to be used and with the specific paper and ink set to be used.
To profile, PC installed profiling software sends a print job to the printer, this print job consists of many different colored squares over a couple of pages.
The resulting printed squares are then scanned/read with a color measuring device, the Datacolor SpyderPRINT calls theirs a Spectrocolorimeter..
The printer was unable to reproduce the exact colors sent in the print job, the Spectrocolorimeter measures what colors actually did print and then generates what is essentially an error file.
This error file is named with either an .icc or .icm file extension, it is the printer/paper/ink profile.
SpyderPRINT prints 225 or 729 different color patches on 1 to 4 sheets depending on options selected.

The better print houses provide icc files for download as do printer manufacturers and paper manufacturers.

To use, install the appropriate profile to your PC, then, in your image editor use soft proofing>print emulation, choose the relevant profile for use while editing.

The final print comes out pretty darn close to exactly as you intended and expect.

I've only done this a few times with various papers and images, I've gotten exactly what I wanted on the first try, no wasted paper or ink, no disappointment or guesswork wondering what or how to tweak.

I'd sure not expect any of this to work well without a calibrated monitor.
- - -
There's another method that I've read of but not tried that involves loading and selecting icc profiles directly to the PC's monitor color settings.
My imagination goes to overload trying to reason how a monitor can be both calibrated true and use another color profile simultaneously.
I believe it's also much faster to switch profiles in software rather than hardware for A<>B/before<>after comparisons.
Somewhere in the literature that accompanied my NEC monitor was a comment to the effect it's preferable to use the soft proofing method rather than icc profiling the monitor by I cannot recall why nor find the document right now.

 

[tolusina]

.....

You don't. You just test print until you get something that closely resembles what you want!

But seriously - you can talk to the lab and ask them how to go about it and what settings you should use etc. they might provide you with an ICC profile for your monitor.

Spend enough on PC hardware and software and you'll no longer go through through test printing anguish.
The sequence becomes soft proof>print>smile.
See my post above.

 

[mackguyver]

+1 on all of the advice so far. A cheap calibrated monitor is far better than a nice uncalibrated one, so buy a calibration tool before you worry about anything else. Room lighting is important to avoid glare and limit light. Another consideration is two monitors vs. one. I have had two monitors at my day job for over 15 years now and love them for office work and graphic design. For photos, though, I prefer one big monitor and currently have the Dell U3014 which is 30" and 2560x1600. It doesn't have any sleep/wake bugs and has really impressed me. Others prefer two smaller monitors.

Dell has really good prices on refurb models and techbargains.com is a good place to look for deals on those and other monitors.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.

I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?

You are getting lots of information piecemeal, and need to backup and look at the bigger picture.

One of the CR members, Keith Cooper has a accurate article (series of articles) on printing and monitor calibration.


Keith's website. Northlight Images covers it pretty well.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/viewing.html

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

About your question on room lighting, Keith says it better than I could.

"Some other screen viewing tips

Newer LCD monitors are much brighter. If you have them too bright, then photos may look just fine but you find your prints look too dark. Ours are set to roughly 40% of maximum.
This happens so often I've written an article: 'Why are my prints too dark'
With LCDs the basic brightness setting is the one you want, whilst with older CRT monitors, you may need to alter the contrast setting to alter overall brightness.
Reduce your room lighting and try to avoid reflections in the monitor. This is most important when editing photos to print. If your room is too bright then you will probably have the monitor too bright, which leads to the dark print problem above.
Set the monitor to display "millions of colours" or 24/32 bit and preferably been switched on for at least twenty minutes.
If your web browser allows you to use colour management, set this option on (if this means nothing to you, please ignore it, or look at some info on our Web Colour Management page).
A detailed explanation of what the brightness and contrast controls do."


I use rather bright room lighting, and have calibrated my monitor for it. I also increase the print brightness in Lightroom to account for it.

I also use 98 CRI fluorescent tubes to light the room. They are about as close to mid day sun color as you can get without going to extremes. The correct color of the lighting helps, but reduced lighting would be better, its just that I do not have a choice, since the room is shared.

 

[danski0224]

My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".

4K/5K is a bit of a mess right now. As I understand it, DisplayPort 2.0 needs to be brought on-line to fully support the resolution at 60Hz and up. Last I read, there is really no movement on the 2.0 standard yet.

Current 4K/5K monitors are using 1 DisplayPort 1.2 to get 30Hz and (2) cables to get 60Hz. Some monitors flake out if the cable is cheesy.

So far, the LG Cinema 4K seems to be the one with the fewest amount of issues, based on what I have looked at so far. There is a card compatibility chart on their website, and you essentially need a workstation graphics card to drive the monitor.

The Dell 4K has a firmware issue- wake from sleep. The Dell U3014 also had firmware issues, and it got to the point that Amazon stopped selling them. I am leery of buying another new Dell monitor at the time of release.

Not sure if the Dell 5K is even available yet, and HP is coming out with one too. I would be more inclined to give HP the sale over Dell.

I doubt that any of these are under $1,000.00 USD at this point and the 5K ones may push $2k+ USD.

Some are using Seiki 4K televisions for monitors.

As far as 30" monitors go, I have one and wouldn't want to go smaller. I have no problems using it at arm's length.

 

[Famateur]

3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.

You might consider looking on www.monoprice.com for monitor arms. They also have cables for dirt cheap, too. I've been pleased with them...