Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Best monitors for photography

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

50% OFF new PortraitPro 12, plus EXTRA 5% OFF code EPHZROS414
shalik
shalik  434 forum posts United States
17 Jul 2013 - 2:33 PM

I am looking for the Best computer monitors for photography that provide highest resolution and detail.

I currently have the HP 2710 Series Wide LCD Monitor, which is 1080p HD. I thought that being HD it would be best for viewing/manipulating my pix, but it seems to not have sufficient detail (no, it is not my photography … my pix do look better on a Mac).

Would appreciate any suggestions and insights.
Thanks in advance.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
17 Jul 2013 - 2:33 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45782 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jul 2013 - 2:41 PM

The 1080p and HD are for video performance, not stills.
How much can you afford? One of the best value seems to be the Dell U2412M range (the '24' is the size of the monitor - 24").

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 81822 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jul 2013 - 2:43 PM

Mac screens aren't particularly special in many respects, but they do tend to 'pretty up' pictures. The high-definition specification in a monitor is something of a red herring - what counts in perceived sharpness is the pixel pitch, which takes diagonal screen size into account as well as resolution. Viewing distance is also obviously influential (most TVs look unimpressive at point-blank range).

Umberto_Vanni
Umberto_Vanni e2 Member 9304 forum postsUmberto_Vanni vcard Scotland
17 Jul 2013 - 3:39 PM

Agree with mikehit. i have a Dell U2412M. Very good screen.

saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 33387 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway22 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jul 2013 - 3:46 PM


Quote: Agree with mikehit. i have a Dell U2412M. Very good screen.

Another vote for this screen.

WhiteRose1
WhiteRose1 e2 Member 4966 forum postsWhiteRose1 vcard England129 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jul 2013 - 4:00 PM

U2412M was my choice when I needed one a little while back.

shalik
shalik  434 forum posts United States
21 Jul 2013 - 3:10 AM

Thank you all for your insights.
I read on a different thread that monitors with 2560 x 1440 Resolution are better for still photography work than any lesser resolution. Also, that 16:10 is better than 16:9, which is more suitable for movies.
I don’t care about video or movies – I am only interested for the best possible monitor for still photography work. Does any of the above really matter?
Thank you.

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 81822 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jul 2013 - 7:41 AM


Quote: Does any of the above really matter?

The high resolution means nothing in itself - usually it's just indicative of a bigger screen. If a 30" monitor had a 1080p resolution it'd look fairly poor at the close viewing distances normally involved. So it has to have a bigger resolution to be marketable. Again, you need to look at pixel pitch, or dot pitch, or ppi density, to determine how 'sharp' a picture is likely to look, see here.

Usually smaller screens such as laptops, or the iPad Retina, have inherently more 'sharpness', but it's misguided anyway to believe that this is of paramount importance when editing. You might even argue the opposite - when you think of those times when a picture has looked technically okay on a camera LCD and less good on your monitor, that's because the very fine dot pitch is essentially flattering the picture. Only when you start to zoom in on it can you get a better idea of its technical quality.

The 16:10 issue is slightly different - you get more vertical space with that aspect ratio. So if you're choosing between two monitor models of identical diagonal size it's probably worth having.

thewilliam
21 Jul 2013 - 2:18 PM

If the monitor is for serious photography, it's a good idea to check the colour gamut that display can show.

The best monitors like the Eizo ColorEdge can display pretty well all of the ARGB gamut. It's unwise for a professional to deliver digital files with colours that he/she hasn't seen and approved.

Hugo
Hugo  9629 forum posts United Kingdom
21 Jul 2013 - 4:17 PM

16:10 vs 16:9 is just the aspect ratio - how big/tall. It makes no difference to photo editing/as such, well depends on your workflow, some people will say 16:9 is too thin, but I don't mind.
Look for screen with IPS technology. This is a good starting point.
Ideally allow £75 for some calibration deice - so you know that the colors and brightness are 'correct'
I too would pick from the upper end of the Dell range. These are matt too, unlike the glossy Mac screens, I find those very annoying.

If you have a lot more cash look at Nec, Eizo etc, although they maybe overkill for most people.

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 81822 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jul 2013 - 8:01 PM

I've just bought one of the Dells, but perhaps an Eizo or NEC waits further down the line. I almost bought one this time. My Spyder3 seems incapable of doing a decent job with the latest Dell, so its days are numbered (I think the new type of backlighting may be causing it problems).

I suppose wide gamut is a good choice, though it's difficult to know what to recommend in that respect, especially as it means a mid-price investment. From an amateur's perspective: standard gamut for web activity and lab printing, and wide-gamut for any serious stab at inkjet printing. The whole 'sRGB for web' idea is shakier than it once was though - most browsers can now read profiles by default.

There was a time when a good sRGB monitor was reckoned a fair choice for portraitists and events photographers, because in a head-to-head with a wide-gamut monitor it'd be better for working on subtle gradation in low-gamut images. That still stands, I guess, though wide-gamut monitors seem to universally be 10-bit at least these days (or 8-bit plus dithering in the case of the Dells).

I don't think 'correct' brightness really exists in monitor calibration, unless you're calibrating it to a specific output (display lighting/photo-viewing area). Indeed, if you don't physically adjust the brightness yourself during calibration it's a fairly safe assumption that it's been left untouched, with the profile built around existing luminance.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014217 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jul 2013 - 10:52 PM

I recently did extensive research, and the best value vs quality I could find was the HP 23BW. But then I'm not a professional.Smile

ChrisV
ChrisV  7664 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
25 Jul 2013 - 5:51 PM


Quote: 16:10 vs 16:9 is just the aspect ratio - how big/tall. It makes no difference to photo editing/as such, well depends on your workflow, some people will say 16:9 is too thin, but I don't mind.
Look for screen with IPS technology. This is a good starting point.
Ideally allow £75 for some calibration deice - so you know that the colors and brightness are 'correct'
I too would pick from the upper end of the Dell range. These are matt too, unlike the glossy Mac screens, I find those very annoying.

If you have a lot more cash look at Nec, Eizo etc, although they maybe overkill for most people.

I've just been upgraded from an old iMac 24" glossy screen [where reflections really were a problem] to one of the new 27" model - where it's hardly noticeable at all, even in a brightly lit office. I can honestly say it's the best monitor I've ever used - arguably better than the 30" cinema displays [Matt] which we also had in the office until very recently. They [new iMacs] have a very deep black point which offers bags of contrast and also very high resolution at 2560 x 1440 pixels. Photos look absolutely fantastic.

I've calibrated mine with a Spyder and to be honest it hasn't made a lot of difference. Is it the best, is it colour-accurate? I doubt it.

As the William above said, if you can afford it, one of the EIZO colour reference screens will get you as close to that as possible - the latest ones have in-built calibration, but you need deep pockets. You also really need to hood them and keep them away from strong light sources if you want the ultimate out of them.

shalik
shalik  434 forum posts United States
27 Jul 2013 - 9:20 PM

Thank you all for your suggestion, it has been very helpful. As always, the best requires deep pockets so I'll need to decide where the compromise must be made.
thanks again.

RonnieAG
RonnieAG e2 Member 4134 forum postsRonnieAG vcard Scotland110 Constructive Critique Points
28 Jul 2013 - 4:46 AM

I'd echo what ChrisV has said re. the new 27 inch Mac.
Ronnie.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.