# need a monitor recommendation



## GerryDavid (Mar 1, 2013)

Its time to upgrade again, this time to a better monitor with more reliable colors.  The one I have now gives me a different profile every time I run my spyder 2 and its to bright, when I tone down the brightness things just look muddy.

A friend suggested the Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24" widescreen flat pannel monitor, normally $370cdn, but is often in the $250 range.  I am assuming the us version has comparable prices and sales.  Its a IPS monitor which is what I think I need to get to have reliable color?

What are you all using?


----------



## KmH (Mar 1, 2013)

Many of Dell's less expensive UltraSharp displays develop panel layer delamination issues in about a year's time.
I no longer recommend the low cost Dell UltraSharp displays for that reason.

A decent pro grade IPS display will cost quite a bit more - $1000+

$320 - Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24" LED LCD Monitor - 16:10 - 8 ms 
$240 - Dell UltraSharp U2312HM 23" IPS LED LCD Monitor - 16:9 - 8 ms

Instead of the 2412, if you gotta have 24" - I would recommend the 2410 - Dell UltraSharp U2410 24-inch Widescreen LCD High Performance Monitor with HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort and HDCP


----------



## Buckster (Mar 2, 2013)

It's a wonder that we were able to do anything at all before decent pro grade IPS displays were invented and put on the market.  Everything done on monitors before they came along must be crap.


----------



## KmH (Mar 2, 2013)

CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type. Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.
CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.

The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.

You can frame a house with a 16 oz, smooth faced, finish hammer, but the work goes a lot faster and the house frame is stronger if you use a 32 oz, knurled face, framing hammer.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> It's a wonder that we were able to do anything at all before decent pro grade IPS displays were invented and put on the market.  Everything done on monitors before they came along must be crap.


CRT's? Viewing angle didn't matter, and color is awesome on them. The only reason people still don't use them is because they're super deep and they blast radiation at you, LCD's don't make the user fatigue as quickly.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 2, 2013)

I can't really say that theres any  "necessity" to newer monitors, but we use an asus proart series IPS monitor and love it.  Not quite a $1000 monitor,  but it works really well.


----------



## GerryDavid (Mar 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type. Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.
> CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.
> 
> The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.
> ...



I miss my old crt, it finally went a couple of years ago.  It wasnt huge but I could depend on the colors and brightness.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 3, 2013)

KmH said:


> CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type.


And yet, back in the day when we were all using CRT's, the question, "which monitor should I get for editing" generated the same kinds of "top of the line, thousand dollar+" responses that it does today.



KmH said:


> Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.


Well, why not, when they worked just fine?



KmH said:


> CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.


And?  What does that have to do with display QUALITY and whether or not we can get the job done on sub-thousand dollar monitors?



KmH said:


> The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.


Again, WHAT does that have to do with whether or not we can get the job done with sub-thousand dollar monitors?



KmH said:


> You can frame a house with a 16 oz, smooth faced, finish hammer, but the work goes a lot faster and the house frame is stronger if you use a 32 oz, knurled face, framing hammer.


Well, there's some good old fashioned BS, right there.  Given the same wood and the same nail driven to the same depth in that wood, how is it that one method of driving it would render it "stronger" than the other?  Explain the physics of that one to me.

And since we're talking about editing, explain to me how your analogy of it going faster applies.  You're actually going to pretend that by using an expensive TFT LCD monitor, one can edit faster than they can on a non-TFT LCD monitor?  Explain the physics behind that one too.

Bottom line: I'm not framing houses here.  I'm editing photos for print and web.

Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it.  As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones.  My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images.  When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations.  But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.

My experience with this over the years tells me that buying, using and recommending the top of the line thousand dollar+ monitors over calibrated cheaper ones is more about gear snobbery and BS than actual usefulness to the end user.

I welcome actual evidence that there's a real difference that's worth the money.


----------



## GerryDavid (Mar 3, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it.  As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones.  My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images.  When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations.  But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.
> 
> My experience with this over the years tells me that buying, using and recommending the top of the line thousand dollar+ monitors over calibrated cheaper ones is more about gear snobbery and BS than actual usefulness to the end user.
> 
> I welcome actual evidence that there's a real difference that's worth the money.



What monitor would you recommend then?  

I know I wont be in the market to spend $1000 for a monitor any time soon.


----------



## KmH (Mar 3, 2013)

Would you spend $1000 on a lens?

Your computer display influences *every* photo you edit. A lens only influences those photos made with that lens.

But, it's your money, your business. :thumbup:


----------



## GerryDavid (Mar 3, 2013)

I have spent way more than $1000 on a lens.  But a great lens compared to a cheap one lets me get shots in low light and bokeh that I want    Right now I can spend a tiny bit of money per order and have the lab color correct my files for me or I can get a mid range monitor that can do a great job.    And I just don't have the money to spend on a $1000+ monitor.  The list of things I need is way to long to mention.   Ive been trying to get a 5D but other things keep popping up and its just outside my grasp.


----------



## Mully (Mar 3, 2013)

I bought a Samsung 24" display and have had no problems.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 3, 2013)

GerryDavid said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it.  As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones.  My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images.  When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations.  But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.
> ...


There are just too many out there in your price range that ought to work just fine when calibrated for me to recommend one.  I personally like to shop for monitors by going to someplace where I can see them on display next to each other showing the same pictures to make my choice, rather than buying online, though I do like to read reviews by real users, like on Amazon, of the ones I've narrowed it down to before actual purchase, to see if there are any particular issues that the actual users are experiencing that could be problematic, like early demise or something.

I'm currently using a Viewsonic 27" as my main screen, and a 24" Acer with 3D capability (and Nvidia 3D glasses when using it for 3D work or viewing) as my secondary screen.  I keep both regularly calibrated, and they look and work fabulously.  I recently gave my sister a 24" LG that I used before going with the 27" because I wanted more real estate, and the LG looked and worked terrific too - no complaints.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 3, 2013)

KmH said:


> Would you spend $1000 on a lens?


Absolutely, and have more than once.  But I wouldn't spend $1000 on a lens if I could get one for $200 that has the same focal range, aperture, and no practical discernible difference in IQ.  Would you?

Would you spend $5 on a #2 pencil when you can get a pack of 20 of them for a buck and a half just because the salesman said the $5 pencil has a better build quality, EliteAdvantage** Eraser System (looks and works just like a regular eraser, but salesman says it's better), and instructions in English?

If so, where I come from we call that, "they musta seen you comin' mister!"



KmH said:


> Your computer display influences *every* photo you edit.


A very expensive $1000+ monitor vs. an everyday off the shelf few hundred dollar monitor *BOTH CALIBRATED* - Show the evidence that there are practical, discernible differences to the print or web images that are made using those two monitors as editing tools.

Can you do it, or will you remain silent yet again when faced with real questions to your unsupported statements, as usual?


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2013)

To the OP.  Do a little research and make your own decision.  Here is one source to start with.  
Monitors For High Quality Imaging Work
Keep in mind, the quality you want and the quality you can afford may be at odds with one another.  That is where you have to decide what compromise to make.


----------



## KmH (Mar 3, 2013)

Bookmarked - Monitors For High Quality Imaging Work



> *Those on a very tight budget ($500 ish)*
> 
> The http://www.eizo.com/global/products/foris/fs2333/index.html is a *great* little monitor for the price.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 3, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> To the OP.  Do a little research and make your own decision.  Here is one source to start with.
> Monitors For High Quality Imaging Work


OP, you might want to just make a mental note of the fact that this source sells high-priced monitors.  Not that it would influence how they talk about them or that they might try to influence people with any kind of bullspit that doesn't mean much in a practical way to human eyeballs, of course!  Just sayin'...



gryphonslair99 said:


> Keep in mind, the quality you want and the quality you can afford may be at odds with one another.  That is where you have to decide what compromise to make.


Also keep in mind that it would be good if you could actually discern those supposed differences in quality with your human eyeballs, the way the specialized measuring instruments used to discern the difference can.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 4, 2013)

I'll just chime in here with a few comments since I have a nice expensive screen at home, yet I have a cheap Dell IPS screen at work.

My home monitor (NEC Spectraview 2690WUXi) is pushing 8 years old and still looks as good today as it always did. After 4 years with my company I'm on my second Dell monitor and that one is also de-laminating now. At this rate in 6 years I could afford the monitor I've already had for 8. Score 1 for quality.

My home monitor has a builtin colour lookup table (yeah features blah blah blah). My Dell at work if I were to connect a calbrator to it, the more of a correct I apply the worse gradient banding will get as the video card output gets limited for the sake of colour correction. It's a very warm monitor so if I calibrate it to 6500k the result is actually a severely crippled red channel on the video card. This IS noticable. Score 1 for quality. 

My home monitor is wide gamut. Photos involving sunsets and clear blue oceans I take look fantastic. They get quite a bit duller when I set them back to sRGB for display on the internet. Most cheap monitors are sRGB. This is only good for viewing your own images at home but hey that's what I do, that and print in which case wide gamuts also help. This has plusses and minuses but since I'm gunning for team good monitor I'll say again score 1 for quality. 

I won't even comment on non-IPS displays. Suffice to say that my girlfriend edits on a laptop and then comes to my screen to fine tune and is usually not happy with the brightness of her original edits, no surprise given the viewing angle issues TN panels introduce. 


Can I print an image for you that you will definitely say "Yes this one came from the good monitor?" No. Our eyes are great at comparing but horrible at noticing initial problems to begin with. 
Can you compare prints to cheap and expensive displays and say one display does a much better job than the other? Yes. 
Is it nicer working on an expensive display with perfectly even backlighting and accurate calibration? Yes.

Is it worth the money? Well that's the question of the day. If all you're buying is cheap Dells I'm going to go with No, but only you can answer that. 

Is your doctor looking at your CT scans on a cheap monitor? Well then your choice of monitor won't matter since you won't live long with his medical advice


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 4, 2013)

as much as I would LOVE to have the best equipment money can buy...that isn't usually economically feasible for me. 
we used a 24" Gateway TFT LCD monitor for 6 years and it worked just fine. granted, the Asus Pro Art series IPS monitor we replaced it with  is a much better display, and the wife definitely likes it  better, but the old Gateway STILL works great and im currently using it on my computer. just remember that people were managing to do digital photography before these fancy LCD and IPS monitors were around and somehow managed to get the job done. its like any set of tools...there will ALWAYS be the next "best" thing, the next "newest" technology, and the next "must have" gear. the high end gear is usually more expensive for a reason. better components, better built, better warranty or service, better performance...etc etc. you just have to decide what level of equipment you can afford, and if it is sufficient to get the work you need done. Buying higher end gear than you actually "need" right now may be overkill, but I would never call it "wasted". you can always grow into better gear.


----------



## Drew1992 (Mar 4, 2013)

I have a 24 inch NEC MultiSync LCD 2490WUXi2 that I bought not quite 2 years ago and it is a great monitor. In fact, according to some reviews and articles, it gets better with age. I have had no problems with it and it is so very quiet, makes no noise at all, has no glare, & has great features.


----------



## KrisztinaK (Mar 5, 2013)

KmH said:


> Many of Dell's less expensive UltraSharp displays develop panel layer delamination issues in about a year's time.
> I no longer recommend the low cost Dell UltraSharp displays for that reason.
> 
> A decent pro grade IPS display will cost quite a bit more - $1000+
> ...



May I ask, what makes you recommend the 2410 over the 2412?  I am looking to upgrade my monitor in the near future as well, and looking to save a few bucks in the process.

Does the 2410 not develop panel layer delamination as you had mentioned?  Or is it the fact that the 2412 is an LED ?


----------



## eltebe (Mar 6, 2013)

On the difference between monitor cheap/costly and prints topic. Friend of mine is a pro and he used his laptop screen and still does for pp. None of his clients ever complained. Maybe he had great lab taking care of color accuracy before print. And on topic of monitors. I bought hazro hz27wa ips not only for photography. Angles are very good and it was best pick for <1k$ 1 or 2 years ago. I use it for movies web and games as well. I've been using ips since nec 20 wgx and would never pick tft over ips.


----------

