best dam screens for photography

[chippy]

i couldnt find a section for this...but what are the latest very good screens available for photo work.

from a very sexy voice in texas, when i ordered my mac pro (even though i thought i was ringing Sydney! but put me through to texas-sounds better than india though--sorry to all the indian people, but she sounded pretty good) . she said that there are some very good led (preferred against lcd or TFT lcd) monitors comming out soon from LG which would be very excellent...even though she was selling apple she didnt feel obliged to say apple was the the best, and the new apple 24" is gloss which isnt that good for photo work...i was keen to get a 30" but am not sure what in this range is very good quality either???

so 24" either avaliable now or close to release what is the best....or in 30" what is the best for photo work, in some cases i hear apple 30 is good but others i hear it is not very good colour accuracy? the 30" is also at the end of its time and will likely be replaced with a new model sooner or later, whether this is gloss or matt, LED or not i dont know

[boy_lah]

I went through this myself not long ago. CRT is still the 'best' but for home, the lure of a flat LCD cannot be ignored. For me, now i've gone 24" i can never go back to anything smaller!

For photography...I feel colour accuracy, extend/ability to be calibrated and screen size is probably most important.

Re colour accuracy etc...get a screen calibrator. I use the Huey Pro but many other options around incl the Spider/X-rite, Eye-One range etc...depending how 'pro' you want to go and also if print calibration is important for you.

There is this whole debate around panel technology - PVA vs IPS. The industry is going down PVA (think Bayern) instead of the apparently 'better' IPS (Foveon?). And as time goes by, they've perfected the short comings of PVA screens. So unless you're willing to spend big bucks, you're like to get a PVA screen. I actually have a IPS but I think the panel technology is only an element that contributes to the final results just like the sensor in a camera. Avoid the other/older/cheaper technologies like MVA or TN panels.

Check out the main brands like Eizo and LaCie. You cannot go wrong with either but $$$. The lower end brands differs a lot so you need to do your research. If keeping within a budget, I would go for a smaller screen that is more calibratable then a larger screen for the 'same money'. Some high end screens have 'hardware' calibration (LUT) as well but we're talking high high end. Many everyman screens don't even have contrast adjustment when using DVI. So size is not everything!

Check out this site. Great advise:
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php?xSec=10154

Oh...final idea. Many people go for dual screens option. A high end 19" + a basic screen for normal use. The quality you'll get from the high end 19" likely to be better than a moderate end 24".

[chippy]

WOW...PVA, IPS, Eizo, LaCie...it looks like i have some reading to do..

the NEC looks like it has all sorts of on board colour management (perhaps replacing the need for a calibrating set up like Spider etc), it also looks like it has significant in built power management systems...but looking at the specs, just looking at the basic things that i am becoming familiar with, the contrast ratio is 800:1 (i bought a cheap $200 screen for my son that has 800:1 which was more contrast ratio than the screen that was $20 cheaper) which seems quite low doesnt it? i mean many now are much higher and some coming out are said to be even as high as 1000 000:1, also the refesh rate of 16ms (8ms G-G whatever that means) seems very slow compared to what most reasonable screens have in their specs?

i am not saying i know what i am talking about, just that these are the types of numbers/specs i often see written when comparing screens, so i assume they are important...also i was led to believe that LED screens are meant to be the improved (more colour acurate/long lasting/better contrast) technology?

[John Robertson]

I tried two flat screen LCD monitors, I couldn't stand the things, I spent ages trying to clone out a dead pixel on one. I picked up a 24inch flat screen CRT, superb!!!
Unless you are professional or have money to waste, that would seem to be the way to go. I bought two from an architects office almost unused for £50.

[morback]

Professional photo retouchers use Eizo screens. As far as I understand that would be top of the line.

Apple LCD are very bad for color.

[Bassism]

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in display specs. Any display that claims a ridiculously high contrast ratio achieves that by dynamically adjusting the brightness to suit what's happening on the screen. My Samsung claims 8000:1 but with the dynamic feature disabled, it's more like 800:1, which is still respectable.

Similarly, there are two methods of calculating response time. Lower end displays will advertise the grey-grey time which is much lower than the black-white time that is actually defined as black-white. My Samsung advertises 2ms, but is actually 5ms. In any case, the response time doesn't make any difference in photograhy, and even with games and movies most current displays are good enough.

Personally, I would go for an IPS or PVA panel. The 20 inch Dell IPS I had years ago is still among the best displays I have ever seen. For a display purely to be used for photography, I would stay away from glossy screens. They emphasize colour saturation which I find gets in the way of really seeing what you're working on. I also can't stand reflections in the display, it strains my eyes.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting an LED display. They are the way things are going in the future and have the potential to have more even lighting, but a well designed standard LCD will have the same. The primary advantage of LED backlighting lies in energy efficiency, which isn't a concern for me on the desktop. In either case, they're using the same types of display panels.

I don't know what the state of things in displays is at the moment, so I can't give too much in the way of recommendation. That NEC display that photomoof suggested would be a good choice, any display that advertises colour accuracy is going to be better in that regard than one that does not. If you don't want to break the bank, the high end Dell displays are quite good. They typically use the same panels as the Apple displays at a lower price point.

Mostly, set your budget and do a lot of research at what's available in that budget. You need to look beyond the list of specs to get a true sense of the quality of the display. Online reviews will help a lot.

[jwhitley]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Right now, unless you are rolling in dough, this is the best monitor available for color.
[...]
* Achieves 75% Adobe RGB and 72% NTSC coverage

If you are rolling in dough, then the Eizo displays are definitely better by way of color gamut. The ColorEdge line comes with color calibration hardware and software, and all Eizo displays appear to have color gamut ranges from 97% to 100% of Adobe RGB.

[Harry Lime]

HP DreamColor LP2480zx

http://tinyurl.com/cjuzb4

Probably the best LCD on the market. We tested it against pretty much everything else and it came out on top. The closest thing you are going to find to a SONY Artisan tube CRT, until SED or OLED appears.

The NEC SpectraView series is a real bargain and outperforms most EIZO that cost a lot more.

[boy_lah]

The only problem is you cannot get the NEC in Europe. ; (
I think you can get the 30" in Oz but not sure about 24".

Finally, I spoke to the ColourConfience tech director who personally tests various screens that come their way and he reckons, although the NEC is good. He recommended the newer lower end Lacie to me. PVA but with LUT if you bought the accompanying Lacie calibrator. His view is ability to calibrate is key in getting the best from your monitor.

I ended up with a Hazro - a relatively small/new Korean company that uses Samsung IPA panels. Nothing flash but for the price/and in Europe, this was the only choice if i wanted IPA.

[chippy]

A wealth of infomation coming out here, more han i have been able to find out in a few days of searching, my knowledge has increased a 1000% already! (which wasnt hard given how little i knew!)

for the money saving i would take a CRT ,even if i only used it along side a cheap larger lcd for criticle work, if i could find one that is, so far they seem to have gone the way of the dodo, i dont like my chances of stumbling across someone selling one off though. i might make a few token phone calls and see how i go

the HP Harry mentioned seems the bees knees, and has a wide range of input conectors, at $2000US it is passing the obsene amount of money i was considering spending on an apple 30", or the slighty cheaper Dell 30". but given how good it is meant to be, hmm, that should convert to around $2800AU but here they are priced well over $4000AU so thats out!

this place in Oz is called Just monitors and seems to have the NEC range, it doesnt say SpectraView but i assume they are? the price range is do-able for me for perhaps the 24" at about $1600AU or the 26" just under $2000, they have a number of makers on the left menu including the more expensive Eizo...

http://www.justmonitors.com.au/nec.htm

So out of that range is the NEC the peoples (RFF) choice? the 26'' or 24"? or something else?

all this does raise the question for me though, because i doubt everyone has these expensive high quality monitors. is how are people possible getting correct colour in their prints without using these screens? i realise that there are calibrating things like Spider but is that workable on cheap lcd screens?

[Bassism]

From looking around a bit online, it seems the 26 covers 93% of Adobe RGB vs 72% for the 24. That would make it the better choice for photo work. And aside from the high end Eizos, it seems a better choice than anything else they've got.