Which monitor

[Paul Burdett]

I'd be interested to know what monitor people are using here to view/edit bird photos. I'm thinking about investing in a better monitor than my 27 inch IPS HP monitor. I'm not interested in a Mac, as my new custom built PC is quite powerful and suits me well. Thanks in advance.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Paul, I use Eizo and was the only one here, but I think Andreas then followed in my footsteps, but it's availability.

My advice would be to firstly get one you 'can' calibrate with the products like X-rite produce, ie Spyder, Eye-One, or Colormunki etc. Eizo have their own calibration software and some are self calibrating which you can set to being done over night. Also if its just for Social media like BPN and PP is minimal in it's approach you don't need to spend a fortune IMHO, why spend $£4k on a monitor for just posting 1600px images. Unless you are supplying prints or uploading to Online libraries save your pennies and get a reasonably priced monitor that suits your needs.

In addition, you also may need to look at the environment you process in, if you can, ideally you want a room where you are in darkness without any additional light hitting the monitor, as this will affect how you view the image. Again Eizo have hoods to reduce additional light, but processing on the dining room table with the lights on and the sun beaming through the window hitting the screen is best to be avoided. :bg3:

Good luck.

Steve

 

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Steve. Good advice...thank you. My HP Pavilion suits me fine at the moment, and I calibrate it with the Spyder hardware. I guess that I wanted to make sure that the images I view from BPN are accurately shown on my monitor, as it does appear that in some cases they seem over sharpened to me or the whites/blacks look incorrect. I don't print much at the moment, but I do have a number of images that I would like to get printed at a lab and then framed, so getting accurate colour etc on the monitor is important. Here's a link to my monitor. What is your opinion of the specs? Still interested in what members of BPN are using. Cheers.

https://support.hp.com/au-en/document/c03616870

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Paul, just out shooting so will answer later however, with regards to sharpening, whites & blacks that IMHO comes down to your workflow.

When printing I always us LR as I can ‘soft proof’ and export the 16 bit tiff. But remember, depending on your paper, I use Permajet, other manufacturers are available, but you need to get their own ICC profiles for the respective paper used. When I get them I supply, Mac, system software, printer and provide a test print to them based on their own graphic page. They then customise the profile accordingly.

 

[Paul Burdett]

Thanks again Steve. The whites/blacks/sharpen reference was to images posted by others on BPN...some images posted here appear to me to be over sharpened and/.or the whites are blown etc...and I have been told that it may be my monitor/calibration that's not good enough. I don't print at home, so want to make sure what I see on my monitor is what is printed when I give the lab my file. I appreciate the info Steve. Cheers.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Paul, with regards to 'The Specs' I will bow out ,as that's not my forte, I just use a friend of mine who's an Eizo ambassador and we just look at what's 'fit for purpose and my requirements'.

The whites/blacks/sharpen reference was to images posted by others on BPN...some images posted here appear to me to be over sharpened and/.or the whites are blown etc...

Well, if the monitor is correctly calibrated, and set for Photography with the relevant setting ie kelvin, black point and candelas (brightness of the screen) etc then the issues above are down to PP. When I calibrate either every four weeks or when the monitors tell me, the calibration also takes into account the ambient light too, which is relatively constant - black! I can't remember what you use for Raw conversion, but in LR you have a Histogram and two triangles top left & Right, this will change subject to any clipping whether is over exposed, or you have added too much Black, Contrast, Exp, Hl's, Whites etc, but most software will have this and so clipping should not be an issue. But if you have blown the HL's in the Raw, as you know, no software will retrieve the data.

Re sharpening that's fairly simple, the image initially is either sharp or soft, if sharp then you may choose or not to apply a little pre sharpening prior to Exporting as a Tiff to PS for further work, or you just apply sharpening when exporting out for web, print, PI, but this isg' 'perceptual sharpenin. However there are so many ways to sharpen an image, but if say you use USM, within PS then the amounts should be low, Amount, your call, Radius should be less or around 0.5, Threshold zero. If you go above 0.5 on the radius then give up, you will get halos etc. Remember, you can build sharpening up, with layers & masks, it's not just a one hit and some images may in their nature need less or more.

 

[Paul Burdett]

Thanks so much for the info Steve. What I find interesting is that there have been images posted here that on my monitor appear over sharpened (or the whites/blacks are off), even though my monitor is calibrated, but others have said that they appear fine on their monitors, so there must be something wrong with my monitor/settings. So, I guess the answer as to who is "correct" comes down to (as you say) the individual's monitor/settings and processing. I use Adobe camera raw and PS only. In any event if I like my images as they appear on my monitor that's all that counts. I'd still like a high end monitor though...a man has to have his toys!:bg3: Take care

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Paul can you check, is your Kelvin level set to 6500k and what is your candelas set to, brightness ie 70, 100 or even 120, what does the manufacture advise?

when in Raw are you RGB or Pro RGB, I suggest once imported from camera (you are shooting in Camera RGB?) swop in ACR to Adobe Pro Photo and the same in PS. Not a huge difference, but better. Won’t solve your issues currently, but a better working environment.

BTW the monitor isn’t facing any directional light?

 

[Paul Burdett]

Steve: Kelvin was set to 6500 and brightness to 90 (manufacturer factory reset amount). Yes, in camera is Adobe RGB, but I was using Adobe RGB in camera raw and photoshop. I've changed both to Pro photo and see how it looks. One of my plugins recommends pro photo so that should be good. The only light is from a normal incandescent light bulb from the ceiling...nothing directly facing the monitor.
I've been researching a few monitors (Eizo/NEC are a little more than what I want to spend at this stage)...BenQ have a 32 inch 4K model that looks good, but as i only post images to this forum I might stick with my HP. I do want to print a number of my photos, but I will get a lab to do this...so maybe a new monitor would be prudent in that case. Thanks for your help and advice Steve...much appreciated.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Paul, turn the ceiling light off. Make sure you update your settings so ACR talks to PS ie ACR is in Pro, but you left PS in RGB, doubt you will see visually the change ,just gives you more to play with.

Re 4k your call, but personally I'm not even go there.

You could drop Jon A a line as I know he uses BenQ.

I've been researching a few monitors (Eizo/NEC are a little more than what I want to spend at this stage)

Paul, you have to be comfortable in what you spend, obvious think ahead and your requirements for the future, not now. Also, just look at when the model you fancy was launched and when the manufacture ls due for and upgrade launch ie every 2-3 years, you don't want to buy and find two months later a new & better version is available for a few $$$ more.

 

[Paul Burdett]

Thanks again Steve. yes, ACR and PS now changed to ProPhoto. I've looked into BenQ...there are some good models there. I'm in no rush so will keep researching. I must admit that a 32 inch 4K is tempting. Cheers.

 

[arash_hazeghi]

I some items in this thread might be inaccurate on multiple fronts.



first you *CAN* calibrate any monitor include a $200 load of junk from Costco, but that doesn't mean anything. The sensor will read and measure the screen output and calculate the correction, however the screen is not able to apply the corrections because its color spectrum does not include certain colors required to accurately display an image.
similarly Kelvin temperature does not mean a thing if the screen is not able to emit the spectrum. The image on some monitors will appear sharper than the rest, even if the nominal resolution is the same. this is due to optical cross-talk or "leakage" between pixels, the cheap monitors do not compensate for this issue so the image becomes fuzzy looking, the screen then tries to boost the image (most consumer screens are designed for text not photos) which then leads to over sharpened or coarse appearance of an otherwise perfect photo.


Calibrating a junk monitor is just a waste of time like trying to adjust tier pressure on a Kia to go race among a bunch of Ferraris.


if dough is the issue, maybe look at the used market. Very few people buy desktop PC's anymore to use for photo/video work so the typical PC monitor is unfortunately crap these days made to be as cheap as possible. Many higher end PC monitors are also made for gaming (ultra fast response as opposed to image quality) For those who don't have $3K to spend on a monitor, an entire 27" 5K imac computer can be had for the same amount and while it is not the same as the NEC but it's at least 80% there and at least designed with the photographer in mind... plus you get a descent computer too.... that's what I recommend to my clients on a budget.

good luck

 

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. Thank you for you input/info. I understand your point of view, but I would say that most people without your technical knowledge would purchase what they think is a good monitor and be quite happy with it. i don't think the majority of people on this forum use NEC or EIZO...but I could be wrong. I don't have a restricted budget, but i don't want to buy something that is more than I need too. My main usage is to edit photos, post to this forum. However, printing my photos is becoming something I want to do more and more...using a lab as opposed to printing at home, and so that's why the adobe 100% RGB coverage is (I assume) important. I have looked at a number of 4K monitors recently that look "very good", but do not have a 99-100% rgb coverage. Prices for these, which include BenQ and LG are around the $AUD1600 mark. Eizo 27 inch are around $AUD3000. I haven't seen any Eizo or Nec monitors anywhere here in Brisbane...only online.
Here's a link to two monitors. What would be your opinion of each? Both around $3000+ Cheers.

https://www.digidirect.com.au/eizo-coloredge-cg279x-27-wqhd-professional-self-calibrating-ips-monitor?gclid=CjwKCAjw_JuGBhBkEiwA1xmbRfv_yW3UVDznE_bASushaA2vRFtTEJdPRYY1qW6mYHf-P15MFvm3txoCIC0QAvD_BwE


https://www.scorptec.com.au/product...1zOzPNkpJRLF0F7VV2DwHZCU9l_XcJ3BoCwV0QAvD_BwE

 

[arash_hazeghi]

There is no such thing as RGB coverage. I think you might be talking about Adobe RGB or sRGB coverage. You need to be looking at Adobe RGB coverage or P3 coverage not sRGB. You want at least 98% Adobe RGB coverage or 99% P3 coverage.

I don’t print anything anymore.

I don’t know anything about the Chinese monitor (BenQ). I remember someone here bought the Chinese monitor and then it died after sometime.

good luck

 

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. Yes, I was referring to Adobe RGB. I wasn't sure what P3 was, until I researched it. Thanks again.:S3:

 

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Paul, I read all of the posts from you, Steve and Arash. A couple years ago I was where you are now, wanting a better monitor but not wanting to break the bank. The Dell monitor was okay but not a monitor built for editing photographs. After talking to Steve and researching, comparing specs I bought a Eizo ColorEdge CS2420. The most profound difference from what I was using was that on the Eizo monitor I could see the smallest adjustments in color and tone. I would compare it to a sharp knife rather than a blunt knife. I didn't want to go the 4k or 5k route and didn't have the space for a large monitor so I stayed with 1920 x 1280 resolution. Here is a link to the monitor I bought. If I remember correctly it was around $800 US.

https://www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cs2420/

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Paul, rarely do I push folk into buying kit, or software, unless it’s a no brainier like PS, but you could speak to Eizo direct in Oz? You can explain what you are after and your 'Wish list' and they can hopefully advise you on what model might suit you and based on your location, you can view/purchase it from, but ultimately you have to be happy with the product, it fits your needs/requirements and think long term ie 5-8 years on and not base it on a knee jerk reaction. :S3: Don't forget release date!!!!

https://www.eizo-apac.com

 

[Paul Burdett]

Thanks Joseph and Steve. There's a BenQ 4K 27 inch that I'm looking at at the moment that has 99% Adobe RGB ($AUD1699)
The Eizo you linked to is 24 inches. My current HP is 27, so don't really want to go smaller, but 32 inches in the BenQ is around $AUD3300, so that may be overkill in size/budget.
At this stage I feel 4K is better for me, but as I'm in no rush that may change. Cheers.