Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is a IPS/Pro monitor is necessary if one doesn't print much. |
If I may ask, what do you mean by "pure usability"?
Of course you may.
Well, in "usability" I also include "consistency" - which tends to be a very important part of having a solid workflow that you can have confidence in. I do like to KNOW what I'm sending a customer. It also protects me from any kind of later conflicts about colour, brightness and contrast, as I can always KNOW that what I sent was ok, and that it's probably something in the workflow on their end that is messing something up.
This consistency includes knowing that it doesn't matter if I looked at my screen from 5 degrees higher head>screen surface angle than I usually do, the contrast is still within a small error margin. Meaning that I won't overdo or overcompensate for what is basically a screen error when doing the PP or culling of my shots.
On a bad TN screen, contrast can take a 50% hit (1:1000 to 1:500) from just a 5º change in vertical viewing angle. Colors can take a +/-10 dE hit from a +/-10º horizontal angle shift.
Since most people would say that a 1 Ev over/under exposure is noticeable, or a +/-1000K WB error is bad, I wonder why so many are making their decisions about their work on equipment that in itself gives much higher error strengths than that.
Since I know color by numbers, I could in theory get correct color on a grayscale screen just by using the color picker on known or at least semi-known areas in the image. So I could work on a really bad screen and still get the results at least in the ballpark, good enough for most customers.
The question is WHY I would want to do that, when a reliable IPS monitor where I can trust what I see costs less (in additional price over a bad TN screen) than what many people spend on UV filters or a new camera strap.