Ok I'm still trying to decide on a new screen . My heart says go for a 27" but my head is saying hold on a 24" is much cheaper (I could maybe get 2)
The choices look to be the Dell's
So a 24incher has a 16:10 ration (res of 1900x1200 ) while the 27's are 16:9 2556x1440
Most of my stuff is done with Lightroom and having played with LR5 beta there seems to be no changes to the way it uses the screen . So the question is for Lightroom is it better to have the extra width considering the price difference for the 240 extra pixels in the height ?
I will say that a 24 inc would fit my desk space alot better
I've got 2 27"monitors so I say bigger is better. But you obviously want confirmation that 1 or 2 24'ers are the way to go. So here goes get the 24" monitor is you need more rome add a second one I think you'll be very happy with them.
I think raw editors, monitors, and pc or mac to personal a choice to be made for someone else
I used to have 24" screens.
I replaced them not long ago with 27". The larger screen and higher resolution makes things much easier.
This allows easier side by side on the same screen, and overall the 27" has a higher quality panel.
I think you need to consider the aspect ratio of the images you work on. Having a big wide screen is not going to help if the image display is limited by the vertical space. On my 24 inch 16:10 screen, display of SLR-native 6x4 ratio shots (in landscape orientation) is limited by the horizontal space available if i have both LR toolbars open, so a 27 inch 16:9 would be of some benefit. For shots out of my 5x4 ratio P&S though, i am limited by the vertical space, in which case i would benefit little from having a wider aspect ratio screen. So how much benefit the wider screen gives, considering that the vertical res is not so different (1440 vs 1200), is perhaps questionable and for me i don't think it is worth the difference in price.
I would also comment that i use my own photos as desktop backgrounds, and i find images that crop well at 16:9 are harder to find than those that crop well at 16:10.
WAYCOOL: its actually the other way round it confirmation that I should really get a 27" rather than settle for a 24 . Yes I could get 2 24's but really my 2nd screen now is my old 17" (not widescreen) . It does its job as I tend to use it as a menu dump in PS or in LR I have the grid up on there . So in truth my current 22" can do that job without a fuss.
I agree that editors, monitors, pc's etc are a very personal choice but that makes it no less easy to choose
Eyal: I think either would be a big upgrade to what I'm using now , but if I can squeeze the bigger screen in I think I'm going to try to
15bit: just about all of my stuff is out of a dslr . I tend in LR to have 1 bar on screen . The left side when in Lib and the right when in develop . I try not to have both .
So maybe the 16:9 would be good .
Oh well I'm sure id be happy with either wish it was as easy as going and trying one out
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
15bit: just about all of my stuff is out of a dslr . I tend in LR to have 1 bar on screen . The left side when in Lib and the right when in develop . I try not to have both .
So maybe the 16:9 would be good .
Checking it, i find that with one toolbar closed i am height limited also with 6x4 ratio images. So the benefit of the 27 inch 16:9 is going to be 240 pixels in the vertical (20%) and a corresponding enlargement in the horizontal. And the ability to have both tool bars open without reducing the displayed image size at all.
For what it's worth, i don't think you can make a bad choice here. I would recommend getting the wide gamut models though, as they are generally better quality products than their cheaper sRGB brethren. If it were to come down to the U2413 or the U2713HM, i think i would take the 24 inch. The sRGB models tend to be built down to a price and sold in bulk (heavily discounted) to corporate buyers - i have a U2412M in my office and its not the same quality of product as the U2410 i have at home. As a guide I can tell you that whilst Dell UK list the U2412M as £270 plus tax to normal mortals, we pay around £220, and that's in super expensive Norway.
The bigger monitor offers higher pixel density and will look better. It will not look a lot taller than the 24" but it will be just a bit taller, despite being only 16:9 ratio. The extra width allows both side panels to be open in Lr but that will not matter very much if you use your 17" screen for the controls and just use the big screen for the image. However, I reckon you'll soon find yourself using the big screen for everything important and just use the 17" screen for background stuff (other applications such as email or whatever).
If the 24" screen had the same higher pixel density as the 27" then I'd say get the 24", but it doesn't and so I recommend the 27". Just make sure that it has wide gamut because only that way will you get the best out of your image editing and viewing.
Do a check for yourself, but I think the u2713H is better than the u2713HM (or something like that ) The prices reflect the quality, as do the product reviews.
As an interesting exercise, look at some images in Lr with bright reds or blues and then use the soft proof feature to display them in sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces. You will not see much difference on your sRGB monitor but you will see the histogram change, and you will notice how much the individual colour channels can get pushed way over to the right in sRGB or aRGB. It happens more so in sRGB than in aRGB and indicates that visible colours are being truncated in sRGB.
)