So I'm researching new monitors. My budget is $500. So far I've narrowed down my choices to these:
ASUS PA249Q $463
--Pros - Excellent reviews at B&H; Color Saturation of 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB, AH-IPS panel, 1073.3 million colors
--Cons - Reported issues with a high pitched tone when using USBs on monitor, Only Satisfactory rating on Prad review site; Poor customer service
Dell U2413 $439
--Pros - Very Good reviews on B&H; Color Saturation of 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB; AH-IPS panel, 1073.3 million colors; Good rating on Prad review site; Very good customer service
--Cons - Only 3.5/5 on Amazon; Can only be calibrated with i1Display Pro
Dell U2412M $268
--Pros - Cheaper; Excellent reviews on B&H and Amazon; Good rating on Prad review site; Very good customer service
--Cons - Color saturation of 96% sRGB, 74% Adobe RGB, older IPS technology (not AH-IPS)
HP ZR2440w $299
--Pros - Cheaper; Excellent reviews on B&H and Amazon; Very good (highest) rating on Prad review site; Good customer service
--Cons - Color saturation of 96% sRGB, 74% Adobe RGB, older IPS technology (not AH-IPS)
Now my computer doesn't have a GPU that supports 10 bit so does that mean I will never see those 1073.3 million colors? Also, I only use Lightroom 5 and Photoshop Elements 12.
I'm no professional, but I'd like to be able to print pictures, or send them to a photolab, and have them look the same as what I see on my monitor. Does that mean I need the more expensive choices (better color saturation) or would the cheaper ones be fine by themselves? What about the cheaper ones and a calibration tool like the i1Display Pro?
Hi Ryn - Here are my thoughts of what would be the best value
- Better understanding (if needed) of the complete color managed workflow (color spaces, device profiles, how conversions work between them). Lots of online resources and I believe provides a better basis for making the decisions in front of you.
- Hardware/software calibration and profiling solution such as the 11 Display Pro. This is needed for color accuracy whether you have an sRGB gamut monitor or an Adobe RGB gamut monitor
- Soft Proofing knowledge and practice. Printers have their own color gamut that is different than either sRGB or Adobe RGB. To have a reasonable match to what to expect on the printer you need the ICC profile for the printer/ink/paper combination used with soft proofing in your editing software (this is free BTW)
- Whether sRGB or Adobe RGB monitor depends on your needs. The vast majority of images taken have a color gamut that fits in sRGB. There scenes with highly saturated colors (some sunrises/sunsets/deep colored flowers) that don't fit in sRGB. however, many of those colors also don't print on the printer. For today's high end ink jet printers there are some colors that can be printed outside the sRGB color gamut yet contained in the Adobe RGB color gamut. Which colors depends on the specific printer and inks used. Typically they are in the deeper blues, reds and sometimes yellows. Note that the Adobe RGB display allows you to see more saturated colors, its just that not many of those highest saturated colors will make it to print with today's print technology (which is improving with time).
----------------------------------------
Other notes
- A calibration/profiling device does not improve the gamut of the monitor, just the ability to get a better match with other devices
- 10 bits does not change the gamut of the monitor, only the number of color steps within that gamut. Where it helps the most is in slowly varying color gradients such as a night sky you could see banding in the monitor with an 8 bit display yet not with a 10 bit display. To get 10 bit to work the entire workflow from OS, graphics card and application must all be lined up to take advantage of that 10 bit e.g. 10 bit is not supported with Photoshop in Mac systems so a monitor with 10 bits helps not a bit if all the other items are not lined up as well (FYI).
-----------------------------
All just my opinion of course and hope the info/suggestions are helpful.
John Wheeler wrote:
Hi Ryn - Here are my thoughts of what would be the best value
- Better understanding (if needed) of the complete color managed workflow (color spaces, device profiles, how conversions work between them). Lots of online resources and I believe provides a better basis for making the decisions in front of you.
- Hardware/software calibration and profiling solution such as the 11 Display Pro. This is needed for color accuracy whether you have an sRGB gamut monitor or an Adobe RGB gamut monitor
- Soft Proofing knowledge and practice. Printers have their own color gamut that is different than either sRGB or Adobe RGB. To have a reasonable match to what to expect on the printer you need the ICC profile for the printer/ink/paper combination used with soft proofing in your editing software (this is free BTW)
- Whether sRGB or Adobe RGB monitor depends on your needs. The vast majority of images taken have a color gamut that fits in sRGB. There scenes with highly saturated colors (some sunrises/sunsets/deep colored flowers) that don't fit in sRGB. however, many of those colors also don't print on the printer. For today's high end ink jet printers there are some colors that can be printed outside the sRGB color gamut yet contained in the Adobe RGB color gamut. Which colors depends on the specific printer and inks used. Typically they are in the deeper blues, reds and sometimes yellows. Note that the Adobe RGB display allows you to see more saturated colors, its just that not many of those highest saturated colors will make it to print with today's print technology (which is improving with time).
----------------------------------------
Other notes
- A calibration/profiling device does not improve the gamut of the monitor, just the ability to get a better match with other devices
- 10 bits does not change the gamut of the monitor, only the number of color steps within that gamut. Where it helps the most is in slowly varying color gradients such as a night sky you could see banding in the monitor with an 8 bit display yet not with a 10 bit display. To get 10 bit to work the entire workflow from OS, graphics card and application must all be lined up to take advantage of that 10 bit e.g. 10 bit is not supported with Photoshop in Mac systems so a monitor with 10 bits helps not a bit if all the other items are not lined up as well (FYI).
-----------------------------
All just my opinion of course and hope the info/suggestions are helpful....Show more →
Wow! What a great response and very helpful, thank you!
If you still want a wide-gamut monitor then pay attention to whether or not it has an internal processor that handles colour management as well as brightness control automatically. e.g. with an NEC monitor and the spectraview II software I can apply any colour profile that was created with that software and the monitor knows what the intended brightness was and automatically adjusts accordingly, as well as adapt the colour values to suit the profile. This is done without restricting the range of colour values that are usable by the graphics card. To me this feature is very beneficial when I want to use a low-brightness low-contrast profile to suit printer matching and then change back to a higher-brightness higher-contrast profile for normal viewing. It takes only seconds to make the change and does not involve manually messing around with brightness levels on the monitor or computer.
Most of the time the Lr histogram represents values in the proPhoto RGB colour space and not what you would get in sRGB. You can softproof to sRGB but then you lose the lost-shadows indication because that is replaced with an indication anything of any brightness that does not fit into the monitor gamut. You then need to use the monitor to judge the condition of the shadows but the monitor is not set up with the right brightness and contrast to suit your print, despite the Lr softproofing.
I find that soft proofing in Lr is a pain with my NEC wide-gamut monitor. So whether or not I use the Lr soft proofing I find it helpful to set the monitor to the intended brightness/contrast/profile combination so that I am far more likely to see on screen what I will probably see on the print - along with the correct brightness and contrast range.
I have lots of landscape photos that exceed Adobe RGB and certainly sRGB. Fortunately, a monitor that has 99% Adobe RGB coverage probably covers 99% of the official Adobe RGB gamut plus a whole lot of extra gamut that is not in Adobe RGB. So instead of being "99% AdobeRGB" it might be "AdobeRGB minus 1% plus 10%". Bright reds in flowers, for example, easily exceed Adobe RGB but still fall within the monitor gamut and are captured by the camera. This is usually of no use in terms of printing those particular tones and hues but at least I can see that they are there in my raw files and I can apply appropriate edits to get them into my printer gamut.
Another factor is that because the NEC monitor applies the profile corrections internally, it assigns a dummy do-nothing profile for the colour management system to use. This is good because it prevents the CMS messing with the graphics card lookup tables but it is also bad because the CMS doesn't really know what the monitor is capable of showing. Nor does Lr.
In my opinion, if you cannot get what you want and need from a cheap wide-gamut monitor then you might as well get a decent (i.e. very good quality) IPS sRGB monitor instead. The IPS will give you more consistent colours up and down the screen from a normal viewing position (never mind what people looking over your shoulder see - it's what you see that really counts). A good quality monitor will also give you more consistent tonal levels across the entire screen so that any shadow effects you see are most likely in your image file rather than in your monitor panel.
The bottom line is that if you can't see the image correctly then you cannot expect to edit it correctly. On the other hand, with enough effort and skill you can fiddle around and get a pretty useful working image from almost any image file; one that you'll be very happy with -- right up until you get a better monitor and/or printer
While I agree with most of what John wrote I disagree that a 10-bit monitor is mostly a useless feature. Read an Eizo or NEC monitor brochure and you'll see that 10 or 12 or 14 bit internal data allows the monitor to present you with a much better image even though it is still based on 8-bit data from the graphics card. It uses the extra bits to refine the tones in more subtle ways so that you get less banding in areas of colour or tonal gradation, and more uniform tonal levels in areas of equal tone. It's not just the 10-bit-ness that helps, but also the internal processor and colour lookup tables and brightness control.
In short, such a monitor can take an 8-bit input, convert it to say 14-bit, manipulate that data according to the profile and other parameters in a way that might end up losing some of those 14 bits, and still be able to display it as an optimum 10-bit image that is superior to whatever the 8-bit graphics card can produce on lesser monitors. With a 10-bit image from the graphics card it would do even better.
Alan,
Than you very much for taking the time to reply. I believe any NEC monitors that have those features are outside my $500 budget, or am I wrong about that?
Alan321 wrote:
While I agree with most of what John wrote I disagree that a 10-bit monitor is mostly a useless feature. Read an Eizo or NEC monitor brochure and you'll see that 10 or 12 or 14 bit internal data allows the monitor to present you with a much better image even though it is still based on 8-bit data from the graphics card. It uses the extra bits to refine the tones in more subtle ways so that you get less banding in areas of colour or tonal gradation, and more uniform tonal levels in areas of equal tone. It's not just the 10-bit-ness that helps, but also the internal processor and colour lookup tables and brightness control.
In short, such a monitor can take an 8-bit input, convert it to say 14-bit, manipulate that data according to the profile and other parameters in a way that might end up losing some of those 14 bits, and still be able to display it as an optimum 10-bit image that is superior to whatever the 8-bit graphics card can produce on lesser monitors. With a 10-bit image from the graphics card it would do even better.
In one case it's monitor input 8bits vs 10bits. 10bits is a touch nicer but not supported on MAC and only tepid support on Windows.
In the other case it's the bit depth of the monitor's internal LUT and/or CME and having more than 8bits is a very, very good thing for that. And if it is a 3D LUT instead of 1D LUT that is even better (especially on a wide gamut monitor where you might want to reprogram the primary locations to simulate sRGB for instance).
ryn996 wrote:
Alan,
Than you very much for taking the time to reply. I believe any NEC monitors that have those features are outside my $500 budget, or am I wrong about that?
You could probably find a used NEC PA241W for your budget (it does have the older AG coating which is more intrusive).
It seems for my uses the the wide gamut monitors are overkill. Right now the HP ZR2440w is at the top of my list. With a good calibration tool I think I'll be pretty happy.
ryn996 wrote:
It seems for my uses the the wide gamut monitors are overkill. Right now the HP ZR2440w is at the top of my list. With a good calibration tool I think I'll be pretty happy.
isn't that 6bit panel though? I think most of the sub $400 IPS are 6bits (plus 2 more due to flickering dithering on and off really fast or something like that). I haven't tried new 6+2 panels, but hearing 6bit native always make me wonder a bit
skibum5 wrote:
isn't that 6bit panel though? I think most of the sub $400 IPS are 6bits (plus 2 more due to flickering dithering on and off really fast or something like that). I haven't tried new 6+2 panels, but hearing 6bit native always make me wonder a bit
Yes it is, but it tested very well and has very good reviews from users on Amazon, B&H and Newegg. At the below $500 price point it seems to be one of the best.
ryn996 wrote:
Yes it is, but it tested very well and has very good reviews from users on Amazon, B&H and Newegg. At the below $500 price point it seems to be one of the best.
I suppose. I mean I haven't seen it myself so I can't really say. But 6bits+2 and only 92% sRGB would have me wondering a whole lot. I'd be more inclined to look used and get a used NEC or something for under $500 (8bits+2,100%sRGB,96%AdobeRGB,14 bit 3D LUT internal calibration, uniformity compensator).
I hate how plasma HDTV screens do 6bits+2. This may be very different though.
I don't know. As I say I've never seen the new 6bits+2 IPS LCD.
The answer to the Op's question is, it depends. If you publish most of your work to the web, then stick with an sRGB monitor.
I print on an HP Z3100 large format printer, which is capable of reproducing hues of colors I can't see in sRGB mode. For me, the answer was to buy a Dell U2713H, which is a pretty nice display overall.
If you have a decent printer and make lots of prints, I'd suggest the Dell U2413 you were looking at and the I1 device.
If you don't like the Dell you can always send it back, but I don't think you would want to do that after seeing how nice they are.
Just a short one from me: Unless you're doing color critical work even 60% of sRGB is fine. I have good and poor monitors in the house including a laptop with like 65% or 70% of sRGB and it just makes no difference at all on 99.99% of the images I shoot. I shoot only RAW and do a fair amount of personal printing with allot of web shares.
Hi Ryn - As always, no lack of opinions and they certainly cover the gamut (pun intended). Here are a few more thoughts.
- Part comes down to your needs (you only mentioned photo editing). Part comes down to if you are more focused on the lowest cost with reasonable editing capabilities or if you want the best you can get at a given price (value). It is already clear you are not trying to get every feature at any cost. Does that price include the cost of the calibrator? So below are some more generic thoughts on decision making approach
- Decide if your decision is more cost or value focused (helps clear the air on approach)
- For calibrator, the Xrite i1 Display Pro is great yet the Xrite i1 ColorMunki Display is also very good at a bit lower cost. At bottom of this link is a comparison table of the two in features: http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-CMUNDIS-ColorMunki-Display/dp/B0055MBQOM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398340107&sr=8-1&keywords=xrite+i1+colormunki+display
- Definitely get an IPS monitor and not TN technology as color and tone accuracy due to limited viewing angles of TN make it much more difficult for any final editing.
- For the graphics artist series of monitors in general the pricing are
HP/Dell $
NEC $$
Eizo $$$$
with more refinements/features/ease of use at each step up in cost. In any of those classes you could consider a used purchase with the pros and cons of that approach so I consider that an separate consideration
- Fundamental decision on Gamut for your monitor being sRGB or AdobeRGB. Wider gamut is a bit more expensive yet base that on what you need (lot of good info/opinion in everyone's prior posts)
- In the HP vs Dell arena in the past I have leaned towards Dell Ultrasharp series with lots of good reviews here and on other forums. I will admit my info is dated.
- No particular concerns about the e-IPS monitors with the 6 bit+FRC displays. Just realize that is a "good" monitor and is moving away from any of the values of 10 bit displays (or the other mentioned bitness of internal display processing). That's just a choice based on your needs and IMHO not a limiter for good fundamental editing.
- I do suggest that you strongly consider going with a monitor where some good source has indicated that this works well for the photo editing environment. Caution about going with a display marketing primarily for "business" or for/emphasized for "gaming'. There are features that are needed that sometimes take a back seat that are not often mentioned. e.g. Your OSD controls for the monitor. You want to make sure that you can turned off all the "auto enhancement" features often associated with the broader entertainment market such as dynamic contrast etc. Ideally you want to be able to put your monitor in its widest gamut, most stable configuration, and lock it down. Why - because the calibration/profiling you do is based on the condition of the monitor when you did the calibration/profiling. If the condition of the monitor changes on you, the calibration/profiling is no longer valid. The monitor series sold for graphics artists typically make sure the OSD features are pretty obvious how to achieve those monitor conditions.
- If possible, go see the display in person as opposed to just specs on the internet.
-------------------------------
No matter which path you take, enjoy your new monitor and happy editing.
I appreciate everyone's advice thus far =) Now do you guys have any recommendations for places to look at used monitors? The two that I've checked out so far are B&H and the manufacture's refurbished sites, are there others that are reputable? My only issue with buying used is not getting the 3-4 year warranty that you get buying new...is that a valid concern?
John Wheeler wrote:
Hi Ryn - As always, no lack of opinions and they certainly cover the gamut (pun intended). Here are a few more thoughts.
- Part comes down to your needs (you only mentioned photo editing). Part comes down to if you are more focused on the lowest cost with reasonable editing capabilities or if you want the best you can get at a given price (value). It is already clear you are not trying to get every feature at any cost. Does that price include the cost of the calibrator? So below are some more generic thoughts on decision making approach
- Decide if your decision is more cost or value focused (helps clear the air on approach)
- For calibrator, the Xrite i1 Display Pro is great yet the Xrite i1 ColorMunki Display is also very good at a bit lower cost. At bottom of this link is a comparison table of the two in features: http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-CMUNDIS-ColorMunki-Display/dp/B0055MBQOM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398340107&sr=8-1&keywords=xrite+i1+colormunki+display
- Definitely get an IPS monitor and not TN technology as color and tone accuracy due to limited viewing angles of TN make it much more difficult for any final editing.
- For the graphics artist series of monitors in general the pricing are
HP/Dell $
NEC $$
Eizo $$$$
with more refinements/features/ease of use at each step up in cost. In any of those classes you could consider a used purchase with the pros and cons of that approach so I consider that an separate consideration
- Fundamental decision on Gamut for your monitor being sRGB or AdobeRGB. Wider gamut is a bit more expensive yet base that on what you need (lot of good info/opinion in everyone's prior posts)
- In the HP vs Dell arena in the past I have leaned towards Dell Ultrasharp series with lots of good reviews here and on other forums. I will admit my info is dated.
- No particular concerns about the e-IPS monitors with the 6 bit+FRC displays. Just realize that is a "good" monitor and is moving away from any of the values of 10 bit displays (or the other mentioned bitness of internal display processing). That's just a choice based on your needs and IMHO not a limiter for good fundamental editing.
- I do suggest that you strongly consider going with a monitor where some good source has indicated that this works well for the photo editing environment. Caution about going with a display marketing primarily for "business" or for/emphasized for "gaming'. There are features that are needed that sometimes take a back seat that are not often mentioned. e.g. Your OSD controls for the monitor. You want to make sure that you can turned off all the "auto enhancement" features often associated with the broader entertainment market such as dynamic contrast etc. Ideally you want to be able to put your monitor in its widest gamut, most stable configuration, and lock it down. Why - because the calibration/profiling you do is based on the condition of the monitor when you did the calibration/profiling. If the condition of the monitor changes on you, the calibration/profiling is no longer valid. The monitor series sold for graphics artists typically make sure the OSD features are pretty obvious how to achieve those monitor conditions.
- If possible, go see the display in person as opposed to just specs on the internet.
-------------------------------
No matter which path you take, enjoy your new monitor and happy editing. ...Show more →
I'd lean towards the value side and yes, the calibration tool would be part of the budget, with $600 probably being the max I'd like to spend for a monitor and calibration tool. My main reason for a new monitor is that my current one is older and I recently sent some images to a photolab in black and white. They looked good on the monitor and when I got them printed the colors were off (too dark). The computer is mostly used for basic internet, Word, etc. Photo editing in Lightroom 5 is maybe a weekly thing, after taking pictures of my daughter on the weekend. That said, I'd still like to be able to get some printed every once in a while and know what I'm getting back is what I'm seeing at home.
Hi Ryn -
Just as an FYI, a common issue in prints being too dark is that your monitor is set too bright. Common settings to get good tonal match is in the 80-100 cd/m^2 range (basically the monitor should be at the same level as the print viewing conditions. Most modern monitors peak out around 350 cd/m^2 so the brightness usually has to be cranked down a lot.
This occurs because the print is based on the color numbers in the image. If you monitor is set quite bright, you automatically edit the image (color numbers of image) down to a much smaller number. So it ends up looking right on your monitor yet the artificially reduced color numbers end up being to dark on the printer. So most modern monitors need to be turned down to 1/3 their max brightness (part of the calibration process) to get better tonal matches. Hope that makes sense.
ryn996 wrote:
I appreciate everyone's advice thus far =) Now do you guys have any recommendations for places to look at used monitors? The two that I've checked out so far are B&H and the manufacture's refurbished sites, are there others that are reputable? My only issue with buying used is not getting the 3-4 year warranty that you get buying new...is that a valid concern?
Refurb from the manufacturer is fine and should include the warrantee. I try to buy monitors new if I can. Monitors IMO are one of the things that should be purchased new and not used. But I think refurb is the same as new.
