Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · LG 24MD4KL for photo editing? Any challenge with lack of calibration & D65-only? | |
slrl0ver wrote:
(...)*I originally bought a pair these to use for my day to day engineering work and I found the monitor suffers from a LOT of mermism, the colors shift noticably off axis. (...)
IPS screens go a long way to providing consistent colours and contrast when viewed off-axis, within reasonable limits - certainly within ergonomically sensible viewing situations.
IPS = In-Plane Switching and is a form of liquid crystal display. Absolutely worth the extra cost for photography work (IMO). The best screens such as from Eizo use IPS.
(...) If you're working with a "light" color scheme and are looking at lines of code or a web browser, the background shimmers as you move your head and is very disturbing. For photo editing, or video editing, with a "dark" color scheme, I suspect this is far less of an issue and is probably what the monitor is optimized for.(...)
The shimmering is likely due to a crappy screen coating or just crappy screen glass.
The best screens do not have these problems. There is no doubt that Eizo monitors are expensive in absolute terms, but they last for years (even have a 5 year warranty), they have a very effective anti-reflective screen, excellent screen uniformity, excellent colour accuracy, and so on. They are a joy to use. Some are better than others in various ways but you'd be hard pressed to be disappointed with any Eizo CS or CG screen. I use a 27" 4k CS2740.
New Eizo screens are coming with greater dynamic range but that is irrelevant for printing because prints cannot reproduce high DR.
With appropriate monitor colour profiles in conjunction with the Eizo Color Navigator software, you will be able to preview what the prints will look like with reduced brightness and contrast and gamut and white point. For editing, you can view pretty much the entire AdobeRGB 1998 gamut and sRGB, etc. You either get an Eizo with a built-in calibrator or else buy something like an i1Display Pro Plus and use it with Color Navigator to calibrate your monitor. On my system, a calibration takes about one minute, but I repeat it several times to refine accuracy. Repeated calibrations effectively increase the cumulative measurement time to improve accuracy of the calibration.
What all this will not do is make unprofiled photos look "right", but if the photo has the right color profile information then it will look as accurate as it possibly can so long as you use color-managed software such as LrC, Ps, DxO, etc. Then your editing will be more appropriate and your prints are far more likely to look as you want them to - the first time you print them. This potentially saves money with minimal print wastage. However, you'll need to get your printer profiled too for best results, with a separate one-off profile for each paper/ink/printer combination.
See if you can find a place that sells Eizo and sit down in front of one for a while. You already know what you don't like, so try to see what you will like  Even a quick glance will impress but give it time to sink in so you'll be confident about the merit of paying the higher price. Observe the shadow details and highlight details that most other monitors cannot distinguish. Note how consistent things look at any part of the screen. If nothing else you will become aware of what cheaper monitors are not showing.
High-end BenQ screens are nearly as good as Eizo screens. Certainly not as good but close enough that they both make most other monitors look like rubbish in comparison (for photo/printing work). They're cheaper too, but still not cheap. And they have shorter warranties.
When I think of all the money I've thrown at photographic and computer gear over the past 40+ years, Eizo (and other) high-end monitors have been a minor expense and have lasted the longest and been used the most. They have improved the on-screen appearance of every photo.
|
