p.1 #1 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
I'm in the process of building a new desktop Windows PC and researching monitors. Photo editing is mainly a hobby and I don't plan on making it a full-fledged business anytime soon, if ever. Also watch movies and whatnot. No gaming.
Initially, I was drawn to the Dell Ultrasharp monitors but only because I thought that was the gold standard. But doing some more research, it seems like BenQ might be in a similar price range. Ideally, I would spend less than $500 but can MAYBE stretch it a few hundred bucks.
- The general consensus for photo editing seems to be 2K resolution in the 27in range. How about something like 32in or so? I figure that if I really wanted 4k for the movies, I can look into a second monitor or just get a 4k TV.
- Right now, I see a BenQ SW272Q 27in for about $700. Is that a reasonable cost? Or should I wait for holiday sales or maybe a better refurb price?
- No matter which monitor I buy, it seems like I would need a calibration device? Never used one before so is it difficult to use and/or even necessary for a hobbyist? I figure if I am buying a BenQ for accurate color representation, I might as well go all out and make sure it's calibrated lol
p.1 #2 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
Gold standard for color-critical work is probably Eizo, but their professional monitors cost silly money unless you can find one manufacturer refurbished. Otherwise go for a monitor with 10-bit color and a gamut that covers at least 100% Adobe RGB and/or close to 100% DCI-P3. Most major monitor brands offer something high-end like that, but BenQ is probably the most well known in photography circles. Some come factory calibrated, which is probably good enough for most, but a calibration device like a Spyder Pro is not expensive and worth having on hand.
For a computer monitor I find 27" at 1440p resolution to be about right for Windows (I use an NEC 27" wide gamut 1440p monitor, but sadly NEC got out of the high-end desktop monitor business). As for movies, I'm not a fan of multi-duty displays and prefer screens that are optimized for whatever I'm using them for, but if you want a multi-use screen then it would probably make more sense to get a 4K monitor. You'd just have to fiddle with the less-than-perfect scaling options in Windows.
Monitors optimized for TV/movies tend to have very high contrast ratio, HDR color (which is a no-no for photography work IMO) and fast response rates to prevent ghosting. Finding a monitor that does double duty means you're going to be compromising on features critical to one or another use case.
p.1 #3 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
wordfool wrote:
Gold standard for color-critical work is probably Eizo, but their professional monitors cost silly money unless you can find one manufacturer refurbished. Otherwise go for a monitor with 10-bit color and a gamut that covers at least 100% Adobe RGB and/or close to 100% DCI-P3. Most major monitor brands offer something high-end like that, but BenQ is probably the most well known in photography circles. Some come factory calibrated, which is probably good enough for most, but a calibration device like a Spyder Pro is not expensive and worth having on hand.
For a computer monitor I find 27" at 1440p resolution to be about right for Windows (I use an NEC 27" wide gamut 1440p monitor, but sadly NEC got out of the high-end desktop monitor business). As for movies, I'm not a fan of multi-duty displays and prefer screens that are optimized for whatever I'm using them for, but if you want a multi-use screen then it would probably make more sense to get a 4K monitor. You'd just have to fiddle with the less-than-perfect scaling options in Windows.
Monitors optimized for TV/movies tend to have very high contrast ratio, HDR color (which is a no-no for photography work IMO) and fast response rates to prevent ghosting. Finding a monitor that does double duty means you're going to be compromising on features critical to one or another use case. ...Show more →
Thanks for the info!
Strictly from a photo editing perspective, are there drawbacks between a 27in vs 32in size, assuming all other specs are the same?
Right now, I think I'd rather go for the photo editing monitor. While I make zero money on photography, I am curious what all the hype is about with BenQ. My big assumption is that these BenQ photo monitors are also good for all-around type use (e.g. movies, streaming, web browsing, etc.). Although I've gotten PRK, I'm not sure my eyes are good enough to differentiate between 4k and what I've been watching for years on my current monitor (e.g. Blu-Ray quality) lol. If I really want 4k, I'll just get a second monitor or a 4k TV
p.1 #4 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
I use Eizos 27' 2560x1440 CG models with the internal calibrator.
At 4K I'd want 32' at least, but those are still too small for my older programs and pixel level view of images, not to mention the cost. My presbyopic old eyes have limited accommodation so I don't want to be closer than 0.5m, i.e., +2.0 add on glasses. You also run into angular issues due to the IPS.
BenQ is cheap and decently for the price, though with some complaints of unit variability.
p.1 #5 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
Ming-Tzu wrote:
Thanks for the info!
Strictly from a photo editing perspective, are there drawbacks between a 27in vs 32in size, assuming all other specs are the same?
Right now, I think I'd rather go for the photo editing monitor. While I make zero money on photography, I am curious what all the hype is about with BenQ. My big assumption is that these BenQ photo monitors are also good for all-around type use (e.g. movies, streaming, web browsing, etc.). Although I've gotten PRK, I'm not sure my eyes are good enough to differentiate between 4k and what I've been watching for years on my current monitor (e.g. Blu-Ray quality) lol. If I really want 4k, I'll just get a second monitor or a 4k TV...Show more →
Not sure it's hype, just a company that is targeting the professional editing market with a line of color-accurate monitors for photographers and designers. The things I look for in a monitor for editing are a wide gamut, high contrast ratio, backlight uniformity, low-reflection surface, and ideally a hardware LUT, which means you can calibrate the monitor on a hardware level (there's a special chip inside that store the profiles) and not have to rely only on software color profiles for accuracy. Very few manufacturers offer monitors with internal LUT hardware -- Eizo ColorEdge and NEC Spectraview (now discontinued) monitors have done it the longest. BenQ is a newer kids on that block, and I've read some criticisms of BenQ's implementation over the years but have no idea how it ultimately compares to, say, Eizo's implementation.
In the video editing world a lot of people swear by LG OLED TVs, but obviously you're them stuck with a much bigger display (40" is IIRC the smallest they do). They can apparently be calibrated to be very accurate and have that OLED black level that no IPS-based monitor like an Eizo can touch.
I'm sure BenQ monitors are just fine for other uses -- I use my monitor for general computing stuff about 90% of the time and watch the occasional YT video. For movies, streaming etc. I have a TV because I don't want to be sitting at my desk and want a screen larger than 27"
p.1 #6 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
You will not want to consume media on the same monitor (or at least with the same settings) as your processing monitor, most typically.
The best calibration for media editing is dim and flat, the exact opposite of how you'd want to consume media. My 2 cents.
I hated the Dell Ultrasharps, as they were great for neither, in my experience. Not applicable to you, but I like being able to flip between the standard "media consumption" profile and "photography editing" profiles on my Macs so they can pull double duty at the drop of a hat.
p.1 #7 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
RoamingScott wrote:
You will not want to consume media on the same monitor (or at least with the same settings) as your processing monitor, most typically.
The best calibration for media editing is dim and flat, the exact opposite of how you'd want to consume media. My 2 cents.
I hated the Dell Ultrasharps, as they were great for neither, in my experience. Not applicable to you, but I like being able to flip between the standard "media consumption" profile and "photography editing" profiles on my Macs so they can pull double duty at the drop of a hat.
Quite a conundrum as I'd like a one-monitor solution (for now), with a lean towards the photo editing side. I will probably get a BenQ as my next monitor purchase and deal with media-viewing afterwards, either through switching the profile of the BenQ or a separate 4k monitor/TV
p.1 #8 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
The old mac thunderbolt monitors (with the glass screens) are great for double-duty hobbyists. There is a great sense of depth and luminosity that I don't really get from the plastic-y monitors even at higher resolutions. For a pro that may sound heretical, but for something that you can calibrate nicely for good-enough editing, and also has wonderful quality for movies and the like, they have served me well over the years (and lasted quite a long time - the one I have paired with an old mac pro trashcan is from 2013! It outlived the OS compatibility of the comp, which I have partitioned running windows 10 because mac os locks you out beyond a certain upgrade point...)
p.1 #9 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
EB-1 wrote:
I use Eizos 27' 2560x1440 CG models with the internal calibrator.
At 4K I'd want 32' at least, but those are still too small for my older programs and pixel level view of images, not to mention the cost. My presbyopic old eyes have limited accommodation so I don't want to be closer than 0.5m, i.e., +2.0 add on glasses. You also run into angular issues due to the IPS.
BenQ is cheap and decently for the price, though with some complaints of unit variability.
EBH
I am in the same "boat" here. I have an olde NEC SpectraView MultiSync LCD30900WQXi and LOVE it! 2 digital inputs is a MUST!!! The SpectraView Calibration is out of date and does not work.
I am 78 and yes my eyes need larger views plus the added detail of lower than 27" is bad. "Bigger IS better here!" EIZOS is great but if I can save a few $$ and really not see "above level profesional clarity", I will. I am an advanced amateur.
Thanks! Ohhh I am a Windows person.
Dan
p.1 #10 · Desktop monitor for photo editing, movies, etc.
The ultrasharps are fine but they are not wide gamut. Since most people are not looking at wide gamut displays when viewing your or others photos it can be argued this is sufficient. BenQ are good and less expensive than Eizo if you are looking for wide gamut. I think they are a good bet.
