Those of you that edit with a PC, what monitors are y’all using? I’ve been using Acer Triton 500 laptop but I want to get a larger screen to look at. My eyes aren’t what they used to be lol. I thought about getting an iMac but I just got the laptop a few months back and it’s working great. Or if y’all could point me in the right direction I’d really appreciate it.
Ok. In that case I would especially look at the size of screen. For me, 27” is perfect. You could look for those 99% sRGB monitors. Preferably 4k or 5k. I don’t think a high end aRGB monitor is worth the money for your usage. Especially not, if you’re sharing files digitally anyway.
Mujabad123 wrote:
Ok. In that case I would especially look at the size of screen. For me, 27” is perfect. You could look for those 99% sRGB monitors. Preferably 4k or 5k. I don’t think a high end aRGB monitor is worth the money for your usage. Especially not, if you’re sharing files digitally anyway.
I strongly disagree with the above regarding aRGB. If I had to buy a new photography monitor/display, I wouldn't have purchased one that doesn't cover (or closely approach) the space of Display P3 or Adobe RGB profiles.
I’m not too concerned on the cost but rather making sure I have a monitor that displays the colors as true as possible and when I do print, the image that prints looks like what I saw on the monitor. I know some of that is in the settings as well.
ruthenium wrote:
I strongly disagree with the above regarding aRGB. If I had to buy a new photography monitor/display, I wouldn't have purchased one that doesn't cover (or closely approach) the space of Display P3 or Adobe RGB profiles.
I suggested sRGB because I thought that poster doesn’t want to print regularly or even a lot. I agree, if I’m wrong ofcourse.
Jayblanco78 wrote:
I’m not too concerned on the cost but rather making sure I have a monitor that displays the colors as true as possible and when I do print, the image that prints looks like what I saw on the monitor. I know some of that is in the settings as well.
In that case I misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that. For most accurate screen to print results, you should indeed look for aRGB and/or P3 capable monitors (as ruthenium rightfully stated).
I use 2 monitors. Mac Studio Display and Eizo CG2700S.
For editing for prints, I only use that Eizo monitor. Print results are superb and cannot get any better. If costs are not a concern (as you say), I certainly would take a look at those Eizo CG series monitors.
Jayblanco78 wrote:
I’m not too concerned on the cost but rather making sure I have a monitor that displays the colors as true as possible and when I do print, the image that prints looks like what I saw on the monitor. I know some of that is in the settings as well.
Color accuracy depends on proper calibration. Wide gamut monitors will only show you a wider range of inaccurate colors unless they're properly calibrated. Plan on investing in some kind of calibration device. Be sure whatever monitor you get has manually controlled brightness, contrast and RGB levels. Having those features makes the color profiles generated by a spectrophotometer much more accurate.
My Lenovo P27u-20 is 99.5% Adobe RGB and has full color controls and is bright enough for viewing in a room with south facing windows.
Mujabad123 wrote:
In that case I misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that. For most accurate screen to print results, you should indeed look for aRGB and/or P3 capable monitors (as ruthenium rightfully stated).
I use 2 monitors. Mac Studio Display and Eizo CG2700S.
For editing for prints, I only use that Eizo monitor. Print results are superb and cannot get any better. If costs are not a concern (as you say), I certainly would take a look at those Eizo CG series monitors.
I have several EIZOs and that is a good one for the pixels representing the print. It's not like a smoother 4K for other usage.
It's so nice to have the calibrator swing into action by itself. The newer ones do it without taking the whole display.
For what it's worth, I use a 5 year old 27" BenQ SW271. It is calibrated using a Datacolor Spyder X Pro. I continue to be quite pleased with this monitor.
As with all things, eventually they will need to be replaced. I recently investigated "stepping up" to the latest BenQ 32" display for if/when that time comes. I nearly fell off my milk crate! Perhaps I'll stay with the "latest" 27" version.
EB-1 wrote:
I have several EIZOs and that is a good one for the pixels representing the print. It's not like a smoother 4K for other usage.
It's so nice to have the calibrator swing into action by itself. The newer ones do it without taking the whole display.
EBH
This is a timely thread for me. A few days ago, the BenQ SW320 32" 4K monitor that I purchased in May 2018 started showing a green vertical line the full height of the screen about 1.5 inches from the left side. The line is visible whether the monitor is connected to my Windows 11 desktop or laptop which are connected with different cables, so I assume that means it is a monitor failure, not a cable, video card or driver problem. Fortunately, the location of the line makes it mostly just annoying, rather than preventing me from getting work done.
I've been completely happy with the BenQ, but a few years ago I realized I'm in a position where there is no reason for me not to get the best monitor (for image processing) available, so I've been assuming I would get a 30+ inch 4K EIZO when my current monitors failed. It looks like that would be the CG319X. Is there anything better available from any manufacture?
@EBH, I'm having trouble interpreting "It's not like a smoother 4K for other usage". Can you explain what you mean?
I'd say, 27" and 2K UHD monitor is good enough. Recommend BenQ monitors as they are calibrated for Adobe RGB. 4K or 5K would be not practical as the most you can go with printing is Adobe RGB gamut and not anything wider.
Calibrating my Eizo CS-2740 takes just a few minutes and yet I find it so easy to forget to do it because the calibrator is hiding in a cupboard, and the screen never actually looks bad. A CG monitor with built-in calibrator can be fully automatic. The problem is that monitors change over time but they do it very gradually and imperceptibly until one day you recalibrate and discover the change is both noticeable and beneficial.
The Eizos let you store several different calibrations for different purposes, accessible at the push of a button on the monitor. These could have different contrast ratios, colour gamuts, maximum brightness. This allows you to easily preview what a print might look like in different lighting conditions or on different papers. You can edit your pictures for on-screen display or for as-printed display. I wish the monitors could store more calibration sets.
The Eizos have an excellent anti-reflective matte screen, so you see little or nothing of youself and your background on the picture you are trying to see and edit. Another thing about Eizos is their excellent uniformity of colour and tone even without sacrificing colour bit-depth. A high-dpi Dell monitor that I had years ago could do reasonably good uniformity at 8 bits per colour channel, or much poorer uniformity at 10bpcc.
A 27" 4K monitor displays great quality text with hardly any noticeable pixelation. It works for lines and pictures too. Sure, higher dpi causes a smaller display of pictures but these days most camera pictures have a lot more pixels than a screen can handle. And the on-screen picture size is still a lot bigger than any 300ppi print. Adobe s/w let you tweak the s/w interface size without spoiling the displayed photo quality because it wrote the pixel data directly to the screen. However, I wish the Eizo could do closer to 200ppi than its 167ppi. For my eyes a 4.5k 27" monitor would be even better than their "4k" (actually 3840px or 3.75k on my Eizo). Better still would be a monitor with the old 4:3 screen ratio to allow a lot more image height to be displayed without making the screen unnecessarily wider, but some not so clever marketing types think we only need wide format screens these days. A third more screen height probably equates to a half more photo height for the same size program interface.
Alan321 wrote:
Calibrating my Eizo CS-2740 takes just a few minutes and yet I find it so easy to forget to do it because the calibrator is hiding in a cupboard, and the screen never actually looks bad. A CG monitor with built-in calibrator can be fully automatic. The problem is that monitors change over time but they do it very gradually and imperceptibly until one day you recalibrate and discover the change is both noticeable and beneficial.
The Eizos let you store several different calibrations for different purposes, accessible at the push of a button on the monitor. These could have different contrast ratios, colour gamuts, maximum brightness. This allows you to easily preview what a print might look like in different lighting conditions or on different papers. You can edit your pictures for on-screen display or for as-printed display. I wish the monitors could store more calibration sets.
The Eizos have an excellent anti-reflective matte screen, so you see little or nothing of youself and your background on the picture you are trying to see and edit. Another thing about Eizos is their excellent uniformity of colour and tone even without sacrificing colour bit-depth. A high-dpi Dell monitor that I had years ago could do reasonably good uniformity at 8 bits per colour channel, or much poorer uniformity at 10bpcc.
A 27" 4K monitor displays great quality text with hardly any noticeable pixelation. It works for lines and pictures too. Sure, higher dpi causes a smaller display of pictures but these days most camera pictures have a lot more pixels than a screen can handle. And the on-screen picture size is still a lot bigger than any 300ppi print. Adobe s/w let you tweak the s/w interface size without spoiling the displayed photo quality because it wrote the pixel data directly to the screen. However, I wish the Eizo could do closer to 200ppi than its 167ppi. For my eyes a 4.5k 27" monitor would be even better than their "4k" (actually 3840px or 3.75k on my Eizo). Better still would be a monitor with the old 4:3 screen ratio to allow a lot more image height to be displayed without making the screen unnecessarily wider, but some not so clever marketing types think we only need wide format screens these days. A third more screen height probably equates to a half more photo height for the same size program interface. ...Show more →
Agree with (almost) everything you say. The advantages of a Eizo CG screen vs a Eizo CS screen (or any other monitor without built-in tool), are very obvious. It's fast, very accurate and without the hassle of using an external tool. And, according to Eizo: "…..the CG range has a greater contrast ratio and a retardation film, providing a more even black level across the screen and reducing the effect of light leakage….". (https://www.eizocolour.com/spotlight/coloredge-cs-or-cg/). That could be just advertising and nothing more (don't know, because I never used a CS model).
For me and my usage, a 2560x1440p /WQHD on a 27" screen is perfect for editing and prepare for printing. For viewing, my 27" 5k Mac Studio Display is nicer. I also sometimes use the Mac display when I want to share images digitally.
But….. for accurate editing (and prepare for printing), the 5k Mac cannot compete with the 2k (2.5k I think) Eizo.
Beside the whole resolution discussion, I find color accuracy and evenness of brightness even much more important anyway.
Very happy with my 2 monitor setup.
The newer ones do it without taking the whole display.
