For me, calibrating (and thus getting accurate contrast and brightness) is an important part of getting accurate B&W prints and not wasting ink and paper.
Regarding Studio Display, I need to make a trip to Apple store to decide glossy or not.
Thank you. I expect to spend some time this weekend researching my options.
bwcolor wrote:
Looks like a nice monitor, but not very bright..pretty much expected from most 5K monitors and many of the reviews mention that they were compensated via a price reduction for their review. Personally, I think the only unique Apple monitor to consider is the XDR, with a much better panel. better control of local lighting, much brighter and 120Hz vs 60Hz. Driving a 5K monitor at 120Hz is dependent upon your computer. In the Apple MacBook Pro world, M3 Max and newer will provide 120HZ, but not the M3. I do believe that third party monitors can compete with the base Studio Display Monitor, but not the XDR. I do think that Nano vs no Nano is a reasonable question. Nano makes sense if you can’t control your editing environment. Regarding panel color/brightness over time, why would the Apple panel be more stable than the LG? Anyway, LG gets a lot of positive reviews from photographers. I think that BenQ and Dell are are also cost effective high quality monitor brands for critical color work....Show more →
Yes agreed. My mind isn’t made yet so thank you for your input.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I can’t speak to that monitor, but I’ve had some serious difficulties profiling LG monitors on my Mac-based system.
Previously I had a high-end 27” iMac system. The Mac’s internal monitor, of course, profiled well. But I never could get that LG 27” monitor that I got as a second screen to come close to matching the Mac monitor. I actually had two different profiling systems that I used on in over time.
Of course, it looks like maybe you’ll have only a single monitor, so the monitor-matching issue won’t affect you. (Perfect profiling is not as important, in my view, as consistent profiling, at least with a single-monitor system.)...Show more →
Looks like they don't even disclose % of adobe rgb coverage in the non-XDR version ? I only see sRGB/P3. If I'm reading this right, that's outright disappointing given the price tag.
Looked at the Apple Studio Display at Apple store to compare glossy VS nano filter. The closer you get your nose to the screen, the better the glossy looks for text. Less so as you back off. I guess it depends on your eyes and use (coder VS photo editor).
Apple has a very generous refund policy even on refurbs, so it's probably worth just getting the one you're leaning towards and trying it in your workspace for a week.
Nano texture was an upgrade for me. I came from a 2019 maxed out iMac 27" 5k and the upgrade to the nano texture studio display has been great. I'm in 3d modeling most of the day, switching to photo editing for personal work and love this display. I wish I could afford a second one when I am working on rendering projects.
Kascade7 wrote:
Looked at the Apple Studio Display at Apple store to compare glossy VS nano filter. The closer you get your nose to the screen, the better the glossy looks for text. Less so as you back off. I guess it depends on your eyes and use (coder VS photo editor).
Apple stores are the sort of environment in which the anti-reflective screens will tend to look better than the normal screens. The space is uniformly well lit, there are likely light sources in the reflection, and there will be other well-lit distractions.
If your work space is like that, then an anti-reflective screens can be a good choice.
On the other hand…
… if you tend to work in a space with low light (generally recommended for photo editing) without light sources behind you that will reflect on the screen (also good practice if you have the option), then the reflective screen can look quite good.
I’ve used both.
I agree with looking at Apple refurbished monitors as a way to save some money, perhaps get the older model (if the newer one isn’t calling loudly to you), and still get Apple quality and a warranty.
Mostly subdued lighting or none, but there are many times that I work with Eurorack modules in front of the monitor running Ableton Live. I think the module lights (and there are many) reflecting on the screen would be a distraction—and actually something I had not thought of until now.
Would not be an issue other times when photo/video editing.
bmike-vt wrote:
Nano texture was an upgrade for me. I came from a 2019 maxed out iMac 27" 5k and the upgrade to the nano texture studio display has been great. I'm in 3d modeling most of the day, switching to photo editing for personal work and love this display. I wish I could afford a second one when I am working on rendering projects.
good to hear...and would that be in a controlled lighting environment
Why purchase the base Studio Display? I would think that a 27” OLED, or Micro-LCD display would provide better blacks, localized dimming/brightening and more uniform illumination across the monitor.
bwcolor wrote:
Why purchase the base Studio Display? I would think that a 27” OLED, or Micro-LCD display would provide better blacks, localized dimming/brightening and more uniform illumination across the monitor.
The newest Studio Display provides excellent blacks, does localized dimming/brightening, and is very uniform.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The newest Studio Display provides excellent blacks, does localized dimming/brightening, and is very uniform.
I was looking at the specs and the base design is listed as LED on B&H website and the XDR is listed as LCD with Mini-LED Backlight. This is where I assumed that the base display was not a Mini-LCD screen, but I am pleased to hear that I’m wrong, in which case I believe the base display is a great choice for non-HDR work.
bwcolor wrote:
Why purchase the base Studio Display? I would think that a 27” OLED, or Micro-LCD display would provide better blacks, localized dimming/brightening and more uniform illumination across the monitor.
If you have ANY desire to print your images or proof your images for physical media, you don't want an OLED...that extremely high contrast works against you in a meaningful way.
RoamingScott wrote:
If you have ANY desire to print your images or proof your images for physical media, you don't want an OLED...that extremely high contrast works against you in a meaningful way.
The good part of having true blacks is the ability to not have true blacks. Paper emulations work well on a calibrated OLED monitor. That said, if your end product is a print, OLED black isn’t required and to this end your point is an important one. My monitor has 250nits sustained and 540 peak. When editing in subdued lighting and with very deep blacks possible, it is possible to appreciate HDR images without 1000-2000nit peak brightness. My monitor is a run of the mill matte finish and images aren’t as impressive as when viewed on my MacBook Pro. Of course the M4 IPad Pro has an OLED with 1000nit sustained and 1600nit peak brightness, but limited resolution. I don’t know what that means for future Apple monitors, but it should carry over to the MacBook Pro in the near term..ie M6 generation.
