Are you talking about LCD displays? Because if you are then a high-end model is the *ONLY* way to go because they offer the best color gamut percentage compared to what adobe offers..
If you're talking about CRT monitors, then you don't have to spend nearly as much money because the technology isn't catching up, it's the standard that LCDs are catching up to...
Eclipse Optics wrote:.
Are you talking about LCD displays? Because if you are then ahigh-end model is the *ONLY* way to go because they offer the bestcolor gamut percentage compared to what adobe offers..
If you're talking about CRT monitors, then you don't have to spendnearly as much money because the technology isn't catching up, it'sthe standard that LCDs are catching up to..
Ooops, yes LCD..I do not have the space for a CRT..
Any suggestions for a really good one for still work only..
I have a nagging feeling for the work that I am doing-want to do(shoot RAW, Post Process in PhotoShop CS3 and print out on a veryhigh end printer and/or send out for high quality printing) that Iwould need a "high end" monitor to keep things equal all around theprocess...Do I need a high end monitor? Is this an important investment?As always, thank you all in advance,.
If you're not on a budget then get the monitor. If the monitor is going to take money away from bodies, lenses or accessories then you might think twice..
If you're not matching exact colors you don't need a monitor capable of displaying exact colors. Once you learn what is red, blue etc. on your cheapo monitor you can recreate them whenever you want..
But hey if you need a reason to buy get an expensive monitor past the ol' lady photoshop is as good as any reason to buy one..
If you are going to be into photography and picture manipulation then a high-end monitor is in order. Make sure you work with digital signals such as DVI or HDMI if you have those options on your "dedicated" video card. Analog connection is okay but why take a chance...
Crt vs LCD.
Bill,Jr'I kind of like the Earth, it's where I keep all my Stuff.'Website; http://www.pbase.com/wboth125 Lake Wylie, SC..
Maybe a stupid question... but would a HDTV (1080p 1920x1080 resolution) be any good as a monitor?.
Reason for asking... a 32" or bigger, it is possible to actually see the individual pixels without having to put your face two inches from the screen..
Also, if the tv doesn't have a DVI connection, DVI to HDMI adapters aren't hard to find...
You're going to be spending A LOT of money to acheive the same color capabilities as a CRT..
Since I try not to waste money, I've made space for a CRT. There are some LCDs out there that come close to CRT technology though, so look for the ones in the $1500-$3000 range. Meanwhile, my $800 CRT has been happily plugging away for years now. I think you can get them used for $350 since the buying public doesn't have a clue and everyone thinks that LCDs are the only way to go..
If your heart is set on a LCD, the Dell Ultrasharp 30" widescreen has something like a 92% adobe color gamut; and it's on the low end of that scale. While not exactly high-end, it's sure to please. There are some BenQ & Eizo brand models that are high-end, but I know very little about them. If I were going to buy a LCD, I would get this one. I'm not made of money, so this would have to do..
If you do decide to go for a CRT, the important number there is Refresh Rate. You want a Refresh Rate of over 72hz for the resolution you plan on using to remove the flicker-effect. My CRT has a RR of 132hz as a maximum at a low resolution so it has no problem dealing with 75hz at 1200x1024. You can see the flicker effect of a bad or poorly calibrated CRT by looking at the screen and then moving your eyes down to the power light so that you're not focusing directly at the screen, then the screen in your perepherial vision will appear to flicker. But as you get past 72hz, the effect goes away because it is refreshing too fast for your eyes to notice anymore. Hence no more headaches while editing, etc...
A monitor has more stringent criteria than an HDTV. That's why a given said resolution of equal size, the monitor will mostly always cost more...
Steve, some people like to spend as much money as they can find omething to spend it on..
Others make do, and lots fit somewhere inbetween..
If you feel better with nitrogen inyour tires instead of air, you just might like an expe4nsive monitor simply because it is expensive..
As for "need...".
If you do fashion photopgraphy where you'll end up with photos of the model in the blue sweater displayed in the window of a fancy store hung on a wall that has drapes made of the same fabric, an expensive monitor help make the blue in the photo match the blue on the wall..
Similarly, if you are photographing something quite well known let's say the new iPods in the soft colors with a distinctive color, the expensive monitors might be important if Apple is your client and the prints are going to be right beside the real things..
But other than that, a good quality monitor, carefully calibrated, is certainly good enough for the vast majority of photographers..
If you walk around with a print in your hand, looking at it under seven different kinds of light, you'll realize that humans are pretty forgiving about photo colors..
I was recently just asked to present a brief on exactley this question at work. My answer was no. For most people these high end monitors aren't going to have that much impact..
I have 2 Lacie 320's ,and to be clear they are fantastic!. They come with a colorometer (esentially the same as a GM EyeOne Display), that makes calibration a snap. But they were at the time about $1500 each?.
Like another poster pointed out, if you need to match colours for a store window. Or are working with light boxes in a pre-press environment. To get the full advantage of these moitors you need to have the ability to colour manage your entire workflow (create profiles for you printer, media, different lighting conditions such as the one in that store front, etc)..
What you would be better of doing is buying a good quality monitor and something like the Eyeone display so you get proper calibration..
I use one LaCie on a two monitor system right beside a DellFP. Both are calibrated and while the lacie is better, it's not $900 better, and it isn't criticle for my work. For home it's not even a question..
Hope that helps,Cheers.
I am really enjoying my new found hobby. My new 5D is amazing, my new24-70 2.8 "L" lens is amazing and learning about a whole new world of"high end photography" has been amazing...and the photographs that Ihave been taking have been really amazing as well...LOL.
I have a nagging feeling for the work that I am doing-want to do(shoot RAW, Post Process in PhotoShop CS3 and print out on a veryhigh end printer and/or send out for high quality printing) that Iwould need a "high end" monitor to keep things equal all around theprocess..
The 3 companies that I am looking at are Lacie, Eizo and NEC. Thesemonitors are not cheap (even in the 19-21" variety). I dont not mindspending the $$ if I felt it was worth it..Is it?.
Do I need a high end monitor? Is this an important investment? Thismonitor would be used solely for photograhy image editing, etc as Ihave a couple of Dell monitors for goofing around-surging the net,etc..
As always, thank you all in advance,.
A couple of years ago I was determined to buy a high end LCD and keep it calibrated..
To make a long story short, I gave up after going through two very high rated monitors and went back to using a CRT..
LCDs are great for size, heat, and low operating cost but when it comes to photography/picture quality it's hard to beat a good CRT..
On the other hand, if a person is willing to spend a lot of money on an LCD, willing to constantly deal with calibration issues and uses it in a room that has controlled lighting, then an LCD does have the benifits I've listed above. Great size, low heat and cheaper operating cost...
Ed B wrote:.
LCDs are great for size, heat, and low operating cost but when itcomes to photography/picture quality it's hard to beat a good CRT..
These are getting harder and harder to find, a good one that is..
On the other hand, if a person is willing to spend a lot of money onan LCD, willing to constantly deal with calibration issues and usesit in a room that has controlled lighting, then an LCD does have thebenifits I've listed above. Great size, low heat and cheaperoperating cost..
What moitors did you try? I haven't had any greater issues with my LCD's than I had with the CRT's WRT ambient lighting and frquency of calibration. Thats from either the better quality HP and Dell FP's as well as the LaCie FP. (The CRT's I am comparing them to are LaCie electron22blue units (one still in service) and one highe end CRT from HP (no longer available)...