8 yr old monitor a bad idea?

[jbarrettash]

So I am setting up my Epson 3880 and running photoshop cs5 and lightroom 3 on my macbook pro, and have been looking into options for a good quality monitor (with eyes on the big price items when I can afford it). I am a research nut, like most of you out there, and was surprised to find out the Dell Ultrasharp line are widely considered excellent cheaper alternatives to the photo/graphics specific monitors out there, having comparable gamuts, contrast ratios and colour fidelity to at least some of the "big boys".

I have an older ultrasharp and was wondring if it is worth my while to start out with this. I am an avid amateur with 20+ yrs of dark room experience who makes his living as a cinematographer, and work with professional colour grading facilities regularly, so my standards are naturally very high, but I am trying to strike a balance, like some of you surely, between perfection and a perfectly empty wallet....

Some details:

-the monitor is 8 yrs old, though this is the first time it has been used in about 4 or 5 yrs.
-it is a Dell ultrasharp1905FP
-1280x1024 (that's right, square, so there is some compromise using it in conjunction with my mb pro 1680x1050, but only in ease of use between the two)
- DVI out to DVI to miniport adapter into the mb pro
-calibrated with the spyder2 (suite edition), also 8 yrs old
-my aim is to set up a digital darkroom using all the tools and software listed above, to print the highest quality colour and black and white portrait, travel and landscape prints to a maximum size of 17x22 inches, and to be able (obviously! ) to match my screen as closely as possible to my printer output.
-the prints will be made from RAW images shot with my nikon D80 (yes, a new digital camera is long overdue) and 35mm negs scanned on a nikon super coolscan 5000

So my question is:

Is this a "decent" setup monitor-wise? Or just a bad idea parading as a workaround?

I realize the monitor is pretty certainly the weak link in my setup, but I want to know what the real world concessions and draw-backs are, and if even contemplating using an 8yr old monitor is shooting myself in the foot from the get go...

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome aboard.

I'm not sure about that particular monitor, but I'd suggest you set it up and see for yourself. If your calibration system gets you to a place where you're comfortable with your printed results, then call it good enough. But only you will be able to judge that.

It sounds like you will be printing yourself? Remember that printer calibration is another link in the chain that may need to be considered.

Remember to get the monitor up and running with plenty of warm up, before you calibrate.

 

[KmH]

1280 x 1024 isn't square (1:1 aspect ratio). 1280 x 1024 is a 5:4 aspect ratio. 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 are all 5:4.

A review of the display from 2005 - http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/dell-ultrasharp-1905fp/4505-3174_7-31232074.html

 

[jbarrettash]

Thanks Big Mike. It has been calibrated, fully warmed up, and is dimmer, warmer and less contrasty than my mb pro screen. Whisch is why I am wondering if age hasn't been too kind to it. I expected a difference, but this is marked.

It has been a while since I have printed and this is my first printer whose driver I can override and let photoshop determine colours - but by calibrating the printer do you mean using icc profiles for paper and ink? I am planning on this, as well as soft proofing in psCS5. How do you calibrate a printer beyond this? Any help appreciated. In the coming weeks I will be cracking the champagne over the epson and starting to dust off my old skills and formulate a decent workflow.

And KmH - lol, that is exactly the article I read 5 mins before posting! It reassured me that it was a monitor worth the effort, though limited. I am just worried about its age...

Thanks and keep 'em coming!

 

[KmH]

I did not see that it is an IPS type display.

They don't really age when they are not powered up.

 

[zaroba]

A newer monitor (ie, the one on your macbook) will always be brighter then one that is years old. The phosphors in the screen loose their ability to shine as it ages, plus the backlight element fades. CRT monitors fade with age as well, the tube wears out. LED monitors/tvs can last a lot longer.

As for that one and getting a new one, I'm surprised that link above is advertising one for $450 (lol), but it is a Dell and that is likely why its expensive (just paying for the name). Can get a 24" widescreen LCD with a native resolution of 1920x1200 for under $200 if you go with a company that specializes in computer components or tvs instead of whole systems, like Sceptre or ASUS (but ASUS is more high end PC components), there's also the 'generic brands' that are cheaper. If you don't mind a slower response time, you can really save a lot of money. If your not planning on using the monitor for any type of computer gaming, having a slow response time (ie, 8-10 milliseconds or higher) wouldn't be an issue.

 

[KmH]

TFT-LCD displays like the Dell Ultrasharp 1905FP don't have phosphors.

The Dell Ultrasharp 1905FP ad is from 2005. Dell doesn't make that display anymore, and display prices have come down some in 7 years.

I don't know of ANY IPS type displays that sell for under $200. Can you provide a link or 2?

 

[Garbz]

In a word No.

Some oldtimers on here still think CRT is the only way to go for quality imaging, and that's mainly because the last time they considered an LCD was 10 years ago and back then they were quite crap. They may not look like they've changed much but a lot of R&D has been put into various technicalities such as ensuring even back lighting, fixing ghosting problems, improving colour gamut, contrast ratio, and the list just goes on and on. Backlight modulation was poor in older displays and they'd waver a bit when not at max brightness.

My advice is save for a recent Dell Ultrasharp. You're not really doing yourself any favours. Even if the screen was an IPS panel 8 years ago you may be in for a nauseating experience with older IPS displays suffering from terrible response and ghosting problems (which in the introduction of LCDs made them completely unusable for gaming displays).

 

[jbarrettash]

Hmmm - that was the response I was afraid of Garbz... I was just hoping for a slew of: "yes, great monitor, no worries about age, best low end monitor for photo editing ever!". The monitor in question does appear a little dim, low contrast and warmish even after calibration (with the brightness/backlight set to 100% before calibration)...

Why do we ask questions we know the answer to?

Anyway thanks for the post. I'll start throwing my pennies in a jar, though it'll be a while - i just forked out for the epson 3880, and I suspect most of my pennies will be eaten up by paper and ink purchases...