LCD vs CRT

[Big Mike]

OK here's the deal...

I've been using an LCD monitor for a while now and I use the Spyder II for calibration. Sometimes the prints I order, don't look like how I expect them too...but I haven't tried using printer profiles etc. What I really don't like is how the display looks different depending on the angle I'm looking at it. If I'm having a hard day, I might be slouching and the display looks different than if I'm sitting up straight.

So anyway, I procured a fairly nice (& large) CRT monitor that I used to use at work. I've set them both up on my home computer and my plan was to edit images on the CRT because the display always looks the same.

I used the Spyder II, to calibrate the CRT and it looks drastically different than the LCD (which I didn't calibrate but it looks similar to how it was last time I calibrated it). I tried a quick test and opened an image and edited it on the CRT. When I drag it over to the LCD side it looks way, way over cooked with too much contrast and saturation. Alternatively, an image edited on the LCD looks dull and flat on the CRT.

I did let the CRT warm up for close to an hour before I calibrated it...it did look really dull before calibration and still looks somewhat dull afterward. I'm wondering if it's suffering some ill affects from not being used for the last several months.

I guess the real test will be when I have prints made...but for now, I'm somewhat perplexed as to what's going on.

Any ideas or insights?

 

[skieur]

In an extensive book on Colour Correction for Digital Photographers, it says clearly : The CRT is the tool of choice for colour specialists and better represents printed colour and clarity than LCDs.

skieur

 

[Big Mike]

That's what I thought...although, technology changes faster than books can be written & published (on average)...I know that top end LCD screens are pretty darn good. Mine's not a top end one...and my CRT is or was probably close to $1000 when it was purchased.

I guess I'll see how it pans out...thanks for the input.

 

[sabbath999]

If I may... a FRESH CRT is the tool of choice... on that has been sitting around for months on end used may not be. CRT's change over time, and sitting without being used is VERY hard on them.

My advice? Turn it on, leave it on for several days, then re-calibrate... see how much it has changed.

Ken, your friendly local IT guy (that's what I do for a living).

 

[Big Mike]

Thank you...that is the advice I was hoping for. I used to use this CRT at work all the time and when they replaced it with an LCD I asked if I could take it home. I was moving (last week) so I didn't bother to take the monitor home until yesterday. When I turned it on...it was much duller and cloudier than I ever remembered it being. I let it warm up for an hour before I calibrated it.

I'll follow your advice and leave it on for a long while and try again.

 

[Digital Matt]

Keep in mind that you should also let a CRT warm up for at least 30 minutes, if not an hour, before using it as well.

 

[Big Mike]

Oh for sure...I always browse the forum or whatever for a while, to let the monitor warm up...before I get down to image editing

 

[Digital Matt]

Oh for sure...I always browse the forum or whatever for a while, to let the monitor warm up...before I get down to image editing

And then you realize 3 hours have gone by

 

[WDodd]

I have 2 different LCDs, both 20", 1 Acer (1400x1050) and 1 Dell (1600x1200) and they have not drastic but distinct differences in color.

I noticed that my prints come out quite a bit lighter than they appear on my Dell. The Acer is closer to what actually comes back on the prints.

How much of a difference does calibration make? How much trouble is it?

 

[Digital Matt]

Without calibration, it's like driving blindfolded.

 

[WDodd]

Without calibration, it's like driving blindfolded.

Sounds like fun.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree, calibration is very important. Back in the day, I think CRT monitors were fairly accurate on average, so it wasn't something that the average person thought about. When I got my first LCD I could never quite get it right until I bought a calibration tool. The difference after the first calibration was fairly dramatic.

If you are serious about digital photography & image editing...calibration is money well spent.

I suggest the ColorVision Spyder II and I've heard good things about the Pantone Huey.

 

[Alex_B]

The upper end EIZO LCDs are very good. well, they cost 5 to 10 times more compared to cheaper LCDs, but with respect to colour space and possible calibration they are very good.

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg241w/index.asp

When I switched from my LG to one of that series, it was like awaking from a (bad) dream.

 

[WDodd]

I was actually thinking about some sort of calibration before I saw this thread. I noticed that there were different versions of the Spyder II, some quite a bit more expensive than the others. What would you recommend?

Edit: I have never even heard of the Eizo series. Looks very good from what I've read briefly. But you know what they say, "You get what you pay for."

 

[Big Mike]

I noticed that there were different versions of the Spyder II, some quite a bit more expensive than the others. What would you recommend?

The actual Spyder II hardware is the same, the different prices you see are for different software packages. I'm pretty sure their web site has a comparison chart.

I went with the 'Express' package, which was the cheapest. I'm kind of in a pickle now because that software doesn't support multiple monitor calibration. There might be a way around it, without updating the software, but I haven't figured that out yet.

Check the comparison and see which one fits your needs.