need a monitor recommendation

[GerryDavid]

Its time to upgrade again, this time to a better monitor with more reliable colors. The one I have now gives me a different profile every time I run my spyder 2 and its to bright, when I tone down the brightness things just look muddy.

A friend suggested the Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24" widescreen flat pannel monitor, normally $370cdn, but is often in the $250 range. I am assuming the us version has comparable prices and sales. Its a IPS monitor which is what I think I need to get to have reliable color?

What are you all using?

 

[KmH]

Many of Dell's less expensive UltraSharp displays develop panel layer delamination issues in about a year's time.
I no longer recommend the low cost Dell UltraSharp displays for that reason.

A decent pro grade IPS display will cost quite a bit more - $1000+

$320 - Dell UltraSharp U2412M 24" LED LCD Monitor - 16:10 - 8 ms
$240 - Dell UltraSharp U2312HM 23" IPS LED LCD Monitor - 16:9 - 8 ms

Instead of the 2412, if you gotta have 24" - I would recommend the 2410 - Dell UltraSharp U2410 24-inch Widescreen LCD High Performance Monitor with HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort and HDCP

 

[Buckster]

It's a wonder that we were able to do anything at all before decent pro grade IPS displays were invented and put on the market. Everything done on monitors before they came along must be crap.

 

[KmH]

CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type. Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.
CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.

The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.

You can frame a house with a 16 oz, smooth faced, finish hammer, but the work goes a lot faster and the house frame is stronger if you use a 32 oz, knurled face, framing hammer.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

It's a wonder that we were able to do anything at all before decent pro grade IPS displays were invented and put on the market. Everything done on monitors before they came along must be crap.

CRT's? Viewing angle didn't matter, and color is awesome on them. The only reason people still don't use them is because they're super deep and they blast radiation at you, LCD's don't make the user fatigue as quickly.

 

[pixmedic]

I can't really say that theres any "necessity" to newer monitors, but we use an asus proart series IPS monitor and love it. Not quite a $1000 monitor, but it works really well.

 

[GerryDavid]

CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type. Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.
CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.

The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.

You can frame a house with a 16 oz, smooth faced, finish hammer, but the work goes a lot faster and the house frame is stronger if you use a 32 oz, knurled face, framing hammer.

I miss my old crt, it finally went a couple of years ago. It wasnt huge but I could depend on the colors and brightness.

 

[Buckster]

CRTs worked quite well, and basically there was just one type.

And yet, back in the day when we were all using CRT's, the question, "which monitor should I get for editing" generated the same kinds of "top of the line, thousand dollar+" responses that it does today.

Many held on to their CRTs as long as they could.

Well, why not, when they worked just fine?

CRTs use more power and take up a lot more desk space than the displays used today.

And? What does that have to do with display QUALITY and whether or not we can get the job done on sub-thousand dollar monitors?

The advent of TFT-LCD screens took some time to develop and there are several different display panel technologies.

Again, WHAT does that have to do with whether or not we can get the job done with sub-thousand dollar monitors?

You can frame a house with a 16 oz, smooth faced, finish hammer, but the work goes a lot faster and the house frame is stronger if you use a 32 oz, knurled face, framing hammer.

Well, there's some good old fashioned BS, right there. Given the same wood and the same nail driven to the same depth in that wood, how is it that one method of driving it would render it "stronger" than the other? Explain the physics of that one to me.

And since we're talking about editing, explain to me how your analogy of it going faster applies. You're actually going to pretend that by using an expensive TFT LCD monitor, one can edit faster than they can on a non-TFT LCD monitor? Explain the physics behind that one too.

Bottom line: I'm not framing houses here. I'm editing photos for print and web.

Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it. As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones. My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images. When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations. But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.

My experience with this over the years tells me that buying, using and recommending the top of the line thousand dollar+ monitors over calibrated cheaper ones is more about gear snobbery and BS than actual usefulness to the end user.

I welcome actual evidence that there's a real difference that's worth the money.

 

[GerryDavid]

Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it. As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones. My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images. When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations. But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.

My experience with this over the years tells me that buying, using and recommending the top of the line thousand dollar+ monitors over calibrated cheaper ones is more about gear snobbery and BS than actual usefulness to the end user.

I welcome actual evidence that there's a real difference that's worth the money.

What monitor would you recommend then?

I know I wont be in the market to spend $1000 for a monitor any time soon.

 

[KmH]

Would you spend $1000 on a lens?

Your computer display influences every photo you edit. A lens only influences those photos made with that lens.

But, it's your money, your business. :thumbup:

 

[GerryDavid]

I have spent way more than $1000 on a lens. But a great lens compared to a cheap one lets me get shots in low light and bokeh that I want Right now I can spend a tiny bit of money per order and have the lab color correct my files for me or I can get a mid range monitor that can do a great job. And I just don't have the money to spend on a $1000+ monitor. The list of things I need is way to long to mention. Ive been trying to get a 5D but other things keep popping up and its just outside my grasp.

 

[Mully]

I bought a Samsung 24" display and have had no problems.

 

[Buckster]

Over the years, I've edited with a bunch of different monitors, calibrated with pucks, and I haven't seen a clear difference in output to either print or web, to be quite honest about it. As long as it's calibrated, the cheaper monitors have worked just as well for me as the more expensive ones. My prints come out as expected with no surprises in color or contrast, and so do my web images. When I view my web images on others' computers, on tablets, on smart phones, I get just what I would expect, given the fact that few people out there calibrate their monitors, so there are going to be color and contrast variations. But that's true no matter WHAT monitor it was edited on, no matter HOW GOOD or how expensive that monitor is.

My experience with this over the years tells me that buying, using and recommending the top of the line thousand dollar+ monitors over calibrated cheaper ones is more about gear snobbery and BS than actual usefulness to the end user.

I welcome actual evidence that there's a real difference that's worth the money.

What monitor would you recommend then?

I know I wont be in the market to spend $1000 for a monitor any time soon.

There are just too many out there in your price range that ought to work just fine when calibrated for me to recommend one. I personally like to shop for monitors by going to someplace where I can see them on display next to each other showing the same pictures to make my choice, rather than buying online, though I do like to read reviews by real users, like on Amazon, of the ones I've narrowed it down to before actual purchase, to see if there are any particular issues that the actual users are experiencing that could be problematic, like early demise or something.

I'm currently using a Viewsonic 27" as my main screen, and a 24" Acer with 3D capability (and Nvidia 3D glasses when using it for 3D work or viewing) as my secondary screen. I keep both regularly calibrated, and they look and work fabulously. I recently gave my sister a 24" LG that I used before going with the 27" because I wanted more real estate, and the LG looked and worked terrific too - no complaints.

 

[Buckster]

Would you spend $1000 on a lens?

Absolutely, and have more than once. But I wouldn't spend $1000 on a lens if I could get one for $200 that has the same focal range, aperture, and no practical discernible difference in IQ. Would you?

Would you spend $5 on a #2 pencil when you can get a pack of 20 of them for a buck and a half just because the salesman said the $5 pencil has a better build quality, EliteAdvantage™ Eraser System (looks and works just like a regular eraser, but salesman says it's better), and instructions in English?

If so, where I come from we call that, "they musta seen you comin' mister!"

Your computer display influences every photo you edit.

A very expensive $1000+ monitor vs. an everyday off the shelf few hundred dollar monitor BOTH CALIBRATED - Show the evidence that there are practical, discernible differences to the print or web images that are made using those two monitors as editing tools.

Can you do it, or will you remain silent yet again when faced with real questions to your unsupported statements, as usual?

 

[table1349]

To the OP. Do a little research and make your own decision. Here is one source to start with.
Monitors For High Quality Imaging Work
Keep in mind, the quality you want and the quality you can afford may be at odds with one another. That is where you have to decide what compromise to make.