New monitor time

[soufiej]

I'll assume at least several of you are aware of my current "situation" in photography. A long time (Canon) film user who laid off photography for almost a decade once digital hit me with its menus and IMO dubious image quality. Now back into the hobby - and it's only a hobby for me - I have as my main camera a Canon SL1 along with a SX50 bridge and a S110 as a walk around. No expensive lenses and decent filters when required from my film days.

It's now time to begin the upgrade path for dealing with "data". Probably, for most of you, my computer is ancient. I can't remember it's exact age but it came with Vista 64 bit which I have upgraded to Windows 7 64 bit. The monitor is one I bought one night just to have for work purposes when the old monitor died. It has minimal controls and isn't even good enough to consider as being useful for photo editing.

First order of business as I see it is to buy a new monitor that can actually display color and dynamic range to the degree I would require for hobbyist based photos. Budget is tight and I'm looking at a calibration tool to add to the final bill. I would prefer a smaller but somewhat higher quality monitor as I'm not going to rearrange the computer set up for a larger monitor and I can't afford a larger monitor.

Prints are done on my Canon inkjet for now and 4X6 and 5X7's are the norm. I'm not after excellent, just hobbyist level predictable. My main software is currently Lightzone which is IMO more than adequate and more than I can actually exploit at this time.

What's the minimum I can spend on a decent monitor? 22" is the max size I can fit.

Any specific model recommendations?

Ditto for calibration tools?

What else do I need to know that I'm unaware of at this time for the aforementioned "predictable results"?

 

[sm4him]

I can't help you much on this topic anyway, but there are plenty here who can.
I'll just say that it would help if you go ahead and add at least a ballpark figure to what your budget is. "Budget is tight" means a lot of different things to different people. For some, it might mean "I can 'only' spend $5K on this monitor. For me, "budget is tight" means I won't be buying any monitors, and I'll just hope that I have enough bread and peanut butter to see me through to the next paycheck. Most people are somewhere in between those.

 

[soufiej]

Generically, "budget is tight" means; don't spend my money where it's not needed.

Specifically, it means I'd like to get the monitor for less than $200 (less would be better) and the calibration tool for a hobbyist's needs. I'm looking now at about $79 for the tool.

 

[DoctorDino]

I have used this ASUS monitor in the past and I loved it. $145 on bhphotovideo, and you could probably get it for less.

1920 x 1080 display, good dynamic contrast.

ASUS VS238H-P 23" LED-Backlit Computer Display VS238H-P B&H

As far as the color calibration tool goes, this is the cheapest one I could find that still received good reviews X-Rite ColorMunki Smile Color Calibration Solution CMUNSML B&H

 

[tirediron]

My suggestion would be: Limp along as you are now and keep saving. $200 doesn't get you out of Wal-mart as far as monitors go. If that's truly all you want to spend, then it doesn't much matter. They're all going to be fairly similar in that price range.

 

[Derrel]

Why the **** would you spend $79 on a calibration tool on a less than $200 monitor? That makes no sense at all. None. Why even bother with calibration tools when the system-level calibration software will get you close enough. There's wayyyy too much emphasis on monitor calibration, especially in a world where every single monitor has about a 99% chance of being uncalibrated, and when operating systems cannot even recognize color profiles on images. The whole calibrated monitor song and dance is basically a circle jerk with a handful of regular members, and the rest of the world pointing and laughing at them. Have you never seen the threads where people ask about what their images look like on individual members' monitors? It's ridiculous. Save your $79 until you're selling $2,000 worth of prints a week.

 

[Buckster]

Yesteryear's $3000 state of the art monitors are today's $150 Walmart monitors, so to be up to date, you need to spend a BIG WAD of cash on TODAY'S state of the art monitors, especially since, obviously, NOBODY working with those monitors from yesteryear EVER made a decent photo using one. Ever.

It's probably documented somewhere that nobody ever even saw a decent photo on a monitor that was created before the most current, most up to date, most technologically advanced monitors came out, because the limited monitor technology just wouldn't allow it. Those who are still using monitors that are NOT the most current, most up to date, most technologically advanced monitors are OBVIOUSLY producing nothing but total crap, unfortunately.

And of COURSE it's totally silly to want to calibrate just so that you can start off with your image as close to color accurate as you can, since the vast majority of other monitors out there looking at it won't be calibrated anyway. After all, if yours is a little too green and you don't know it, and someone else's is even further out of whack toward green that they look at your photo and think you must have been high as a kite on drugs to choose such an ugly green color palette, that shouldn't matter to you at all. Plus, you'll have LOTS of fun trying to work that out with your printer, as you wonder why it doesn't seem to be producing anything even CLOSE to what you see on your screen.

By the way, you DO realize that you WERE and ARE allowed to keep shooting film, especially since digital is SO quality-sucky and complicated, right? Just thought I'd mention it, in case that somehow escaped your notice.

My advice, especially since you've no needs beyond the hobbyist: Sell your car, jewelry and rent out a room if need be in order to get up the money to buy the most state of the art monitor you can find, because the results will be SO MUCH better than doing it on one of yesteryear's state of the art models, which obviously sucked hard and was unable to produce a decent quality image.

 

[Derrel]

^^SEE ABOVE^^^ for the most perfect lampooning of the gotta-calibrate-my-$3,000-monitor-twice-weekly crowd's attitudes! Bravo, Buckster!!!

 

[soufiej]

I have used this ASUS monitor in the past and I loved it. $145 on bhphotovideo, and you could probably get it for less.

1920 x 1080 display, good dynamic contrast.

ASUS VS238H-P 23" LED-Backlit Computer Display VS238H-P B&H

As far as the color calibration tool goes, this is the cheapest one I could find that still received good reviews X-Rite ColorMunki Smile Color Calibration Solution CMUNSML B&H

Thanks, that's the tool I was looking at. And from B&H too. And the ASUS monitors have come up regularly as suggested models when you're on a budget and size restriction.


"And of COURSE it's totally silly to want to calibrate just so that you can start off with your image as close to color accurate as you can, since the vast majority of other monitors out there looking at it won't be calibrated anyway."


I'm not at all concerned about "other monitors". As I keep telling The Traveler, no one else is likely to ever see any of my photos.

I'm looking for more predictable results than I have right now. If that's strictly software based, tell me more. If it's strictly a matter of pay to play, then I either have the wrong question or the wrong answer IMO.

I'm still of the opinion that "if you can't afford more than $200" doesn't mean I should stick with the cheap monitor I purchased several years ago when I had no intention of doing any photo editing through it. Tell me why that's wrong. Take your frustrations with the "gotta have it" crowd out on someone else.

When I sold high end audio, most $500 integrated amps were all the same too. Except for the ones that weren't. And there were always a few that were anything but average. Today I can actually point you towards a $30 amp that will knock the doors off most $2k amps. But it's purpose built for a budget which means you have to accept that it has some limitations and you have to be prepared to work with those limitations. Size is my current limitation but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy a $1k 22" monitor just 'cause.

But that's a different market, now I'm working mostly with mass market stuff. I get that.

When I sold high end video, most monitors didn't deserve the title. Except for the ones that did. If the market has totally abandoned the person without unlimited funds, then I'll pack up most of my stuff and just take snapshots from now on. A $49 P&S should do, huh?

If you're wanting to play the game of "if you're not prepared to play in the big leagues ... ", then you and I are on different playing fields.


"By the way, you DO realize that you WERE and ARE allowed to keep shooting film, especially since digital is SO quality-sucky and complicated, right? Just thought I'd mention it, in case that somehow escaped your notice."


I could do that. But that has nothing to do with my questions. Glad you found an opportunity to get that dig out of your system though.


"Why the **** would you spend $79 on a calibration tool on a less than $200 monitor? That makes no sense at all. None. Why even bother with calibration tools when the system-level calibration software will get you close enough. There's wayyyy too much emphasis on monitor calibration, especially in a world where every single monitor has about a 99% chance of being uncalibrated, and when operating systems cannot even recognize color profiles on images."


Maybe I don't even know enough about this to know when I'm wrong but by "system-level calibration", do you mean the included "color calibration" system that came with Windows? That's purely eyeballing it and I'm not so sure that's even worth the time when "eyeballs" change faster than monitors. I recognize I possess cognition which is variable from day to day and morning to night. I also recognize the connected components in my computer loop do not. I'm just trying to get those non-perceptual components on the same page and talking the same language.

No doubt, profiles, intents, mapping and gamuts have me knocking my head against my old, cheap monitor.

Your post though sounds a bit like telling me to just stick with tires that came with my economy car despite the fact they suck in the rain and make noise when it's dry. The OEM tires were chosen to fit a price point, same as my current monitor. You seem to be saying just keep driving on those old, worn out tires.

Surely, changing to a more purpose useful product can't be so bad. Unless you too feel quality only comes at a price that I'm not comfortable paying.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm running an old X58 Xeon build with an fx1800 workstation GPU, 8 gigs of ram. I have a backlit $139.00 23.5" Asus monitor. Linux OS 64 bit. Everything is fine, colors are off a bit but I could care less. Spend your money on books on how to be a better photographer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[soufiej]

I'm running an old X58 Xeon build with an fx1800 workstation GPU, 8 gigs of ram. I have a backlit $139.00 23.5" Asus monitor. Linux OS 64 bit. Everything is fine, colors are off a bit but I could care less. Spend your money on books on how to be a better photographer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not to be arrogant but; Most Helpful Resource | Photography Forum

Books schmooks! I'm not asking how to take better photos.

You have a better monitor than I'm using. If your colors are "off a bit", imagine where my colors are.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me as I do not speak "computerese".

So! Your colors are off a bit. Tell me what you do to get around that fact. Just don't give a crap?

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm running an old X58 Xeon build with an fx1800 workstation GPU, 8 gigs of ram. I have a backlit $139.00 23.5" Asus monitor. Linux OS 64 bit. Everything is fine, colors are off a bit but I could care less. Spend your money on books on how to be a better photographer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not to be arrogant but; Most Helpful Resource | Photography Forum

Books schmooks! I'm not asking how to take better photos.

You have a better monitor than I'm using. If your colors are "off a bit", imagine where my colors are.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me as I do not speak "computerese".

So! Your colors are off a bit. Tell me what you do to get around that fact. Just don't give a crap?

Spend money on a monitor then. I don't do anything to correct it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[beagle100]

I'm running an old X58 Xeon build with an fx1800 workstation GPU, 8 gigs of ram. I have a backlit $139.00 23.5" Asus monitor. Linux OS 64 bit. Everything is fine, colors are off a bit but I could care less. Spend your money on books on how to be a better photographer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not to be arrogant but; Most Helpful Resource | Photography Forum

Books schmooks! I'm not asking how to take better photos.

You have a better monitor than I'm using. If your colors are "off a bit", imagine where my colors are.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me as I do not speak "computerese".

So! Your colors are off a bit. Tell me what you do to get around that fact. Just don't give a crap?

Spend money on a monitor then. I don't do anything to correct it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

my $150 monitor doesn't need "correcting"

 

[Scatterbrained]

Personally, I'm a firm believer in monitor calibration, if you are printing. I've printed from uncalibrated consumer grade monitors shipped off to Sams Club, and I've printed from a calibrated, pro level monitor to a pro lab. The differences are definitely there. However, if you're not trying to make large, gallery quality prints then I'd say the pro level monitor and high end calibration and printing are going to be overkill. I've found that for anything smaller than an 8x10 (and even 8x10s most of the time) Costco offers great quality.

For what you're looking for I'd go with Dell. They're known to be pretty consistent and I've seen nothing but good reviews from other photographers who were looking for a budget monitor.
I would however, still get it calibrated. I can see a difference in my images across the four different monitors in my house, as well as with tablets and phones. What really matters however, is that my images look exactly the same from my screen to my prints. As they say "the proof is in the prints".

 

[Derrel]

Just get a monitor already. Your prior experience in selling high-end audio gear (the single largest snake oil business since, well, snake oil...) to saps that believe in golden ears, but who could not tell a 128Kbps .mp3 file from an uncompressed .AIFF file has made you worry about all sorts of imaginary boogeymen.