Best Monitor for Photo Editing

I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are best for
photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT or LCD?

Thanks.........PJ

PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
or LCD?
Thanks.........PJ

The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
color-managed workflow.
I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE I
waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See below...

For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on your
screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
**colorometer.**

I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with a
photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be the
master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so
many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.

Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

Mark²



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
or LCD?
Thanks.........PJ

The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
color-managed workflow.
I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE
I waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See
below...

For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on
your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
**colorometer.**

I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with
a photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be
the master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot"
that so many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.

Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

Mark²



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


What are they like on spell checkers? ;-)

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
or LCD?
Thanks.........PJ

The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
color-managed workflow.
I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE
I waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See
below...

For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on
your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
**colorometer.**

I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with
a photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be
the master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot"
that so many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.

Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

Mark²



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the current
range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good hardware to choose
from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a little more than I want to
spend for home just now, the 22's are about half the price of the 24's, and
about 1/4 the price of the 30 inch Dell that some use at work, they are
stunning by the way.

PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are best for
photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT or LCD?

Thanks.........PJ


I wouldn't like to say what monitor is best as I don't know but I am
happy with my 'Samsung SyncMaster 753DF' I got mine from my wife last
year when I bought her an lcd monitor. This one has a flat screen
surface and give results that please me. I don't know if they are still
available new.

--
Neil
swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email

Pete D wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
or LCD?
Thanks.........PJ

The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only
in a color-managed workflow.
I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is
done. I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look
like BEFORE I waste ink/media, and my results are completely
predictable. See below...

For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see
on your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is
a **colorometer.**

I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After
about 30 minutes of running through its straight-forward
instructions/procedures, you'll have a monitor that displays colors
properly. Follow that up with a photo editor that is properly set
up, and you'll finally be able to be the master of your images,
rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so many people
endure when it comes to prints that match your screen. Once you have this
most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

Mark²



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the
current range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good
hardware to choose from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a
little more than I want to spend for home just now, the 22's are
about half the price of the 24's, and about 1/4 the price of the 30
inch Dell that some use at work, they are stunning by the way.

Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.

My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money. -Especially
laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty screen that means I have
to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a web-page, document, or etc.
The ONLY thing they are any good for is watching wide-screen movies. Other
than that...they are HORRIBLE for working on documents...editing
portrait-orientation photos, and even worse for viewing web-pages. You're
basically paying for a screen that has had the top (or bottom) pixels
trimmed off.

I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard ratio
screen...at whatever size.

I'll now step off of my soap-box...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Pete D wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
PJ wrote:
I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
or LCD?
Thanks.........PJ

The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only
in a color-managed workflow.
I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is
done. I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look
like BEFORE I waste ink/media, and my results are completely
predictable. See below...

For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see
on your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is
a **colorometer.**

I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After
about 30 minutes of running through its straight-forward
instructions/procedures, you'll have a monitor that displays colors
properly. Follow that up with a photo editor that is properly set
up, and you'll finally be able to be the master of your images,
rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so many people
endure when it comes to prints that match your screen. Once you have this
most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

Mark²



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


What are they like on spell checkers? ;-)

Ya ya ya... I type extremely quickly, and don't always think to hit the
ckecker...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

snip

I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the
current range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good
hardware to choose from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a
little more than I want to spend for home just now, the 22's are
about half the price of the 24's, and about 1/4 the price of the 30
inch Dell that some use at work, they are stunning by the way.

Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.

My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more
oney. -Especially laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty
screen that means I have to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a
web-page, document, or etc. The ONLY thing they are any good for is
watching wide-screen movies. Other than that...they are HORRIBLE for
working on documents...editing portrait-orientation photos, and even worse
for viewing web-pages. You're basically paying for a screen that has had
the top (or bottom) pixels trimmed off.

I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard
ratio screen...at whatever size.

I'll now step off of my soap-box...



Agree up to a point, the 24 inch is as high as the non wide screen 19 inch
though and the 22 inch wide screen is not far off. I also do video at home
and have a HDTV setup on this PC so wide screen is a great idea.

Think about using 2 widescreen monitors with one in portrait mode.
From what I've just seen they can all pivot.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
:
: Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a
specialized
: video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use
two
: 1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.
:
: My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a
nice
: way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more
oney. -Especially
: laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty screen that
means I have
: to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a web-page, document, or
etc.
: The ONLY thing they are any good for is watching wide-screen movies.
Other
: than that...they are HORRIBLE for working on documents...editing
: portrait-orientation photos, and even worse for viewing web-pages.
You're
: basically paying for a screen that has had the top (or bottom)
pixels
: trimmed off.
:
: I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200
stadard ratio
: screen...at whatever size.
:
: I'll now step off of my soap-box...
:
: --
: Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
: www.pbase.com/markuson
:
:

Mark² wrote:
Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.

My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money.
[...]

I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard ratio
screen...at whatever size.

Well, if you were buying the same resolution on a shorter screen, I'd
agree. But why not take that 1600x1200 and add to it?

As always, the devil's in the details. Big isn't always better.
*Native* resolution is key, as are contrast ratio, pixel size, etc.
There are some gargantuan LCDs out there with maybe 1024x768 resolution
- ick!

I've been happy with a 1920x1200 24" widescreen (predecessor to this
model:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Moni...4BRBABXAA.asp).
That Apple 30" is awesome, but it takes 2 DVI video connections to drive
it. At the time, this 24" was the largest that one DVI controller could
handle.

Widescreen is very close to 2:3 ratio, which is really nice for large
photo viewing. The size also fits a lot of thumbnails, and it can be
rotated to portrait. For normal use, it holds 2+ "full-size" windows
(or one whole "sheet" of paper in portrait mode). So, there is value to
the size & width, but you need the resolution to make it really useful -
this means a lot of RAM in your video card.

Mind you, I paid more for the monitor than the computer it's attached
to. But I've learned over time that it takes 2-3 PC generations for
each evolution of screen specs, so I spent the money and got a warranty
to back it up.

Cheers,
Richard