# What exactly makes a good monitor for post processing/editing?



## ScottyP (Oct 12, 2013)

Hi,

What makes one monitor vs. another good for photo editing? (If anything). 

I want to get a new one, and I want to get the right type. Not looking to spend more than $400 or so unless there is a good reason, and I really don't need anything bigger than about 23" or 24" or so. I use Lightroom, but plan to get into Photoshop Elements sooner or later. 

Thanks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 12, 2013)

It depends on your end product. IMHO, unless you are sending out images to be published, or need to have color match perfectly, as in making a pro level video, you can do just fine with a ordinary monitor and a good calibration tool. I'd rather spend the money on a new lens.
If color matching is critical, the sky's the limit, then it must be right-on.


----------



## bykes (Oct 12, 2013)

You want an IPS display. Several manufacturers make them. Im sure others will chime in on which company makes a decent one. I use a MacBook Pro which uses IPS technology in its display. IPS allows for better colors and contrast. Also the color does not shift when viewing indirectly.


----------



## Meh (Oct 12, 2013)

I agree with Mt. Spokane... get a color calibration tool and any decent monitor will do fine. However, that doesn't answer your question, does it.

What makes one monitor better than another is the usual set of features... resolution, contrast, color accuracy, color gamut, etc. Plus one more... consistency at varied viewing angles. Almost all monitors boast something like 170+ degree viewing angle BUT at angles off the center viewing axis the color and contrast is poor. So... you want an IPS panel that does not suffer so much at off angles. And most IPS panels, given they are the higher end models, have good feature sets and wide color gamuts.

IMHO, the Dell Ultransharp series are the best value here and the U2412 (which is still being sold has been succeeded by the U2413) is really good and only $289 at the moment. They increased the color gamut on the U2413 but, and this is where Mt Spokane hits the nail on the head, you don't need that for anything but high end publishing. Short of that, your images are being viewed on screen or regular prints and those can't reproduce that wide of a color gamut anyway.

These Dell 24" displays are not ultra high resolution... they are only 1920 x 1200... an iPad has more pixels... but can the human eye see the difference at the typical viewing distance of a desktop monitor... probably not.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 12, 2013)

bykes said:


> You want an IPS display.



+1 on IPS monitor. I bought this LG few months ago, I'm very happy with it. Will get another one this weekend to replace my wife 21" monitor. 

Highly recommend 27" size.

http://www.frys.com/product/7570806?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 12, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> bykes said:
> 
> 
> > You want an IPS display.
> ...


 
That monitor looks like a good one for the price. No need to spend several thousand dollars for a professional model.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 12, 2013)

suggest to get U2312HM (which was on-sale $189.99 few days ago as if you would like to get the U2412M since they both almost identical to specs. the differences are very very trivial to post processing usage. i am currently pay attention to the either Dell U2413 or LG 27EA83-D, but i am not in hurry... just wait until black friday as if there is a deal...

note: if you asked me which one do i like, i would say that i like the LG 27EA83-D (saw it went on sale for $600 at one time.)


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 12, 2013)

im in the process of buying a new monitor for image editing too.
i take my time, i search for 2 month now. 

i started with a budget of 500-600 euro.

bought the DELL 2713H and HM (actually 2 of them each).
i send them back after 2 days. both had ugly lightbleeding and inhomogen colors. 
then i ordered another two -> same results. 

they were actually worse then the dell 2711 i have, when it comes to homogenity and light bleeding.

the left lower edge showed a grey not a black (it´s a common issue with dell when you look at customer reviews).
overall i found the new DELL monitors dissapointing. good allround or game monitor.. but imho not really good for image editing.

you can do image editing with them, sure. but they all have their flaws and they show a great deal of variance. i read monitor reviews about the dells and was suprised that the ones i had were so bad. reading CUSTOMER reviews i saw im not alone with my opinion. i guess im lucky that my 2711 is relatively good (thought he now shows dead pixels). 

then i bought an Asus 27 inch and two LG´s and a few others, i spare you the details.

after much searching i decided that i had to increase my budget. 
there are no really good monitors for image editing around 500 euro in my opinion.

the next monitors i will test are the eizo CX240 (950 euro) and CX270 (1300 euro).

i know that is much more then you (or i) wanted to spend.
but the monitor is a very important, you look at your monitor all the time judging you images.
imho it makes no sense to skimp on a monitor.

especially the greys and color gradients make a big difference.
some monitors show banding in gradients. they are not in the images, it´s just the display.
a monitor that shows banding is a no go for me. i had one before and it was annoying.

you will notice that especially in computer generated images (i do 3D too) and when you shot people on a grey or blue background.

i use 16 bit for all my tiff files and i still got banding.
when editing images with fine gradients i always had an eye on creating banding because it was so easy to introduce banding. 
then i edited one of my images on a friends 10 bit quato monitor and noticed that there was no banding. 

that was when i noticed it´s not the 16 BIT images that showed the banding. it was my monitor who could not show these subtle details in color variation. 

eizo has 5 years warranty. if the monitors are what i expect then i pay the 1300 euro.
i spend so much on camera gear... a good monitor is as important.
if not more important then a slightly better sensor.



> That monitor looks like a good one for the price. No need to spend several thousand dollars for a professional model.



you don´t need a 1D X or 5D MK3... the differences you see compared to a 700D or 70D in prints are marginal. 

you don´t need a 2000 euro monitor, i agree.
but cheap monitors around and below 400 euro are not made with image editing in mind.


----------



## Schruminator (Oct 12, 2013)

IPS is the way to go. Also, if the monitor is over 24" in size, I'd really recommend a resolution greater than 1920 x 1080. Technically 1920 x 1080 is still "HD", but at 27" or 30" that's really stretching the pixels. 2560 x 1440 will be much crisper at that size.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 12, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Hi,
> 
> What makes one monitor vs. another good for photo editing? (If anything).
> 
> ...



As others said: A good panel technology like IPS or S-PVA is very helpful due it's high contrast and low susceptibility of viewing angles.

But it is very important to have stable lighting conditions around the monitor. I would recommend an halogene incandescent lamp or a LED lamp with good color rendering (CRI > 80, better > 90 if available).
The same goes for the monitor settings: I use sRGB and don't fiddle around with the contrast and color settings.

To get some idea of the differences between monitor and printouts of a photo dealer I used 9 photographs containing different typical photographs with varying contrasts, colors, etc. - It matched well so I trust my monitor.
ADD: If I say the photo dealer that I do not want any post processing he prints the images directly without any changes - I had only 2 iterations - but if the printouts weren't o.k., my postprocessing was definitly suboptimal (or the photograph was not worth it to be printed).

A procedural remark: During editing colors sometimes I use a smaller view to decrese the image size compared to the (gray) frames of my OS/applications. This helps my eyes (and brain) to calibrate a gray as "standard" and not e.g. the green of a photograph of a forest.

Good luck for your "monitor choice process" - Best, Michael


----------



## Zv (Oct 12, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> bykes said:
> 
> 
> > You want an IPS display.
> ...



Thanks for the recommendation. I actually ended up buying an LG monitor today after some research. But I got the idea here first! Inception!


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Hi,
> 
> What makes one monitor vs. another good for photo editing? (If anything).
> 
> ...



I bought the Asus IPS 24 inch 248Q a couple of months ago, and I like it really well. It is 16:10 aspect. Its screen apparently does not have an extra coating that its Dell counterpart has (based on reviews and comments from customers at Amazon. These particular panels supposedly are made in Korea...) They were complaining that the Dell coating, ruined the panel...made it look "dirty".

The 248Q comes pre-calibrated (with a factory printout of the calibration), but I found that really only works if you can use the monitor's brightness set really high (and thus you're working in a room that is lit very brightly...or else outdoors or something). If you need the brightness lower, in pre-calibrated mode, the colors get far too warm and oversaturated (with no way of compensating/adjusting the color saturation for the lower brightness).

I did my own adjustments to it over time, and found it to be accurate enough for me. The results I get from having prints done by various labs, looks very, very close to what I saw on the screen. It's possible it could be adjusted better by a device, but I trust my eyes more. If I owned a very high end printer and did all my prints myself, then most likely I would probably buy the most expensive monitor and calibration device available and use them instead.

I considered the 10 bit 249Q, and also the larger 27 inch, higher rez models (both 8 bit and 10 bit) The reviews of the 249Q (10 bits but the same 24 inches, same 1920x1200 resolution) and pricier models, seemed to show the screen uniformity was no better (the top of the line NEC and Samsung models over $1000 had better uniformity, and their uniformity could be adjusted...but that wasn't what I wanted to spend). 

Also, my problem is, I like to be able to see the pixels when I move my face within 10 inches or so of the screen. I like to be able to see what effects the sharpening I do to photos, has. The pixels are a bit too small to do that on a 27 inch monitor with an image ~2500 pixels wide. That resolution would be ideal for a monitor that is 32 inches or larger, diagonal...but not for a monitor smaller than that...not for me anyway. I suppose I could use magnifying glass, but that would be a hassle.

I figure if I ever need very high resolution and 10 or more bits, then a future OLED monitor would be better than the best backlit monitors available now, anyway. The future is bright and glorious, at least if you choose to see it that way!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2013)

I use a 30" Dell Ultrasharp but I used the cheaper 24" version for years and years. They're pretty cheap now.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I use a 30" Dell Ultrasharp but I used the cheaper 24" version for years and years. They're pretty cheap now.



Way to go *RL*! We think alike. I've used my *U2410* for years and still love it. It can be purchased here now for a 1/3 of what I paid when I got mine at a discount years ago.

Wonderful high quality monitor that is built like a tank and renders beautiful consistent images.

*U2410 - "Refurbished" for $230 - A Steal!*
*http://www.rakuten.com/prod/dell-ultrasharp-u2410-24-widescreen-lcd-flat-panel-computer-monitor/254851464.html*


----------



## Jim Saunders (Nov 6, 2013)

The IPS monitor I bought last week is I believe the one Dylan777 referred to, I like it a lot. It isn't an Eizo but it is sharp and visually uniform. One thing I noted with my previous TN displays is that my i1 profiler indicated much better contrast when connected with a DVI cable then with an HDMI cable. I haven't tried it with the new display yet and that experience might be a fluke but I'm curious now to have a look into it when I get home from this trip. 

Jim


----------



## astevenscr (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm interested to hear your opinions on the IPS monitors from Monoprice for editing purposes. I have been pleased with the 27" version for (non-photo) work purposes, and it's hard to beat the price on a high-resolution monitor with good customer support. Supposedly they use LG panels (similar to the Apple displays) and are a US distributor with a good returns policy vs taking a risk on the Korean ebay sellers. 

See http://www.monoprice.com/Search?keyword=ips


----------



## tolusina (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm liking the look of this NEC panel...........
http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/pa242w-bk-sv
Way pricier than the OP's stated budget, excellent reviews every where I've looked.
Saves it's calibration profile internally, not on your PC, can store up to five color profiles, can load printer ICC profiles for soft proofing prints, picture in picture, picture by picture, a bit more. 





.


----------



## pwp (Nov 6, 2013)

In the studio I have two identically specced custom-built PC's. Two? Redundancy as much as anything else. When things go pear-shaped, I want to keep working in an instantly familiar, identical environment. 

I do like a bit of screen real-estate. Each setup has a Dell U3011 (30inch) with a Dell 2007FP (20inch) rotated to vertical to the right of the Dell 30. The Dell 30 calibrates up nicely. I like the image I'm working on filling the screen, and the Tools, Palettes etc are all parked on the 20inch off to the side. The Dell 2007FP rotated to vertical is so close to the height of the 30inch it doesn't matter. It's 1200x1600 and the 30inch is 1600x2560 so its a smooth transition between the two. The 2007FP is a $100 eBay pickup just about any time (ex-office rentals usually). Color accuracy is irrelevant on the second monitor.

Color accuracy? Eizos and the like certainly are Gold Standard. But the stuff my clients reproduce looks just the same as it was on my monitor. For precision color accuracy requirement projects I use Color Checker Passport and just trust the numbers regardless of what direction the perceptual pressures may push me.

Zero street-cred Dells are not for snobs, but I've had them for years. My first 2405FPW which my son has been punishing for years blew a board last week; it was pretty much perfect for nine relentless years. Keep away from the cheapie Dells which may be fine for office work, and stay with any of the U-Series panels.

-pw


----------

