# PC Monitor for photo editing



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 21, 2013)

Can anyone recommend a good PC monitor for photo editing. I currently have a Samsung Syncmaster 2333sw but I would like to buy a better quality monitor for photo editing and I’ll set it up alongside my 2333sw. My budget is £500 but the lower the price the better although I realize quality does not come cheap.

Thanks


----------



## thewaywewalk (Jul 21, 2013)

Go for the Dell Ultrasharp Uxxxx Series, hard to find more value for money in your price range. There is also the ASUS PA248QJ which comes from the same factory but offers some different features. (I'm not sure with factory anymore, but I own the predecessor which is identical with the Dell UltraSharp U2410).

The IQ is outstanding for the price of 250€ (for the 24") and the ergonomics leaves nothing to be desired.


----------



## DFM (Jul 21, 2013)

It really depends on how serious you are about color rendition, and what other hardware you have.

A pro shop will usually have a wide gamut display (that can render the complete AdobeRGB spectrum) - but they don't come cheap. Typical prices £1000-1500, the brand leaders are LaCie, NEC's SpectraView and Eizo's ColorEdge. There are three important caveats with a WGD:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Non-color-managed software will look terrible as it can't cope with a non-sRGB ICC lookup table. Even with a calibrated system, a non-managed area of the screen (e.g. a Word document) can be drastically over-saturated and tinted. This means a WGD isn't the best choice for a general-purpose workstation.
[*]Only a few applications can support the color spaces required to feed 'true' information to 10-bit AdobeRGB displays. There's no point in buying a 10-bit monitor if only 8 bits emerge from your graphics card.
[*]The extra coverage of a WGD is in the region _outside_ of sRGB. You can pick up a conventional monitor that covers 98-99% of sRGB and calibrate it, if you then open an sRGB photo and compare it to a WDG it'll be identical. The extra coverage out to AdobeRGB really comes into play when you're working on materials destined for print or illustrations where you have blocks of 'pure' color - if you're making photos for the Web you'll be confining yourself into sRGB anyway.
[/list]

If you're OK with an sRGB color gamut but want what _is_ displayed to be accurate, then you can get pretty much any general-purpose display and a standalone colorimeter (ColorMunki, Spyder, etc). Bear in mind that with a Windows platform, unless you have two graphics cards you can't calibrate the monitors in a dual-screen desktop separately, so only one of them will ever be "right". Most of the time people don't care as they'll put the image on the calibrated display and the software UIs on the other one. Also, some of the monitors with a built-in sensor (e.g. Eizo's CS230) only work as stabilizers - you still need a standalone colorimeter to create the initial calibration. If you don't have a colorimeter, allocate £120 of your budget to that - an uncalibrated monitor is no use whatsoever in photography, but even a cheap generic display will be acceptably-accurate once you've hung a Spyder in front of it. The decision is then down to size and personal preference (do you like glossy or matte, etc).


----------



## cocopop05 (Jul 21, 2013)

HP DreamColor 24" display offers best in class performance at much lower pricing than competitor displays. Search Google for reviews of the HP LP2840zx and see for yourself. I have one, but make sure you get a calibration kit to ensure the colours are accurate.


----------



## rs (Jul 21, 2013)

The most important aspect of using a monitor for photo editing is accuracy. Which means that no matter what you buy, if you want to know its a good reference point, you'll have to calibrate it. And you'll also need a monitor which provides consistency when you view it off angle, otherwise that calibration means nothing.

Set aside some of your budget for a calibration kit, such as this one for £90.

When calibrated and viewed in the best light (no direct light on the screen, ideally controlled colour temperature and brightness in the room), you'll be able to get an accurate idea about black and white points, as well as colour.

However, if you use a monitor such as your existing Samsung, the moment you move your head, the colours and brightness shifts. That is because it is has a TN panel, and like all TN panels it has narrow viewing angles. Stand up and everything will look brighter (in extreme cases, bright whites turn to mid grey), lower your seat and blacks will turn to mid grey. And move left or right and the colours shift. So it doesn't matter how much you calibrate a display like that, you'll never know if what you're seeing from whatever angle you're at is correct. While there are good and bad TN displays, even the very best fall a long way short of the accuracy photo editing demands.

Buying a monitor using display technology such as IPS is a good way of almost completely eliminating this effect. Backlight technology isn't too important, although many white LED backlights can have a cold blue tint, and not much in the way of red or green gamut. RGB LED backlights are very expensive but can give a very wide gamut, so old fashioned and much cheaper CCFL backlights might be your best bet, if you can find any around. Laptop displays tend to be worse off-angle than desktop displays due to the backlight diffuser concentrating the light straight on to improve battery life, while desktop displays tend to use a more powerful light and spread it wider.

Budget lines of IPS monitors tend to be the Dell Ultrasharp range, HP make some too, and various cheap brands which use the rejected IPS panels from the big manufacturers, such as Hazro. At the price point you're looking at, wide gamut isn't really an option.

TFT central is a great review site. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

Something like this 27" IPS screen from Dell just about scrapes into your price range even when you add the cost of calibration kit. But there do seem to be bad user reviews about backlight bleed.

Your best bet is to read the reviews on TFT central and other sites to work out what compromise you personally want to reach on size/quality/price.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2013)

Consider adding a vey good 24" 1920x1200 rather than splurging on a "great" 27" monitor.

If you use Photoshop regularly, you simply cannot beat the experience and efficiency of having your PS interface (tools, layer stacks, etc) on one monitor while being able to work directly on the full image on the other monitor.

On the other hand, Lightroom has no useful dual-screen support as yet, so if that is your primary editing software, you won't get the same productivity boost.

If you still like to use e-texts or videos for tutorials as you learn more and more about photo-editing, it is wonderful to have the text or vids on one screen while you work on the other.

I tried the Asus Pb278q and did not like the problems it has with color/lighting uniformity, plus a subtle blue glow in the blacks. Also it had pretty bad issues with contrast shifting when I moved my head just a little, suggesting the IPS tech wasn't implemented well. Could have been just my bad luck with this monitor, obviously, as others love it, but I think 27" is still a challenge for the manufacturers to do well for a reasonable price.

I'm very happy with two Dell U2412M monitors, and I don't use a dual-monitor stand because I have a big enough desk and I like the flexibility of independent, full movement.

The two 24" monitors allow me to use half of one for holding the PS interface and the other half of the same one for a web browser, e-text, or video--easily.

Thoughts regarding wide-gamut (and the extra $$ to get it): How many people who look at your work will ever see the difference? And just think of how many people, sad to say, will be using a smart-phone to view images you've spent hours on. As for printing, just imagine how difficult it is to consistently match even a home printer to the exact, subtle colors that might be detectable, and then think about how much harder to get even one print shop, not to mention several, to reproduce those images exactly as you have them on your magic monitor. 

Another thing, before you think of blowing a big wad on some kind of super "pro" monitor, consider you can get a new Dell PLUS a big Wacom tablet for around the same money, I think within the budget you mention. But you might already have the tablet?

Good luck!


----------



## lol (Jul 21, 2013)

There is a middle ground between cheap sRGB and the top end ultra wide gamut monitors like DFM described. Way back in 2009 I bought and today still use a HP LP2475W because it was a wide gamut monitor. I can't remember the specs exactly, but it easily covered sRGB and most of ARGB too. Price at the time was around £400, which even then was above the mass market models but I wanted the colour range. It did require a fair bit of tuning to get it just right. Out of the box it was incredibly bright. Whoever decided on those defaults must have been using it backlit by direct sunlight at the time. With tweaks including running it though a Spyder 3, it still gives me a good colour and dynamic range.

Since I'm still happily using that monitor I've not looked to see what's similarly available today, but I'd be amazed if there weren't similar models now.


----------



## RGF (Jul 21, 2013)

NEC Spectraview is among the best. Not sure the pruice on the other side of the pond


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 21, 2013)

Thank you all very much for your replies! 
I have been doing some research and TFT central was very useful. There are some possibilities:
Asus PA248QJ or Asus PA248Q (Not sure what the difference between the two are)
Dell UltraSharp U2412M (The cheaper option)
Dell UltraSharp U2413 (The more expensive option)

I am now leaning towards the Dell UltraSharp U2413 but what worries me is what I read on TFT Central about calibrating the monitor: “you can ONLY use the X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter. Other devices are NOT compatible at all”. This would cost me another £160 http://www.amazon.co.uk/i1-Display-Pro-PC-Mac/dp/B0055MBQOW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374425461&sr=8-2&keywords=xrite

Do I need to calibrate my monitor straight away as Dell say they calibrate the monitor for you? Or is it something I should get later on?


----------



## m (Jul 21, 2013)

lol said:


> HP LP2475W



That looks pretty much like what I've been searching for for a while.
thanks



DFM said:


> If you're OK with an sRGB color gamut but want what _is_ displayed to be accurate, then you can get pretty much any general-purpose display and a standalone colorimeter (ColorMunki, Spyder, etc).



The prices vary a lot, from 70 to 400 bucks.
I wonder if the better models jsut add functionality (calibrating printers, etc...) or if there's something the basic models are missing.


----------



## rs (Jul 21, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you all very much for your replies!
> I have been doing some research and TFT central was very useful. There are some possibilities:
> Asus PA248QJ or Asus PA248Q (Not sure what the difference between the two are)
> Dell UltraSharp U2412M (The cheaper option)
> ...


It looks like that is the only option if you want to make use of this new-to-Dell feature of hardware calibration. If you're happy with the inferior (and normal for Dell monitors) software calibration, you're not locked down.

If you do opt for such a wide gamut display, no matter how accurate it comes out of the factory, I'd strongly recommend calibrating - otherwise windows (I presume that's what you're using?) will display normal sRGB content using all the vividness of the display - the exact opposite of accuracy. Also bear in mind your graphics card/OS might skew the results too, and monitors do drift, requiring recalibration from time to time. 

I guess DFM should be able to give you more clarity on this matter.


----------



## Rofflesaurrr (Jul 22, 2013)

The NEC EA232WMI is a very nice sRGB IPS monitor. I used a EA231WMI which is the older CCFL backlit version and was very pleased with its performance. I also had a PA241W which was a wide gamut display. If most of your publishing is going to be for the web, then wide color gamut is more of a hassle IMO.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 22, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you all very much for your replies!
> I have been doing some research and TFT central was very useful. There are some possibilities:
> Asus PA248QJ or Asus PA248Q (Not sure what the difference between the two are)
> Dell UltraSharp U2412M (The cheaper option)
> Dell UltraSharp U2413 (The more expensive option)



I recently purchased the Dell U2412M and a Spyder4 and I'm pretty happy with the result (but then again I haven't calibrated my monitors before).


----------



## cocopop05 (Jul 22, 2013)

Made a typo, I meant HP Dreamcolor LP2480zx. Don't tale my word for it, check reviews listed on Google.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

Well at the moment it is looking like it will be a Dell, but still not sure if it will be the Dell UltraSharp U2412M, Dell UltraSharp U2413 or another Dell. Along with something like the X-rite i1 Display Pro.


----------



## pwp (Jul 22, 2013)

As a value for money proposition, the Dell U-Series panels are hard to ignore. Absolutely stay away from the Dell cheapies...they may be OK for office use but will disappoint for photo editing work. We're almost a Dell U-Series case study here. In our studio we have three Dell 24 inch, one Dell 27 inch and one Dell 30 inch. They're all good as gold, calibrate nicely and tend not to "drift" even over long periods. 

-PW


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

pwp said:


> As a value for money proposition, the Dell U-Series panels are hard to ignore. Absolutely stay away from the Dell cheapies...they may be OK for office use but will disappoint for photo editing work. We're almost a Dell U-Series case study here. In our studio we have three Dell 24 inch, one Dell 27 inch and one Dell 30 inch. They're all good as gold, calibrate nicely and tend not to "drift" even over long periods.
> 
> -PW



So out of the two I should go for the U2413 over the U2412M? If the calibration does not “drift” over long periods I may get the monitor first and then buy the X-rite i1 Display Pro like a month after. Where is the best place you would recommend to buy the U2413 from?

Thanks


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 22, 2013)

I use HP zr2440w monitors. Works great for me. I also agree that the best is the hp dreamcolor, I just can't afford that one.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

DFM said:


> Bear in mind that with a Windows platform, unless you have two graphics cards you can't calibrate the monitors in a dual-screen desktop separately.



This is misinformation. I can calibrate two monitors separately with my spyder 3 elite and it applies two different ICC profiles to each monitor at startup. One is a Mac monitor, and the other is a dell Ultrahsharp and they produce the exact same colors.


----------



## rs (Jul 22, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Where is the best place you would recommend to buy the U2413 from?
> 
> Thanks


Buying from Dell direct is always a good option, however PC Buy It seem to always have great prices. I bought my monitor from them, and have no complaints. 

http://www.pcbuyit.co.uk/dell-ultrasharp-u2413-widescreen-premiercolor-monitor-black-p-2175.html


----------



## DFM (Jul 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> DFM said:
> 
> 
> > Bear in mind that with a Windows platform, unless you have two graphics cards you can't calibrate the monitors in a dual-screen desktop separately.
> ...



See http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1513&Action=support&SupportID=3507

As it says, you need two physically-separate GPUs in order for Windows to see the displays as different hardware devices and allow individual choices for the ICC profile (e.g. two individual cards or a 2-head Quadro). You also have to use Extended Desktop mode (Cloned Desktop only uses the ICC profile from the primary screen).


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jul 22, 2013)

DFM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > DFM said:
> ...


This falls under the "it depends" category. It depends on your version of Windows and it depends on your display hardware.

If you're running Windows XP, you probably will have to go the dual card route. Vista/7/8 have increasing support. Odds are if you're running 7 or 8, you can do different color profiles for monitors with a single video card. Don't know if that's true for Intel embedded graphics, though.

Anyone who has bought a laptop in the past few years with a discrete video card and an Intel chip is probably using two video cards when using dual monitors (Dell L702x, for instance) anyway, so it's a non-issue.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

DFM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > DFM said:
> ...



You are sadly mistaken my friend. Two ICC profiles for each monitor on my single graphics card. I could put as many monitor's with different ICC profiles as long as my card has ports.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 22, 2013)

I had a dell 2412 ...was good enough...
un-cal-ed

got a dell new 30"
lovely pretty close un-cal-ed


I HEAR the new 2413 stuff is good

stretch for the 30" if you can

really nice to have some space


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> I had a dell 2412 ...was good enough...
> un-cal-ed
> 
> got a dell new 30"
> ...



So what is the price difference between the 24" -27" and 30"?
This new monitor will sit alongside my current 23" Samsung monitor on what is a decent size desk but going any bigger than 24" might not be a good idea for me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

Maybe you can manage to get a NEC PA24 for that? Wide gamut and a 14bit internal 3D LUT (replicates sRGB gamuts even better than almost all sRGB monitors, all internally, so it works with everything that needs to go back to sRGB too, even (mostly) non-color managed stuff like movies, tv, games, desktop).


----------



## JonB8305 (Jul 22, 2013)

Is the Apple Cinema Display a good photo editing monitor?


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

I think I will go with the U2413, I feel any bigger than 24” in my room will be too big. I will then buy the i1 Display Pro at a later date. 
Also with the 27” I am reading that there is an issue with light bleeding. But then again with the U2413 I am reading a problem with ghosting, but I think this might happen when playing games so I guess it’s not a problem for me. 

I have two choices (See links below):
Buy from Dell for £417 and if anything goes wrong I can deal with it directly through them.
OR
By it from Amazon for £395 (I take it it’s the exact same monitor just cheaper than going through Dell’s own website). 

What would you do?


accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&sku=754744

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-UltraSharp-U2413-PremierColor-Monitor/dp/B00B0VQYBM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374568814&sr=8-1&keywords=Dell+UltraSharp+U2413


----------



## LesC (Jul 23, 2013)

I've been looking to replace an ageing Dell 2007FP 20" non-widescreen monitor with at first one, but eventually two 24" monitors. Have been happy with the 2007FP so see no reason not to go for a Dell again. The only thing that annoys me a little is the anti-glare coating on mine which i beleive is fairly aggressive.

The Reviews on TFT Central suggest that the AG coating on the U2413 is a much nicer lighter coating as seems to be the trend with new panels but I'm not sure I need (or want) a wide gamut monitor. The U2412 would probably meet my needs nicely but the harder AG coating kind of puts me off, not being able to see the model 'in the flesh' so I don't know how it compares to my exisitng one in that respect.

TFT Central and othere have picked up that there may be some new screens from Dell shortly: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/29.htm#dell_u_series They also have a review of the Asus PA248QJ due soon that might be interesting...

For the sake of a few pounds, I'd buy direct from Dell.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 23, 2013)

So what is the price difference between the 24" -27" and 30"?
This new monitor will sit alongside my current 23" Samsung monitor on what is a decent size desk but going any bigger than 24" might not be a good idea for me.
[/quote]


yes yes
there is some logic to staying at/near 24"...with two mons
keep that thought...

a very large ......and a medium mon dont mix well in the dual mon setup

I believe the NEW dell 30" was about $1100, the 27 dell at that time was $750-800 I think...
and whatever the newest 24" is ...it is way cheaper / even with IPS and better qual/features...

having 2 mons.... seems logical to have two (about) the same size..
I left that place and just went for one large one..
gave my girlfriend the old 24"
and I missed it after 5 mins....it was a great bit of hardware...lasting thru 3 CPUs

maybe the newest / (researched) ...best.... 24" dell is ...an inexpensive and good option..
I gave up calibrating mons because I never print and just shoot to see what I have... just for my eyes

but if 'cal' is in the cards ...then that is also a cost...maybe on the 24" for sure
I am not a reference here...

except that DELL was always a very good value... and still seems to be ... 24-30"

just my thought

//////

spend the little leftover $$ or pounds (if any) on a samsung 840 pro ($250) ....256Gig ssd...ha!
they RIP...

good luck on choices

TOM


----------



## Goshdern (Jul 23, 2013)

I use the HP zr30w 30" IPS calibrated using spyder and a 2nd 22" generic in portrait orientation. The reason. For lightroom you can keep your 2nd monitor in grid mode and size the previews till you get two wide, the results are large thumbnails that make finding images very easy! In CS6 you toss all the toolbars like layers pallet, actions panel, history etc on the portrait monitor. I lost my 2nd monitor a couple months ago and I plan to buy a new one ASAP as I'm going crazy with EVERTHING on one monitor again!

Now this isn't cheap, but if you spend the extra money you'll be happy with the extra real estate on your main monitor IMHO.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

LesC - Thanks for pointing that out to me, that there might be some new Dell monitors. Although, from what I read on TFT central it looks like the new 24" monitors will be 16:9 not the 16:10 like the U2413 which I prefer. Also I'm sure they will be more expensive too. The U2413 is a fairly new monitor so it still has modern tech inside. The Asus PA248QJ looks good but I keep getting drawn back to the Dell U2413.

Tom - Thanks for that, I think based on what you have said, the better of the two 24" is definitely the best option for me.

Goshdern - Again, this is why I think I am better off investing in the better of the two 24" monitors.


----------



## JonB8305 (Jul 24, 2013)

Dell just announced a wide gamut 32" 
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/dell-ultrasharp-32/#continued


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> Dell just announced a wide gamut 32"
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/dell-ultrasharp-32/#continued



Interesting, I guess it’s just a waiting game now to see what Dell announce. I still think that these new monitors are going to cost a lot more than the £400 for the U2413.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

My concern is still the fact that if I want to calibrate the U2413 I will need to spend another £160 on the i1 Display Pro. On Amazon you can get the Asus PA248QJ with a Spyder4EXPRESS calibrator and monitor hood for £374.95. 

The main difference I see between these two monitors is the number of display colours: 16.7 million on the Asus and 1.07 billion on Dell, I guess that is why the Asus is cheaper. Is this difference really noticeable?


----------



## m (Jul 24, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I will need to spend another £160 on the i1 Display Pro.



The colormunki is half the price.
I wonder if it get's the job done equally well when it comes to calibrating a monitor?


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

m said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I will need to spend another £160 on the i1 Display Pro.
> ...



I'm sure it will do the job when it comes to calibrating a monitor, it's just annoying Dell have said you can ONLY use the i1 with the U2413.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm considering the ASUS PA248Q. I read a review of the 10bit wide gamut PA249Q, here:
http://www.extrahardware.com/asus-pa249q-24-combination-led-wide-gamut-semi-gloss-ips/strana/0/3

To me, it looks like I can probably do without a wide gamut display for now, since an "affordable" one like the PA249Q, lacks any way of adjusting backlight uniformity. In the above review, the backlight uniformity of the particular samples they tested, is far better on the 248, than the 249. 

I would rather not spend much money at this time anyway. It seems to me the time to blow more money, would be a couple of years in the future, when similar-sized OLED displays come down below $1500...because surely they will have extreme panel uniformity and an even wider color gamut...since they are not backlit.

Am I on the right track, or not? I know there are generic brands of these IPS panels available for lower cost than the Asus, Dell, etc...supposedly the Asus uses an LG panel...and the generic Korean brands use the same panels that didn't make the cut. So I guess those would probably have terrible uniformity, or even worse problems?


----------



## Gina (Nov 25, 2013)

Hello JPlendPhoto

I came across your post whilst researching for a new monitor to buy myself. I was wondering which Dell you went for in the end and whether you are happy with it?? Thanks


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 25, 2013)

Dell U3014 is now $849.99 new in the box from Amazon and NewEgg... don't know for how long.

Pretty darn good price.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 25, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Dell U3014 is now $849.99 new in the box from Amazon and NewEgg... don't know for how long.
> 
> Pretty darn good price.



Could.... not... resist... Second monitor.... ahhh! I bought another 3014.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 25, 2013)

I wound up buying the Asus and am happy with it.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 3, 2013)

Dell just released their 4k monitors today. They're coming out with a 28" model for under $1000 in early 2014

24" for 1400
32" for 3500


99% adobe RGB

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp-4k-monitors/


----------



## notapro (Dec 3, 2013)

Four other monitors to consider in early December 2013:

30-inch--NEC PA302W BK SV $2639.95

27-inch--NEC PA272W BK SV $1544.50

27-inch--EIZO Color Edge CG276 $2564.00

27-inch--ASUS PA279Q $849.00

Paramount in these monitors is color fidelity.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Dec 3, 2013)

for those who need a decent monitor for post. dell has a deal on ultrasharp ips u2413 for $379.99 (code: $PWG5126T786W?). better quick or it will expire. much better specs than those i got before bf, u2312hm for $161...

link: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-9567&cs=04

note: bhphotovideo sales it for $462.99 with shipping fee...


----------



## TLau74 (Dec 3, 2013)

Does anyone have any experience with the LG27EA83 model and the -R model. I think LG also supplies the monitor calibrator (in Korea).

Non-R Model: http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-27EA83
Screen size (inches): 27
Panel Type (TN, IPS): IPS
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Resolution: 2560 x 1440
Brightness (cd/m2): 350
Contrast Ratio: *5000000:1*
Response Time (ms): 6
Viewing Angle (°): 178 / 178
Colour Depth (Num of Colours): *8bit+FRC 1.07B colors*
Pixel Pitch (mm): 0.2331 x 0.2331
Colour Gamut: *ADOBE RGB 98%*
Surface Treatment: Hard Coating(3H), Anti-glare

-R Model: http://www.lg.com/au/it-monitors/lg-27EA83R
Size: 27" (69cm)
Panel Type: AH-IPS
Colour Gamut: sRGB 100%
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Resolution: 2560 x 1440
Brightness: 350 cd/m2
Colour Depth (Number of Colours): 8bit, 16.7M (True)
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1 (Normal)
Response Time: 5ms (G to G)
Viewing Angle: 178/178 (CR≥10)
Surface Treatment: Hard coating(3H), Anti-glare


----------



## ishdakuteb (Dec 3, 2013)

TLau74 said:


> Does anyone have any experience with the LG27EA83 model and the -R model. I think LG also supplies the monitor calibrator (in Korea).
> 
> Non-R Model: http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-27EA83
> Screen size (inches): 27
> ...



if you pay attention closely, this is one of the monitor that i like. however, it is the D model, not the R model though. i have seen the D model outside at microcenter and love it. one thing is that it is so expensive. that is the main reason why i am skippin' it. as if you are making money out of photography, then you probably want to buy this monitor.

one time i have seen that it drop down close to $600, but just one time...


----------



## TLau74 (Dec 4, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> TLau74 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any experience with the LG27EA83 model and the -R model. I think LG also supplies the monitor calibrator (in Korea).
> ...




In Korea, a lot of shopping is done online. I found the link (Korean web site) to the "LG 27EA83" version which is different than the one I originally listed.

http://www.11st.co.kr/product/SellerProductDetail.tmall?method=getSellerProductDetail&xfrom=search^prd&prdNo=635451649&trTypeCd=20&trCtgrNo=585021&lCtgrNo=128635&mCtgrNo=332328

How many versions are out there? It seems more like the the '-D' version you are referring to. It has 10bit color depth and 99% Adobe RGB. I think in Korea there is no distinction between the LG 27EA83 and the LG 27EA83D. It cost around 1 Million Korean Won (KRW) or ~$950USD. If you are able to find it for $600, that's a steal!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> Dell just released their 4k monitors today. They're coming out with a 28" model for under $1000 in early 2014
> 
> 24" for 1400
> 32" for 3500
> ...



Sounds promising, but 27 inches is too small for me for 2650 resolution, let alone 3 or 4000. Even 32 inches wouldn't be large enough for 4k, for me. Maybe this will push the prices on the 2650 30 and 32 inch monitors lower.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

*What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

Until now I've laid of getting a better monitor for buying actual camera gear, but I've reached the point of annoyance with my cheap laptop screen (no icc profile, very limited color space) where I fear a purchase is inevitable. When processing slight color nuances of the autumn I'm not able to get satisfactory results, the wb (blue/orange) or tint (cyan/magenta) is always somewhat off w/o a proper color workflow.

I admit I didn't put much research into because the choices seem too confusing to me: _What monitor type should I get for a working camera-screen icc workflow?_

It would be great to hear some experiences or be pointed to some reviews - it must not be the pro lcd from your dreams which is outside my budget, I'd like to learn about the ~17"-19" "cheapest working solution". Thanks!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

sorry can´t help for cheap solutions... they never work for me.

think about what you spend for you camera gear.. so why buying a cheap monitor? 
a good monitor is a very important device for a good workflow.

dell are consumer monitors with some flaws.
but overall good when your expectations are not that high.
many photographers are happy with them (i am not).

i will buy a NEC PA272W or the EIZO CX271 when it comes out early next year.
around 1000-1200 euro.... ok that´s not cheap.
but compared to what most pay for a camera body(s) it´s not expensive either.

it makes no sense to look at images you made with your expensive camera on a crappy (and small) monitor (iyam).


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



Lichtgestalt said:


> sorry can´t help for cheap solutions... they never work for me.



Doh - currently my budget allocated to gear is nearly maxed out. My thinking is that it can only get better in comparison to my current non-solution.



Lichtgestalt said:


> it makes no sense to look at images you made with your expensive camera on a crappy (and small) monitor



True, but that wouldn't matter so much as other people look at it either in print or their monitors ... plus I can buy an expensive monitor later, but I cannot upgrade my former pictures so buying lenses/cameras first seems like a smarter choice. Last not least for many shots fine color nuances don't really matter, it's only recently that I ran into these problems.

It would be also helpful to know what's the decisive difference of €1000+ monitors in contrast to (much) cheaper models so I can try to decide for myself if it's currently "worth it" to me.


----------



## bitm2007 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

Check out this thread from elsewhere on the forum

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15988.0

Reply two should be of particular interest to you.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

Dell Ultrasharp U2413 is in the $500 range and has a 99% color gamut. Other Ultrasharp monitors aren't quite as good at 82%. I have two U2410 -- older model -- and am quite happy with them. They definitely need color calibration to fix the default blue-green cast, though.

I use a Spyder 4 Elite on mine, but from what I've read X-Rite and Datacolor both do a good job.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

Very happy with this: http://www.frys.com/product/7570806?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

It's IPS and has Anti-Glare, 3H screen , $400ish US

My 2cents: 17-19" is little small for PP. Compared to 17-19", working with 27" to 30" is kinda like jumping from 60D to 6D


----------



## trof2 (Dec 4, 2013)

If you mostly deal with web-published photography, what good is a super accurate monitor? I feel that in reality, it does more harm than good.
My monitor is calibrated and the display matches the print output, but when I publish to the web and open the photos up on other computers (random monitors), the photos generally look like crap.
Theoretically, should we not edit photos for the web with an average baseline of a consumer display?

I'm rather fond of the current Apple displays, although I'm entirely PC based. There is enough critical mass behind them to warrant them being used as a benchmark. A very large (if not most) of the creative and editorial community seems to use them, so it seems like a good place to start.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Dec 4, 2013)

I've been happy with a 30" NEC MultiSync LCD3090WQXi and recently have picked up a 27" NEC Multisync PA271W.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



bitm2007 said:


> Check out this thread from elsewhere on the forum



Wupps, thanks, I didn't find that one when I searched - thanks. I'll continue to post there not to duplicate things.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15988.0


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



Marsu42 said:


> From reading this thread my understanding is that remarkably cheap displays like the 24" Dell U2412M will have low-gamut (sRGB), but will display accurate colors *if* I also buy a calibration hardware that is more than half the price of the monitor :-o ?
> 
> Second question: If working with an sRGB monitor, how big is the real world danger of getting screwed up prints when exporting to a wider gamut color space like Adobe RGB - meaning a more expensive model like the Dell U2413 would be a good idea?



I have three Dell U2412s, and knew about their gamut limitations before buying (I bought one first, then purchased two more later). But I also have a ColorMunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration, and it is well worth the cost. (You might even consider buying a monitor calibration tool first, and see how much it improves your current display.)

I'm not a color scientist, but have done a lot of reading in the process of working out my own color management system. I print professionally (read: for pay) to both inkjet and laser color printers, and have achieved excellent color consistency from capture through editing to print. Here's a good place to start: (a) calibrate your monitor (and, if your calibration tool provides the ability, your printer, as well); (b) turn off the color management in your applications (since your calibration tool has already accomplished this, you don't want two or more systems "fighting" to maintain color accuracy); and (c) use the same color space throughout your workflow. In other words, if you're going to print in sRGB, use the sRBG settings on your camera and on your monitor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

DFM said:


> If you're OK with an sRGB color gamut but want what _is_ displayed to be accurate, then you can get pretty much any general-purpose display and a standalone colorimeter (ColorMunki, Spyder, etc).


I rececently opened a similar thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18426) because I didn't see this one - sorry everyone. My interest is about the same as above, and it seems the Dell U2412M is about right for me...

... what I don't quite understand even after searching through the board and reading the good review at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/colormunki_display.html ... What are the real world differences between the calibration solutions if I "just" want accurate sRGB colors? The choices seem to be:


3 Versions of the Spyder4: Express €85, Pro, €125, Elite €170
3 Versions of X-Rite: ColorMunki Smile €80, ColorMunki Display €120, i1 Pro €175

Also any experiences with the different features would be appreciated, esp. if you find the ColorMunki "Display" is "worth it" over the basic "Smile" version, the differences are ambient light correction, setting white point, specifying a custom gamma and disabling ADC. Thanks!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



JonAustin said:


> You might even consider buying a monitor calibration tool first, and see how much it improves your current display.



Thanks, actually that's what I'll do, question is which one - see here, I'd appreciate your input: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15988.msg343148#msg343148


----------



## cayenne (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

I have the old Del u2711....has been a GREAT monitor so far.
I'm thinking I soon will need to buy a calibration tool too....just to keep it looking good!!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



GmwDarkroom said:


> Dell Ultrasharp U2413 is in the $500 range and has a 99% color gamut. Other Ultrasharp monitors aren't quite as good at 82%. I have two U2410 -- older model -- and am quite happy with them. They definitely need color calibration to fix the default blue-green cast, though.
> 
> I use a Spyder 4 Elite on mine, but from what I've read X-Rite and Datacolor both do a good job.



Yea, I got the U2413 and it's a very nice monitor, and it's 16:10! You'll definitely need to get a quality calibration tool in order to profile your monitor, regardless of how well whoever you buy it from says it's already calibrated. Every one is slightly different based on where it's located, the light that's falling on it, your video card, etc. If you buy one of the more expensive calibration tools, you can also do a printer calibration and create custom paper+printer profiles which will let you match even better for prints.


----------



## daltech (Dec 4, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*

Actually, I use a Fluid 26" HD TV and use the VGA port, that is a VERY cheap solution, not suggesting you get this, BUT, I purchased a Spyder4Pro this week, a monitor calibration tool, and boy ho boy, it does a very good job of creating an icc profile, the colours look great.

I'm please with the results.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 5, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



Marsu42 said:


> Thanks, actually that's what I'll do, question is which one - see here, I'd appreciate your input: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15988.msg343148#msg343148



I replied to your question in the linked thread.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... what I don't quite understand even after searching through the board and reading the good review at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/colormunki_display.html ... What are the real world differences between the calibration solutions if I "just" want accurate sRGB colors? The choices seem to be:
> 
> 
> 3 Versions of the Spyder4: Express €85, Pro, €125, Elite €170
> ...



Only you can determine what the best solution is for you; it depends on your budget, your monitor, your graphics subsystem (i.e., built-in graphics chip in a laptop or on a budget / highly integrated motherboard or your graphics / video card), your computer system, the variability of the ambient light in your work area and your personal needs & priorities.

I purchased my ColorMunki three years ago, and use it to profile six displays on four systems. (You ought to recheck your monitor(s) at least once a month). I also profile two printers with it. I've been very pleased with its performance, although can be a little difficult to move its dial between the (internal) calibration and profile positions.

I upgraded to the ColorMunki from a Pantone huey, which was my first profiling tool, when I wanted to build custom profiles for certain printer / paper combinations. The ColorMunki is on the more expensive end of the price range for these tools, but I've found in general that, when I'm satisfied with the performance of a tool, I rarely look back at the price I paid for it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 5, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



Marsu42 said:


> Until now I've laid of getting a better monitor for buying actual camera gear, but I've reached the point of annoyance with my cheap laptop screen (no icc profile, very limited color space) where I fear a purchase is inevitable. When processing slight color nuances of the autumn I'm not able to get satisfactory results, the wb (blue/orange) or tint (cyan/magenta) is always somewhat off w/o a proper color workflow.
> 
> I admit I didn't put much research into because the choices seem too confusing to me: _What monitor type should I get for a working camera-screen icc workflow?_
> 
> It would be great to hear some experiences or be pointed to some reviews - it must not be the pro lcd from your dreams which is outside my budget, I'd like to learn about the ~17"-19" "cheapest working solution". Thanks!


I assume you have a monitor calibration device? If not, I'd get one.

I'm not sure that there are any quality monitors in the 17-19 inch range, most buyers are buying large.
Here are monitors with IPS screens and 1920 X 1280 resolution in the $100-200 range. They are sorted by user ratings. Read the reviews. Many have free shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600012673%204017%20600107132&IsNodeId=1&name=IPS&Order=RATING&Pagesize=20


----------



## ishdakuteb (Dec 6, 2013)

*Re: What LCD monitor for ~accurate color picture processing?*



Marsu42 said:


> It would be great to hear some experiences or be pointed to some reviews - it must not be the pro lcd from your dreams which is outside my budget, I'd like to learn about the ~17"-19" "cheapest working solution". Thanks!



for the cheapest small lcd offering decent color of image would be, IMO, NEC Multisync 90GX2 19". i am not sure if you can buy it online since it has been discontinued for a while... best luck in finding...

note: this monitor was priced at around $500 when first being introduced.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 7, 2013)

http://www.amazon.com/PA248Q-24-Inch-LED-Lit-Professional-Graphics/dp/B008DWH00K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1386406908&sr=8-3&keywords=asus+248+16%3A10


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 9, 2013)

Hello everyone. Sorry I have not been on here for a while, I am still looking at the Dell UltraSharp U2413 but I am now having second thoughts: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,18482.0.html


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Hello everyone. Sorry I have not been on here for a while, I am still looking at the Dell UltraSharp U2413 but I am now having second thoughts: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,18482.0.html



Again, the Asus has the same IPS panel, with very likely a better matte finish to its screen than the Dell, and it costs just over half with the Dell costs. It's also pre-calibrated, for what that's worth. I had to calibrate my own by eye...

The 10 bit monitors really aren't that much better than the 8-bit, and none of the 10 bit can display the darkest blacks, at least from the reviews I read. Also their screen uniformity is terrible compared to the higher priced NEC monitors that let you customize and adjust it.

I'm waiting for OLED before I go to 10 bits or higher, because at least that technology could actually display it. Backlit technology is on the way out.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone. Sorry I have not been on here for a while, I am still looking at the Dell UltraSharp U2413
> ...



Um, what monitor are you talking about? The PA248Q from your former post is just sRGB and that's not the same panel as the Dell U2413 which seems to be the cheapest choice for a wide gamut 24" panel.

It really gets annoying when looking at 24" sRGB panels, manufacturers seem to be releasing new versions on a nearly daily basis - and I usually pride myself to be able to do some decent Internet research.

After looking at the usual review sites, for "just" a sRGB version I'd currently prefer the very well received BenQ BL2411 (http://pcmonitors.info/reviews/benq-bl2411pt) over the more expensive Asus PB248Q, with the older Dell U2412m still going strong... it's really no fun to wade through all these specs.

Edit: Yup, the BL2411 seems to be the sRGB one to get: http://www.extrahardware.com/article/benq-bl2411pt-ips-bomb-thatll-finally-destroy-flickering-dell-u2412m/strana/0/11


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Again, the Asus has the same IPS panel, with very likely a better matte finish to its screen than the Dell, and it costs just over half with the Dell costs. It's also pre-calibrated, for what that's worth. I had to calibrate my own by eye...


The Dell U2412 and the Asus PA248Q use the same panel. The Dell U2413 and the Asus PA249Q use the same panel. The latter two are more or less within 10% of each other in cost.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...



Well, mine is just fine, and again, the only difference in an 8 bit and a 10 bit is the processing, not the panel. None of these have a very high native contrast ratio, and if you saw mine I'm sure you would like it. You're not really seeing 10 bits of dynamic range with your panel...not all at once.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the Asus has the same IPS panel, with very likely a better matte finish to its screen than the Dell, and it costs just over half with the Dell costs. It's also pre-calibrated, for what that's worth. I had to calibrate my own by eye...
> ...



The 10 bit panels don't display the lowest 3 levels of black in tests, and the screen uniformity is better in tests I've seen for the 248, than the 249. And again, you can't adjust screen uniformity with any of them, only with the NEC and perhaps the $2k and up Samsung panels...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Well, mine is just fine, and again, the only difference in an 8 bit and a 10 bit is the processing, not the panel.



Not to be misunderstood: All these are fine, these are just minor in-class price, feature and gammut differences. Not that the BenQ I linked also "only" has 6bit upscaled to 8, but the reviews say the dithering is so good you'll probably never notice.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Well, mine is just fine, and again, the only difference in an 8 bit and a 10 bit is the processing, not the panel.
> ...



Point taken. Again, I'm waiting for better display technology before I spend more money. I know mine's not perfect but it's far more than good enough. My room is on the dark side, so to edit photos, and also to even use the web, I have to set it fairly dark and dull...can't even set it bright and colorful so that it "pops". If I edited photos that way, they would come out dark and dull...haha.

I really don't think my monitor is the weakest link in my chain, it's not holding me back. My brain is the weakest link! I know I won't get much argument from the rest of you on that!!


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

At the moment the Dell Ultrasharps seem to be high on the list, but if I was to go with Dell it's which one!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> At the moment the Dell Ultrasharps seem to be high on the list, but if I was to go with Dell it's which one!



I still don't see why anyone would want a 27 inch 2650 pixel width monitor. To edit photos, you need to see the pixels of the monitor clearly, so you can see the pixels of the image clearly when viewing them at 100%. Otherwise you won't be able to optimize sharpening, reduction, or image scaling. Maybe it's my eyes, but I can't see pixels any smaller than my 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor. For critical viewing I'm less than a foot from the screen, and most of the time am less than 3 feet from the screen. I can't focus on anything less than 5 or 6 inches, and that's what it would take.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > At the moment the Dell Ultrasharps seem to be high on the list, but if I was to go with Dell it's which one!
> ...



I guess so, but the number of pixels is scaled up because it is a bigger monitor, so I would have thought the size of each pixel on the 24 and 27 would be similar?


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...



They aren't...I did the math. All you have to do is find out the exact width in inches of each screen, then divide the 24 inch screen's width by 1920, and the 27 inch screen's width by 2650. I came up with something like .012 or .013 inches for the 24 inch, and .10 or .009 inches for the 27 inch. That translates to an inch or two closer than my eyes can focus, and certainly several inches closer than I'd like to edit for the less critical parts of the editing process. Certainly it could work, but it would probably give me a headache worse than I get now. Best would be a 32 inch diagonal screen that is 2650 pixels wide, at least for what I'd like. 

There is an aesthetic that says it's better to not ever see a display's pixels...but I disagree with it. Even for watching tv...at least if it's material that is truly testing the resolution of the tv. For material that doesn't test it, then it doesn't matter. That's kind of like looking at soft focused pictures on the computer. It doesn't matter if you view them at 100%...unless of course they're only barely soft and some 3 pixel radius sharpening could help rescue them a bit.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Dec 15, 2013)

Fair enough, i guess it makes sense.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 16, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Fair enough, i guess it makes sense.



I might have errored, I forget now if it's "2650" or "2560"...I think it's the latter.

In describing all of that, it's just my personal taste. I could certainly use a 27 inch monitor as described, just saying I would vastly prefer one a bit larger at that resolution.


----------

