# Let's talk about photographer-friendly monitors



## gigabellone (Feb 15, 2015)

I can't stand my monitor anymore, i need something better. The one i have now is a Samsung P2470HD: 24", 1920x1080, TN panel, fixed pedestal with no height/tilt setting. It's clearly not suited for photo retouching. I keep reading everywhere that IPS panels have better color accuracy, so i guess that would be my choice. I don't want to go below 24", and i'm considering 27" panels as well. My working distance is about half meter (1.5 ft) so i don't really know if it's a good idea to use a monitor larger than 24". Regarding the resolution, i think i could use some more screen space, so i think that monitors with a resolution of 2560x1440 would be the right choice. There is also a brand new 24" 4k monitor from Dell, but i don't really know if it's worth it. Maybe some retina display users can give some feedback regarding very high resolution monitors. There are also some cheap 29" 2560x1080 (21:9), has anyone got any experience with them?
Then there's the color space issue: someday i would like to be skilled enough to make pictures worth printing, will sRGB be enough in that case?
As you can see, i'm really confused. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't want to spend more than 500€.  
Is there some brand/model you would recommend?


----------



## KateH (Feb 15, 2015)

The 2560x1440 route is a reasonable one, and what most people seem to be going with lately. You will be limited to 27" panels at that resolution though.

I own the Dell 24" 4K monitor (UP2414Q) and have kind of mixed feelings about it.
The image quality and ergonomics are second to none and that's what's kept me using it. At ~200ppi, you get a screen image that's just unbelievably sharp & smooth and close to _print_ resolution. Color rendition is also fantastic as the panel is rated for 100% sRGB and 99% AdobeRGB and comes calibrated from the factory. Really, I cannot overstate how nice the IQ is. Only the 5K iMac is nicer, and that comes with a massive price tag. Build quality is great, with lots of aluminum and what plastic there is doesn't feel cheap. The stand (which is all aluminum) does tilt, swivel, rise/fall and rotate and has an orientation sensor that can enable desktop auto-rotation in Windows. There's even a USB 3.0 hub and an SD cardreader built in.

There are two big downsides though, one of which would be a deal-breaker for me if everything else about the display wasn't so fantastic. The first is scaling, which is just a Windows thing and has nothing to do with this particular display. Under Windows 8.1, _most_ GUI elements and text scale up nicely and look beautifully smooth, but occasionally there will be a window that's simply pixel-doubled and looks visibly blocky & blurry. This is mostly an issue with older software. Most Adobe software that photographers would be likely to use (Lightroom, Photoshop CC 2014 & Illustrator CC) scale up nicely- Lightroom in particular works great with HiDPI displays. Première CC and Audition do not scale up at all however, and the GUI elements are so tiny as to be nearly unusable. That said, I don't see the scaling as a significant problem for my uses and apparently Windows 10 will offer significantly improved support for HiDPI displays.

The second issue, and the critical one that almost made me switch to a 2560x1440 display (until I looked at a 1440P panel and realized how much I'd miss the extra resolution!) relates to how the Dell connects to the computer. The short version is, if you're using HDMI (there is no DVI) then you're limited to 30hz refresh rate (a bit choppy but not too bad for photo editing; unusable for gaming) and if you connect with DisplayPort then 60hz is possible- but there's a known firmware bug that prevents the display from reconnecting when the computer wakes from sleep. So, every single time the computer wakes I have to power cycle the monitor several times and occasionally restart the whole computer. Very frustrating!

I don't regret buying the 2414Q and the IQ and ergonomics are just so good, but I find it a bit hard to wholeheartedly recommend. 4K is just not quite ready I think. Later this year when Windows 10 arrives with better scaling, and computers and monitors with HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3 start shipping , then 4K will 100% be the way to go. Until then it's probably worth it for a photog but the experience is a bit mixed (especially with Dell's atrocious firmware problems- this is not their only monitor to have DisplayPort issues).


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 15, 2015)

Do you have a display calibration tool? Doing photo editing without one is pretty much pointless.

Why limit yourself with sRGB?

I would suspect that almost any current production monitor with an IPS panel will suit your needs when used with a calibrator.

I happen to like 16"10 over 16:9 for the extra pixels.

As far as 4k goes, there seems to be many gotchas with current tech. Seems like most (if not all) need 2 connections for the data over ~30hz. The Dell is the most promising, but also promises to be quite buggy. 

The LG cinema display is getting good reviews and HP recently announced several 4k/5k displays. Both are probably over your budget.

I have a Dell u3014 and the price on those has come down. Yes, mine acts up once in a while, but not often. I have come close to getting a second.

Given your budget, I'd just get something in a size you want with an IPS panel and LED backlighting, and use the rest for a display calibrator. It will be a huge improvement over what you have now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2015)

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Feb 16, 2015)

I agree with the remarks about a calibrator. I have an LG 27EA33 (out of production now) and an x-rite i1 pro, you can get both well within your budget and be at that comfortable point between getting good performance without getting into diminishing returns.

Jim


----------



## tpatana (Feb 16, 2015)

I have the Dell 3011. It's pretty cool, but also pricey. I think many 27" models are good point between quality/size and price. If I'd had to buy something today, I'd probably get 2x 27". Now I have the 30", and another 24" Dell for side (on portrait orientation).


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 16, 2015)

KateH said:


> The 2560x1440 route is a reasonable one, and what most people seem to be going with lately. You will be limited to 27" panels at that resolution though.
> 
> I own the Dell 24" 4K monitor (UP2414Q) and have kind of mixed feelings about it.
> The image quality and ergonomics are second to none and that's what's kept me using it. At ~200ppi, you get a screen image that's just unbelievably sharp & smooth and close to _print_ resolution. Color rendition is also fantastic as the panel is rated for 100% sRGB and 99% AdobeRGB and comes calibrated from the factory. Really, I cannot overstate how nice the IQ is. Only the 5K iMac is nicer, and that comes with a massive price tag. Build quality is great, with lots of aluminum and what plastic there is doesn't feel cheap. The stand (which is all aluminum) does tilt, swivel, rise/fall and rotate and has an orientation sensor that can enable desktop auto-rotation in Windows. There's even a USB 3.0 hub and an SD cardreader built in.
> ...



You almost talked me into buying the Dell, but the sleep mode bug is a real gamebreaker for me. Looks like it's easily fixable with a firmware upgrade, but i will not consider the monitor until Dell releases the patch.



danski0224 said:


> Do you have a display calibration tool? Doing photo editing without one is pretty much pointless.
> 
> Why limit yourself with sRGB?
> 
> ...





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.
> 
> First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.
> 
> So plan on a calibrator in any event.



I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?

I would need to get another another monitor anyway, because the one i have now lacks tilt/height settings, and i either have to sit straight and get weird colors, or hunch the back to get a correct angle of view. 
3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor. The hdmi on my motherboard supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, so going higher than that would require a dedicated video card.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Feb 17, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?
> 
> I would need to get another another monitor anyway, because the one i have now lacks tilt/height settings, and i either have to sit straight and get weird colors, or hunch the back to get a correct angle of view.
> 3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor. The hdmi on my motherboard supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, so going higher than that would require a dedicated video card.



The bucks-up self-calibrating ones will monitor (sorry) themselves, but the calibrator device only sees one part of the screen where with an external calibrator you can spot-check the entire display for uniformity. Factory-calibrated is great for when the display leaves the factory with a few minutes' run time, but I wouldn't take much from it.

The lighting in your room (which will mix with the light coming from your display) will affect your calibration, I can't tell you what is ideal but I have white walls in my office and it is lit with GE Reveal incandescent lamps which seem to work well.

The i1 display pro I have can measure screen flare as part of the calibration process, and it can monitor ambient light level (if perhaps not colour) and adjust the brightness to match.

Finally I've found HDMI troublesome for getting calibration routines to deliver good results where DVI has worked; that is only my experience though, your results may vary.

Jim


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 20, 2015)

The matter gets even more confusing. ;D
Is there a direct correlation between color bit depth and the color gamut? I see several monitors, mostly from Dell, that are true 8bit (instead of 6bit + frc) but can't display a wide color gamut. Moreover, several monitors have 8 bit + frc panels capable of displaying over 1 billion of colors, like the 10bit panels. I read that to enable a 10 bit workflow, proper hw and sw are needed, is it the same for 8bit+frc panels?


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2015)

Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0

If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.
> 
> First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper. The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors. You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.
> 
> So plan on a calibrator in any event.



This. Calibrate your monitor. 

Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 20, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0
> 
> If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.
> 
> The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.



My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".



Zv said:


> This. Calibrate your monitor.
> 
> Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??



Yes, i've put thought into this as well. Most of my pictures would be shared online, but i would like to be able to print those i care the most for. Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?


----------



## Pieces Of E (Feb 20, 2015)

Take a look at HP Dreamcolor z24x. It's an awesome monitor and is 99% Adobe RGB color space(which I shoot as my default color space). If you can afford it, they also make a 27 inch. No calibration needed, but it's there if you are a tinkerer, which I am not and don't need it.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0
> ...



You don't. You just test print until you get something that closely resembles what you want! 

But seriously - you can talk to the lab and ask them how to go about it and what settings you should use etc. they might provide you with an ICC profile for your monitor.


----------



## tolusina (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> .......Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?.........


TLR version...
Ask the service for icc profiles, if they have none to offer (or seem clueless), find another service.
- - -


As I understand it, printers are not calibrated in the sense that actual print output capabilities can be corrected, a printer can only print what it is able to.

Printers can and preferably should be profiled.
Profiling should be done for each specific printer to be used and with the specific paper and ink set to be used.
To profile, PC installed profiling software sends a print job to the printer, this print job consists of many different colored squares over a couple of pages.
The resulting printed squares are then scanned/read with a color measuring device, the Datacolor SpyderPRINT calls theirs a Spectrocolorimeter..
The printer was unable to reproduce the exact colors sent in the print job, the Spectrocolorimeter measures what colors actually did print and then generates what is essentially an error file. 
This error file is named with either an .icc or .icm file extension, it is the printer/paper/ink profile.
SpyderPRINT prints 225 or 729 different color patches on 1 to 4 sheets depending on options selected.

The better print houses provide icc files for download as do printer manufacturers and paper manufacturers.

To use, install the appropriate profile to your PC, then, in your image editor use soft proofing>print emulation, choose the relevant profile for use while editing.

The final print comes out pretty darn close to exactly as you intended and expect.

I've only done this a few times with various papers and images, I've gotten exactly what I wanted on the first try, no wasted paper or ink, no disappointment or guesswork wondering what or how to tweak.

I'd sure not expect any of this to work well without a calibrated monitor.
- - -
There's another method that I've read of but not tried that involves loading and selecting icc profiles directly to the PC's monitor color settings.
My imagination goes to overload trying to reason how a monitor can be both calibrated true and use another color profile simultaneously.
I believe it's also much faster to switch profiles in software rather than hardware for A<>B/before<>after comparisons.
Somewhere in the literature that accompanied my NEC monitor was a comment to the effect it's preferable to use the soft proofing method rather than icc profiling the monitor by I cannot recall why nor find the document right now.


----------



## tolusina (Feb 20, 2015)

Zv said:


> .....
> 
> You don't. You just test print until you get something that closely resembles what you want!
> 
> But seriously - you can talk to the lab and ask them how to go about it and what settings you should use etc. they might provide you with an ICC profile for your monitor.


Spend enough on PC hardware and software and you'll no longer go through through test printing anguish.
The sequence becomes soft proof>print>smile.
See my post above.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2015)

+1 on all of the advice so far. A cheap calibrated monitor is far better than a nice uncalibrated one, so buy a calibration tool before you worry about anything else. Room lighting is important to avoid glare and limit light. Another consideration is two monitors vs. one. I have had two monitors at my day job for over 15 years now and love them for office work and graphic design. For photos, though, I prefer one big monitor and currently have the Dell U3014 which is 30" and 2560x1600. It doesn't have any sleep/wake bugs and has really impressed me. Others prefer two smaller monitors.

Dell has really good prices on refurb models and techbargains.com is a good place to look for deals on those and other monitors.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration. IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.
> ...




You are getting lots of information piecemeal, and need to backup and look at the bigger picture.

One of the CR members, Keith Cooper has a accurate article (series of articles) on printing and monitor calibration.


Keith's website. Northlight Images covers it pretty well.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/viewing.html

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

About your question on room lighting, Keith says it better than I could.

"Some other screen viewing tips

Newer LCD monitors are much brighter. If you have them too bright, then photos may look just fine but you find your prints look too dark. Ours are set to roughly 40% of maximum.
This happens so often I've written an article: 'Why are my prints too dark'
With LCDs the basic brightness setting is the one you want, whilst with older CRT monitors, you may need to alter the contrast setting to alter overall brightness.
Reduce your room lighting and try to avoid reflections in the monitor. This is most important when editing photos to print.* If your room is too bright then you will probably have the monitor too bright, which leads to the dark print problem above.
*Set the monitor to display "millions of colours" or 24/32 bit and preferably been switched on for at least twenty minutes.
If your web browser allows you to use colour management, set this option on (if this means nothing to you, please ignore it, or look at some info on our Web Colour Management page).
A detailed explanation of what the brightness and contrast controls do."


I use rather bright room lighting, and have calibrated my monitor for it. I also increase the print brightness in Lightroom to account for it.

I also use 98 CRI fluorescent tubes to light the room. They are about as close to mid day sun color as you can get without going to extremes. The correct color of the lighting helps, but reduced lighting would be better, its just that I do not have a choice, since the room is shared.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".



4K/5K is a bit of a mess right now. As I understand it, DisplayPort 2.0 needs to be brought on-line to fully support the resolution at 60Hz and up. Last I read, there is really no movement on the 2.0 standard yet.

Current 4K/5K monitors are using 1 DisplayPort 1.2 to get 30Hz and (2) cables to get 60Hz. Some monitors flake out if the cable is cheesy.

So far, the LG Cinema 4K seems to be the one with the fewest amount of issues, based on what I have looked at so far. There is a card compatibility chart on their website, and you essentially need a workstation graphics card to drive the monitor.

The Dell 4K has a firmware issue- wake from sleep. The Dell U3014 also had firmware issues, and it got to the point that Amazon stopped selling them. I am leery of buying another new Dell monitor at the time of release.

Not sure if the Dell 5K is even available yet, and HP is coming out with one too. I would be more inclined to give HP the sale over Dell.

I doubt that any of these are under $1,000.00 USD at this point and the 5K ones may push $2k+ USD.

Some are using Seiki 4K televisions for monitors.

As far as 30" monitors go, I have one and wouldn't want to go smaller. I have no problems using it at arm's length.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> 3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.



You might consider looking on www.monoprice.com for monitor arms. They also have cables for dirt cheap, too. I've been pleased with them...


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 20, 2015)

Famateur said:


> gigabellone said:
> 
> 
> > 3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.
> ...



They are based in the US, i don't know if they ship to Italy, and, even if they do, there would also be a lot of crap involved from customs. :-\

Anyway, the Dell U2413 seems to have it all: 24", 99% AdobeRGB, 1920x1200, lots of different connectors, 4 USB3 ports, integrated card reader, price under 500€. Just to be sure i'm picking the right one, does any of you know of another monitor with similar specs?

Now, for the colorimeter: i really don't have a clue, and i need your help!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 20, 2015)

UHD/4k are not the tiniest bit overrated, if anything, they are vastly underrated

It's the difference between something starting to look a bit like a print/magazine/slide/looking out a window and something looking totally digital/artificial/blocky/no detail/computery.

Dell UP2414Q is a good choice, the price has come way down, I think it's like $750 now

It has:
UHD (at 60Hz over DisplayPort 1.2)

a pretty wide gamut (wider than CCFL wide gamut)

internal high bit LUT for: internal calibration without banding; programmable primary locations so you can dial in perfect sRGB emulation modes for when you need that; it might be 3D because it seems to provide extremely linear and uniform calibrations even when tone response or gamut are greatly altered from native

programmable screen uniformity compensation

the LED backlight is direct current driven instead of the typical cheap flickering PWM driven LED backlighting

it has the new less obtrusive anti-glare coating

it is IPS (although this does have the downside of poor contrast ratios and faded blacks compared to PVA/MVA and such; one day we will get OLED in these monitors and then be truly set as that gives wide gamut with wide viewing angles with fast response with deep blacks)

It's the best photo purchase I've made in years. (If they made a 5k 27" versions that had all of these features that would be truly amazing (they do have a 5k 27" now but it lacks a number of the above features) as that would gain a bit more impressive size and show over 14MP at once instead of just 8MP at once.)

I used to use a NEC PA241W.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> Is there a direct correlation between color bit depth and the color gamut?



absolutely none



> I read that to enable a 10 bit workflow, proper hw and sw are needed, is it the same for 8bit+frc panels?



Yes, you need a pro graphics card and only some software (maybe) supports 10bit. It doesn't matter whether it is direct 10bit panel (almost unheard of) or 8bit+2frc 10bit.

10bit doesn't give you a wider gamut, it has nothing to do with gamut size at all, it just defines how fine grained the steps are from 0 signal to max signal. 8bits give 256 steps of gray from back to white (or black to max red/green/blue) and 10bit gives 1024 steps. You can have 10bits and smaller than sRGB gamut and 6bits and larger than AdobeRGB gamut. The gamut size is one thing and the fineness of the steps between colors is another thing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 20, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> 4K/5K is a bit of a mess right now. As I understand it, DisplayPort 2.0 needs to be brought on-line to fully support the resolution at 60Hz and up. Last I read, there is really no movement on the 2.0 standard yet.
> 
> Current 4K/5K monitors are using 1 DisplayPort 1.2 to get 30Hz and (2) cables to get 60Hz. Some monitors flake out if the cable is cheesy.



You have things a bit mixed up. It is HDMI that needs 2.0 standard to drive 4k at 60Hz. DisplayPort 1.2 handles 4k at 60Hz just fine (and only requires a single cable). 5k might require more than 1 cable even for DP 1.2 or HDMI 2.0 though, not sure.

It does seem like DisplayPort 1.2 UHD/4k needs a good cable. The Accell cables seem to work out best for UHD/4k.




> The Dell 4K has a firmware issue- wake from sleep.



You can disable sleep and go to screen save instead.
Anyway, you can get out of most of the Dell bugs by something a simple as telling it to switch from DP connector to miniDP and back or DP to HDMI and back and then seems to rid all issues 99% of the time.

For me the bugs haven't been that much of a big deal and the upside is 10000000x greater IMO.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 21, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > gigabellone said:
> ...



Ah...gotcha. That's a bummer.



gigabellone said:


> Now, for the colorimeter: i really don't have a clue, and i need your help!



I've been quite pleased with the X-Rite i1 Display Pro. It's pretty easy to use, and I've been pleased with the results I get between my printer and the Dell IPS display I calibrate it with.

That reminds me...It's been a month or two since I calibrated last. Better go do that now...


----------



## brad goda (Feb 21, 2015)

so rather than photographer "friendly" monitors
you need a photographic accurate monitor… sorry not correcting you but the terminology is specific to what you need.
lots of monitors will be friendly and look great but you need accuracy for brightness contrast hue and color displayed consistently.
yes a lot of the recommendations are good…!!! yes you will need controlled environment.. interior lighting and treatment..
good color calibration is mandatory!!! 
but basing all of this IS what you are looking at so know your color numbers in photoshop.
the monitor you are looking for should display a wide gamut of color usually indicated as % adobe rgb range / accuracy.
a good monitor will display more than 100% of adobe rgb range and try not to buy one below 90% if its going to be your critical master monitor.
Yes resolution is also critical but most displays that are in the graphic use range will be more than great in resolution.
I use NEC monitors. The 3090WQXi is serving me well and very good all around as my master monitor, for tools the P221W is reasonably priced but color is not the same as the WQXi . The monitor IS the gateway for output so its purchase should be seriously scrutinized. Besides making general monitors and graphics monitors NEC makes monitors for medical use. 
good luck !!
Have fun !!


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 21, 2015)

I use Samsung 971 - its a blast but expensive. It also has auto calibration which I very strongly recommend. For this I use the X-rite colormeter.

No matter what make sure you can calibrate your monitor regulary - it makes all the difference.


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 21, 2015)

The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated. ;D

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93362-what-colorspace-should-my-files-be-in-

It seems like using AdobeRGB would make the workflow a little more cumbersome in case one wants to share photos online. Is there an obvious difference between prints based on sRGB and AdobeRGB? Since i'm not going to print that often, it needs to be worthwhile for me to invest money an time into the technology.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated. ;D
> 
> https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167
> 
> ...



The problem with 'studying' things like this from places like that is that they are not formally educated and often talk a lot of rubbish.

Do you shoot RAW or jpeg? 

If you shoot RAW it doesn't matter which colour space you assign in your camera because the RAW file doesn't honour either, if you then carry on and work in Adobe Lightroom it works in an even bigger colour space that contains all the information your camera captured, you don't assign a colour space until you actually export the image and assigning whatever colour space you want is no more time consuming or difficult than telling it to be full sized or 1200px. 

If you shoot jpeg and are editing and printing from that then it doesn't matter as you have comparatively little editing latitude anyway and you have already thrown away most of the information your camera captured.


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 21, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> gigabellone said:
> 
> 
> > The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated. ;D
> ...



Thank you, your explanation gave me a better view on the subject. There's still one thing i can't grasp. If i edit my images in a large color space, and then set the software to export the picture in a narrower color space, how do i know in advance which colors will be "discarded"? Is there an export preview mode like Lightroom 5?


----------



## KateH (Feb 23, 2015)

Looks like OP already chose a display, but a note for anyone interested in the Dell 24" 2160P panels- looks like they just released a new model, the P2415Q. The specs are identical to the UP2414Q that I own except for 99% sRGB instead of 99% Adobe RGB, but the price is now under 500$. I would imagine this is the version with the fixed firmware, re-released under a new name to distance it's self from the messed up model.


----------



## Khalai (Feb 23, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > gigabellone said:
> ...



You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 24, 2015)

One last question: do you think that the available colorspace is as relevant for a B/W development workflow as it is for a color development workflow? Can you suggest me a good book on color theory related to photography development?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> One last question: do you think that the available colorspace is as relevant for a B/W development workflow as it is for a color development workflow? Can you suggest me a good book on color theory related to photography development?


There are B&W colorspaces, but they mostly apply to the output device and aren't as relevant. The monitor tech that does make a big difference in B&W is 10/30bit monitors, because it takes the number of shades of gray from 256 (not 50 ) to 1024. That is the topic of a whole other thread, however as it's an expensive route requiring special OS, software, pro graphics card, cable, and monitor. If you search for 30 bit, you should find some existing threads.

As for resources, Andrew Rodney is one of the experts out there: http://www.digitaldog.net/ and it looks like this is the latest greatest book on color management, though I haven't read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Color-Management-Quality-Output-Working/dp/0240821114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424787772&sr=8-1&keywords=color+management+photography


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 26, 2015)

Color management is a difficult subject. 

Please read
http://www.imagescience.com.au/pages/The-Digital-Fine-Print-Book.html

Although I am a Mac user, please be aware that Mac OS X (still) does not support 10 bit/color channel!
Mac has been marketing the Retina screens with a lot of success, but for true color management, they can not compete with Eizo or NEC


----------



## gigabellone (Mar 1, 2015)

I finally made up my mind. 
I'll get the Eizo CS240 and a good color calibrator, the i1Display Pro. Thanks for all the feedback, i'll let you know.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2015)

To my mind the best monitor is also a computer and that is the Apple iMac 27" 5K, calibrated with the X-Rite i1 Pro (you can also use this for a laptop, iPad or iPhone) and left connected to constantly check the ambient lighting is the best combination.


----------



## DominoDude (Mar 5, 2015)

I've come to understand that NEC has released a new Reference monitor --> http://www.nec-display-solutions.com/p/uk/en/news/dp/Products/Shared/News/2015/PressReleases/Products/LCD/SVRef322UHD/SVRef322UHD_uk.xhtml#

Should be "photographer-friendly" (as long as you don't look primarily at the price of it).


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

Let me offer an analogy to audio, one that you may be easily able to reproduce on your own.
What is pleasing in audio is subjective as are visuals.

If your PC's sound hardware has a graphic equalizer, open it.
Next open a media player with it's own equalizer leaving the software's equalizer off, play a song while tweaking the hardware's equalizer to your taste.
Now, with the hardware equalizer still active and tweaked, tweak some more with the software's equalizer. 
I've found there's about nothing I can do to get pleasing results with both equalizers running on top of each other.
- - -
Back to color management for printing.
Calibrate your monitor. Best to use something like the x-rite i1Display Pro that takes ambient light into consideration.
Run the calibration in a darkened room on a well warmed up monitor that's been on at least two hours.
If your monitor has it's own hardware LUTs, use that.
If no hardware LUT, use the calibration software's monitor adjustment. 


If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY. 
Any other adjustments made through the OS will result in the equivalent of using multiple equalizers on audio signals.
Now, when the PC hardware and software send a red signal to the monitor, the monitor will display the truest red it is capable of and the same for all colors, white point, black point.
- - -


Printer can't print the same though, it needs profiling for each and every printer/ink/paper combination to be used.
A device and software such as a Datacolor _SpyderPRINT_ is used to profile.
Profiling software sends a print job to the printer of many many different colored squares, software knows exactly what colors were sent to print.
Profiling hardware is then used to read to the profiling hardware exactly what the printer actually did print for each color, software then creates a difference or error file which is an .icc or .icm file. Name this file distinctly and descriptively.
- - -
Now in your photo editing software, edit using soft proofing or print proofing with the appropriate .icc/.icm file. If your editor has no such option, get one that does.
DO NOT ADD IN THE PRINTER'S DRIVER SOFTWARE, if you do, you're back to the multiple equalizer analogy. Print directly from the photo editor's print function.
- - -
Short version......
Calibrated monitor displays the truest color it is capable of.
Printer profile in photo editor displays what printer can and will do. 
Any other tweaks result analogous to multiple equalizers.
- - -
With end to end color management in mind I spent many hours over several months reading most everything I could find, much of what I found left me more confused than when I started.
The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html
Keith has written so extensively on this and so many other topics I wonder how he finds time to shoot.
Shoot he does and very well, up on a level I aspire to.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 5, 2015)

tolusina said:


> If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.


Are you using a wide gamut monitor in AdobeRGB mode? If so, some manufacturers offer tools to automatically switch back to sRGB for browsing and other tasks. Dell's tool that I use works great, which makes web pages go from NEON back to normal...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Let me offer an analogy to audio, one that you may be easily able to reproduce on your own.
> What is pleasing in audio is subjective as are visuals.
> 
> If your PC's sound hardware has a graphic equalizer, open it.
> ...



Clearly.

I have edited your post for clarity, relevance, and useful information.



tolusina said:


> The best reading on the topic I found was at Keith Cooper's most excellent Northlight Images site, specifically starting from this page......
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Let me offer an analogy to audio, one that you may be easily able to reproduce on your own.
> ...


 
Trying to start up again? You like it that way? The rest of the community doesn't.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2015)

KateH said:


> Looks like OP already chose a display, but a note for anyone interested in the Dell 24" 2160P panels- looks like they just released a new model, the P2415Q. The specs are identical to the UP2414Q that I own except for 99% sRGB instead of 99% Adobe RGB, but the price is now under 500$. I would imagine this is the version with the fixed firmware, re-released under a new name to distance it's self from the messed up model.



I think there are a lot more differences than just the gamut.
It seems like it drives 60Hz UHD under SST without needing MST perhaps, which is nice, and probably a newer firmware also nice (as you noted) but:

it has a much smaller gamut (as you noted)

appears to lack an internal 3D LUT

appears to lack a screen uniformity compensator

probably used PWM to dim the LED instead of advanced direct current methods

so I'd say it's definitely considerably downscale

the UP2414Q was just on sale at Dell for $699 too


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2015)

Khalai said:


> gigabellone said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



And you can also flip it into sRGB emulation mode (and it gives a truer sRGB mode than 99% of regular gamut monitors).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> One last question: do you think that the available colorspace is as relevant for a B/W development workflow as it is for a color development workflow? Can you suggest me a good book on color theory related to photography development?



For a pure B&W color workflow definitely not. I mean for the very first ACR RAW step you might still want ProphotoRGB to avoid clipping before conversion to B&W, but after that it doesn't matter and the monitor's gamut doesn't matter at all either.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2015)

tolusina said:


> If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.



I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what context (desktop, web-browsing, photo-editing, videos,etc.)? And are you just talking intense bright saturation or like even whites popping your eyes out because the monitor's backlight is set so high?

I'm not quite sure what you describe is necessarily how it should always be.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

Khalai said:


> ....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...


I like the way you put it there, I'd add that color loss is estimated rather accurately.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
> ...



And I rest my case................


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
> ...


Yes.
It's an NEC PA242W with Spectraview.
I have seen where/how to switch back but I've not seen an automatic switching choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > ....You can use soft-proofing in LR5 to estimate colour loss...
> ...



No it isn't, Lightroom soft proofing does a very inaccurate job of any decent printers true gamut potential. Try it, make two prints one that you have 'adjusted' for what LR says is in gamut, and send one straight to the printer, the one that went straight to the printer will be much more saturated and closer to your original image on screen.

Rendering intent is very important, but soft proofing as done in LR, is not.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > If your results come out like mine did, colors will be very bright and vivid to the point it almost hurts to look at the brightest and most vivid. LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
> ...


Whites aren't an issue, some bright reds and greens are though.
Re; "..._how it should always be_..." I probably could have phrased _LEAVE IT THAT WAY_ better, more like _use it that way while photo editing_.
I have no idea if or what might be related to the monitor's back lighting.

I do know that I've been amazed, gratified and quite satisfied with each and every print I've gotten following this procedure. I've had zero wasted prints. A far cry from guesswork fails I've had in the past with less and lesser hardware and software.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...


No, you're just obfuscating the discussion. If you don't care for the discussion, stay out of it.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...


whatever, sheesh


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2015)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...



We have zero respect for each other, that is fine, but the difference is I back up everything I say.

This guy is a world authority on colour management and his findings align with my empirical results.

http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


A useful video for sure, as long as you're using LR beta 4. I stopped watching the irrelevant dated material at 0:08. 
And, no, you're not going to goad me into wasting ink, paper and time printing without soft proofing but you go right ahead. 

In my experience, when I print after editing with a calibrated wide gamut monitor and soft proofing with an appropriate .icc profile created expressly for and with the printer, ink and paper to be used and no other adjustments, my prints come out exactly as I expect the first and every time, zero waste of time, paper and ink.
---
I don't know, what? Maybe you're bringing complex baggage from a past technological era. 
It's just not as complicated as you insist, it's just spendy on gear.
--- 
Once more, these are the steps;
1) Calibrate the monitor, don't try and second guess that your visual judgement is better than the hardware and software and tweak it further.
2) Profile the printer, ink and paper to be used, soft proof with the resulting .icc/.icm profile.
3) Click print, frame and hang the output.
---


----------



## LovePhotography (Mar 7, 2015)

Anybody spring for the big LG 4k OLED yet? If so, what you think?


----------



## Hannes (Mar 7, 2015)

OLED 4k is very interesting but I worry you will run into problems with them where everyone else sees the image very differently. My phone has an OLED screen and in the dark it is amazing. The blacks are truly black (the strength of that panel tech after all) but if you edit photos on one I think you will have a different colour balance than everyone else but most importantly the contrast will be off.

I know we have come far from the OP's original query but my advice would be to buy a Dell U2413 with a x-rite pro1 calibrator. That should come to about €500. There are far better screens out there but for the average prosumer it is what you need at a good price point.


----------



## pjn0629 (Mar 20, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> I can't stand my monitor anymore, i need something better. The one i have now is a Samsung P2470HD: 24", 1920x1080, TN panel, fixed pedestal with no height/tilt setting. It's clearly not suited for photo retouching. I keep reading everywhere that IPS panels have better color accuracy, so i guess that would be my choice. I don't want to go below 24", and i'm considering 27" panels as well. My working distance is about half meter (1.5 ft) so i don't really know if it's a good idea to use a monitor larger than 24". Regarding the resolution, i think i could use some more screen space, so i think that monitors with a resolution of 2560x1440 would be the right choice. There is also a brand new 24" 4k monitor from Dell, but i don't really know if it's worth it. Maybe some retina display users can give some feedback regarding very high resolution monitors. There are also some cheap 29" 2560x1080 (21:9), has anyone got any experience with them?
> Then there's the color space issue: someday i would like to be skilled enough to make pictures worth printing, will sRGB be enough in that case?
> As you can see, i'm really confused. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't want to spend more than 500€.
> Is there some brand/model you would recommend?





I might be a little late on this thread... ony skimmed it, but I just went through this process myself, and I'd like to share my thought process and conclusions...

I just upgraded from a 20" apple cinema display (1680x1050, sRGB) Mostly because I didn't like how lightroom manages screen space... Aperture was much more efficient in letting you see more of the photo that you're working on, especially with a smaller screen. But Aperture is dead, and Lightroom is admittedly much better (performance isn't as fast, but I turn out better results in less time)


Resolution:
You didn't mention what kind of hardware you're running aside from the monitor... So, if you don't have a discrete graphics card, 4K isn't really an option. I'm running a late 2013 macbook pro retina 13" and i'm not too excited to be limited to 30fps, even though i'm not gaming, dragging windows and other general computer stuff is pretty noticeable when you cut from 60 to 30 fps. Also with all of the hullabaloo over 5K and not being able to stream data to the monitor fast enough at 4K, I really decided to take a more conservative approach, and stick to more traditional resolutions. 

Also, Having perpetually been using 16:10 for the last decade or so, I really like that aspect ratio, and always felt squished on a 1920x1080 panel, especially at work in excel. So, I set a hardline at a minimum resolution of 1920x1200. 

Color Space:
I'd say 90% of the impressions of my photography, if not more are viewed on a computer screen, and an sRGB one at that. So, while I shoot raw and capture 14 bit color and all that jazz, no one is really going to end up seeing it.

... Unless I print
I looked into different printing services out there, and I'm all about convienence and price when ordering prints, Apple makes it super easy to order prints via the beta photos app/aperture(what i did pre-lightroom)/iphoto... the quality has always been great, and its easy. They print in sRGB

One day when I have the space to have a real setup (ie. not living in NYC) and I can get a proper printer, then sure maybe it's time to think about leaving sRGB behind. 

If I really felt like printing beyond sRGB, I'm friends with the owner of a local wedding studio, who's offered that I can come in and use their edit bays and printers whenever I feel like it. FWIW they only have one set up there that's not an Apple Cinema Display (sRGB) and they keep the majority of their workflow sRGB as well.

If I really felt like sRGB was limiting my photography in any way, there are options around it, but for sitting at my desk, sRGB is plenty.

I also do calibrate my monitor with a huey, it's been going strong for years, and prints are dead on when compared to my screen whenever I've ordered them from apple over the years. 

So, for 90+% of the photo work that I do... sRGB is plenty, and 100% coverage is great, kind of a given with a TN panel these days anyway. 

Ergonomics:

I never had issues with my old apple cinema display, with its small-ish screen size, the height of the top of it was just right on my desk, so I guess I got lucky there. (new panel is much bigger, and I adjust it to be lower than the top of its stand) 

This was the big one for me... I live in NYC, and I have literally the SMALLEST desk that pottery barn makes, because it was the smallest desk that I could get my hands on that wasn't super flimsy. That being said, Desk space is at a premium, and add in a keyboard/mouse/Drobo and room for my macbook to be on the desk, I really didn't think I could fit a 27" monitor or a 28" monitor, so I was trying to keep it under 27 if I could, in order to not be too cramped at my desk. 

Monitor Selection:
So, with all of those inputs... I ended up getting a Dell U2515, 1560x1440 (16:9 but it doesn't feel cramped) It's SUPER BRIGHT, but after going through the calibration process (setting up brightness/contrast controls to a reasonable level, and letting the huey do its thing) I have to say i'm super impressed with the way my photos look on it. for a "retina" experience, these pixels are small enough that at about 29" from the screen, you can't see them, and it gives you great pixel-level detail when you view a photo 1:1 in lightroom for detailed retouching. (call me crazy but I want to see the pixels if I am really getting in there) 

Pretty much this monitor is a nice middle ground on performance, size, resolution and price ($400). Not too expensive, so I won't feel bad in 2 or 3 years when I trash it for a (dual?) 4K setup on a mac pro or homebrew desktop. 

Ergronomically, it's got a USB3 hub built in, and a Mini DP out for daisy chaining which is cool. It's a very gentle matte finish, so it doesn't make things look fuzzy, but still diffuses ambient light nicely, nowhere near as reflective as my Macbook screen, and the colors have just as much "pop," Stand has great adjustability, height/tilt/swivel, makes it very easy to get the right positioning/ergonomics. (I'm kind of spoiled with this because I have a standing desk and ergotron with 2 monitors at work)

Here's a link to the product page:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=480-ACRZ



TL;DR - 27" is too big for my desk, 1920x1080 is cramped, sRGB is like 90%+ of my work, Dell 25" hit the sweet spot/middleground in all categories, quality blew my mind for the price


Photo of my setup: 
Macbook is in a vertical stand, with vents up to help it cool better, and save space on the desk. Also sorry about the potato quality of the photo, just a quick snap with my iphone to show a friend, had to push shadows so you could see the setup a bit better, more for size reference than anything else.


----------

