# Looking for a good monitor



## libertyranger (Dec 28, 2011)

Hello,

I was wondering if I could get some input from fellow Canon users about a good photography monitor. Currently, I am leaning towards Apple's new Thunderbolt Display. I own a Macbook Air and this would be a good set up. However, I recently found out about Dell Ultrasharp monitors. They have a 27" model and a 30" model that look nice. 

So, what do you guys/gals use and what are your thoughts on the Thunderbolt and Ultrasharp displays? I have about 1200'ish to spend and possible more if I wait a couple more months to save. I currently own an HP 2310m 1080p monitor but would like something better. 

Also, what would be a good calibration tool for good color accuracy?

Mike


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 28, 2011)

Monitors are like lenses, the price goes up a lot for a small increase in quality. There are several good monitor calibration units, you do not need to spend a fortune on one, but plan on a couple of hundred dollars.

Room lighting and location are just as important as the monitor you use, so don't spend a bundle on a monitor and not get the benefit because there is a window behind or to the side of you that creates reflections.


----------



## RC (Dec 28, 2011)

Here is a very similar thread I started here on CR a couple of weeks ago. Some excellent info as always from the CR community.

*Monitor recomendations for viewing and editing*
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2471.0.html


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 28, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Monitors are like lenses, the price goes up a lot for a small increase in quality. There are several good monitor calibration units, you do not need to spend a fortune on one, but plan on a couple of hundred dollars.
> 
> Room lighting and location are just as important as the monitor you use, so don't spend a bundle on a monitor and not get the benefit because there is a window behind or to the side of you that creates reflections.



+1 well said.

If you want to save up some more, you can get yourself a NEC or maybe an Eizo. If not, Dell Ultrasharp series are great, especially considering their relatively cheap price.


----------



## pete.koehn (Dec 28, 2011)

+1 on the Dell Ultrasharp, although I couldn't say I recommend anything else made by Dell! I purchased the lowly U2311h over a year ago, and it's been stellar. Even color, good angle of viewability, solid build, etc. I print at Costco (cheap!) and I use their profiles (available online at Dry Creek Photo), as well as an i1Display 2 for calibration. My screen matches the prints almost spot on. I'm sure I could tweak my profile further, but it already does a fantastic job. $1,200 to spend? You'll be fine. Mine only cost $250!


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 28, 2011)

I voted for the 27" Dell Ultrasharp before, and i'll do it again.

Just a tad more expensive than the 24" version, for a lot better colour and more real-estate.

Half the price of the 30" version for an extra 160 pixels along the top and 99% vs 96% adobergb coverage. I'd get 2x 27"ers before i got one 30".

Double to triple the price of the 22" versions, you'd get more screen real-estae with the three smaller versions, but they're not as well calibrated or have as many options.

Just don't buy it now, if you can wait a month or two. Dell always have them on a 3-day sale, I looked first and it was $700, put it off and put it off, then the price rose to $800, put it off more, then the next week it was $540 on sale, I hit the 'buy' button before the page had finished loading.

Eizo especially are also good, but they're like Zeiss glass. Sure you'd probably get an extra 5% on performance, but you're paying for it. Dell are calibrated to <5 which is good enough for me, but you can buy an extra calibrator for less than an Eizo and get fairly similar results...


----------



## JR (Dec 29, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are several good monitor calibration units, you do not need to spend a fortune on one, but plan on a couple of hundred dollars.
> 
> Room lighting and location are just as important as the monitor you use, so don't spend a bundle on a monitor and not get the benefit because there is a window behind or to the side of you that creates reflections.



Which monitor calibration toolkit do you guys use or recommend? I recently changed my monitor from a Lenovo 24" to the Apple Display 27" and while the Apple is a better display for sure, it feels like the brightness of my pictures are all wrong now (or maybe they were before and I did not realize it!). All my picture are too dark, but yet when I increase the brightnees of the screen, it is unbarable. There must be something I did not calibrate with the monitor or the graphic card...


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 29, 2011)

Hi,

please check if the graphics card in your macbook air can actually drive the 27" monitors, should be no problem, but it is worth checking.
JR, and for those who own a Mac monitor, go to the display settings, set color to iMac (for a start) and turn down the brightness to something like 20% as the default setting is way to bright. Intially it will look very pale, but it will be a lot closer to what you get on your prints.
Color management is a different story. I have just bought a ColorMunki and calibrated my 27" Imac (latest version) and I do see significant improvement. A tricky thing is that during the calibration the level of background light in the room is measured and you will be asked to turn down the brightness of your monitor.
On an iMac, there is no hardware way to do this, so after changing the slider in the software, the process has to be repeated.
There are some very good articles on 

https://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/65/Colour+Control+on+Monitors

Hope this helps


----------



## JR (Dec 29, 2011)

I am actually using the Apple display on my PC and I have the latest R6990 graphic which has no problem driving the 27" monitor. However I may just give up on it and simply plug the monitor back on my Mac Pro and perform the adjustment you suggested.

Colors are ok, it is the brightness that is weird. That screen is very reflective as well so maybe this is the issue. Anyway thanks for the advice.



wopbv4 said:


> Hi,
> 
> please check if the graphics card in your macbook air can actually drive the 27" monitors, should be no problem, but it is worth checking.
> JR, and for those who own a Mac monitor, go to the display settings, set color to iMac (for a start) and turn down the brightness to something like 20% as the default setting is way to bright. Intially it will look very pale, but it will be a lot closer to what you get on your prints.
> ...


----------



## Mercer Harris (Dec 29, 2011)

Look at the NEC PA series. They have calibration software that works with their monitors. They are rated very highly. There are articles on best monitors at Shootsmarter.com. B&H has the 27" NEC PA for about 1300 and NEC is giving a hood away with it until Dec. 31st.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Dec 29, 2011)

I bought a 27 dell ultrasharp over summer at a great price as I needed a good monitor. I also calibrated it with the spyder 3 Elite which seemed to do a great job. 

I could not live with the monitor as it has a truly awful antiglare coating resulting in a sparkly effect making it impossible to distinguish between noise and the coating. There was nothing I could do to prevent this

Also, it took time to warm up and the whites did not appear to be completely white with the way the screen was backlit compared to my macbook pro.

I then splashed out and bought a 27 thunderbolt display instead which solved all those problems. I have no issues with the glossy screen, as I simply dont have a window behind it. If you do particularly struggle with the glossy screen, you can remove the front glass quite easily as it is only held on with magnets.

Very happy with the cinema display even though the dell has a wider colour gamut and HDMI input.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 29, 2011)

Another vote for the ultrasharp. Cheapish and does a fantastic job, provided it's correctly calibrated and in a good position.

Thomas.


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 29, 2011)

Thank you everyone for your input.

Calibrating the monitor is something I knew I would have to do regardless of what I bought and it looks like from this thread some of you have some great products to calibrate. 

I'm going to look into some NEC monitors tonight. So far I've read mix reviews on the Dell Ultrasharp 27". The anti-coating glare is something many have mentioned could be problematic. 

Also, I should mention that I will be receiving a PIXMA Pro9000 Mark II printer tomorrow. Ultimately I would like to have a monitor in which the colors match to the prints the new printer is giving me.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 29, 2011)

libertyranger said:


> Thank you everyone for your input.
> 
> Calibrating the monitor is something I knew I would have to do regardless of what I bought and it looks like from this thread some of you have some great products to calibrate.
> 
> ...



You can match the colours with whatever monitor, so long as its calibrated and using the same colour profile as the printer.

Thomas.


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 29, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> libertyranger said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you everyone for your input.
> ...



Perfect! So you're saying that if I calibrate my monitor, I can then send that profile to the printer and my prints will look like what is on my screen? This is my goal ultimately.

Also, I must say I lean naturally to the Apple display since I am a Mac guy. However, if a monitor in my price range would be noticeable better, I would go for that one.


----------



## Goshdern (Dec 29, 2011)

I recently purchased a zr30w and already had a spyder3 pro. It's an IPS monitor and I suggest you check it out. The view angle is amazing! No distortion at any angle you sit at. It WILL need calibration!

Paid $1k usd (edit: that's US dollars not used) for mine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 29, 2011)

libertyranger said:


> bobthebrick said:
> 
> 
> > libertyranger said:
> ...


----------



## 92101media (Dec 29, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> I voted for the 27" Dell Ultrasharp before, and i'll do it again.
> 
> Just a tad more expensive than the 24" version, for a lot better colour and more real-estate.
> 
> Half the price of the 30" version for an extra 160 pixels along the top and 99% vs 96% adobergb coverage. I'd get 2x 27"ers before i got one 30".



That's opposite of the non-sale pricing in the U.S.

u2410 = $500 
u2711 = $999
u3011 = $1299

So the 27" is double the price of the 24", whereas the 30" is only a couple hundred more than the 27".

Lots of people like the Dell UltraSharp series. However, there also seem to be a large number of complaints that Dell has been particularly heavy handed with the anti-glare coating, with some complaining that it results in making the screen seem fuzzy, kinda like looking through a mesh screen door. Some of Dell's lower-end 23" & 24" IPS displays seem like good bargains, but many don't include an HDMI input (just DVI & DisplayPort). That makes those models a non-starter for me, but others may not care.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 29, 2011)

92101media said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > I voted for the 27" Dell Ultrasharp before, and i'll do it again.
> ...



I was wondering why someone in another thread didn't accept that the 27" was the sweetspot price.
We've got in Aus:
24" $700
27" $800
30" $1600
(and the 24"LED is $400, but that's not as good a monitor, give it a few revisions and the LEDs might get up to scratch, the tech is too new for now though)


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 29, 2011)

One last question:

Does anyone know a good calibrater that will work well with the Apple Thunderbolt display? If I go with this display, I know I will need to calibrate it. I just got some prints today and they in no way match my current monitor. So I'd expect the same to be true for any monitor that is not calibrated.


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 29, 2011)

Hi,

even if you have a perfectly calibrated monitor , there is no guarantee that you will get good prints. Printing is the last step of the digital workflow and it is often underestimated how difficult this is. 
Each printer has a specific colour range (gamut) which will only partially overlay on top of the gamut of the display, so the mapping is not one on one. Furthermore, the combination of paper, type inkjet (dye vs pigment), printer settings in Photoshop..... make a hell of a difference.
A good test is to make a picture of a Xrite colorchecker (or similar), process your RAW file as best as you can and then print it. The white balance is set on the THIRD grey field from the left on the Xrite chart

I mentioned before that colour management is very tricky, there is a real good book that explains all of this well:
The Digital Photography Workflow Handbook, from RockyNook, author Gulbins, Steinmueller


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 29, 2011)

Hi, I forgot.
If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 30, 2011)

wopbv4 said:


> Hi, I forgot.
> If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!



I've done a lot of research since reading this thread. It appears that most labs print from the sRGB color space. My Canon Pixma Pro9000 (just received yesterday) offers to print in both sRGB and Adobe RGB. Since my monitor is a low end HP monitor, it would probably be best to stick to sRGB correct? I don't have any calibration devices and I know that my current monitor would not be able to render Adobe RGB fully. 

When it comes to a new monitor a lot of high end monitors show near 100% coverage of Adobe RGB and sometimes more. For calibration, does that mean I should calibrate my monitor to Adobe RGB or sRGB?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 30, 2011)

libertyranger said:


> wopbv4 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I forgot.
> ...



I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 30, 2011)

Go with the Apple Thunderbolt display - you'll want the wired ports on the back of it (firewire800, USB2, gigabit ethernet). Toss in the built in power and it's as good as it'll get.

An option would be to get a new iMac and use it as a stand alone mac, or connect up your Air via Thunderbolt and use it as an external display.

I put in 10 of the 24" Dell Ultrasharp monitors and had a hard time not purchasing one. Yes, the Apple ones are pricy, but snag one off their 'sale' side for $850.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 30, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...



I've been thinking about switching to AdobeRGB, but in reading thru your chain/workflow above brings to mind the question of--what happens to/how do you handle images that are delivered to clients as digital instead of prints? Do you just convert and go, or would you have to redo any/all color corrections, etc?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say pick one and stick with it. Adobe RGB gamut covers more and is therefore "better" for pros, especially in greens for landscapes. But you have to set your camera to AdobeRGB, computer to adobergb, monitor to adobergb, and make sure you're printing in adobergb, the whole toolchain has to match. Then what do you do with all the photos you've got already, which you shot in sRGB? You can convert the colour space, of course, and it may be worth all the time and effort to you if you manage to sell a lot of them, but for me it's not worth it and i'm sticking with sRGB...
> ...



No idea, so I just stay away from either (selling digital prints and using AdobeRGB.
I'd say the best way is to tick the "embed ICC Profile in image" in the 'convert and save' dialogue in DPP, which I always do. Then when it opens up in GIMP or whatever, it has a progress bar of "converting from sRGB v1.31 (Canon) to sRGB (built-in)", ie, GIMP is converting the embedded Colour profile of the photo to the colour profile of the computer. They're both the same sRGB colour profile so that's probably not needed though.

If you sell a digital copy to someone with an embedded AdobeRGB profile, if they open it with the right program (gimp, firefox, photoshop), then it will read the embedded profile and convert it to the working space of the client's computer. If the client is using sRGB (more than likely), it will look 'ok', but it won't look 'exactly' the same as what you see on your system using AdobeRGB because you're seeing more greens than they will.
If, however, the client opens it in the 'wrong' program that doesn't read colour profiles (i'm looking at you, internet explorer), then it's just going to look crap. Client eductaion is the only way around that...


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 30, 2011)

wopbv4 said:


> Hi, I forgot.
> If you send your pictures to a Photolab for printing, the only way to get "matching" prints is when both you and the photolab work in the same colorspace e.g Adobe RGB 1998. This is getting very technical, but that is the story with colour management, remember, people get paid for this!



Handy list of ICC profiled shops:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 31, 2011)

Great advice here! Thanks so much. Think I'll be sticking with sRGB.

Next question:

Got my Pixma Pro9000 Mark ii hooked up and printed a couple 8 x 10's. The color in the prints is definitely not accurate to what I a seeing on my computer monitor. So what would fix this?

Calibrating my monitor? Or do I need to do something with the printer settings.

Mike


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 31, 2011)

Libertyranger,

you have arrived at a point where you will need a lot of determination to get it right, so don't give up!!

One bit of advise, when you print in Photoshop, in the print dialog:
In print settings, fourth setting from the top , go to "quality and media" and select the right Media type and set quality to high. SAVE.
In the colour management box:
tick document
Photoshop manages colors
Printer profile should be the same as the media you selected before. If you do not have the profile, download it
Relative colorimetric
tick black point compensation

At least this way, you know that you use the right ICC profile for the paper.

Your Pro9000 as it is DYE based printed, should give you very vibrant prints, trust me , it is a GOOD printer.

as I mentioned before, print a test chart and compare. 
I know that I am repeating myself, put set the brightness of your monitor as low as possible.


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 31, 2011)

wopbv4 said:


> Libertyranger,
> 
> you have arrived at a point where you will need a lot of determination to get it right, so don't give up!!
> 
> ...



I don't own Photoshop but it is something I am considering. Right now I have Lightroom 3. Would the print options be the same as you have described? Also, I am about to pull the trigger on a monitor calibrater to make sure the colors on my monitor are accurate. I've read several positive reviews on Amazon for the Spyder 3 Pro. Several people have said that once they calibrated their prints finally started to come out as they were being displayed on their monitor. Ultimately, I don't think I would be too picky for the colors. I'd just like the monitor's colors to represent what the Pixma Pro9000 puts out. As of now, the printer prints out much darker photo's.


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 31, 2011)

I have no experience with Lightroom, but regardless which software you use, it is vital to match the profile (ICC) with the paper. 
Spyder 3Pro is an excellent piece of kit, you can't go wrong there, but please follow the instructions carefully.

Dark prints, yes, I had the same problem before, in my case I was using an old printer driver on my MAC, after I downloaded the latest driver, the problem was 95% solved. 
Having said that, the problem is well known, have a read at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/?p=1361


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 31, 2011)

wopbv4 said:


> I have no experience with Lightroom, but regardless which software you use, it is vital to match the profile (ICC) with the paper.
> Spyder 3Pro is an excellent piece of kit, you can't go wrong there, but please follow the instructions carefully.
> 
> Dark prints, yes, I had the same problem before, in my case I was using an old printer driver on my MAC, after I downloaded the latest driver, the problem was 95% solved.
> ...



Just to clarify, by profile (ICC), do you mean that I need to select the right paper. That the paper is the ICC profile. Or is the ICC profile something with the monitor. I'm new to all of this as you can see


----------



## wopbv4 (Dec 31, 2011)

ICC profile.
There is a difference between a monitor profile and printer profile(S).
The monitor profile sets your display.
Printer profiles are unique for each printer and paper!!
The software does not know what type of paper you have loaded in your printer, so you need to "tell" the software via a profile which paper will be used for the print.
For example:
Canon Platinum paper on your printer needs a profile called Canon Pro9000 Mark II Photo Paper Pro Platinum
Canon Semi Gloss paper on your printer needs a profile called Canon Pro9000 Mark II Photo Paper Plus Semi Gloss
If you use HahneMuhle or Ilford paper, you will need to download the files from their website.
I have attached the HahneMuhle instruction in a pdf file, but it probably will confuse more then anything else

Also read:
http://www.imaginginfo.com/print/Studio-Photography/ICC-Color-Management-Explained/3$3667


----------



## libertyranger (Dec 31, 2011)

wopbv4 said:


> ICC profile.
> There is a difference between a monitor profile and printer profile(S).
> The monitor profile sets your display.
> Printer profiles are unique for each printer and paper!!
> ...



Thank you, this clarifies a lot. My Pixma Pro9000 does have profiles for all the Canon photo paper types (Glossy Plus II, Pro, Platinum Pro, etc.). I make sure I select the right paper profile. So at this point, it sounds like I have the printer profile correct, I just need to get my monitor to match the colors that the printer is putting out.


----------

