Recommend an LCD display

[@dam]

Hi guys. I'm nearly finished with my around the world trip (www.adamandshawn.com). While my MacBook has been a good travel companion, the screen sucks for photos. It is too small, too low resolution, and, most frustratingly, the colors and brightness changes dramatically with even slight changes in viewing angle.

My desktop PC back home is a dinosaur from 1999 with a 19" CRT that is getting a bit fuzzy.

I was considering getting an iMac, largely for astetic reasons, so I can keep the computer in my living room. The screen looked good to me, but I've heard complaints, so I might set up a new PC. If I do, what LCD monitor is good for editing photos on?

Thanks
-Adam

[Turo]

I have a 24" Dell monitor connected to my Macbook Pro that I absolutely love.

IMac's are nice, but don't get one only because you don't like the screen on your macbook, just get an external monitor. And make sure to use the DVI input, it looks amazing!

[Visual Reality]

We need a budget to work with.

Features desired? Do you need HDMI/Component/Composite inputs? Full tilt/swivel adjustments? Picture-in-picture?

I can make a recommendation based on those factors. With the ability to look up what LCD panel was used in the creation of the monitor I can tell whether its going to be a good performer or not.

I can start off by saying if you are going to photo editing, we will look at monitors that are 1680x1050 (1.76MP) or higher resolution. This means 20" and up mostly.

[gotocin]

I heard Dell is the best in the market, but it's a little expensive

[BLWNHR]

Dell use Samsung LCD panels, if you compare a similarly spec'd Dell to the Samsung the Dell is good value.

A friend has a Dell 30 and it is an awesome photo editing screen, about 4MP I think. Pricey though.

[Visual Reality]

I heard Dell is the best in the market, but it's a little expensive
Not true. Dells are actually some of the cheapest because of their competitiveness in the market. Dell also does not make LCD panels therefore it could be a Samsung, LG, or AU Optronics panel. You could buy three of the same monitor and they could all look different, with one being the best and one being the worst, and the other somewhere in the middle.

[kgosden]

I recently swapped a decent NEC 19" LCD for a Samsung 22" (my desk has height limitations so I could not go larger). After a fair amount of research I decided that the Samsung 226CW was the best for me. I was floored by the difference in clarity over the NEC; even though both were very close in dot pitch. The key in the Samsung was to stick to the 'C' series. Samsung designs these for a wider color gamut. The pain was only Best Buy carried this monitor and it was $50-75 more than the 'B' series. Since only Best Buy carries it, even online it was tough to find, it almost never goes on sale.

BTW, don't bother trying to compare monitors in most stores. I looked at this one on display and the differences were marginal. Stores tend to drive the displays all off a single system and it is not optimized for any of the displays. Even worse, with a variety of wide screens it is not going to be at some of the oddball native aspect ratios. And LCD's look best only at their native aspect ratio. Online reviews won't help much either if you are after a display for photo editing. Most display reviews are written by and for gamers who seem to only care about refresh rates. The few photo oriented reviews focus on high end stuff (high $ too) like Lacie, Apple Cinema and some Sonys.

[Beowulff]

I'm using a Samsung SyncMaster B series which I found very easy to calibrate using This (http://www.displaycalibration.com/brightness_contrast.html) and This (http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp).

Cheers :)

[Visual Reality]

Just a quick warning about most (probably 95%) 22" LCD monitors: they are not very good for photo work for several reasons:


Use of TN (Twisted Neumatic) panel
6-bit color (though 8-bit can be attained by dithering)
Poor viewing angles, mostly vertical, means you have to sit in the "sweet spot" to see the monitor at its best and the slightest deviation from this can change the image drastically
Generally lower-cost build, meaning fewer adjustment capabilities, inputs and extra features

There are good 22" monitors, but most of them will have traits like listed above. I would highly recommend for anyone serious about photo editing, take a look at the BenQ FP241W. At 1920x1200 you have lots of room to work with, the P-MVA panel displays great color, contrast, black and white and refreshes fast enough for zero ghosting in games as well (considered one of the best 24" gaming monitors). It is really a multi-purpose LCD. It also has many inputs, PiP, and more. I researched LCDs for months back in 2007, and this was the pick of the litter. I have it calibrated with a Spyder2Express and it is nearly perfect.

If you can't afford a high quality 24" monitor, then look at something with 1680x1050 resolution in the 20-22" range. Beware though - try to find one that specifies a 178* viewing angle both horizontally and vertically - that's your cue that it is using a good LCD such as a PVA or MVA based panel. All of the other specs, such as refresh rate, contrast ratio, etc - throw them out the window, they mean nothing. Since there are different ways to come up with these ratings, they are not telling of real performance and can be very misleading.

[Ken.]

Calibrating a display is a must for photo work. I have yet to see one display from any manufacturer that's spot on right out of the box. In our marketing department it would be downright annoying if every display wasn't calibrated. We often work on different parts of the same project.

[FLiPMaRC]

Maybe something like this? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001234

[Visual Reality]

That is a good monitor, but be aware of the inherent vertical viewing angle problems caused by the TN panel. It is also recommended that you stick with 8-bit LCDs for color reproduction, though 6-bit can be very close with dithering.

Different types explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

[VTEC_EATER]

My work just got us all 30" Samsung SyncMaster 305t's here at work. They are uber-large. Bordering on overkill. Its 2560 x 1600 resolution. Something crazy like that.

So far, I really like the monitor, but you had better have one hell of a video card in your computer to handle this thing. Refreshing a 30" monitor requires expensive video cards.

I have no idea how much this monitor costs, though I could look it up online if I wanted. Alls I know is, I have a 21" television, at home, that I sit 8 feet away from, and a 30" monitor, at work, that I sit 2 feet away from.

Something just isn't right in that equation.

[Visual Reality]

Video cards only come into the equation when needing to do any 3D work such as gaming. For anything 2D, including photo editing, all you need is a Dual-DVI connection to push above 1920x1200 (there is a bandwidth limitation using VGA or Single-link DVI). GPUs for the last 5 years have been capable of driving these resolutions with no problem.

With that said I do game at 1920x1200 on mine with an 8800GT and its a great setup. 2560x1600 would be awesome but it would choke my system quite a bit. I'd also need to sit a lot further back. 24" is good for me ;)