Flat Screen Monitors

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I'm running a laCie 321 next to an Apple 23 CD. The 321 came with it's own calibation system, and the Apple is calibrated as best as one can do with it. I have no problems with the Apple CD, and slightly tweaked it to better match the 321, whose calibration I trust. The side by side comparison is good. I use the 321 for the image window, and the CD for PS menus and Bridge. I often drag the image to the CD when I'm creating a jpeg, for comparison. Both are excellent, but the 321 has a slight edge on sharpness and color accuracy.

[paulr]

I'm in the minority that isn't a big fan of the apple monitors. For the record i've been called an apple zealot, and i have stock in the company, but the cinema displays don't impress me for photography. I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is dot pitch or some other characteristic, but to my eyes, the individual pixels all look outlined, which gives an unaturally hard edge to everything. The eizo monitors look much smoother to me, including the cheaper line. The high end La Cies also look better. eizo also seems to do a better job of even ilumination of the whole screen than anyone else. I haven't done any real work in front of these others--just checked them out at stores and at a trade show. I've spent many hours in front of other people's cinema displays.

Another issue is consistent contrast when you move your head around. the apple displays have gotten better, but this still makes me crazy. the eizo seemed much more consistent. Not sure about the la cie.

the apples do seem better than anything else in the low to medium price range that i've seen, but none of these are monitors i'd consider for photography. at home i have a la cie crt that i was lucky enough to pick up barely used. the only lcd i've seen that i'd trade it for is the top end eizo (not that anyone's offering

[Marko]

I am generally a fence-straddler - I use both PC and Mac with both Apple and non-Apple monitors, as of last year all exclusively LCDs. My business is web design, an activity that is reliant on graphics but not as demanding as photography. Photoshop is still one of the main tools, though, and graphics quality matters. So here's my $0.02:

1. You get what you pay for. This is especially true for your video system - both your monitor and your graphics card.

2. There are generally three brands of LCD monitors that are accepted in the graphics industry - Apple, Eizo, LaCie. Based on my experience, there's a good reason for it. These three are the only ones that can be trully reliably calibrated.

3. There are plenty of cheap(er) LCDs out there, and lot of them will give you a very nice and pleasing image, some for much less money. But keep in mind that "pleasing" is not the same as "accurate". These are great choices for any non-critical work, some times even much better choices, especially for office work.

4. As far as aspect ratio is concerned: although wide aspect ratio is most often associated with video, I have actually found it very comfortable for Photoshop use as it gives an extra space on the right for all the pallletes.

All being said, I believe you will be pleased with either of those three, just make sure your video card is equally good. Nothing will make Photoshop fly as good graphics system and lots of memory, both video and system one. And I do mean LOTS of it. Next most important thing is disk space, specifically scrap (swap) memory, and especially on a PC.

Regards,

[Ed Richards]

I am having very good luck with the Samsung 213T, which I have on two computers, but I am a black and white photographer so I do not worry a lot about color. I do keep both calibrated. It seems to work on the few color shots I do.

> just make sure your video card is equally good. Nothing will make Photoshop fly as good graphics system and lots of memory, both video and system one.

The Real World Photoshop guys point out that a good graphics system for Photoshop is pretty minimal, just enough memory to handle the images. Beyond that, you do not get any gain because the limits on rewrite are CPU related. (I.e., do not spend a grand on a gamer's high speed system.) OTOH, up the memory on the Mac with all your spare change, and max out PCs at 2 gigs for 16 bit and at least 4 for 64 bit.

[Saulius]

An article regarding lcd vs crt A Tale of Two LCDs

[Mark_3632]

Check out the reconditioned portion of the Apple web site. This makes the cinema display even more justifyable.

I bought a ViewSonic 19inch with a flat screen, brand new with shipping waved for under 300. It is big but nice picture

[Struan Gray]

Thanks for all the answers - I wasn't expecting so much data so soon. Keep them rolling in as I am sure I am not the only one trying to make this choice.

A few points.

- No Apple refurbs in Sweden. I'll try the UK store when it opens on Wednesday.

- Medform_norm: Swedish repairs are expensive, but we plan to keep the Diamondtron for the kids' games so I'll look into it.

- It's really frustrating having to buy something so visual without seeing it beforehand. I will try and track down actual models to play with.

- I still want one of these.

[medform-norm]

"Medform_norm: Swedish repairs are expensive, but we plan to keep the Diamondtron for the kids' games so I'll look into it."

Uhm, I was thinking more in the lines of a DIY project...with a $35 spare part and several hours of you sweating and praying you'r doing it right and hoping you didn't cut the wrong cable :-).

[Brian Ellis]

I have a Dell LCD, I don't see a model number on it and don't remember the number but I paid about $400 for it on sale from about a $500 normal price about a year ago. It works very well for me. I calibrate it periodically with Spyder and I think I get a good match between the monitor and the print. However, I don't do commercial work so I don't have to get a 100% perfect match between a product and a print. I think that a lower priced LCD such as this one would work fine for almost anyone who doesn't have clients that demand perfection and who can themselves tolerate about 95% of perfection for maybe 25% of what 100% perfection would cost.

[Brian Ellis]

Monitors are about the most boring part of digital photography for me, my eyes glaze over around the second or third sentence of every monitor review I've ever tried to read. So my approach to buying a monitor was the opposite of Ted's. I saw an ad for a Dell 19" monitor that normally sells for about $500 on sale for $350 and I ordered it on the spot without knowing anything about it except the size of the screen and the cost.

Despite this low-tech approach I've been very happy with the Dell (sorry but I don't see a model number on it and I can't find the manual). I calibrate it periodically with Spyder and I think I get a good - not great but good - match between the monitor and the print. However, I don't do commercial work so I don't have clients looking over my shoulder and demanding perfection . The 95% or so of perfection that I get with the inexpensive Dell is fine for me, especially considering that it came at about 20% of what perfection would cost.