Monitor suggestions

[Alchemist77]

Simple question - Complex answer I know. What monitor resolution and computer system do you recommend for processing 4X5 negatives?
I do not have access to a darkroom or enlarger and need to know what the best digital options are.
Getting a used i8oo microtex scanner, am familiar with Windows and Linux, what are my options?

[phdgent]

Based on my personal experience, an Eizo monitor (they have a few different models) and a good scanning software, like SilverFast which is multiplatform. I think that the scanning software is as important, if not more, as the scanner.

A calibrating system for the monitor is important too, Eizo has the interesting ColorNavigator.

But again these are my very personal insights, and suggestions.
And I would not like to go into polemics on this item, as I don't really know the alternatives as I never used these...

PS: I have an EPSON V750, and I am very happy with it.

[Vaughan]

I camera scan my large format 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 negatives with a 24 megapixel camera using a copy stand, A4 LED light panel and macro lens, and edit with Lightroom Classic and Negative Lab Pro. I use an Apple Mac Studio but a Windows machine would be equivalent. The monitor needs to have good colour correction, the size is irrelevant.

[Kino]

I suggest a used Dell UP2716D 27 inch IPS monitor. Why? Because, there are a multitude of them available on Ebay from Tech Resellers and they run about $100-130 USD at the present: usually with free shipping.

I have one and love it. The important part is that the monitor can reproduce 100% of the sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998 and 98% of the DCI P3 color spaces; not common is monitors in this price range. Also, a 27 inch monitor is a good size to view and work on high quality images.

The resolution is 2560 x 1440 and has true 10 bit color reproduction.

Yes, you can find monitors with better resolution and even internal color profiling hardware/software, but you'd be hard pressed to find one at this price.

If you want to color manage Linux, here's a good article utilizing Argyl CMS: https://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/LinuxWorkflow.htm

As for resolution; like always that depends on what you want to do with the images and it's hard to make a blanket recommendation.

Good luck.

[bdkphoto]

I would take a look at the BenQ SW photo monitors - you'll want something that has both hardware and software calibration abilities. The BenQ PalletteMaster software/hardware calibration is really capable. There's no need to for a 4K monitor unless you plan on doing serious video production. I'm a big fan of Lightroom classic / PS and the Mac platform- the current mac minis are amazing for photo production.

[rdenney]

I've had both the Dell and the Benq monitors, and neither lasted the ages. At present, I'm using a pair of 27" Eizo monitors, a CG277 and a CX271. They are externally identical--the 277 had some additional firmware features that I do not use and a slightly different calibration sensor arrangement. Both are hardware-calibrated, and they will adjust themselves to counteract their aging. Both use the same 2560x1440 IPS panel that covers 99% of the Adobe1998 color palette. Both will show 1024 shades of gray in monochrome mode when using either the Displayport or the HDMI interface (less when using the DVI-D interface, which nobody uses any more anyway).

I use an old Eye One Display 2 to calibrate the video card LUT tables for both monitors. Both support LCD-off power save.

These have a smoothness of backlight that the fancy IPS Benq (or any other monitor I've owned) did not--the Benq was noticeably wavy when showing a solid 127, 127, 127 color.

I bought both of the Eizo monitors on ebay for vastly less than their original price, one of them three years ago and the other just last June (to have a second monitor and also a backup). The hood was harder to find than the monitor :) What makes them cheap is that they don't support 4K, so those editing video won't want them. The first one replaced the Benq which started to lose the backlighting for whole sections of the display.

These are a decade old but they are built like tanks and still calibrate easily.

For scanning large-format black and white, I have mostly done so using Vuescan and an Epson V750 flatbed scanner, with good results. I also constructed a special stand for photographing the negative using a DSLR, but I never got the mount to be really stiff enough. I'll get back on that--the machine-shop resources I needed when I first put that together are now sitting out in my shop (primarily a Bridgeport milling machine). A flat-panel backlight for the negative is probably the trickiest aspect of that. But, really, the 750 works pretty well for prints up to 16x20--about a 4x enlargement is maxing that scanner out.

Rick "less than $800 for both of the monitors" Denney

[Alan Klein]

I used an Epson V600 scanner for 35mm and 120 film for ten years. When I bought a 4x5 during Covid and had to move up to the Epson V850 to scan the larger format undoable with the V600. I have a Dell computer running Windows 11 and an NEC Multisync PA242W 24" monitor with Spectraview II program and puck for calibrating the monitor. I use the original Lightroom purchased program for editing, mainly. But since I don't print much, I can't comment on that end of it.

Sample scans 4x5: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=4x5&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

[Joshua Dunn]

In my opinion this is currently the best option for any photographer who is serious about editing in a digital environment:

BenQ SW272Q + Calibrite Display Plus HL (https://www.freestylephoto.com/27225603-BenQ-SW272Q-+-Calibrite-Display-Plus-HL)

This is the best balance of cost verses performance. It is not 4K but you do not need that for photo editing. It not only includes a Calibrite tool to calibrate your monitor, Freestyle has there own instructions to do this correctly. If you are new to digital editing this is invaluable.

I own and use daily three of the older version of this same monitor.

-Joshua

[neil poulsen]

I would recommend BenQ color graphics SW series monitors. They're excellent, and an SW240 can be purchased for about $280. In spite of their inexpensive price, these monitors are designed for color graphics work. They have a depth of 10 bits, which makes them capable of displaying 2^30 = 1073741824 different colors. They can display 99% of Adobe RGB '98 color gamut, and I presume 100% sRGB.

For color management, they can support a 14 bit lookup table for non-matrix calibration. They've developed their own, fully capable, color management software that automatically and internally adjust the user-specified color temperature.

They also support a 14 bit lookup table for non-metrix calibration. They've developed their own Palette Master Elements color management software that atomically and internally sets the color temperature. It's the best CM software that I've seen and makes CM easy. For example, it works well with XRite's Display Pro II colorimitears.

I have three BenQ SW240 monitors that work great. But larger vervsions are also available.

[Kirk Gittings]

I would recommend BenQ color graphics SW series monitors. They're excellent, and an SW240 can be purchased for about $280. In spite of their inexpensive price, these monitors are designed for color graphics work. They have a depth of 10 bits, which makes them capable of displaying 2^30 = 1073741824 different colors. They can display 99% of Adobe RGB '98 color gamut, and I presume 100% sRGB.

For color management, they can support a 14 bit lookup table for non-matrix calibration. They've developed their own, fully capable, color management software that automatically and internally adjust the user-specified color temperature.

They also support a 14 bit lookup table for non-metrix calibration. They've developed their own Palette Master Elements color management software that atomically and internally sets the color temperature. It's the best CM software that I've seen and makes CM easy. For example, it works well with XRite's Display Pro II colorimitears.

I have three BenQ SW240 monitors that work great. But larger vervsions are also available.

I wish I had read this thread before purchasing a BenQ PD2705U Mac-Ready Monitor 27" 4K UHD last year. I’m not impressed with it at all. It simply will not calibrate properly so I can’t trust a final edit for clients on it.
So right now I have an older Eizo which is pretty good, a 2015 iMac and a 2015 iMac converted to a monitor. The iMacs are best for client work. The Eizo is best for bw fine art files to be printed. The Ben Q I put my tools on when working PS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob carnie]

I may be challenged here on my views, but almost all monitors these days can be calibrated and are good to go. For all of my work I use Imacs and am very happy . For me I trust the numbers LAB to verify what my eyes see . so even though the top end Eizo is great it is very expensive and for me not worth the cost.

[rdenney]

I may be challenged here on my views, but almost all monitors these days can be calibrated and are good to go. For all of my work I use Imacs and am very happy . For me I trust the numbers LAB to verify what my eyes see . so even though the top end Eizo is great it is very expensive and for me not worth the cost.

I prefer the IPS displays just because they avoid color shifts as one moves off-axis. IPS displays are a lot easier to buy now than they used to be.

Reliability has been a problem for me--I've had backlights fail or partially fail on several monitors, including the Benq that was the higher-end 27" display they were selling at the time for photo work.

The Eizo monitors have been rock-solid enough that buying them used--even a decade old--hasn't posed much risk. And buying them used is an answer to their high price as new.

Rick "whose Benq ended up in the landfill" Denney

[PRJ]

I may be challenged here on my views, but almost all monitors these days can be calibrated and are good to go. For all of my work I use Imacs and am very happy . For me I trust the numbers LAB to verify what my eyes see . so even though the top end Eizo is great it is very expensive and for me not worth the cost.

This is the way..

I use an Asus Pro Art 27" these days along with an older Eizo. I replaced an expensive LaCie 26" that started to go south with the Asus. The Asus is something like 99% Adobe RGB and does 4k. It cost me a little under $500 I think which is a deal. I could edit just by looking at the LAB numbers though if I had to. I always check those anyway. I could probably use anything but the Asus was the best bang for the buck I could find.

[erie patsellis]

Personally, I have found that the two 30" Apple Cinema Monitors I have work well, for the work that I do. Both calibrate reasonably well and with a pair of Quadro cards in SLI, no problems whatsoever. Bang for the buck, they win admirably, at about $75 each.

[Corran]

Recently upgraded my old 23" Dell Ultrasharp to a 27" Ultrasharp that delivers 4k resolution. I've used many Ultrasharps at work as well and IMO they are excellent out-of-the-box and can more than meet the vast majority of user needs. By all means, if you are color grading high-end footage for serious, big-money projects, go for the big-money monitors. When I print color digital images the color is exactly as expected. And remember, emissive display will always look a bit different than a piece of paper, in terms of the shadows/deep blacks.

[Peter De Smidt]

I may be challenged here on my views, but almost all monitors these days can be calibrated and are good to go. For all of my work I use Imacs and am very happy . For me I trust the numbers LAB to verify what my eyes see . so even though the top end Eizo is great it is very expensive and for me not worth the cost.

Yes. There are many really good monitors these days.

[landstrykere]

Getting a used i8oo microtex scanner, am familiar with Windows and Linux, what are my options?

monitor is not so important. All or most current ones, have good enough specs and settings. This is about 2D so no need for high specs.

I am UNIX user since ever (HP, SUN, SGI workstations, BSD and Linux anywhere), run occasionally Windows or OS X. For scanning and software "development/printing" I use a Linux on PC.
Display a common old 24", a Dell 2408 WFP.

whats is important is the processing power and memory, so to be comfortable for loading and processing big files comfortably while doing anything else besides. I have a dual processors (2x CPU slots) and 72GB ram.

and a graphic card supporting OpenCL 1.2. OpenCL 1.2 is required for some softwares. In my case I use sometimes SRDx scratch removal Photoshop plugin, from LaserSoft, the company making SilverFast. SRDx is excellent at repairing scratches on these negatives that were handled and archived over the years without care, but is very resource intensive, makes PC fans scream. Alternative being wet scanning the negative.

for scanning, VueScan runs on Linux, Silverfast no.

a very useful tool: calibration targets for the scanner. I buy from Wolf Faust : http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

as for "development" it seems 90% people use the Adobe stuff. If you want to stay on Linux, you can only run older Lightroom 6, on WINE, for what is Adobe. But then Darktable, Rawtherapee (or ART fork), Gimp provide everything needed.

for colour I used Negative Lab Pro some time in Lightroom 6 on WINE, but preferred ColorPerfect, a Photoshop plugin installable also on PhotoLine. So I have a PhotoLine license for Windows. PhotoLine runs perfectly on WINE, very compact and versatile, supports all filetypes, so can do everything in it in fact.

Darktable has a cumbersome UI, the fork Ansel is very clean. NegaDoctor module in Darktable/Ansel is excellent for black white negative->positive conversion.

[datro]

I recently purchased an Eizo ColorEdge CS2400S to replace my aging NEC 2490WUXi monitor. I'm very impressed with this monitor, especially since it delivers Eizo quality (and ColorNavigator7 support) at a very reasonable $889. (B&H). Eizo calls it an "entry level" monitor in their esteemed ColorEdge line, but I'm finding it is definitely more than entry level when compared to the competition.

I prefer a 24.1" 16:10 (1920 x 1200) monitor for digital imaging work since it gives me a bit more height for the type of images I'm working on (mostly 4x5), and I don't want to mess with Windows scaling schemes in order to be able to read text on the higher resolution displays. The LUT AND profiles for the various "color modes" are all stored in the monitor itself which makes it supremely easy to switch color modes depending on the task at hand. For example, I can select my calibrated "sRGB" mode for general text-based work and web browsing, then switch to my calibrated "BT.709" for video work, then switch to my calibrated low-contrast and full gamut "PhotoEdit" mode when doing image editing and print proofing. This is all done directly from the buttons on the front of the monitor...no need to launch ColorNavigator.

Highly recommended.
Dave