[JohnR]

A while back I read that CRTs were better for photography than LCDs. Is this still the case? Any tips on what to look for in LCD monitors? Still using a CRT but I need a bigger screen...

[SET Man]

Hey!

   I've heard about that back than.

   Anyway, at my work my boss's studio we use this...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/336374-REG/Apple_M9178LLA_23_Cinema_HD_Display.html

   ... with his Apple Workstation. Look very good and matched well with his printer and real prints from photo labs.

    I don't have that at home. I rely on the LCD of my 12" PowerBook G4. So far so good and prints I get from my regular lab look great!

     But I have to admit that I think I see more detail on my boss's LCD and picture look better.

Take care
Buddy

[nathanm]

That's what I use at work too.  It is the only LCD I have seen which I like as much or more than a CRT.  I think this is why:

Viewing angle (typical)   170° horizontal; 170° vertical

Makes all the difference in the world IMO.  It also has brightness with a vengeance and is extremely sharp.  Out of the box the greys are very neutral.  I have seen finer pitched LCDs, but nothing that has the uniformity..  It does go purple\reddish when you look at it at more extreme angles, but nothing as bad as most LCDs.  I think Dell makes a similar one with the same parts or something.  Can't remember the name. 

It does take some getting used to because text renders differently than on a CRT.  You also get perfect geometry and don't have to adjust the thing.

[JohnR]

Hm, here's what I can get a Dell for:

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/30lcd?c=au&cs=audhs1&l=en&s=dhs

The specs on the 24" Dell are better than the apple ones FWIW, and it's $300 cheaper (if I buy one in the next few days). And it seems to take VGA as well as DVI which is a bonus since I would like to plug my Windows laptop in as well as my Mac (is that what the "analog" input would be?).

Hm hm hm.

[JohnR]

BTW what does "The TrueColor technology offers up to 92% color gamut for deeper and crisper imagery" mean?

[brj]

Be careful of specs when it comes to LCDs... I haven't researched this LCDs for accurate photographic rendering, but every article I've ever read that sought independent verification of LCD specs seemed to show that most vendor supplied figures were far from accurate.

(Referencing the other thread, I do recall that Ken Rockwell discussed the Mac LCDs at one point!   I vaguely remember positive comments, but not the details.)

[nathanm]

BTW what does "The TrueColor technology offers up to 92% color gamut for deeper and crisper imagery" mean?

They don't say 92% of WHAT though...Hmm  My guess is the AdobeRGB color space or something.  I know that was the claim of the Sony Artisan.  They throw out all sorts of flowery marketing phrases.  If those Dells are anything like the Cinema Display I would bet money that you'd find it to be a big upgrade from your CRT. 

[JohnR]

This guy here says it's something to do with the NTSC color gamut...  Anyway...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hardware/desktops/soa/Dell-2407WFP-HC/0,139023402,339280535,00.htm

Apparently it uses a Samsung screen, from what I gather the Apple uses an LG-Philips screen. They both seem to be well regarded (in this price range, apparently you can pay several times more). brj, I know, I'm not all that concerned about the raw specs, I did read a couple of reviews where it seems Dell exaggerates the numbers

[JohnR]

Here is an interesting comparison of the "HC" version of the display with the older version (translated from Chinese):

92% have wide color gamut cattle? Dell's new 30 LCD first test

[Scott F.]

John,

I can't say that I know much about this but when I was in my local camera retailer, I noticed that they carried several calibration software programs. I did a quick search and came up with this article. On this page, they have links and prices to a number of programs for calibrating your monitor.

[nathanm]

I did the whole measurement procedure with my Cinema Display with a Spyder2 and the before and after comparison was rather anti-climactic.  (glad it wasn't MY money!)  The color shift was very slight and I actually thought the original profile was more neutral to my eyes.  When I worked for a commerical printer we used Adobe Gamma like how the article describes and it did the trick.  You can measure stuff all day but you are still at the mercy of your eyes.  It evens itself out though, because over time you learn to correlate the color values with your own perception and make empirical adjustments. 

[AdamM]

Truth is, LCD monitors leave a lot to be desired...

Our studio still does it's final colour grading on CRT (with LCD, plasma and DLP comparisons for a reality check)

The spyder 2 is a great tool, but i wish the software was more comprehensive. It needs further gamma and near white / near black calibration controls.  It still feels a little 'nerfed' and not as pro as it could be. 

Depends if you're doing broadcast or print.. however.  Print is even more frustrating!

/A

[JohnR]

Good down to earth input for me! The links Scott F posted were interesting, it seems that getting correct color calibration does require some investment. (I forget the name of the unit that generally came out on top now but it was around $350US.) That's past where I want to go $-wise; if I get the Dell I will see how far I can get with the freebie calibrators and how my prints turn out.

[AdamM]

For the money, the Spyder 2 is a worthwhile investment - for sure.  If print matching and colour consistency is important the Spyder sure will help, however you can go pretty far with your naked eye, monitor/printer profiles, and some patience (and save the $200-$350!)

You might have already hit these, but if not, worth a skim:
http://www.epaperpress.com/monitorcal/


This makes a decent test print - as it covers a calculated wide gamut.  Print it, eyeball it, tweak profiles, repeat.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/images/Charts/MacbethCC-sRGB.jpg

Interestingly, skin tones are typically the hardest to match / keep consistent between monitor and output.  Why is that?  One could argue that human skin is a very complex thing, with subsurface light scattering and a myriad of hues involved.  You could also argue that humans very perceptive about skin tones and notice even the tiniest variations, more so than with less familiar objects and their colours.   A great debate to consider as you print-wait-match-tweak-print-wait-match !

/A

[navi]

A while back I read that CRTs were better for photography than LCDs. Is this still the case? Any tips on what to look for in LCD monitors? Still using a CRT but I need a bigger screen...

I have an Eizo monitor (flexscan L768) it's pretty goodcompared to all the other monitors out there.

[AdamM]

I have an Eizo monitor (flexscan L768)

Bloody great monitor.  Still though, LCD's have some fundamental flaws.  Hue and brightness shift at different viewing angles is the main one.  Some, like your Eizo are getting pretty darned good, but for really critical review CRT is still the best choice (unfortunately).

THIS is where it's at!:
http://www.dolby.com/promo/hdr/technology.html


I've seen one, it's shocking.  The only problem - what's there to watch in HDR format?  The data bandwidth is insane!

[drphoto]

I can't stand LCD monitors. I use a Sony Artisan hardware calibrated CRT and had a Radius Pressview before that. (which is now my palette monitor) I'm dreading the day it dies. Wish I'd bought 2 and kept one stored away.

I hear the guys at ILM and other big production houses are lamenting the demise of the CRT. Even Barco doesn't make them anymore.

Color calibraters like the Spyder simply adjust the LUT of the video card, whereas hardware calibrated monitors adjust the output of the electrons guns giving a wider range of tone and more linear greyscale.

Of course any sort of calibration is better than none.

[tonyptony]

This is my first post in the Eye-Fidelity circle, although I've been serious about photography for going on 30 years now. David Brooks has done a number of reviews of LCD monitors in Shutterbug, and it seems the bottom line is that, except for a few, the LCD displays just have too many negatives to be considered for serious photo workflow. Color and contrast shifts, as was mentioned, plus not being able to get as close to covering the color gamut as a CRT display. There were four, that I recall, that did do very well: the Apple Cinema, an Eizo model, a Samsung, and a LaCie. I can't remember the specific model numbers offhand, but they were pretty much the top of the line in the 20" and 22" sizes for each company. Well over the $1000 price point in most cases. A lot of scratch when a good CRT can be had for much less, although large CRTs are getting hard to find nowadays.

[JohnR]

I don't even know where I would buy a CRT! Wouldn't it be the case that the quality of the CRT comes into it as well though -- i.e. there are cheaper CRTs and more expensive ones that are better for imaging?

Eizo's are pricy -

http://www.imagescience.com.au/EizoMonitors/eizoColorEdgeMonitors.html#CG241W

Apparently they have hardware in them to control the pixel output, in a similar manner to what drphoto mentions for the hardware calibrated CRTs - at least, that's my understanding...

[drphoto]

CRT are gone. But don't get the impression that all of them were better than any LCD. Plenty of crappy CRTs were out there. It's just that the best killed the best of the LCDs.

A client of mine had one of those pricey Apple Cinema things in their studio and I thought it was unusable for retouch work. Now maybe it was just setup wrong, but it had a very restricted gamut, non linear greyscale, and who the hell knows about the white point.

Dark days ahead, I'm afraid.