Monitor recommendation?

[dave.gt]

Medium Format Systems are wonderful... until one of the key components dies. Like any chain, or anything linked, it is only as strong as the weakest link.

Months ago, both of my computers died an ugly death. CI set me up with a used MacBook Pro (thanks, Steve!) at a great price. The 25" HP screen has been perfect for me almost six years. It still may be useable if I could diagnose the cable problem. So, yesterday, I bought a second HDMI adapter because Apple said my 6-month old Moshi adapter was bad... Still getting a video cable error notice.

Now, the MacBook Pro is fantastic, but... I cannot work with the built-in screen.

Nor can I afford a new stand-alone external screen, but I have to do something. Replacing the HP screen with what? That is my question. How to make it happen is going to be the next challenge.:banghead:

I would appreciate your suggestions on a replacement.

 

[dave.gt]

Eizo! Not going to happen. Lol...

So, what else is out there for "little" money? I make no apologies for being marginalized, it was not my idea, but there is always a solution. Any thoughts?

 

[MGrayson]

Is there a BenQ in your price range? They seem very good on bang/buck.

Matt

 

[dave.gt]

Is there a BenQ in your price range? They seem very good on bang/buck.

Matt

Thanks, Matt,

I am not aware of BenQ, nor do I have a price range, it will be a sacrifice to replace my monitor. But I will research BenQ as soon as I can find time.

Appreciate the heads up!

 

[tcdeveau]

I was going to suggest you add a budget otherwise you'll be hearing Eizo all day

I have a NEC PA272W that I like, but if I were to do it all over again, I may go with something cheaper.

I have also heard good things about the BenQ's. They appear to have a nice price/performance ratio.

 

[faberryman]

I know that this is anathema to some, but I think the whole calibrated monitor thing is a money pit and rabbit hole, unlikely to improve the quality of your images. Get a decent monitor and work on your photography instead. Throwing money at a monitor and calibration devices isn't the answer.

 

[MGrayson]

I know that this is anathema to some, but I think the whole calibrated monitor thing is a rabbit hole, unlikely to improve the quality of your images. Get a decent monitor and work on your photography instead.

Agreed. A guy who edits product shots for print has to have a perfect color workflow. I just have to get results I like.

M

 

[MGrayson]

Also, make sure it isn't the Mac that is the problem! Will it connect to another monitor? Will your monitor not work with another computer?

M

 

[tcdeveau]

I know that this is anathema to some, but I think the whole calibrated monitor thing is a rabbit hole, unlikely to improve the quality of your images. Get a decent monitor and work on your photography instead. Throwing money at a monitor and calibration devices isn't the answer.

Definitely agree with this. My NEC has a color calibration feature and external device for calibration, but I'm not sure it's done much for my images. Everyone's mileage differs in this regard, but this is why if I were to do it over again, I may go with something cheaper.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Definitely agree with this. My NEC has a color calibration feature and external device for calibration, but I'm not sure it's done much for my images.

The whole purpose of a calibrated display is to get more predictable results when printing your images. Certainly you can go through iterations of test prints, but a good workflow gives pretty remarkable and repeatable results with little or no testing needed.

It won’t make your images any better, nor will it improve your skills at post processing.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Medium Format Systems are wonderful... until one of the key components dies. Like any chain, or anything linked, it is only as strong as the weakest link.

Months ago, both of my computers died an ugly death. CI set me up with a used MacBook Pro (thanks, Steve!) at a great price. The 25" HP screen has been perfect for me almost six years. It still may be useable if I could diagnose the cable problem. So, yesterday, I bought a second HDMI adapter because Apple said my 6-month old Moshi adapter was bad... Still getting a video cable error notice.

.

doesn’t your external display have a DisplayPort connection? I’ve seen several with issues and the MacBook Pros that have only USB-C style connectors solve their problem with a USB-C to display port cable (no adaptor). I ran across this myself with a couple of NEC displays, once I had a correct cable everything worked great, no adaptors needed.

 

[MGrayson]

The whole purpose of a calibrated display is to get more predictable results when printing your images. Certainly you can go through iterations of test prints, but a good workflow gives pretty remarkable and repeatable results with little or no testing needed.

It won’t make your images any better, nor will it improve your skills at post processing.

Nice in theory, but I can’t get side-by-side monitors to agree, so what value calibration? I’m not ready to go up from NEC to Eizo without more evidence that it’s worth it in practice.

Wishing it worked as advertised,

Matt

 

[Frankly]

I used twin monitors. Getting them both to be the same is possible but a huge PITA that makes you doubt everything to do with calibration. Best to pick one to be your reading and tool dock, the other for editing.

I love my iMac 5K but prior I had some NEC monitors that were best value for color gambit and not that expensive. Had Eizos, NECs, I go back to Radius PressViews. It's a shame all the CRTs are gone.

The problem with any calibrated monitor is if you make it paper print dull they really make your photos dull unless you're willing to juggle back and forth between calibration settings every time you go between editing for the screen or print. If you keep a computer as a dedicated print work station it may make sense but if you do a variety of work it's a big headache. Also expecting the monitor to last six years is pretty hopeful but maybe new ones will? IDK.

I chose the screen. Pictures look wonderful on screen.

Not to get too Ken Rockwellian but the image quality of the slideshow you get from Amazon Fire or Apple TV on your HD TV is superior to the best Ansel Adams print.

Threw my photo printers away a few years ago and haven't missed them one bit. I get snap shots from Shutterfly and use a custom lab with test prints for print sales and my personal display.

Frankly once large OLED "art viewing devices" are reasonable I'm going to put a few around the house.

Funny thing was that print design and production was a large part of my business for 20+ years, before that analog darkroom work, full Zone System nut. But seriously, screw paper.

Here's to the thousands of hours and many late nights/early mornings I spent dicking around with monitors and printers when I could have been with the kids or outdoors playing. It sucked.

 

[PeterA]

I used twin monitors. Getting them both to be the same is possible but a huge PITA that makes you doubt everything to do with calibration. Best to pick one to be your reading and tool dock, the other for editing.

I love my iMac 5K but prior I had some NEC monitors that were best value for color gambit and not that expensive. Had Eizos, NECs, I go back to Radius PressViews. It's a shame all the CRTs are gone.

The problem with any calibrated monitor is if you make it paper print dull they really make your photos dull unless you're willing to juggle back and forth between calibration settings every time you go between editing for the screen or print. If you keep a computer as a dedicated print work station it may make sense but if you do a variety of work it's a big headache. Also expecting the monitor to last six years is pretty hopeful but maybe new ones will? IDK.

I chose the screen. Pictures look wonderful on screen.

Not to get too Ken Rockwellian but the image quality of the slideshow you get from Amazon Fire or Apple TV on your HD TV is superior to the best Ansel Adams print.

Threw my photo printers away a few years ago and haven't missed them one bit. I get snap shots from Shutterfly and use a custom lab with test prints for print sales and my personal display.

Frankly once large OLED "art viewing devices" are reasonable I'm going to put a few around the house.

Funny thing was that print design and production was a large part of my business for 20+ years, before that analog darkroom work, full Zone System nut. But seriously, screw paper.

Here's to the thousands of hours and many late nights/early mornings I spent dicking around with monitors and printers when I could have been with the kids or outdoors playing. It sucked.

You are channeling my exact thoughts - moved to displaying my photos at home on big screens on walls a few years ago and at offices... I now outsource printing of book sized albums to Jorgenson and large panoramas to a specialist printer.

 

[dave.gt]

Well... first of all, I appreciate each and every response. Thank you!

It seems that gaming monitors and all kinds of LED, IPS and different alphabet soup choices are everywhere.

BenQ seems attractive with a very wide range of prices.

Nothing is simple anymore! I am not a geek or a gearhead, I simply want to get on with actually making images. Forget the cameras, lenses, monitors, printing, blah, blah, marketing/forum blather.

All I need is a 25" screen that is very good for a photographer to use. Is that too simple these days? I cannot begin to choose a monitor to buy at the moment, so I will give up on researching because it is not worth my time. I will continue trying to pinpoint the problem with my current setup.

Makes me wish for simpler times.

When I leave the house tomorrow for yet more rehab, I will carry my low-tech FM2n with a pocket full of Ektachrome and FP4. Camera therapy at its best.

 

[JohnBrew]

I was going to suggest you add a budget otherwise you'll be hearing Eizo all day

I have a NEC PA272W that I like, but if I were to do it all over again, I may go with something cheaper.

I have also heard good things about the BenQ's. They appear to have a nice price/performance ratio.

Yep, have the same NEC and I'm quite happy with it.
I hear Dell has some good deals on decent monitors.

 

[Frankly]

It’s hard to recommend specific models unless you just got one as the manufacturers change models and specs on a seemingly weekly basis.

 

[stngoldberg]

Usually I agree with most of the folks who have commented in this thread; however my passion is a printed image. I enjoy working my images on a computer to maximize the detail and produce a product that I envisioned when I clicked the shutter.
Before I used a calibrated monitor, I was frustrated with every print I produced...usually too dark and off correct color cast.
Now thanks to Eizo, my prints usually match my monitor on the first try.
Further to my point, if you send your work out to be printed by a custom lab that most certainly uses a calibrated monitor; how do they match what is on your monitor?
Stanley

 

[Wayne Fox]

Nice in theory, but I can’t get side-by-side monitors to agree, so what value calibration? I’m not ready to go up from NEC to Eizo without more evidence that it’s worth it in practice.

One issue with calibration and profiling is expecting an “exact” match. that’s one reason it is recommended your viewing station require you to turn your head away from your display.

Most using two displays will use only one, the one that yields the best match to the printed output, as a working display. There are exceptions but this involves higher end displays that have their own built in calibration. I have two 30” NEC displays (a 301w and a 302w) side by side. Using Spectraview II, the color differences between the two are indistinguishable. I used to have a 30” Apple display next to the NEC, and yes it was a little challenging to get a match.

My screen to print match is extremely close, especially when using good PK papers such as Legacy Baryta or Luster.

However, I no longer try to get the two displays to match, as I only use one for color correction and post processing, the other has pallets or other programs on it. So now I calibrate the second one to sRGB, a slightly cooler white point and higher brightness (more typically of a display used by average consumers), and when working on a file that needs to go to the web I sometimes move it over there just to make sure there isn’t something that might compromise the look in a browser.

As far as more evidence it’s worthwhile, good results can be had with any decent display. When I consult with customers, the most common problem I see is them not realizing there is no magic number, either in display brightness or white point when calibrating and profiling their display. Second problem is they don’t have a consistent and appropriately lit viewing situation to evaluate the results. To get good results, you need a good viewing situation, and then it’s a matter of trial and error profiling the display, varying the brightness and white point, until what you see on the screen matches what is in the viewing station. You can’t just dial in 120L and 6500k and expect to get a match. There really are only 3 variables that can be controlled, the viewing station, the display brightness, and the display white point.

 

[MGrayson]

I am actually fine with my screen to print match. It's only when viewing a grey background on both monitors that I see that they're different. It's like the old "A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two is never sure."

--M