1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Monitor for editing

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by RojBlake, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. RojBlake

    RojBlake New Member

    Hoping for a little but of advice, I am looking for a new monitor. Liked the look of the Iiyama x2483hsu, but then found BenQ bl2410pt. Is the Iiyama good enough to edit photograph's, I don't need it to be 100% but I want it to be good enough to do the job. I can't afford silly money, so the BenQ is at the top end of my budget. Any input welcome.
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I didn't find a review of the Iiyama so this is general advice.

    It depends on what editing you want to do really. I appreciate the difficulty in buying a monitor because they are rarely able to be demonstrated. Monitor quality begins to be important if you want colour accuracy for printing, particularly if you aren't doing the printing and you want someone else to reproduce exactly what you see on the screen*. If you want pictures to display on the computer then it is less important. The main things you want are colour stability and ability to view the screen from different angles without the image changing. Monitors with a restricted angle of view (cheaper TN panels) require you to set up a rigid working position so that you can only view the monitor from one position. Most modern monitors are IPS panels with a wide viewing angle. The other main thing is contrast ratio. A low contrast ratio ( say max 500:1, prints are up to 300:1) is best for photography because it enables midtones to be displayed but most monitors have higher contrast. Office work in comparison needs high contrast, the better to display text. Speed of response is not important for photoediting unlike gaming where the image changes constantly and consistency is unimportant.

    So, looking at specs, angle of view +++, high contrast ---, best for gaming ---, gamut +++ if full sRGB, wider gamuts go with specialist monitors. Adjustment for brightness +++ most are far too bright as shipped (editing for printing needs max 130 cd/m2).

    I would recommend calibrating a monitor. I don't use camera jpgs and I print. Many disagree.

    *in discussions in these forums it is clear that, if you do the printing then you can always adjust things to get what you see on the screen. That's fine but there is no guarantee that if you give the edited file to someone else they'll get the same result.
     
    Footloose likes this.
  3. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Have a look at the viewsonic range.
    I recently got a viewsonic vp2468 24inch from CCL for not much more than £200 for my daughter.
    They are aimed at photographers and accurate colour studio work. And give 99 to 100% Srgb colours over the entire screen.
    Their top of the range models are as good as you get but extremely expensive.

    I use a rather cheaper iiyama IPS monitor calibrated with a colourmunki screen for my own editing. Which is near enough for me, but distinctly second best by comparison.
     
  4. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    You don't mention the screen ratio - the current fashion for 'widescreen' (16:9 or 1,77:1) ones makes editing portrait format images tedious unless you have one of the monitors that rotates through 90 degrees and has the appropriate stand and tangle-proof cables.

    I've got a 12 year old 5.4 (1.25:1) monitor which I hope will last me a long time. It's as near to the ideal square ratio I've found.

    PeteRob's advice about the factory setting is correct. Try do have dim lighting in your editing suite with no lights shining directly on the screen, and then lower the brightness, contrast and colour intensity to get a test picture looking right. Initially, a facial shot of somebody you know, taken outdoors in daylight between mid-morning and mid-afternoon, with your camera's white balance set to daylight or cloudy (as required, but not 'auto') will be helpful for this. You may be surprised how low the screen settings need to be.

    This advice is also relevant to Plasma or LCD television screens, but many people use them with room light on and curtains open, so the brightness/contrast/colour intensity are all high and the image is nowhere near as good as it could be. If you want to view your pictures on the 'big screen' it's worth getting that right too. They can look wonderful if cropped to 16:9 and the resolution resized to exactly match that of the screen (1920 x 1080, for example, including any black areas of each side of the image if needed).
     
  5. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I had one at work (when I was still doing it). Excellent ratio for photos or office work, even better than square in my opinion - frustrating that they only seem to sell letter-box shapes these days.

    Chris
     
  6. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    I use an old (20 years +) high-end Iiyama CRT monitor which beats the pants of any flat screen monitor that I could possibly afford. It's not very big but I can always zoom in. The other monitor on the same computer is a BIG flat-screen.

    If you can still find a good CRT monitor -- most have been scrapped -- they often go for little or even nothing.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  7. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    But they also take up a lot of desk space, which some of us don't have spare. I couldn't possibly fit a 20" (or even an old 14" like the one I had nearly 20 years ago) on the table that I can fit in the small room I have to use. Also, I have a small amplifier, and a pair of ancient 'mini monitor' loudspeakers either side of the screen for listening to BBC IPlayer radio. If using a CRT monitor these would need to be 'magnetically shielded' so that the speaker magnets did not distort the monitor image.

    I think the real problem with buying a monitor today is that there's nothing available apart from 16:9 (1.77:1) ratio that is ideal for editing video and playing games, but less ideal for editing still images unless they're landscape format ones of 3:2 or 16:9 ratio.
     
  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I just looked at the colour confidence website. Not only the aspect ratio but size seems to have increased. Their smallest is 23". I have two 21" screens and they seem fairly big to sit in front of. One thing I noticed when I gave in and went from LR 6.14 to LR 8.0 is that the default work space appears to be 16:9 ratio. It opens with the right panel disappeared of my NEC and shrinks sideways and grows taller when I full-screen the workspace. The usefulness of widescreen in a work environment is that you can more easily have two working "windows" side by side.
     
  9. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    One of he benefits of a widescreen is that when I'm using PSP, (same applies to Photoshop) and you want a fair number of the various tabs for functions open, (histogram, Layers, history, palette etc) I size the program window so that I have space on one side into which I place these opened tabs which are then 'locked' into that area, so they don't end up covering or intruding the side-menus or/and sections of the image I am editing. Unfortunately, some of the functions also open a small window smack-bang in the midde of what I'm editing and then once opened they have to be repositioned out of the editing area. Quite why they also cannot be assigned to automatically open where I want them to be, like the others, annoys and baffles me.
     

Share This Page