Anyone using an LCD for Photo-Editing?

[senior guy]

I'm building a comp strictly for photo-editing use (no gaming or 3D on this one!). I would really like an LCD display but some Photoshop pro told me that "I'll go nuts trying to calibrate the colors my printer generates to those on the LCD". If that's truly a problem, I will (reluctantly) get a CRT monitor.

Thanks!

 

[IntelConvert]

I certainly can't speak to this as an expert, but while I have heard similar comments, I recently began using a 17" Samsung LCD for image-editing (as a hobby) and so far I haven't had any problems!

 

[Big Lar]

I use a Viewsonic VG191B, and havn't had any discrepencies to date.

 

[senior guy]

Excellent news! I was hoping that the Photoshop pro who warned me against using an LCD monitor was speaking from an extremely critical point of view and that it wasn't nearly as bad as he made it out to be - sounds like that's the case!

 

[senior guy]

Btw, which graphics card are you guys using with your LCD monitors?

 

[Dug]

I personally wouldn't get an lcd for any photo editing.

If you have a critical eye for color then it is a hassle. If you don't have to be exact, then go for it.

I could never handle how an image looked on an lcd though. That and not being able to adjust resolution finally drove me back to a crt.

 

[LH]

CRTs are still the best for DCC, CAD and Photo Editing. LCDs just arent there yet for various reason pertaining to each feild.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: senior guy
I'm building a comp strictly for photo-editing use (no gaming or 3D on this one!). I would really like an LCD display but some Photoshop pro told me that "I'll go nuts trying to calibrate the colors my printer generates to those on the LCD". If that's truly a problem, I will (reluctantly) get a CRT monitor.

Thanks!

I have a Sony M51D...I don't do alot of editing, but I do some, and I've never had a problem.

 

[Peter]

Two major problems with LCDs and color calibration: One, LCDs have quite a limited colorspace to start with. Two, looking at an LCD from a different angle changes the colorspace - and of course no software takes into account where and how you sit in front of the thing.

 

[senior guy]

Shoot; now I am in a quandary... I guess when you ask a question, you have to be prepared for answers you don't want to hear!

Should I go for a cool-looking, space-saving LCD, or play it safe and get a CRT??? ...Decisions, decisions!

Putting the comp together over the weekend (845PE, 2.4B 1GB PC2700, WD120JB), so I need to know (quickly!) which graphics card works really well for photo-editing (for LCD or CRT)??? Remember, there won't be any gaming or 3D on it.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I do restoration and color correction for large format printing. I have a trinitron fd and an apple cinema @ work. The lcd certainly looks sweet, but there are some distracting elements.

The good stuff is the geometry is perfect (not really that important for photo work). Also the colors are relatively precise (no problem with viewing angle with the cinema display). With DVI connections everything's pretty much factor spec..

The bad stuff is noticeably smaller gamut (big issue for photo editing), distracting whites that sparkle (rather than appear solid), and you're stuck @ native resolution (or else the display will look verrry soft).

The best looking LCDs I've seen, MFG'd by mitsubishi strangely enough, can blow away the contrast of a good sony trinitron FD, so I guess your final decision should hinge on whether the smaller gamut will have a large impact on your work.

 

[senior guy]

Issac~ you may have just 'hammered the nail into LCD's coffin'! You are speaking to much higher-end LCDs than I can possibly afford... I do not have any more than $700 for a monitor (be it LCD or CRT)! That in itself may very well be the ultimate deciding factor... In my price-range, I should be able to get an excellent (high-quality) 19" CRT, whereas it does not appear as if that will afford me a high-end 17"- 18" LCD.

Still would like to hear about video cards (strictly for photo-editing use)!

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I've heard many claims about the analogue component quality of ATI MFG'd cards being noticeably higher than pre gf4 nvidia cards, but in a side by side comparison I didn't notice any difference. On the other hand, matrox IS noticeably better than ati or nvidia. If you're on a budget and aren't gaming, I'd go with a lower end matrox.

One thing to note with monitors, is that purchasing from a local vendor (like bestbuy) that will pricematch will be loads better than just ordering from the cheapest place on the net. When it comes to higher end monitors (like $300-600 range), the quality of each unit can vary a lot. My 19" trinitron FD still has a small convergence issue on the upper left hand side, but warranty service states that I have to pay for shipping (around $90) if I want them to RMA or service it. For a $300 monitor, it just isn't worth it.

 

[Dug]

If I were you, I would get a Sony CPD-G520P 21" monitor.

You can't beat the color or screen space in the price range.

Sony CPD-G520P

If you catch Dell at the right time (20% off coupon) you can pick it up for around ~$610 shipped.

The most you could hope for is an good 17" in that price range. The extra 3 inches provided by a 21" monitor is an enormous benefit.

 

[senior guy]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
I've heard many claims about the analogue component quality of ATI MFG'd cards being noticeably higher than pre gf4 nvidia cards, but in a side by side comparison I didn't notice any difference. On the other hand, matrox IS noticeably better than ati or nvidia. If you're on a budget and aren't gaming, I'd go with a lower end matrox.

One thing to note with monitors, is that purchasing from a local vendor (like bestbuy) that will pricematch will be loads better than just ordering from the cheapest place on the net. When it comes to higher end monitors (like $300-600 range), the quality of each unit can vary a lot. My 19" trinitron FD still has a small convergence issue on the upper left hand side, but warranty service states that I have to pay for shipping (around $90) if I want them to RMA or service it. For a $300 monitor, it just isn't worth it.

Thanks for that input Isaac. ... I should be able to pick up a Matrox G550 for under $100. ...Re evaluating monitors, is there any test or demo software you can recommend to take with me to use as a good 'measurement tool'?

 

[senior guy]

Originally posted by: Dug
If I were you, I would get a Sony CPD-G520P 21" monitor.

You can't beat the color or screen space in the price range.

Sony CPD-G520P

If you catch Dell at the right time (20% off coupon) you can pick it up for around ~$610 shipped.

The most you could hope for is an good 17" in that price range. The extra 3 inches provided by a 21" monitor is an enormous benefit.

LOL, I only wish... It will be a struggle placing a 19" CRT on my desk's available surface area!

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I don't think you're going to notice any signifigant color casts or gamut limitations for CRTs (as opposed to LCDs where that's still a bit of an issue). When it comes to color fidelity one generally has to calibrate the monitor to the final output device. As long as the monitor can contain the output device's color space you should be fine.

As for choosing which monitor, my suggestion is to read all the professional reviews (as opposed to the sometimes skewed user reviews) and then really try hard to find a local vendor you can get the monitor from. The one I chose was the sony g410r, which ran me $315 earlier this year. I wouldn't put too much weight on in-store display models. I don't know what the game is, but everytime I go into my local compusa, they seem to be steering everyone to even the crappiest 15" LCDs before trying to sell crts. If they're not busy they might let you actually see something by which to judge the monitor (other than their lo-res videos or screen savers), but otherwise just go by the reviews-

 

[IntelConvert]

Re: graphic cards for 2D, I would agree Matrox cards are the best (unless you consider professional cards)! From my own experience, I originally had a 64mb GF4 MX which, after seeing a big difference in 2D image-quality, I swapped out for a 32mb Matrox G450!

 

[senior guy]

Ok, I'll pick up a G550 and that will complete all of the components inside the box. Then I'll start checking out 19" CRT monitors this weekend. Are there any significant differences in the depth of the various 19 inchers? That's the most constraining dimension on my work-surface!

 

[IntelConvert]

Originally posted by: senior guy
Ok, I'll pick up a G550 and that will complete all of the components inside the box. Then I'll start checking out 19" CRT monitors this weekend. Are there any significant differences in the depth of the various 19 inchers? That's the most constraining dimension on my work-surface!

AFAIK, there's no more than 1" difference in depth between any of them!

 

[cnhoff]

Get the Samsung Syncmaster 959NF-very good 19" CRT and comparable in size to may old 17" Syncmaster 700p!!!

 

[senior guy]

The problem is that the monitor space that's allocated on my work-station wasn't really meant for anything larger than a 17" CRT. Actually, there's enough width and height for a 19", but the depth is exactly 18" and finding a 19' CRT monitor with a depth <=18" is a problem (that was the main reason I initially favored an LCD)!

 

[IntelConvert]

Hee, after saying that I didn't think there was more than 1" difference (in depth) between any 19" CRT monitors, I just returned from my friend's house and he has a Samsung SyncMaster 900SL 19" CRT with a depth of only 16". That's no deeper than 15" - 17" monitors (I had to measure it twice in order to believe it)!!! :Q

 

[senior guy]

That's encouraging - but I don't think that's a current (flat-tube) model. Hopefully, I'll be able to find a flat-tube 19" monitor with as short a depth as the Syncmaster 900SL.