You’d be lucky to get 170cd/m2 @ 0% brightness with a dell…with my 2407, the only way to get any where near 120 cd/m2 is to reduce the rgb values to around 60-70% ( this will vary between monitors ) before calibration. However, I’ve have found the colours not so accurate after this…
Dell’s are OK for basics but I have found them unreliable in this respect and I will only use the one I have for non colour critical work..i.e. sRGB source material / text / browsing….etc
Hi Chris. Thanks. What kind of monitor do you have? Or would you recommend? Are there special monitors for photo work?
I thought I had a pretty good computer system but every time I turn a corner with my new-found digital, photo/developing interest, I am learning that my equipment just doesn’t make it. This whole situation is like the proverbial carrot on a stick: I keep having to upgrade this and buy that and then what I purchase is not quite what I should have, etc., etc. In the meantime, I spend more time learning the hardware and software and less time shooting and developing. I assume it will all start to ‘click’ at some point but right now its kind of discouraging. What was you experience when you started all this?
Are there special monitors for photo work?
Yeah, they are called crts. Unfortunately, not many around these days.
I hope mine doesn’t give up before my eyes do!!
The old school never dies does it?
David,
every time I turn a corner (…) I am learning that my equipment just doesn’t make it
I know how you feel. It’s a steep curve at first, but it flattens out.
But monitor calibration is really the essential first step. It’s your fixed reference point, from which all else follows. Once you have that you can sit back in confidence, knowing that if it looks right, it is right.
And I partially agree with Lawrence about CRTs. One thing that drives me up the wall with LCDs, is that #%&/666# gradation from top to bottom of the screen, even on quite expensive ones. Thank God for the "rotate canvas" trick in CS4, which lets me stand the image on its side to check for even illumination.
Am I missing something? Couldn’t you already do that with Image > Rotate Canvas (with a shortcut if you did it a lot)?
No, you’re not missing anything. The OpenGL variety is just quicker and more convenient, plus I like the idea that it’s not touching the file itself.
The old school never dies does it? If that were true, I still be hawking vacuum tubes!
When them new fangled transistors came out, I could go along with npn, ‘cuz they acted like tubes. But pnp? Outrageous! 😀
To check anything, Ill make a print. At this time the crt matches the print. The LCD didn’t, and I’m not talking about calibration. I speak to the qualitative aspects, that is, when do I decide I have what I want? Even crts have differences with the print in the sense of je ne se qua, that certain something.
I was in a store looking at a bank of LCD TVs and what stood out was the over sharpening. And the mis-calibrations.
Of course, the studios are producing for LCD, so the crt, even if brought back, will be sucking hind tit.
Last night, for the umpteenth time, I messed with the tonal scale of an image I made about this time of the year 45 years ago. It’s my gold standard in a way, because obtaining that certain something always was/is a challenge. I need to nail it completely so when I do go to LCD, all I do is scale and print. It was my first really good image from a 4×5 neg.
The best I can say for LCD is you get what you pay for.
I would also like to hear.
You missed a dig there, JJ:
If that were true, I still be hawking vacuum tubes!
Hmmm, isn’t a crt a vacuum tube Lawrence?
Crap! lawrence. You just gotta keep needling me! STFU!:D
OK, so . . . .
I guess I thought I was going to see a recommendation for an LCD monitor that can be set at 100-120 cd/M2 and have a legible brightness. I thought the problem was in my model of lcd monitor. If they’re all pretty much the same, how can you calibrate one to 100-120 cd/m2 and have it legible? Sounds like you can’t! So, as I’m reading the above, the options are to 1) go back to a crt or 2) experiment with prints until you find a development setting that works. Is that right?
(I like your question John: "It would be interesting to hear from someone who does top quality photography and print who has made the move to LCD." Anyone, anyone?)
Most mid to high end monitors are capable of <120cd/m2.
I produce original Fine art prints and I use an Eizo CG301W which is currently set at 80cd/m2 and it’s a dream to work on. It was a big outlay but it has very accurate colours and proper Blacks – not that dark blue/black I see on the dell – this was the main reason for the upgrade.
Personally, I was glad to see the back of my CRT as it gave me headaches and was a royal pain in the bum to get the geometry correct.
I haven’t used these, but NEC’s and LaCie’s come highly recommended.
Those last two are of major interest. however, NEC is going out of the monitor business, for the most part.
The geometry on the Mitsubishis never gave me problems.
Chris, Lawrence,
Thanks. I’ll research those products. (I’ve never even heard of Eizo or LaCie!) Just curious but, what do you use for printers, scanners, computer, software, etc?
David,
an LCD monitor that can be set at 100-120 cd/M2 and have a legible brightness. I thought the problem was in my model of lcd monitor. If they’re all pretty much the same, how can you calibrate one to 100-120 cd/m2 and have it legible? Sounds like you can’t!
All LCDs can be calibrated to 120 cd/m2, yours too. Your problem is that the Spyder3pro won’t do it, but other calibrators can. In your other thread I mentioned Color Eyes Display Pro, which will work with your Spyder3 puck, and which lets you specify luminance.
Thanks Freeagent. I got the impression in the course of the thread that I could get my monitor to 100-120 cd/m2 but that in order to do so it would lose all its Brightness (i.e., it would have to be set close to zero). Did I misread that?
@ David – Yeah, it will be around 0%, I guess try it an see, it may take a while to get used to if you achieve <120cd/m2 but most LCDs are way too bright for photographic work as they are designed primarily for games, general stuff – However, I hope you are sitting down when you see the Eizo prices…..The clincher for me was the deep/dark colour as some of my images rely on very subtle variations in dark tone. I recommend you have a look at the monitors with one of your images so you can see the difference – you will be amazed by the shadow detail in the Nec/LeCie/Eizo over the dells.
However, Dellas are not a disaster, if you work in a bright environment then you might get away with a higher cd/m2 – I have a controlled lighting computer environment so I don’t have to recalibrate every 3 hours as the sun moves around the earth ( that was, sort of, a joke )…I like the light consistent.
For my main output I go to a print house for Lambda Digital prints….but for soft proofing I have my trusty Epson 3800 ( A2 ) – it will go up to 16 x 37ins. The print quality is the really exceptional and I highly recommend it….The running cost is around £380 for a full set of inks but you’ll get a lot out of the cartridges – even at A2. When I was proofing ideas to clients last year at A2 I managed to output around 90( give or take a few )high quality prints on the inks provided with the printer. Not bad at all!!
Scanner is a Epson A4 4870 which is OK but I will upgrade to a A3 later this year when I find one with a high resolution.
3800 for soft proof only?
I used the Lamda system before I have the 3800. So long as the size required is in the 17×37 range, I have no need to go out. And if I find that the print isn’t quite right from either source, which is frequent, I can simply reprint. Prints are not the same as monitors.
I haven’t run a Lamda for 5 years or more.
So, i have an Epson 3200 scanner which does quite well for 120. I hardly scan any more. Maybe when I cannot pack into the mountains, I’ll go back to the files.
My computer is home groan (grown! Grown!!). Eventually I’ll switch to an Intel i7 processor system, but my AMD single core is quite fast for CS3. And when it slows down for a filter, hell, I needed a coffee break anyway.
A well maintained computer even 3 or 4 years old does admirably well if you keep it clean. And if it wasn’t for:
a) Open Gl and
b) disappearing brush circles, especially the clone tool, I would have CS4.
I would have no problems using the 3800 for professional output if my clients required the sizes it can print – however my output is BIG so I have to out-source the final prints….
……agreed….a clean system works wonders…..as does coffee breaks 🙂
Just fyi I’ve begun using two Dell UltraSharp 2007FP 20.1" monitors and am getting quite used to them. Things are a lot sharper so I have to visually push the unsharp masking (or Smart Sharpen) a bit further than I did with my 22" Mitsubishi CRT which was softer.
There’s been some adjusting to do, but all in all it’s working out fine. The brightness of these can easily be set as low as 100cd/m2 and I suspect they’re S-IPS (possibly S-PVA). The colour is very good and I calibrate using OptixPro in XP and ColorEyes Display Pro in Vista64. These both support my X-Rite DP94 puck. They compete surprisingly well with my wife’s LaCie LCD that I paid almost 3-4x more for (I think it’s a LaCie 320 LCD Monitor).
Just wanted to say that Dell sells many different monitor models that use different technologies and at different prices. Obviously some of their monitors ‘suck’ for serious photoshop work and are more suitable for watching movies or playing games. But they do sell a few ‘premium’ models that work very well (for the price).
I don’t understand Russell. If the monitor looks sharper, why would you increase the amount of sharpening? And, at 100%, any monitor will be able to show the onset of sharpening artifacts.
The overly sharp appearance of LCD screens, especially those in TV displays, hurt my eyes.
Ok, I guess I’m missing something. If I turn my Brightness to zero (to achieve 100-120 cd/m2), then I can barely see the image on the screen (it looks like mud). The image is not in a develop-able condition (it would be impossible to manipulate color, hue, saturation, sharpening etc. [you can’t see it!]). Perhaps I should ask a technical question about how the calibration device works: Does the calibration device adjust the monitor so that it is visible and comfortable to work with AND at 100-120 cd/m2?
That brightness 100-120cd/m2 should be quite bright. My crt is running about 90 to 95. What I don’t know if the units are the same in both.
I don’t understand Russell. If the monitor looks sharper, why would you increase the amount of sharpening?
I think Russell meant to sharpen for output. When the monitor is already natively sharp, he needs to oversharp the document a bit on that monitor to get it right for print.
I do this all the time. An image is good on screen, yet it’s going to an Epson 7800 using Fuji Satin paper, I need to counter-act the ink bleed and oversharpen. It looks overly sharp on a CRT and more so on an LCD, but that’s what Russell meant IMO.
Rob
Well, with the 3800, if I sharpen past the artifact point, I see artifacts in the print. Matte paper is less so, but Hahnemuhle Baryta, for instance will show up the uglies.
I started working in the darkroom in 1959, and it’s been continuous until about 1999. 40 years really trains the eye. If the image isn’t really sharp, no amount of sharpening avialable in basic photoediting will help. Otoh, some of my D90 images almost do not need sharpening, and getting them up to the artifact point is unbelievable.
If it looks good, it is good. Otherwise…..
Agreed. On print.
Rob
I think Russell meant to sharpen for output. When the monitor is already natively sharp, he needs to oversharp the document a bit on that monitor to get it right for print.
Yes, I meant for offset printing. As you probably already know, to get things right for offset printing you need to push your sharpening more than you would for onscreen viewing. Some folks evaluate sharpness when viewing the image at 50% magnification to compensate. I’ve found that what looked like only a bit extra sharpening with the CRT looks like a LOT more (ugh) with the LCD, even though they’re the same image. So I’ve had to readjust my ‘how much sharpening is enough for offset printing’ judgment. I’m getting used to it..
Can someone illustrate "the artifact point"?
The problem with sharpening for offset is that you’re usually sending images that are a much higher resolution that will actually be printed. The digital info is converted to halftone dots on the plate and if the printing is only 150 lpi then you’re going to lose a lot of image detail in the translation (300ppi -> 150lpi). Since they’re 2 different imaging worlds you can’t rely easily on what’s on the monitor at 100% to assess the correct amount of sharpness. Even artifacts at 100% will often be invisible when it’s translated to a 150lpi halftone screen. The general wisdom is to sharpen more than what looks ok on the screen @100%. But for inkjet and onscreen images it is WYSIWYG.
I consider Dan Marguilis to still be the leading authority on adjusting CMYK images for the press. It’s pretty surprising to see how far he goes with his sharpening, especially the additional sharpening he adds to only the black channel. You have to be brave… which is harder to be with a sharp LCD since it looks worse than the same image on a softer CRT, even though it’s still the appropriate amount of sharpening for the offset printing process.
That’s why some recommend sharpening at a 50% view so you have a better assessment of its affect on the final output.
So, it sounds like I need to purchase a calibration device that calibrates the luminance (shouldn’t have purchased the Spyder Pro3) and purchase a monitor that is designed more specifically for sensitive, photo developing – as opposed to general use.
I need to purchase a calibration device that calibrates the luminance (shouldn’t have purchased the Spyder Pro3) and purchase a monitor that is designed more specifically for sensitive, photo developing – as opposed to general use.
I don’t think setting a target luminance is as important as all that. The important thing is to not have it too bright and not all monitors are able to lower their brightness enough to be useful. Some folks find that raising the room brightness helps compensate for overly bright monitors that cannot be turned down any lower.
One problem with overly bright monitors is that dark images will appear too bright on screen and the prints end up too dark compared to what you see. I good tip is to view your image on a white background (or at least a 2-3" white border) when evaluating them, as viewing them on gray makes them look brighter than they really are. Your Spider might be fine, though I prefer the Eye-One. Just turn your monitor brightness down as much as possible.
Here’s a link with lots of monitor info re: what’s what:
<
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&th readid=2049206&enterthread=y>
Even with the crt, when I open a file, I go full screen then roll it back with the scroll wheel. That puts a nice white border around the image. But, if you plan to show a print with other than a white matt, you should use that color for the surround.
The main thing you should be trying to achieve, if you want your monitor and printer to be in sync, is that the monitor should not be substantially brighter, in either white or black areas, than a paper image viewed in the location where you will be comparing it. If you have an D65 image viewing box or a Verilux lamp near your computer that you use for comparing prints to the screen, the screen and the illuminated paper should be comparable. They can’t be exactly the same, but they should be comparable in brightness. The default settings on virtually all monitors will be much brighter than this, so it will need to be turned down substantially. In my case, with a Samsung SyncMaster 215TW, I had to turn the contrast down to 68 and the brightness to 29. Once I got the brightness comparable, I used my OptixXR colorimeter and EZColor software to calibrate and profile. I think the luminance was somewhere just above 120 nits.
Lawrence,
Curious to know why you said in post #13 that "NEC is going out of the monitor business, for the most part".
Wasn’t it only early last year that NEC released its new 30 inch monitor, then later in the year (about Nov) it started shipping the updated wider gamut 2690WUXi2 and in January this year it announced (at MacWorld, I think) an updated SpectraView kit (SVII-PRO-KIT)which is suitable for both its 26 and 30 inch monitors and which is now available for purchase from the main NEC US site. It also started shipping its 24 inch 2490WUXi into Europe for the first time only this month (see <
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm> )
Does not sound like a company which is withdrawing from the monitor market to me, unless it is starting to concentrate only on its premium models. Do you have a source for your opinion?
Hmmm, I can’t find the references and when I typed a query about it into the NEC press page, it said the page no longer available.
???
wasn’t posted on april 1st was it larry? 🙂
