Monitor recommendation

[guitarman67]

Hi. My current monitor is an HP paviluon 27xi. I am thinking of updating to a 4k 27 or 31/32inch. Looking at NEC or EIZO as it seems that my HP is regarded by some as more of an "office" type monitor and not really good enough for accurate photo editing. Is the larger monitor size better? Interested to see what others are using. Not interested in a mac as my pc is fairly new and quite powerful. Cheers.

 

[Maurie]

I recently replaced two Samsung 24" (supposedly) high end monitors with a 4k 49" Ultra Wide from Phillips. It's the real estate of 2x 27" monitors and callibrating it with my SpyderX it records far higher color space numbers than the Samsungs. 140% of sRGB and 98% of AdobeRGB and 88% ProPhotoRGB. Anyone looking at dual monitors, I'd recommend this solution.

 

[soundbyte]

Something like an Eizo ColorEdge CS2731 would be my suggestion.

There are lots of options, if possible go and check them out in person.

 

[DRwyoming]

Is the larger monitor size better?

Personally I like a 27" photo monitor and though I've tried 32" monitors they're almost too big for the way I work and the distance I typically sit from my monitor.

Many good monitors but I'm using a BenQ 27" photo monitor (SW2700PT) that I like a lot that has very good color calibration straight from the factory. It supports 100% of the sRGB color space and 99% of the Adobe RGB 1998 color space. I don't feel the need for a 4K monitor for photo processing but have friends who have gone that route for 4K video editing work.

 

[Deleted member 115]

I am happy with my 27inch iMac 🖥 It’s the largest I would go personally

 

[bleirer]

I think most important for photo work is to go for one with at least 99% Adobe RGB with consistent edge to edge performance. Resolution can be compensated for with zooming, size is what you are comfortable with as long as it is enough to clearly see two images side by side. Similar to the Benq 27" mentioned above, but for the budget minded, the Benq 24" sw240 also covers a lot of the bases.

SW240｜24-inch 2K AdobeRGB Photographer Monitor

BenQ SW240 Photographer Monitor supports IPS technology for photo editing and excellent 99% Adobe RGB color space.

www.benq.com

 

[guitarman67]

Thanks for the replies . I will try and see some in person but many of the higher end models are not in the stores here.

 

[ChrisM]

I recently got the 27inch 4K Eizo CS2740. I already had the Eizo CS2420, so knew what to expect.
I read a lot on 4K or not on 27inch, and can compare it to the 24inch 2560px monitor.
Perhaps it is personal, but I now greatly prefer the 4K screen. Images simply look much better, close to my A3+ prints.
It is logical of course, as you throw away a lót of image data when viewing on lower resolution displays.

 

[guitarman67]

The Eizo looks good...thank you.

 

[jeffnles1]

I have a 27" Dell 2720Q. It wasn't a whole lot of money but it works well for my needs. One of these days I'll invest in a high end monitor but for now, this works well, colors are accurate out of the box. I ran iStudio i1Display calibration on it and the new profile vs the saved profile the colors were almost indistinguishable. It was pretty bright out of the box and I turned the brightness down a bit.

Hope this helps.
Jeff

 

[dabhand16]

When my Dell Ultrsharp (the one that got the good reviews) pegged out after 10 years I got an entry level Eizo CX 240 (24") from a friend who was upgrading to an better Eizo one. It is really good but when I got it it was calibrated with the built-in system and it was way too warm for me, but using my Spyder sorted it out. If/when I have to replace it I'd be looking at another one or a BenQ.. Not difficult to get good monitors, the trick for me is to get a good one without a mortgage.

 

[bleirer]

Here is a good article on the topic of color in general, linked a few weeks ago by a user here. I don't think a lower resolution monitor throws away data, it's just when you set your editing software to 100% view you have to scroll left or right or up and down more if the monitor resolution is lower, while more of the image fits on the screen when the resolution is greater. When you do 'fit to screen' either monitor will extrapolate to fit multiple image pixels into one screen pixel, since your image is 6000 pixels wide or more, but a higher resolution monitor will extrapolate less.

sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhoto RGB

photographylife.com

Best Monitor for Photography

photographylife.com

 

[Dan291]

+1 on the BenQ SW2700PT

 

[ChrisM]

Here is a good article on the topic of color in general, linked a few weeks ago by a user here. I don't think a lower resolution monitor throws away data, it's just when you set your editing software to 100% view you have to scroll left or right or up and down more if the monitor resolution is lower, while more of the image fits on the screen when the resolution is greater. When you do 'fit to screen' either monitor will extrapolate to fit multiple image pixels into one screen pixel, since your image is 6000 pixels wide or more, but a higher resolution monitor will extrapolate less.

sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhoto RGB

photographylife.com

Best Monitor for Photography

photographylife.com

Extrapolate being a very chique term for throwing away image data because your screen cannot display it...

 

[bleirer]

Extrapolate being a very chique term for throwing away image data because your screen cannot display it...

It's not thrown away though, just recalculated by the software when you switch from 100% to fit to screen. Just like printing, it is linked to image size and viewing distance and our visual acuity. So a 13" laptop with a 4k resolution is not necessarily better than a 24" monitor with standard HD.

 

[ChrisM]

It's not thrown away though, just recalculated by the software when you switch from 100% to fit to screen. Just like printing, it is linked to image size and viewing distance and our visual acuity. So a 13" laptop with a 4k resolution is not necessarily better than a 24" monitor with standard HD.

I am aware of the imaging science behind this, but think of it this way: a 24inch standard HD screen needs a 1920x1080 pixel image to fill the entire screen. That is 2 mp.
If you have no other intention than viewing your images on a standard HD screen, a 2 mp camera would suffice, since all additional resolution beyond 2mp would have to be downscaled in the drawing on screen of the image. Now I know cropping latitude comes in handy, but even then 5mp would be more than sufficient.

Really, I went through all the theories and the pro's and cons, but there is only one way to find out: use a 4K monitor and see if it is for you. I know that I absolutely see the difference, and it is not small. Your eyes and brain get more information, color wise and tonality wise. Whether one sees this difference and finds it meaningfull, that is another question...

 

[Marco74]

I bought an Eizo CG319X 4k 31" a few months ago. I'm quite happy, but in my opinion, it is overpriced.
I instal it in my office (I will move at home) side by side with an Imac 27" 5k and looks together with the same photos; the difference is minimal.
There is, but for amateur use, it isn't easy to justify the high expense.
Obviously, the Imac monitor is carefully calibrated with X-Rite i1 Display Pro and DisplayCal software.

One of the critical points, in my opinion, is that with a high-end monitor, to obtain the maximum of the system, also the ambient light has a big impact.
The ambient light must be inside a range of Lux to avoid high contrast.
The light sensor installed on the monitor (from Eizo customer care explanation) on the CG319X works only during the calibration of the monitor and does not control the monitor's luminosity during normal use.
So, if the ambient is too bright or too dark, it can be a problem.

I solve it with a Light meter; before adjusting my photos, I check if there is luminosity near 100 lux in my office (between 100 and 130 ore or less).
I'm not a professional, so I don't want to spend other money to buy colour balanced, and lux fixed lamp or other specific pieces of equipment.

At home, I have an Imac old generation with an HD screen.
My personal preference as a monitor to adjust my photos, I set the Eizo as first and probably the old Imac and second, but it is a difficult choice to put the 5k in the third position.
The 5k monitor covers a higher percentage of Adobe Srg space, but the higher resolution makes it difficult to adjust the sharpness of the photos. The tendency is to oversharp the image.

On the 31" screen, 4k, every time I move the slider of LR slowly, the difference is bigger in confronting the other two monitors, so it looks like my photos need less adjustment.
But I'm learning to work on it, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

 

[guitarman67]

Thank you all for the info and recommendations.

 

[EricBowles]

One factor to consider is the ability to adjust the monitor height and angle as needed. Most are pretty flexible, but it's good to be sure.

I am using a monitor for video programs pretty often. I have a separate camera. A 32 inch monitor is too high for my video camera and a 27 inch screen is borderline.

I've got NEC and BenQ monitors and recommend them both.

 

[Marco74]

One factor to consider is the ability to adjust the monitor height and angle as needed. Most are pretty flexible, but it's good to be sure.

I am using a monitor for video programs pretty often. I have a separate camera. A 32 inch monitor is too high for my video camera and a 27 inch screen is borderline.

I've got NEC and BenQ monitors and recommend them both.

Eric, I completely agree with you. Other problems are that the dedicated monitor normally has not internal speaker and webcam.
The Eizo is flexible but too big to put a camera on top than the eyelid for reflections if used, is very big.

For that purpose, the iMac 27" is well balanced and having everything integrated is another point in its favour.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I also have the BenQ 27" photo monitor (SW2700PT) and I really like it! It is marketed as a photo editing monitor, but it does just fine with normal computer tasks. My second monitor is an inexpensive ViewSonic where I watch all the YouTube Lightroom instructional videos as I follow along on my BenQ,

I am not an Apple user (except for an iPad) but I have to admit that the new iMac 27" with their new chip is really interesting.

 

[Marco74]

I'm waiting for the new chip to replace the iMac that I have at home then I will move my Eizo there. But this is out of topic.

However, the new iMac high-end line will probably have a bigger monitor with a resolution higher than 5k. Maybe 6k like the Pro Display XDR.
It is amazing for video application, but probably too much for the photos.

 

[guitarman67]

Thanks all for the response. The BenQ PD3200U 32 inch 4K UHD IPS looks good. Thoughts?

 

[ChrisM]

I bought an Eizo CG319X 4k 31" a few months ago. I'm quite happy, but in my opinion, it is overpriced.
I instal it in my office (I will move at home) side by side with an Imac 27" 5k and looks together with the same photos; the difference is minimal.
There is, but for amateur use, it isn't easy to justify the high expense.
Obviously, the Imac monitor is carefully calibrated with X-Rite i1 Display Pro and DisplayCal software.

One of the critical points, in my opinion, is that with a high-end monitor, to obtain the maximum of the system, also the ambient light has a big impact.
The ambient light must be inside a range of Lux to avoid high contrast.
The light sensor installed on the monitor (from Eizo customer care explanation) on the CG319X works only during the calibration of the monitor and does not control the monitor's luminosity during normal use.
So, if the ambient is too bright or too dark, it can be a problem.

I solve it with a Light meter; before adjusting my photos, I check if there is luminosity near 100 lux in my office (between 100 and 130 ore or less).
I'm not a professional, so I don't want to spend other money to buy colour balanced, and lux fixed lamp or other specific pieces of equipment.

At home, I have an Imac old generation with an HD screen.
My personal preference as a monitor to adjust my photos, I set the Eizo as first and probably the old Imac and second, but it is a difficult choice to put the 5k in the third position.
The 5k monitor covers a higher percentage of Adobe Srg space, but the higher resolution makes it difficult to adjust the sharpness of the photos. The tendency is to oversharp the image.

On the 31" screen, 4k, every time I move the slider of LR slowly, the difference is bigger in confronting the other two monitors, so it looks like my photos need less adjustment.
But I'm learning to work on it, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

I find that it is less easy to properly sharp images on my new 4k screen that are meant to be displayed on full HD or 2K screens, and I have kept my Eizo CS2420 for that on a second PC.
Properly sharpening images on the 4K screen for display on the 4K screen or for printing gives me no issues.

Question remains how long it will be before 4K becomes the new standard, and it will no longer be neccessary to downsample and sharpen images for proper viewing on lower resolution screens.
The same difficulties have been around with color spaces for a long time. A "wide gamut" screen enables wider color display in the same way a 4K screen enables display of finer image detail. In both cases it is a personal matter how obvious the difference is. Which is why the majority has stuck with sRGB screens for a long time, while that color space (developed for the old CRT monitors) chops off a large portion of the color space that digital cameras can capture and also LCD screens can display for that matter.
A minority wanted to see a larger spectrum of colors and adopted the wide gamut screens, until the market woke up and started adopting larger default color spaces, like Apple with their wide gamut P3 color space.

Just like your images had/still have to eventually be brought back to the confines of the sRGB color space for general display and sharing, now your 4K edited images also have to be scaled back to HD dimensions for the same reason. Going from the dogged sRGB color space to a larger colorspace much more suited for LCD screens and digital cameras, took a lóng time, but going to a 4K standard more suited for the high resolution images of today should go faster, helped by the smartphone and tablet world.

 

[Marco74]

I find that it is less easy to properly sharp images on my new 4k screen that are meant to be displayed on full HD or 2K screens, and I have kept my Eizo CS2420 for that on a second PC.
Properly sharpening images on the 4K screen for display on the 4K screen or for printing gives me no issues.

Question remains how long it will be before 4K becomes the new standard, and it will no longer be neccessary to downsample and sharpen images for proper viewing on lower resolution screens.
The same difficulties have been around with color spaces for a long time. A "wide gamut" screen enables wider color display in the same way a 4K screen enables display of finer image detail. In both cases it is a personal matter how obvious the difference is. Which is why the majority has stuck with sRGB screens for a long time, while that color space (developed for the old CRT monitors) chops off a large portion of the color space that digital cameras can capture and also LCD screens can display for that matter.
A minority wanted to see a larger spectrum of colors and adopted the wide gamut screens, until the market woke up and started adopting larger default color spaces, like Apple with their wide gamut P3 color space.

Just like your images had/still have to eventually be brought back to the confines of the sRGB color space for general display and sharing, now your 4K edited images also have to be scaled back to HD dimensions for the same reason. Going from the dogged sRGB color space to a larger colorspace much more suited for LCD screens and digital cameras, took a lóng time, but going to a 4K standard more suited for the high resolution images of today should go faster, helped by the smartphone and tablet world.

You have right.
Another question is regarding the normal use of the photos. A lot of people, I included, share their photos on the social network, Instagram, Facebook, Flickr, and a lot of others,s and also here. All these social have size and color space restrictions.
Here in Italy, there is a very famous photography site that is far ahead of many others in fact it allows users to upload photos in high resolution, 4k or even 5k.
I don't remember exactly because although I have been registered for some time, I have never uploaded a photo because I don't like the ambient.
Here it is: https://www.juzaphoto.com/

So, for all those people who don't have printing needs, you are probably right, a high-resolution monitor may not be of use.
In my case, I print little, only when the photo exceeds my very strict personal criticism, but when I print I prefer large formats, minimum A3, A2 standard.