onegordyb Loc: Philadelphia Pa

Which is the better monitor for photographic editing

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

It's a matter of how deep your pockets are. Give us a price range and I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

How critical do you need to be?
At work, I have an Eizo and it's supposed to better than the Cinema Display I use as a second monitor, but at home, I'm happy with a Dell.
Asus is supposed to be great bang for the buck.

onegordyb Loc: Philadelphia Pa

I'm looking to spend up to $1,000, I'm have my eye on the eizo CS230.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

if you are on a Mac, any 98 bit display will do just fine. If you are on a PC with a workstation-class graphics card like an ATI FireProV4900 or an NVidia Quadro 40000, both of which will let you enable the 30 bit editing capability in Photoshop, then you'd be best served by purchasing a 10 bit (30bit color) display. NEC, HP, Dell, Eizo, LaCie all make them, but few are less than $1000. Getting one of these for a Mac would be like putting the wheels from a Formula 1 car on a Prius - it is not going to make the car faster, or in the case of the display, it won't allow you to take full advantage of the greater color depth of the display - the Mac OS is limited to displaying just 8 bit (24bit color) images.

Hando Rei Loc: Long Island New York

Macs are generally what many photographers use because it is designed for the artist etc, Any computer can give desirable results when viewing photos . All depends on how critical you are and of course budget .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Mythology - Macs are popular not because they are better for viewing photos, but because of highly effective marketing. A display system that has a built-in limitation, that is well-documented, is not preferable to one that provides the highest level of color fidelity and depth. Of course, the Mac proponents will argue that having billions of colors is not necessarily an advantage over having 16.7M colors. But I suspect that none have ever done editing on such a system. The differences are striking and obvious, especially with subjects that contain colors that are beyond the color gamut of the Mac display - such as birds, flowers, insects etc. Sorry - the numbers dont' lie. Besides there are colors, especially greens and blues, that the camera can capture, and the printers can print, that the Mac system cannot properly display because they are out of gamut. But you have a choice - a smaller gamut more expensive but widely popular system, or one that will give you the best image accuracy.

Here are a couple of articles that will explain why 10 bit is important:

http://www.tedlansingphotography.com/blog/?p=287

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/07/guest-blog-understanding-10-bit-color.html

CSI Dave Loc: Arizona

This isn't one of the options you asked about, but Shutterbug started recommending this Asus as an affordable option. I don't have first-hand experience with it, but it's on my list to look at when I need my next monitor.
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/asus-pa249q-proart-lcd-monitor-affordable-professional-display

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

:thumbup:

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Thats the one, go for it- photographers special !

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

It would help to click the "Quote Reply" box so we know which one you are indicating.