Monitor for Photography and Gaming (IPS vs. VA Monitors): I have my eyes on a BenQ 32in. 2K curved monitor. It has a 144 hz refresh rate, a 4 msec response time, and it covers 90% DCI...

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I have my eyes on a BenQ 32in. 2K curved monitor. It has a 144 hz refresh rate, a 4 msec response time, and it covers 90% DCI P3 so it will be fantastic for my level of gaming (non-competitive). It is a VA monitor so I am worried about its photography capabilities as it relates to color. I don't necessarily need accurate colors as I don't print photos but I don't want totally unrealistic colors either.

I have researched this extensively but I need someone's opinion who has used both IPS and VA monitors for Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. Being that I don't print photos, will the VA monitor be an issue for photo editing for someone who is an avid photo enthusiast?

I went out to Best Buy to look at both monitors but I could not do a head-to-head comparison looking at identical photos side by side.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

What are IPS and VA monitors?

I just get a monitor...
(But I'm just a photography aficionado.)

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

Longshadow wrote:

What are IPS and VA monitors?

I just get a monitor...
(But I'm just a photography aficionado.)

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

Revet wrote:

I have my eyes on a BenQ 32in. 2K curved monitor. ... (show quote)

Read this:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1788-display-tech-compared/

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yes, IPS and sRGB are better for photo editing than VA and DCI P3, but I recently switched from a 27” IPS monitor to a 32” LG Ultragear gaming monitor that is VA and DCI P3 and HDR10. Out of the box it was way too bright and the colors over saturated. Once I calibrated it it looks great and it’s working well for editing.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

Thanks for all of your replies. I decided that choosing a monitor is a personal taste so I went ahead and ordered the VA 32 inch BenQ figuring I could return it if I didn't like the colors.

I got the monitor last night and here is what I have determined. Maybe the colors are not 100 percent accurate but when I compare them to my 24 in IPS screen, I can not readily determine the difference. All of my LR photos look fantastic and pretty darn close to what I remember seeing when I took the photos.

Canisdirus

IPS is the way to go.
Usually, if you buy a monitor designed for photography editing...it will also be a capable gaming monitor.
What you are looking for are monitors that can reproduce colors accurately...many cannot.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Here's your best bet for photo work. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1466662-REG/eizo_cg279x_bk_coloredge_cg279x_hardware_calibration.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsLbskPD48AIVqQytBh2QiQxdEAQYBSABEgKDT_D_BwE
--Bob

Revet wrote:

I have my eyes on a BenQ 32in. 2K curved monitor. ... (show quote)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Curious...

How would someone who receives a print know if it does or doesn't match your monitor.
Would they care?

How would someone who receives a print know if the colors aren't just quite right.
Would they care?

How do you know that someone who receives a print sees the result the same way you do?
Would they care?

How would they know what it's supposed to look like?
Would they care?

Canisdirus

Longshadow wrote:

Curious...

How would someone who receives a print know if it does or doesn't match your monitor.
Would they care?

How would someone who receives a print know if the colors aren't just quite right.
Would they care?

How do you know that someone who receives a print sees the result the same way you do?
Would they care?

How would they know what it's supposed to look like?
Would they care?

Well...let's roll with that.

Probably, a client looking at an image on a photographer's website won't have as good a monitor for color reproduction.
So if they already like what they see...they will enjoy it, even more, when the print arrives.

Secondly, and connected to the first...the person doing the editing...the artist...needs to have the most accurate work...if they care.

So when one invests in a really accurate monitor...one gets the best editing...as does the client.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Longshadow wrote:

Curious...

How would someone who receives a print know if it does or doesn't match your monitor.
Would they care?

How would someone who receives a print know if the colors aren't just quite right.
Would they care?

How do you know that someone who receives a print sees the result the same way you do?
Would they care?

How would they know what it's supposed to look like?
Would they care?

They might &, they might not. Depends who your dealing with. For professional work or product or professional work. If the colors look somewhat normal or realistic for most of us. I imagine if the print is appealing to them, all is good.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Canisdirus wrote:

Well...let's roll with that.

Probably, a client looking at an image on a photographer's website won't have as good a monitor for color reproduction.
So if they already like what they see...they will enjoy it, even more, when the print arrives.

You mean like: "Please make it look like it does on my $75 monitor, I really like it."?
How does one know that? Wouldn't it be an assumption?
What if he is really expecting what he sees on his monitor?

Canisdirus wrote:

Secondly, and connected to the first...the person doing the editing...the artist...needs to have the most accurate work...if they care.

Do you mean how much of a realist or perfectionist compared to an abstractionist?

Canisdirus wrote:

So when one invests in a really accurate monitor...one gets the best editing...as does the client.

Best according to whom? Obviously the photographer. Best is relative.
What if his opinion of "best" doesn't match the client's? Ever look at a photo and think it could be better if done differently???

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

tcthome wrote:

They might &, they might not. Depends who your dealing with. For professional work or product or professional work. If the colors look somewhat normal or realistic for most of us. I imagine if the print is appealing to them, all is good.

I'm surmising that you mean "or personal work".

Canisdirus

Longshadow wrote:

Best according to whom? Obviously the photographer. Best is relative.
What if his opinion of "best" doesn't match the client's? Ever look at a photo and think it could be better if done differently???

Heh...
If you don't care how your images look...fine by me.
All of the work and 99% of viewing are done by monitors.
Want to cheap out? Fine by me.
In the end...you have no idea what the images you are editing look like...which begs the question...why bother with it at all?

Color reproduction is a key ingredient to great editing.
If your monitor is better than your clients...and it should be better btw...
The client will love it even more (prints).

If you are just shooting images for yourself...then yes...who cares.
Nobody cares then...one of the last things folks want to see is other ppl's pictures...if they aren't in them.
Especially on a bad monitor.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Canisdirus wrote:

Heh... br If you don't care how your images look.... (show quote)

Yup. Looks great on my $1,500 monitor.
I wonder what other people see.........