twilight

I am looking to purchase a monitor to process/ develop my photos.
I need help deciding which one is the best to buy without breaking the bank.
I have been leaning toward a Asus but not sure on the details. What size, 4K, aspect ratio, UHD, Display port and 3840 x 2160 vs others
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Haydon

A budget will give you helpful advise.

Toby

Be sure your video card can handle it. Unfortunately my 4k is waiting for a computer upgrade.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

My son and I have the Dell 27" SE2717HX, under $200. There is a huge assortment of monitors and specs, and you can easily spend $1,000 on one, but would that be necessary?

Three articles from 2019 -
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/monitor-buying-guide,5699.html
https://www.neweggbusiness.com/smartbuyer/buying-guides/computer-monitor-buying-guide-2/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/computer-monitor-buying-guide/

And -
https://digital-photography-school.com/choose-right-monitor-photo-editing/
https://photographylife.com/best-monitor-for-photography

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

i bought the Samsung 32" monitor, not tv, and absolutely love it. that said if you sit too close your will still see some of the pixels its 4x and all that, but i wanted the size. nothing comes close to the IMac screen I have. the retail price was $349. I bought it as a second monitor for running with my laptopat a different location.

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

The difference between a <$300 display and one that costs more is usually color depth, type and evenness of the backlight, gamut and adjustments. Since they tend to be general purpose displays, they are great for business graphics, viewing finished pictures, video, gaming etc. I have worked on less costly displays and found them to not represent colors and tones as well as a solid 10 bit display intended for photo editing. You might see a monitor bit depth as 6 bit, 8 bit, 8 bit +FRC, 10 bit. Any time you see a lower bit depth coupled with FRC it means that it is really just an 6 bit or 8 bit, and through FRC they are able to create the illusion of greater bit depth. This is fine for video, but not so great for still image editing. If budget allows, a 10 bit display or an 8 bit + FRC will provide a cleaner image with better color and color/tone transitions than a 6 bit+FRC or a simple 8 bit display.

Here is another video that explains this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcgg7jq1W3o

A budget number will help . . .

gilpog

I recently bought the LG 32UK5OT-W and love it for $285 brand new. Easy to set up and go do image processing. I highly recommend it.

Mike1017

Also remember a 4 K video card in your computer Mike

davesit Loc: Media, PA

If you could afford it, I use this monitor ($786):

ViewSonic VP3268-4K PRO 32" 4K Monitor with 100% sRGB Rec 709 HDR10 14-bit 3D LUT Color Calibration for Photography and Graphic Design

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0731LYY9P/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It is an outstanding monitor for the price, and a few hundred dollars less than a similar Banq model.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

I personally used nothing but Asus monitors for quite a few years, and am completely satisfied with them. For technical advice about your selection of a monitor I would contact B&H Photo. They are one of the best in the business.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

> AVOID gaming monitors. They are too bright, too contrasty, and favor response time over color accuracy. You need a monitor MADE for photography applications.

> Whatever you buy, your video card or video processor in your computer must support its capabilities. Don't buy more monitor than the video processor can support. A 10-bit (per color channel) monitor needs a 10-bit color video processor. An 8-bit monitor needs at least an 8-bit video processor.

> Pay attention to the ICC Color Gamut Specification. You want a monitor with AT LEAST 100% coverage of the sRGB color gamut (color space). A monitor with 100% Adobe RGB color gamut capability is even better.

> If you're going to do lots of printing, whether on your own or through a lab, get a monitor calibration kit. This is a hardware "hockey puck" that rests on your monitor screen and connects to a USB port, and software that comes with it. The software guides you through the calibration process (linearization of the color response of all three primary RGB colors), and then creates an ICC profile (device capability map), so that your operating system can display images accurately, according to a world-wide standard.

> Spend some time on these sites, learning about color management and why it is necessary for good results.

https://www.xrite.com/learning-color-education
https://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/support-old/customer-support/learn-more-about-colormanagement/

A budget of $550 to $850 will get you a really nice monitor and calibration kit. You can do it for less, but you get what you pay for. I'd go for accuracy over size, but get at least a 21" monitor at 1920x1080 pixel resolution. Professionals in the lab and graphic arts industries often spend $3500 or more on a reference monitor for deadly accurate color adjustment.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Just a math note:

1920 / 1.5 = 1280.

Therefore if you have the less expensive 1920 x 1080 you will be wasting part of the 1920 when viewing an image that was originally 3:2 aspect ration (3:2 is the same as 1.5:1).

1080 x 1.5 = 1620 so you'd be wasting 300 pixels in the horizontal.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

3:2 (1.5:1) is old school. Nearly all 2K and 4K monitors for general use are now 16:9, which is also most common on smartphones.

As more and more people generate images and video as hybrid creations for consumption solely on screens, does it make sense to cling to an aspect ratio that never even fit any standard print size other than 4x6/8x12/12x18? (It’s still hard to find a wide selection of 8x12 and 12x18 frames).

I did multi-image slide production in the 1980s. It was all 3:2 based. These days, we can produce the same sorts of work — better and FAR more effectively and efficiently — with 4K video in 16:9. Wasting 300 pixels or cropping in a little? Meh.

There aren’t too many photos that can’t benefit from cropping.

bobbyjohn Loc: Dallas, TX

I have had an ASUS ProArt 24" 16x10 for many years now, and I would get another if this one ever stopped working. I am an advocate of the 16x10 format for any computer work (and of course for pictures)....it gives a slightly bigger dimension in height over the standard 16x9 format. That, IMO, is better for computer work. ASUS is the only brand I've found that offers 16x10. The only function for which 16x9 is better is for watching HD movies on the computer, as that is the native format for modern movies without showing any black bars on screen. Since I don't use the computer for watching movies, that is not an issue for me.

Good luck with your decision making.