a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I've been looking for a new monitor to succeed my 1920 x 1200 HP which is quite good; I want to go to 4K or 5K. I note that monitor makers like to tout contrast ratios of a million to one and nits of 500 being so much better than 350 for example.

But when I calibrate my HP using the Spyder5Pro it wants me to turn the brightness down to around 120. What, then, is the value of a monitor that can pump out 4X that light level? FWIW, I think that for editing stills the device is reasonably correct even though I like it a bit brighter, I still end up below 200 with quite satisfactory results and prints that come back looking as I expected them to.

What am I missing?

BebuLamar

You monitor may be rated at 500 nit and it may not put out 500 nit at the correct color balance because it does that with all the color to the brightest. But to achieve color balance some color would have to be turn down to get the right balance.

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

You may find that even 120 is too bright - I use 85 and print brightness is very similar to the display. I am not a fan of 4K displays for photo editing. I use a pair of 24" 1920x1280 displays, which give me a horizontal resolution of 3840 - and really nice and readable on both displays. Text on 4K and 5K displays can be a pain to scale correctly, though more applications are supporting the higher resolutions.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Monitor brightness is a function of room ambient light level. Go ahead and follow Spyder's recommendations. Your eyes will soon adjust, and in a few days you will not notice the difference.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

You all have offered interesting information. But the question I'm trying to resolve is why it would be important to have a brighter monitor if good calibration and my own comfort tell me it would not be used. Is there something more to this that I am missing?

I do understand that more pixels on a particular size of screen necessarily means that absent any scaling, text will be smaller. I also understand that monitors may or may not perform at their advertised specifications. Those are not questions I'm asking however important it may seem to others.

A related question would be this: if black is black then let's call it zero. So a brighter monitor puts out more lumens and, in inverse log logic, more "stops". Mine is around 6 or 6.5 stops as measured by a light meter. That's nowhere near the rated contrast ratio. But how can it be if I have the brightness turned down because of calibration? As an example of the math, 500 nits is one full stop brighter than 250 nits and around two full stops brighter than 120 nits. Right?

THaupt

I'm a display engineer working with medical monitors for 30 years, and many of the products my employer company makes are run at 500 or 600 nits (Cd/m^2).
How a monitor is set depends on the application. Low light environments offer the best viewing, so with ambient light of say 10-50 lux, you can see the most dynamic range of the display: room lighting is not obscuring the low levels such as shadow details. In that setting, may 85-120 nits is suitable. For photo editing I have low room lighting, but run the monitor a bit brighter such as 150 or 200, which I find gives me more dynamic range (effectively visible stops). My eyes are over 60 years old; age is also a factor.
Trick is to have the monitor bright enough that you can discern the small differences in gray levels. With a paint program, you can create a range blocks with levels such as R/G/B 000, 001, 002, 003 and so forth on a black background (255 being maximum light output with 8 bit paint program, 255/255/255 = white). You should be able to see each of the distinct levels.
If they are not all individually discernable, try increasing the backlight brightness. Note: some (usually low cost) monitors do not reproduce low levels accurately, so possible you cannot achieve this.

My company produces only medical displays and with resolutions up to UHD (3840x2160) 32". The default calibration is 650nits, but this is for a surgical X-Ray application where room lighting may be very bright (1000 lux or more). In that case, the high brightness is necessary so low level grays are not washed out by the room lighting.
By comparison, medical ultrasound exam rooms are typically dimmed to 5-50lux, so less light output is needed to get good imaging. Monitors there are typically calibrated to 160nits. The low grey levels are very significant in any diagnostic exam, but equally important to discern the difference at high gray levels (such as R/G/B 254 and 255). In photographic terms, that would be clouds in a bright sky, or lighting around a subjects eyes in portraiture.

So: keep low room lighting, and adjust your monitor to include ability to see subtle differences in both shadow and highlight details.

And yes, any color calibration will reduce the maximum possible output of the monitor: the only way to adjust the color is to _reduce_ one or more Red, Green or Blue drive levels.
Even if you have a monitor capable of 300nit output, it pays to not have it any brighter than necessary. Output of the backlights starts to degrade slowly after only a few hours out of the box. If you set it for say 150nit output, it will be able to maintain that for years (lower output significantly extends the backlight lifetime, perhaps more than doubles in this example).

In medical applications, the trend is towards high resolution wide displays such as UHD. This avoids possible issues using two lower resolution displays: brightness, contrast ratio, black level, color balance differences between the two monitors.

tcthome Loc: NJ

I would look for a monitor that's geared for photography & be more concerned with color output ( 100% adobe ). Benq , Eizio , Nec all make these monitors but they all cost more. I also think they make the monitors your talking about that bright for movies & gamers. Also some monitors have different modes so you can calibrate in say , photo or 1 of the custom modes & switch back to a reading or gaming mode if need be. Good luck & happy shopping.

GLKTN Loc: TN

I just bought a Benq 27" GW2760HL monitor and calibrated it with the spyder5pro. There were settings for photo and sRGB among others including gaming. I am new to photography and PP. My brother gave me a photo printer and I got LR 6 for Xmas. The manual is not very detailed so I set the Benq menu to sRGB for photo editing and printing, not photo. I hope that is the best choice. Reading this thread with interest.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Now you're just nit picking!

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I set my brightness on my monitors to what my calibration tool tells me to and am happy with the view and prints

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Thanks to all but especially:
* THaupt
* tcthome
* GLKTN
* And a special thumbs up for jerryc41 for the humor.

THaupt's explanation was expert, thorough, well written and HELPFUL. I note you have only posted 4 times. If accurate, that's wasting a really valuable contributor. Coincidentally, my wife and I were only recently discussing how much better digital mammograms are than their film predecessors. The techs show her hers each time and discuss the entire process with her.

I am probably going to get a BenQ SW271 or SW320 but I'm holding back while waiting to see what Apple announces for the Mac Mini because I will get either that or the MacBook Pro with an I7 or an I9 and the Mini's graphics abilities will affect my decision. In either case, the computer will be tasked with driving the new monitor and perhaps the old HP ZR2440W as well.

I like the Eizo line but for me, the cost/value proposition is much better at the BenQ point.

BebuLamar

Hi Gene!
I use a pair of 1600x1200 screens. I put them on portrait orientation and I have a screen area of 2400x1600 which is a good aspect ratio for me. Now I can't get past the the fact that my images are split at the center when viewing on the screens like that.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Your off to a good start. I have to much more experience than you but would choose adobe srgb if it gives you the choice. HAVE FUN!

THaupt

The configuration you suggest would be good for portraits, save for the image split.

Using a single high resolution display versus two medium resolution displays include: removes all the possible image differences that otherwise may occur using two screens - brightness, contrast ratio, gamma color presentation. Only one calibration to go through, and will need to do it less frequently.
Using the space is just more efficient for desktop use and avoids that bothersome screen break (think panoramas). Eyes moving left/right is a natural motion. I've never seen a full HD or UHD monitor used in portrait mode except for in-store advertising. That might be strange on a desktop (maybe not so practical).

The cost of 4K class monitors has come down significantly and now about same or even less than two smaller monitors.

BebuLamar

I do like high res screen like 4K but I do need monitor that supports hardware calibration and those that do and 4K are still quite expensive.