Kodiako wrote:
Hello All.
I am a new user but have received wonderful insight on a number topics discussed here and hope you can help. I was hoping some of you could recomend a monitor good for doing post production on images. I am just now retired and using Lightroom and Photoshop to clean up several scanned images of slides and snapshots from years past (and some new). While they look great on my Seiki 4k TV monitor and my 2 (very old) square Dell monitors (I have the 3 connected) they disapoint when I try and have prints made. The prints (from Costco) come out very dark and lacking the punch of color that I am seeing on screen. Since one of my old Dell monitors just gave out I thought I would ask for suggestions on a replacement. I think I need to stop cleaning up images using the TV monitor and use a well calibrated Photo editing monitor (hopefully one that isn't insanely priced). Any suggestions?
Hello All. br I am a new user but have received w... (
show quote)
A new "graphics quality" monitor would likely help... but what would probably make more difference (even with a new monitor), would be monitor calibration.
You mention prints too dark and unsatisfactory colors. Those are fairly common issues due to an un-calibrated monitor.
The vast majority of monitors are way too bright for correct image editing, causing you to mis-adjust your images too dark.
Most monitors also don't render all that accurate color, which leads you to mis-adjust that, too.
A calibration "suite" consists of software and a hardware device. The software is installed on your computer and the "puck" device is plugged into a USB port to perform a calibration when the software is run. The first step is to set the monitor brightness. After that, the software will display a series of color patches on your monitor, while using the puck (actually it's called a "colorimiter") to read the results. Once that's complete, the software determines what corrections are needed to render as true as possible color with that particular monitor, creates a "profile" that is then used to control the output on the monitor. This is reloaded every time you boot up the computer.
The software also gives you reminders when to re-calibrate. It needs to be done periodically because your monitor will lose brightness and shift color gradually over time. I re-calibrate my monitor monthly. Some people do it more often... others less often.
If you do much printing, a monitor calibration suite will essentially pay for itself in savings of wasted ink and paper (if printing at home) or the cost of having reprints done (if outsourcing it).
Two of the most common calibration devices are Datacolor Spyder and X-Rite. One of the most affordable (under $100) is X-Rite ColorMunki Smile. There are more versatile and complex, sophisticated and expensive... up to and over $400. Those can be used to calibrate more types of devices and/or create custom printer profiles (such as when using non-OEM combinations of ink and paper), as well as other things. But for most people one of the more basic will handle their needs.
I would recommend calibrating what you have now and seeing if that solves your problems, before buying a new monitor.
If you still want a new monitor, I've been impressed with the BenQ line of monitors. One of those will probably be my next purchase. I haven't narrowed it down to a particular model yet, but would look for the 1 billion + color models. (I use a monitor hood, too, which some BenQ include... but I made the one I use now out of matte black foam core board, so it's not a make or break feature when I go to purchase). Here's a quick search I did for BenQ models that I'd look among... they appear to be a really good value.... a lot of monitor for the money. But I'd do careful research on reviews and feedback on any particular model, once I narrowed it down.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=38738&fct=fct_display-colors_2717%7c1.07-billionI currently use a 24", 16:10 IPS monitor that's been very good for 6 or 7 years. While I like that aspect ratio for photo editing (room for image and "tools" on-screen), if I went with a larger monitor next time, I could probably live with 16:9.
I am not completely sold on 4K/UHD.... it makes type and tools tiny, unless adjustments are made in the software. If I were shooting 4K/UHD video.... well sure, I'd want my monitor to reflect that. But I shoot stills, not video, so I question whether it would be all that much benefit to me... wonder if it would be worth the extra cost. For example, BenQ PD3200Q 32" 16:9 QHD monitor (HD resolution) costs $500, while the BenQ PD3200U 32" 16:9 UHD (4K) version sells for $700. Some other UHD/4K are far more expensive.