What Type Of Monitor Is Best For Viewing Pics?

On Oct 27, 4:19 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:39 pm, "Aussie." wrote:



Even the cheapest of the cheap are better (once set up) than the most
expensive of CRT monitors...

As expected from you, this is complete hogwash.
A good $500 CRT will kill a $500 LCD.
And I doubt that even the most expensive LCD monitors can compete with
a Sony Artisan, widely considered the reference standard among CRTs.

Yes, the CRT takes up more space, runs hotter and all that, but for
absolute color fidelity the CRT is still the way to go. Having said
that, LCD monitors have made great strides lately, especially in the +
$1000 range.
The big EIZO LCD, for example, always gets high marks from reviewers.

I've always given more thought to what monitor I use than any other
component since that is what you are looking at every day. Back in
the day I had a 15" NEC Multisync which was better than anything else
in it's class. Then I went to a 19" Iiyama which was also very good
before it went on the fritz. Since then I've been using my trusty
Lacie Electron Blue, which is a beautiful thing. I first learned of it
when the instructor at a national Photoshop seminar recommended it to
me.
You'll never know how good your pics really look until you view them
on a properly calibrated CRT. Of course, if you are looking at D-
Mac's pics you might not want the best.

LOL! ;-)
Thanks Bret for that info. Everyone's help is much appreciated.
Helen

Aussie. wrote:

Even the cheapest of the cheap are better (once set up) than the most
expensive of CRT monitors... Of course setting one up is not so easy if
the person you buy it from has no clues either. You are quite likely to
get a load of stuff that will be excellent for the purpose and still end
up with sub-standard viewing.

Grossly untrue.

You're becoming more like "Rita": Hyperbole above all else. Black and
white, as in unable to distinguish shades of gray.

Shame.

--
lsmft

In article ,
Peter Chant wrote:

Harry Lockwood wrote:


If you want reproducible, accurate colors/tonality for PRINTS a
calibrated CRT is your best bet. For web postings I suppose an LCD will
do.

Couple of honest questions:

I presume when we talk of calibrated monitors we are not talking your
average, buy from a computer store, but top brand, top model monitors -
something decent, we are talking monitors that cost more than the average
pc and monitor combined? Therefore need to be careful that we don't mean
we are comparing LCD with cheap CRT.

Just at one reasonably large supplier here, they no longer stock CRT.

I've got a Ilyama Vison Master Pro CRT here, a good few years old an also a
less than one year old Viewsonic LCD both good spec monitors but I noted
when looking at the Viewsonic that if you look for calibrated monitors you
quickly get into the £800 - £1000 league - all CRT now.

Perhaps my Ilyama might be getting past its best, the LCD is much crisper,
much more contrast, but when viewing grey scales I can see all tones on
both monitors. Mind you, I've not got any more formal calibration routine
than that.

Pete

Let me clarify my recommendation. My workflow is geared toward B&W
printing only. I use 7 levels of gray in the printer (R2400) with Piezo
tone inks. My goal is to have the same tonal range in the print as I
see on the monitor; that's what I mean by "calibrated." The (Samsung
19") monitor is not crisp, but I know that the crispness of the print
will exceed what I see on the monitor, so it's not a problem. Faithful
reproduction of tones is the crucial factor.

When you say your LCD monitor has much more contrast than the CRT, I
wonder how you reconcile that with the contrast of the final print. Or,
is the print not that important?

I do believe that LCDs have come a long way, and, indeed, some print
makers do use "calibrated" LCD monitors. But sensitivity to viewing
angle has not been eliminated. Even an inexpensive CRT, properly
calibrated, doesn't have that problem.

HFL



HFL

--
www.pbase.com/hlockwood
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news
Aussie. wrote:

Even the cheapest of the cheap are better (once set up) than the most
expensive of CRT monitors... Of course setting one up is not so easy if
the person you buy it from has no clues either. You are quite likely to
get a load of stuff that will be excellent for the purpose and still end
up with sub-standard viewing.

Grossly untrue.

You're becoming more like "Rita": Hyperbole above all else. Black and
white, as in unable to distinguish shades of gray.

Shame.

--
lsmft


Wrong John...

Modern LCD screens are totally digital. When you use a display card capable
of delivering Digital Video Output - (DVI) and use the correct DVI cable,
any modern day LCD monitor will display absolutely everything your computer
can deliver in the way of grey shades.

Wether or not your program can deliver more than 256 steps of grey is
another thing entirely and will govern what you actually see. Those without
an open mind will blame the monitor.

Like I said in my OR, "IF" The person you buy it from has a clue. It's not
rocket science but you need to have gone through the routine of buying
several and various monitors based on the bull**** from "sales staff" before
you discover how it's done.

There are a plethora of facilities freely available on the Internet (some
require purchase) that enable you to set up a cheap (digital) LCD screen
powered by a basic (Gforce) graphics card that rival the most expensive CRT
displays for dynamic range and true-print colours.

Absolutely what-you-see-is-what-you-print ...or have printed is possible
with any Digital LCD screen. I

In the early days of LCDs when they only accepted analogue signals which had
to be converted by the graphics card from digital to analogue and back to
digital by the monitor... What you say about them was true. Move on John,
this is 2007, not 1997.

Douglas

On Oct 27, 3:20 pm, Allan Sheppard wrote:
Hi Helen,
I have had a Samsung 730BF (superceded) for 2 years and got good
performance as defined by seeing (amost) all the panels in the step
wedge displayed on several photo sites and getting accurate prints
when compared to the screen and my expectations.

When setting up the screen initially using the instructions I found I
had to wind down some of the controls considerably to get the
'correct' display.

I hope this helps

AllanI few days ago I posted to a computer newsgroup to ask expert advice
on computer monitors. I was told CRTs are the best way to go if I'm
retouching photographs. I don't really retouch them. I don't have
Photoshop but I do use Microsoft Picture Manager for slight exposure
adjustments or to just crop.
Since most of us view pics on our computer screen, what type of
monitor would you suggest? I was leaning towards LCDs.
Thank you all very much.
Helen

Yes it does. Thanks Allan for your help.
Helen

Douglas wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news
Aussie. wrote:

Even the cheapest of the cheap are better (once set up) than the most
expensive of CRT monitors... Of course setting one up is not so easy if
the person you buy it from has no clues either. You are quite likely to
get a load of stuff that will be excellent for the purpose and still end
up with sub-standard viewing.
Grossly untrue.

You're becoming more like "Rita": Hyperbole above all else. Black and
white, as in unable to distinguish shades of gray.

Shame.

--
lsmft


Wrong John...

Modern LCD screens are totally digital. When you use a display card capable
of delivering Digital Video Output - (DVI) and use the correct DVI cable,
any modern day LCD monitor will display absolutely everything your computer
can deliver in the way of grey shades.

Wether or not your program can deliver more than 256 steps of grey is
another thing entirely and will govern what you actually see. Those without
an open mind will blame the monitor.

Like I said in my OR, "IF" The person you buy it from has a clue. It's not
rocket science but you need to have gone through the routine of buying
several and various monitors based on the bull**** from "sales staff" before
you discover how it's done.

There are a plethora of facilities freely available on the Internet (some
require purchase) that enable you to set up a cheap (digital) LCD screen
powered by a basic (Gforce) graphics card that rival the most expensive CRT
displays for dynamic range and true-print colours.

Absolutely what-you-see-is-what-you-print ...or have printed is possible
with any Digital LCD screen. I

In the early days of LCDs when they only accepted analogue signals which had
to be converted by the graphics card from digital to analogue and back to
digital by the monitor... What you say about them was true. Move on John,
this is 2007, not 1997.

I have DVI out to my Samsung and regular out to my LaCie Electron Blue.
Both calibrated, and the CRT is superior to the LCD. Not by mountains as
it used to be, but still quite noticeable.

I don't object to any one differing with this subjective observation,
but I do think folks might be better off without all the sweeping
statements for or against every thing.

--
john mcwilliams

On 2007-10-27 15:04:56 -0700, Harry Lockwood said:

My workflow is geared toward B&W printing only. I use 7 levels of gray
in the printer (R2400) with Piezo tone inks. My goal is to have the
same tonal range in the print as I see on the monitor; that's what I
mean by "calibrated." The (Samsung 19") monitor is not crisp, but I
know that the crispness of the print will exceed what I see on the
monitor, so it's not a problem. Faithful reproduction of tones is the
crucial factor.

I remember some experiments with 4/color Heidelberg sheetfed presses
and a fine-screen mezzotint, trying to increase the tonal range of
lithographic prints. They eventually settled on a quadtone with a warm
gray, a cool gray, an extra-dense black and a metallic silver. The
output was quite striking, far superior to any of the duotones of the
time. The ink sets even made conventional quadtones (with regular
elliptical- or chain-dot 200-line screens) look amazing. Do you have
the option of using metallic inks at all?
--
Vanity is so secure in the heart of man that everyone wants to be
admired: even I who write this, and you who read this.

In article 2007102802235375249%presquevu@coxnet,
D.Quatsch wrote:

On 2007-10-27 15:04:56 -0700, Harry Lockwood said:

My workflow is geared toward B&W printing only. I use 7 levels of gray
in the printer (R2400) with Piezo tone inks. My goal is to have the
same tonal range in the print as I see on the monitor; that's what I
mean by "calibrated." The (Samsung 19") monitor is not crisp, but I
know that the crispness of the print will exceed what I see on the
monitor, so it's not a problem. Faithful reproduction of tones is the
crucial factor.

I remember some experiments with 4/color Heidelberg sheetfed presses
and a fine-screen mezzotint, trying to increase the tonal range of
lithographic prints. They eventually settled on a quadtone with a warm
gray, a cool gray, an extra-dense black and a metallic silver. The
output was quite striking, far superior to any of the duotones of the
time. The ink sets even made conventional quadtones (with regular
elliptical- or chain-dot 200-line screens) look amazing. Do you have
the option of using metallic inks at all?

No.

HFL

--
www.pbase.com/hlockwood
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

Allan Sheppard wrote:


When setting up the screen initially using the instructions I found I
had to wind down some of the controls considerably to get the
'correct' display.


Pretty much what I did - thought I edit photos mainly on a machine with a
CRT. Interestingly some have printed too dark and look dark on monitors at
work - though the latter are rather long in the tooth. So a little more
work is needed even though I can see full grey scales on both CRT and LCD
monitors here.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk