It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, right?

Discussions on Equipment, Locations and Tips for getting the photograps you want of Vermont scenes.Note: You must be registered in order to post. If you have trouble registering, use the contact us form on Scenes of Vermont's home page.

Moderators: bm, Andy, admin

deaner1971
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, right?

Postby deaner1971 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:25 pm

OK, so one of the things I find useful in editing an image is something on which to view it...

Seriously, as I (and many consumers now blessed with a quantity of quality pixels like only pros used to get) work on images I hope to blow up to larger and larger sizes, my monitor seems inadequate to the task.

So, first question: what size monitor do you all work on?

Second question: are you ok with your monitor size? Maybe I am alone in my desire to be able to see all but my largest reproductions in full representation.

Third: as I look at larger monitors, the line between TV and monitor seems to be blurred (no pun intended). Why can a 27" LED "monitor" be used for editing my photos but a 40" LED "television" cannot? If the number of lines is equal, why is that not an apt comparison?


Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, righ

Postby Andy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:19 pm

1 and 2: I use a 19 inch monitor. I like it. I use my laptop monitor for all my palettes, tools, etc., and only the image on the 19" on a dual monitor setup. Works well for me.

3: WAAAAAAY above my pay grade :lol:
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

ixl
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Southern VT
Contact:

Re: It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, righ

Postby ixl » Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:25 pm

I use a 24" monitor. It's getting quite old and I'd like to upgrade to a 27" or 30", but I can't justify the cost until this one dies. :)

Can you use a TV as a monitor? Sure. But remember that the resolution is as important as the size. That 40" screen is going to be HDTV resolution so 1920x1080, which is about the same as monitors half the size. You won't get the equivalent use experience unless it's far away, in which case you aren't really gaining much. And it's going to cost more and use a lot more power.

That doesn't even get into issues such as gamut and ability to calibrate, both of which will be much better on a monitor.
Charles Kozierok - DesktopScenes.com

View Autumn Scenes from Southern Vermont (2003), my free, 75-image foliage gallery!

deaner1971
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

Re: It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, righ

Postby deaner1971 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:08 am

Charles,

Those were my thoughts too and that was why I thought I would ask.

To reproduce a 30 * 20 image at full-size, I would need a 40" monitor. Those are, shall we say, not cheap. Finance committee veto highly likely.

I think I am also going to look at something a bit more "marriage-friendly" like the 27" too.

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, righ

Postby Andy » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:39 am

Whatever the size, I think quality and calibration are the most important. Back in "the day," LCD monitors just didn't have the quality. There are still those today who will argue you need to have a high quality (i.e., LaCie)CRT monitor. But the fact is that most of us are using flat screen, hi-resolution, LCD monitors.

I have a room in my basement that is essentially neutral in color and keep a constant (5500K) light source. I have an inexpensive (would like to have a higher-end, but haven't been able to justify the $$) calibration tool, that actually monitors ambient light and (theoretically) adjusts for changes. While it doesn't guarantee good color in prints, it is very important to have a consistent, calibrated environment for image processing. Because of the inherent difference between a display monitor and ink on paper, no matter how large or small the monitor, it is only going to give you an approximation of what the image will look like printed. But having a calibrated environment is going to make that approximation more accurate.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

autzig
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: It is a picture so the monitor has to be important, righ

Postby autzig » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:55 pm

Like Andy, I have a dual monitor set-up. Both are 22 inch wide screens. I keep my tools on the one monitor and use the full screen on the other for my photo editing. The monitor on which I do my editing also rotates. That means that I can work on a photo made using portrait orientation with the screen in portrait mode. I highly recommend it. If you buy a monitor, make sure it has that attribute.

Keep in mind when upgrading to a larger monitor, that the resolution is likely to be the same as a 22 inch monitor. I just did a quick search at B&H. You can find a 27 inch monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution for $300 but if you want a 27 inch monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440, you will spend $800 for the least expensive one.

I'm satisfied with the 1920x1080. Just what will higher resolution do for you? Not enough for me to justify the expense.

Al



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests