Scenes of Vermont Forums

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?

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

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,

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.

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.

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