Wanted: advice on monitor for photo editing.

Discussion in 'Apple' started by iwoggy64, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. iwoggy64

    iwoggy64 Guest

    I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
    I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
    rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
    I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
    I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
    monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
    I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
    in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
    worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
    display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
    options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
    bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
    comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
    requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    would be appreciated. Thanks.

    iwoggy64, Sep 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. iwoggy64

    C Wright Guest

    I have an Apple 23 in. HD LCD display and it has zero bad pixels that I have
    observed. Of course that is one display and is no guarantee of the quality
    of a display that you might purchase. I would recommend you purchase from a
    dealer with a good return policy so that you can return any display with
    which you are dissatisfied. As far as Apple warrantee policy is concerned
    they will not replace monitors with just a few bad pixels. That is why I
    say (specially if you are fussy) that a purchase from a dealer with a great
    return policy is a good idea. I am not sure exactly what the policy of
    Apple's stores is, that is if they will take back a monitor that you are
    dissatisfied with or if they use the same rules as Apple's warrantee.
    C Wright, Sep 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. iwoggy64

    Guest Guest

    nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
    years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work. in
    many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
    cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
    during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
    'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.
    totally false.
    why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum? might as well
    buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
    Guest, Sep 20, 2005
  4. iwoggy64

    C Wright Guest

    And the debate rages on . . .!! If one reads the archives of some of the
    graphics/photography/Photoshop groups, where some folks make a living doing
    critical photo work, you will find continuing arguments regarding CRT's vs.
    LCD's. However, most (and I emphasize most - not all) believe that the high
    end LCD's are now every bit the match for CRT's. Cheap LCD's are another
    C Wright, Sep 20, 2005
  5. iwoggy64

    Guest Guest

    how are you measuring this 'perfectly usable gamut range' ? and how
    often do you calibrate these monitors and with what device?
    cite a source.
    all crts require a warm up period. this is a difference that can be
    measured. for color critical work, it is vital.
    dvd playback can utilize full screen regardless of monitor resolution
    so there is no need to switch resolutions. what are the other 999
    lcds do cost more than a monitor of the same resolution but offer other
    benefits such as smaller physical space, brighter image, less heat,
    lower power consumption and longer life. for a lot of people, that is
    worth it.
    Guest, Sep 20, 2005
  6. iwoggy64

    Mark² Guest

    Even my laptop screen has lasted longer than that... It went through a
    period of two full years in constant use (as in...NEVER being turned off!).
    The screen was active the ENTIRE time. It looks fantastic, and this laptop
    is about 4 or 5 years old (high-res display--1600x1200 Dell).
    More bull.
    Buying a bit better LCD usually means you can drive it via software, and
    make fine adjustments including profiling, etc.
    They will change their diplay constantly, and fade at a rate which will
    require frequent re-profiling, color-matching. My 22" Sony lasted a mere 20
    months before it faded to utter crap.

    Your advice here is misleading...at best.
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
  7. iwoggy64

    Mark² Guest

    -Not to mention the complete lack of eye-straining flicker on an LCD...and
    sharpness that doesn't vary--accross the entire screen. CRTs flicker and
    tend to have sharpness sweet-spots...along with fuzzy corners.

    If a person really needs a lower resolution for some odd reason (like lowly
    DVD playback previews??????), it costs about $60 to have a second brand new
    smaller CRT for a dual monitor display...or...just get a second lower-res
    LCD. This makes for a nice system, since you don't need high res for
    palettes, e-mail, web, etc.
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
  8. iwoggy64

    HvdV Guest

    Bad news!
    What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
    usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?

    -- Hans
    HvdV, Sep 20, 2005
  9. iwoggy64

    Mark² Guest

    Take heart.
    He is mostly full of doo-doo in this discussion.
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
  10. iwoggy64

    John Ortt Guest

    What is the max res you can get on an LCD these days...the Apple 23" for
    John Ortt, Sep 20, 2005
  11. iwoggy64

    John Ortt Guest

    22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    As is yours!

    I quote: "They WILL change their diplay constantly".......no they won't

    I too have a 21" Sony which has been excellent for four years now.
    Sure there has probrably been some loss of brightness but I certainly can't
    detect it (and I am a fussy owner).

    In short the two camps can be summed up as follows:

    PROs - Established technology with 50+ years of development, progress has
    pretty much plateaued. Cheap as chips....
    CONS - Big footprint and very Heavy, Fundamental technology uses a scan
    approach to refresh the picture which can iritate some users

    PROs - Very Small footprint and lightweight
    CONS - Extremely expensive compared to equivalent CRT, Technology is
    relatively new and still developing rapidly.

    The facts above are exactly that - FACTS!

    Notice I have said nothing about the picture quality as it is a highly
    contensious area where there is no right or wrong answer.
    Both give excellent picture quality and should last a considderable time
    provided you invest sensibly and treat them well.

    One thing I will say is that LCD have not had anywhere near the level of
    in-life testing that CRT's have, and as such I would be more inclined to
    back a CRT monitor for reliability and longevity than I would an LCD one.
    That being said I would swop my 21" CRT for an equivalent 21" LCD in the
    blink of an eye if anybody was stupid enough to want to :)

    I went for CRT because it was cheap and I knew it would perform well. If
    you are short on desk space and have the money to spare by all means go for
    an LCD.
    John Ortt, Sep 20, 2005
  12. iwoggy64

    Ray Fischer Guest

    There are always new Macs about to come out. The biggest change
    coming up is that Apple will be changing processors to the x86 family
    from Intel. That's not for a year or so.
    Consider getting two (or even three) smaller 20" monitors. Cheaper
    for the amount of screen real-estate. Especially for graphics work
    you can put images on a high-quality monitor and then put palettes
    and tools on the other. The G5 may support dual monitors as shipped.
    Have you seen the 30" display? Past "concerned" and into the "holy
    crap!" price range.
    Rare these days.
    Might be the one I use with my Mac at work. Nice display. Don't do
    graphics with it though.
    Don't consider the display and the Mac as being a bundle. If you need
    the G5 then you can get it with a cheap display and add on later once
    you've had time to read up.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 20, 2005
  13. iwoggy64

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And CRTs are subject to burn in, fading phosphors, fading electron
    guns, and color shifts over time. Nothing lasts forever.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 20, 2005
  14. iwoggy64

    Mark² Guest

    Note that I referred to MY Sony.
    This was intentional.
    Many will last longer, but the shift is undeniable (well...you could deny
    it, but it wouldn't be truthful...).
    If you haven't noticed, that's simply bcause you're not as picky as you
    might be.
    For those interested in *critical* color-matching, CRTs change very rapidly.
    Whilen LCDs *can* dim, all of those in my experience have changed less over
    time than CRTs.
    It's more than brightness.
    It is color rendition.
    Unless it's just not that important (and to many, it matters little), this
    needs to be re-calibrated often.
    Good for you.
    I have never maintained color-matching as well and as consitently as I have
    with my 20" 1600x1200 LCD, and I've had many quality CRTs.
    Mark², Sep 21, 2005
  15. Well, LCD backlights do fade. But CRT phosphors fade too; I've got a
    couple of old monitors which demonstrate that pretty well.
    Matthew Russotto, Sep 21, 2005
  16. iwoggy64

    Randy Howard Guest

    John Ortt wrote
    Take a look at the Apple 30" cinema display. It's way up there.
    The Apple 23" and Dell 2405 are both what, 1920x1200?

    Imagine running two of them side by side. :)
    Randy Howard, Sep 21, 2005
  17. iwoggy64

    Randy Howard Guest

    Mark² wrote
    You're lucky. I have a 5-yr-old 1600x1200 20" LCD panel, that
    cost a small fortune back in the day, that is faded to almost
    unusable, and there is NO way to get a pure white out of it
    anymore, the best you can hope for is about a #FFFFEE. When I
    first got it, it was staggeringly beautiful. No amount of
    calibration effort can get it looking good anymore. If you
    think you can fix it, I'll make you a heck of a deal on it. :)
    It also has a very annoying left-right brightness variation
    which is incredibly noticeable on solid color backgrounds, and
    requires a pretty aggressive background image to disguise. I'm
    not sure exactly when that started creeping in.

    I got a new 1920x1200 flat panel shortly after I bought my Mac,
    and they're not even close to looking the same. I had intended
    to use them side by side in a dual-monitor config, but I can't
    stand to look at the old one anymore, it's simply horrid after
    getting something better to compare to it. It creeps up on you
    over time and you don't notice it until suddenly you get a brand
    new one to compare with.

    To be fair, 1600x1200 was fairly new and rare 5 years ago in
    LCD, so they might be made better today. I certainly hope so,
    after what I spent on this last one.
    Randy Howard, Sep 21, 2005
  18. iwoggy64

    John Ortt Guest

    Cheers Floyd, It's been a while since I have been in the market and they
    appear to have moved on quite a bit since I last looked.

    Unfortunately my savings account hasn't so I'll have to stick to CRT for a
    while yet :)
    John Ortt, Sep 21, 2005
  19. Here is a interesting chart I came across recently.
    As one can see, the colour range on a CRT exceeds that of an LCD. Other than
    this one feature, LCD's may be the way to go. If you have an older LCD and
    the display is looking bad, most probably replacing the CCFL behind the
    display will bring it back to it's original look. Don't forget that as
    Flourescent Tubes get weak, they change colour and dim across their length


    Visual performance
    Faster than CRT
    Slower than LCD

    Image flicker
    Prone to flicker

    Image brightness
    Bright, uniform
    Variable, uneven

    Image geometry

    Image sharpness
    Moderate to high

    Screen viewing area
    Full area, very space efficient
    Partial area, space inefficient.

    Screen size
    Smaller screen for equivalent CRT viewing area
    Larger screen for equivalent LCD viewing area

    Specular screen glare
    Prone to specular glare

    Energy consumption

    Electromagnetic emissions

    Heat emissions

    Space efficiency

    Flexible positioning


    Color range
    Very Good

    Richard Tomkins, Sep 21, 2005
  20. iwoggy64

    John Ortt Guest

    I would change that to:


    I don't see wow you can view LCD displays as moderately priced when it is
    pretty much at the top of the technology foodchain.
    John Ortt, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.