Monitor Screens

Couldn't find a thread on this so....

What brand, model and size screens are people using for editing and are you using 1 or 2 screens?

I use primarily a 23" Dell and occasionally also a 15" laptop for floating tool panels, secondary programs, etc.

I use one slightly elderly NEC MultiSync EA231WMi IPS and like it well enough I should pick up another before they are out of stock everywhere.

Do we believe its important to go that bit extra for a decent monitor and what would you be willing to spend?

I'm currently using a 24" 1920x1200 Dell monitor as my primary. Bit of an older model, and not the top of the line from its era, but has reasonable colour accuracy and response time. It is currently paired with some random LG 20" that I got ages ago on sale as an emergency replacement when an old CRT finally died and I needed something just to display docs and code.

Unless I'm on the road and using my laptop, I really wouldn't dream of using just a single monitor. Three is nice, but of limited bonus over a dual screen setup for photography I've found.


I am looking at upgrading my Primary to a decent 4K in the next few years, but for the time being will probably just buy a similar 24" 1920x1200 for a little more screen area, and then use them to flank a good 4K in a few more years after prices drop a little more.

Just picked up a Dell 27" 4k P2715Q. Not a single complaint for processing. Full adjustable (tilt, swivel and up/down), matte screen, 27", excellent build quality, 4k, USB 3.0 ports, IPS and amazing color accuracy (factory tuned at 99% sRGB with a color calibration factory report certifying that each monitor has a deltaE < 3).

For the price, I'm not sure it can be beat.

njstacker22 wrote in post #17748198
Just picked up a Dell 27" 4k P2715Q. Not a single complaint for processing. Full adjustable (tilt, swivel and up/down), matte screen, 27", excellent build quality, 4k, USB 3.0 ports, IPS and amazing color accuracy (factory tuned at 99% sRGB with a color calibration factory report certifying that each monitor has a deltaE < 3).

For the price, I'm not sure it can be beat.

Ah yes, this is the one I was looking at last night, looks fantastic!!

I use a NEC PA241W.

Just curious, but why does anyone feel 4K or 5K is important for an editing monitor? I'd think the most important features would be IPS, matte screen (not glossy), corner to corner uniformity, how easy it calibrates and how good it is after calibration (i.e., does it result in a good delta E). High contrast ratio and whether the monitor is 4K or 5K wouldn't make my must list. I'd place those on my nice to have list slightly below 10 bpc color.

I'm serious though, if there is a good reason for 4K for editing I'd like to know. I'm thinking of one day going to 27" and it would be nice to know why 4K or 5K should be considered.

Bob_A wrote in post #17749447
I use a NEC PA241W.

Just curious, but why does anyone feel 4K or 5K is important for an editing monitor? I'd think the most important features would be IPS, matte screen (not glossy), corner to corner uniformity, how easy it calibrates and how good it is after calibration (i.e., does it result in a good delta E). High contrast ratio and whether the monitor is 4K or 5K wouldn't make my must list. I'd place those on my nice to have list slightly below 10 bpc color.

I'm serious though, if there is a good reason for 4K for editing I'd like to know. I'm thinking of one day going to 27" and it would be nice to know why 4K or 5K should be considered.

Have a look at the flower when zoomed in on.

http://accessories.ap.​dell.com …hs&cs=audhs1&sk​u=210-AEBG

WA Tiger wrote in post #17749509
Have a look at the flower when zoomed in on.

http://accessories.ap.​dell.com …hs&cs=audhs1&sk​u=210-AEBG

That's nice, but how does it help you edit your photos better? Key buying factors for an editing monitor include color accuracy after calibration, uniformity, stability, no change in color/density when you change viewing angle and ease of calibration. Ultra high definition seems to be a "nice to have" ... or am I missing something?

Bob_A wrote in post #17749915
That's nice, but how does it help you edit your photos better? Key buying factors for an editing monitor include color accuracy after calibration, uniformity, stability, no change in color/density when you change viewing angle and ease of calibration. Ultra high definition seems to be a "nice to have" ... or am I missing something?

It's hot more to do with the clarity you see when processing your shot and the detail you can get down to in the shot itself.

WA Tiger wrote in post #17750111
It's hot more to do with the clarity you see when processing your shot and the detail you can get down to in the shot itself.

And I can see that as a nice to have. It's just not very high up on the list of things that are required for editing. Now if the monitor covers the musts and is 4K or 5K to boot, then that sounds pretty sweet.

Bob_A wrote in post #17750530
And I can see that as a nice to have. It's just not very high up on the list of things that are required for editing. Now if the monitor covers the musts and is 4K or 5K to boot, then that sounds pretty sweet.

I can see where you are coming from here. I went 4k for a few reasons. If everything goes as planned I will be getting into a Sony A7R2 and intend on using the video features. Pretty foolish to spend that kind of money on a camera that shoots 4k and view/work the files in 2k. Also, I got the monitor at a very good price and it met all my "must haves". To view work on files at 1:1 and not have to scroll/zoom for detail. Last, I'm sick of being behind the curve on technology and for once I feel like I'll just be slightly ahead of the general public! And also because 4k is just.... well, it's 4k!

Bob_A wrote in post #17749447
Just curious, but why does anyone feel 4K or 5K is important for an editing monitor?

I would agree that 4K resolutions are not a critical priority, but they do seem exceptionally nice if you can get it along with general colour accuracy and reasonable response times. It is however not so nice that I'm rushing out to drop a pile of money on it yet.

It is one of those things that you have to decide if it is worth the investment. I think that for most people doing photography these days that a good 8bit IPS monitor is generally enough, and the investment in upgrading to a full 10bit workflow isn't going to be worth it in many cases.

This is especially true for people focusing on digital deployment of their photos, and I would even suggest considering picking up a really cheap and low in monitor in addition to a decent primary in such cases. (To double check how things are rendering on an 'average' screen. Your great and beautiful 10bit workflow isn't worth much if all your fine detail is shoved into too narrow of a range and it renders out as just a blob on lower end screens.)

For my current personal work I would take a good evenly coloured 4K monitor on an 8bit workflow before I dove into the extra costs in setting up for a proper 10bit one. But I wouldn't give up at least dual monitor setups to work with only a single 4K.

Luckless wrote in post #17751705
But I wouldn't give up at least dual monitor setups to work with only a single 4K.

I use a dual monitor set up at my 9-5 (27" and a 17" laptop) so it's always difficult to go to my work office and have a single monitor. Now I have 1 27" 4k monitor I would LOOOOOOOVE to get another but the price tag is just way too much.