Arg! So embarrassing. My monitor wasn't honest!

I just delivered a disc to a client with thirty images that I worked hard to edit, and when viewed on their monitor I was pretty irked with myself for trusting my simple, older monitor. My black backgrounds showed shadows and noise (when viewed on the client's monitor) that did not show up on mine. Thank goodness I insisted we view the files on their computer.

Arg. So frustrating and quite embarrassing. They didn't see it the way I saw it, but I said, "Don't print these and don't pay me yet." They are neighbors and friends, so it's no big deal, but as you can imagine, I'm leaving in a few minutes to get a decent monitor.

Can a monitor under 200 do a good job? Any suggestions? Best Buy is pretty much my only option today (well, Staples and Office Depot as well), because I'm going to make sure to give them an updated CD tomorrow. No time to wait.

Thanks.

Grrrr.

Monoprice monitors are really good for the money.

To get the best images, you might want to think about getting an IPS monitor (assuming you don't already have one). I suggest an IPS monitor because they can display a wider colour gamut than a standard TN monitor which usually comes with most "bundled" PC deals. There are a number of companies that make them, ASUS, Dell, HP, LG, NEC, ViewSonic, to name a few. As far as price is concerned, a lot depends on how big a monitor you need to give you the insight into your images that you need. I have two, 24", ASUS PA246Q IPS monitors and I really like them. I paid about $400 each for them. I would suggest that you should look at least at a 24" monitor if not a 27" and of course, I am assuming that you calibrate your monitors on a regular basis.

You can also look at some of the Dell 24" IPS monitors. Do a search of this forum and you might find some reviews. Alternatively, do a complete web search and you will definitely find some ideas and reviews.

I would doubt very much if a monitor under $200 can do the job, although you may find a sale that proves me wrong. If I were you, I would expect to pay between $300 and $500 for a decent, low-end, IPS monitor. You can, of course, pay a lot more. Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

I ended up with a 23-inch IPS monitor (thanks for the suggestion, Western Guy) for 300 at Best Buy. It;ll be much better than this dud 19-inch VGA that I've had forever.

I should have done this in the first place when I bought my new Dell four months ago. It's blazing fast: I5, 8gb ram, a gazillion in hard drive, etc. Edits super fast.

Now I need to hook up the new monitor and make things right with this client.

You need to calibrate the monitor with something like the Spyder 4 express. Out of the box it won't be as accurate as professionals need it to be.

What tim said - you definitely need to calibrate the monitor (which one did you buy?) before you use it. Most monitors out of the box have the brightness set too high and the colour gamut may not be set properly as well. Datacolor's Spyder 4 is a good tool for calibration as are the X-Rite tools such as ColorMunki.

WesternGuy

OK I'll get it going. Thank you for the calibration advice.

The monitor I purchased is the 23-inch ACER T233HL. It was 299 but I got a good discount on it. It's touch screen (which I won't use), but right out of the box it's a world of difference. I can see far more than I did before with my old VGA monitor.

What computer are you using? Don't want to get into a Mac/Windows debate, but Macs (iMacs, MacBook Pros) out-of-the-box look terrific with little calibration needed.

gossamer88 wrote in post #17114391
Don't want to get into a Mac/Windows debate, but Macs (iMacs, MacBook Pros) out-of-the-box look terrific with little calibration needed.

No they are not.
The new Cinema displays are so bad Apple wouldn't let us have one recently for a demonstration.
Apple DO NOT make the hardware in their monitors, they never have.
Currently they use LG panels, the same LG panels everyone else uses (Dell, HP, Eizo, etc) which means just like everyone else, they still need calibrating to be accurate.

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17114366
OK I'll get it going. Thank you for the calibration advice.

The monitor I purchased is the 23-inch ACER T233HL. It was 299 but I got a good discount on it. It's touch screen (which I won't use), but right out of the box it's a world of difference. I can see far more than I did before with my old VGA monitor.

With the new monitor, you will ironically, run into the same problem where images will not look the same on a different monitor.
This one of the frustrations of working in the digital world, there is a huge range of variation in monitors out there, and only a very small number are even close to being colour accurate.

Fortunately most people will never notice any real difference, and if you're delivering high quality files that are properly processed, then people will only see shifts in colour and small differences in the highlights and shadows, most of which their brain will override and correct for them.

gossamer88 wrote in post #17114391
What computer are you using? Don't want to get into a Mac/Windows debate, but Macs (iMacs, MacBook Pros) out-of-the-box look terrific with little calibration needed.

How it looks and how accurate it is are two different things. Images on my phone look super vibrant and crisp, but that isn't necessarily how they are supposed to look.


Mike, you really need to calibrate the monitor. Beyond that you're also going to be dealing with the issue that all consumer monitors have, in that they tend to be quite bright and the WB and saturation aren't going to be ideal for image editing. When you open an image on an uncalibrated consumer grade monitor, you may well see detail in the shadows that won't show up in a print, because the monitor is boosting the exposure.

Moppie wrote in post #17115061
No they are not.
The new Cinema displays are so bad Apple wouldn't let us have one recently for a demonstration.
Apple DO NOT make the hardware in their monitors, they never have.
Currently they use LG panels, the same LG panels everyone else uses (Dell, HP, Eizo, etc) which means just like everyone else, they still need calibrating to be accurate.

Apple not letting you have one has nothing to do how bad they believe their displays are.

I'm well aware Apple, and others, do not manufacture their monitors, but neither are the HDs, Graphic Cards, etc. It's the OS that matters, and my 27" iMac looks amazing. As did my 24" iMac before it.

gossamer88 wrote in post #17115112
Apple not letting you have one has nothing to do how bad they believe their displays are.

I'm well aware Apple, and others, do not manufacture their monitors, but neither are the HDs, Graphic Cards, etc. It's the OS that matters, and my 27" iMac looks amazing. As did my 24" iMac before it.

Have you ever used a proper professional graphics monitor like an NEC or Eizo?

I've had a 27" iMac and I'll take my 24" NEC over the iMac screen any day of the week.

BTW, it's not the OS that matters, it's the monitor quality coupled with correct calibration. Apple users love to compare the monitor on a $1500 Apple to the monitors that come with $500 department store PC bundles. Try comparing apples to apples however and you'll see those differences disappear. Spend a day editing on a matte screen and you'll realize how annoying glossy screens really are.

gossamer88 wrote in post #17115112
Apple not letting you have one has nothing to do how bad they believe their displays are.

I'm well aware Apple, and others, do not manufacture their monitors, but neither are the HDs, Graphic Cards, etc. It's the OS that matters, and my 27" iMac looks amazing. As did my 24" iMac before it.

Have you set them up side by side and looked at the same thing on them? I do software testing for a living, and worked on a media project that was heavily focused on Macs awhile back. With a MBP Retina, MBP, a 2013 iMac, and Mac Mini with some random monitor attached we had the same image of my blue shirt, taken from the same source, appear radically different on each system. The mid blue tshirt ranged from a light sky blue to a deep purple.

If you are not testing and calibrating your screens, no matter what computer or screen it is, then you are not getting accurate colours on them.

"I bought it from so and so, and they make good stuff, therefore the colours MUST be right!" is a great way to have no actual control over your images. However, if you're letting them out into the wild to be displayed on any old screen, then it really doesn't matter if you're overly accurate, and instead you just need to be somewhere near the a nice average of just how bad most computer screens are.

Hey Luckless, didn't you post images of that comparison here? Maybe you could share them here if you have them, I think a few people would benefit from that.