photography monitors

hey all, 1st post. I have a question on monitors for editing photos. any recommendations on a good monitor that would give me accurate colors and would work well with my photo printing site. I use white house for printing my pics.

any advice would be great

Good or great? What is your budget? How large?

300-400 budget. 24-29 inch I guess. I'd rather have the higher quality but smaller screen. my screen now doesn't have the brightness I feel it needs.

Look for an IPS panel only with 1.07 billion colors - Newegg allows for that kind of filter so you can review them all. Not a lot to choose from in that price bracket but you should be able to find a 24-27 inch HD or 2K monitor that will give you about 95-100% of the sRGB color gamut and a bit less for RGB.

And brightness is where you are probably wrong - most monitors are set WAY too bright. My monitors are set to about 14-19 on a scale of 100 for brightness. You really need a calibration device to ensure you have your monitor set properly or else it doesn't matter what you have - prints will never match what you see on screen.

James33 wrote in post #17980871
You really need a calibration device to ensure you have your monitor set properly or else it doesn't matter what you have - prints will never match what you see on screen.

This!

I use a 27-Inch Dell UltraSharp U2715H and really like it.

Dell 23 inch here. Get a Spyder 5 Express or similar.

Also, people go on about gamut size. Just because you can't see the extremes of color it doesn't mean they're not there, so as long as the bits you can see are accurate you're good.

I bought into the IPS aspect of a good photography monitor and purchased a 27" LG IPS screen for $280 ish, I'm not very happy with the images even calibrated using the spyder 5 Elite. Some images appear blown out, not sure what that would be considered. So getting contrast settings right seems important before calibrating.

So I guess what I'm saying is do your research and get the Dell.

Chet wrote in post #17981142
I bought into the IPS aspect of a good photography monitor and purchased a 27" LG IPS screen for $280 ish, I'm not very happy with the images even calibrated using the spyder 5 Elite. Some images appear blown out, not sure what that would be considered. So getting contrast settings right seems important before calibrating.

So I guess what I'm saying is do your research and get the Dell.

I kinda got the feeling you had. I got the LG IPS 236 24" on sale, trying to cut corners for $, and it was great but I had an itch at the back of my head regarding just spending the extra for a U2412M. So I returned it, went for the Dell and it seemed like miles ahead of the LG. Could of been just mental but I don't regret spending the extra money.

I went to a local pro for advice before I bought my last two monitors. My budget was $300-400, or so I thought. I was very unhappy with my 5-year-old 22 inch LG. He was using IPS NEC monitors, which were gorgeous. When I balked at the price, he asked why I would spend thousands on bodies and glass, but considered the price for a 27 inch NEC ($1000-1500), the one piece of equipment used to edit and view my photos, excessive. I didn't have a good answer for that. Eventually I went with the 27" NEC PA272W with dedicated X-rite calibration sensor. I'm not wealthy, so I continued to save for a while before making the purchase, but it changed my attitude concerning monitors. I was so impressed, later I added a 30" NEC PA302W when I found one at a sale price that equaled the sale price of my 27 inch (both use the same X-rite sensor). Honestly, I can't say how much better these monitors are than a cheaper Dell, but I'm overwhelmed by these every time I use them.

Prints were always a problem with my old monitor, especially matching the exposure and color to the screen view. Lowering the brightness to a known, repeatable value when calibrating the NECs fixed this. Whatever you decide to buy, calibration isn't an option - it's a must.

I never thought expensive monitors were worthwhile. Just because you can't see the full range of colors exactly as the print will be that doesn't mean the prints won't be good. So long as a calibrated monitor shows skin tones accurately I think it's fine. You can tell shadows / highlights with the histogram and a few test prints.

joevol320 wrote in post #17980853
300-400 budget. 24-29 inch I guess. I'd rather have the higher quality but smaller screen. my screen now doesn't have the brightness I feel it needs.

Usually, the first adjustment that we have to make is to turn down the brightness on a new monitor. Don't your prints match what you see on the screen?

electronpusher wrote in post #17983685
I went to a local pro for advice before I bought my last two monitors. My budget was $300-400, or so I thought. I was very unhappy with my 5-year-old 22 inch LG. He was using IPS NEC monitors, which were gorgeous. When I balked at the price, he asked why I would spend thousands on bodies and glass, but considered the price for a 27 inch NEC ($1000-1500), the one piece of equipment used to edit and view my photos, excessive. I didn't have a good answer for that. Eventually I went with the 27" NEC PA272W with dedicated X-rite calibration sensor. I'm not wealthy, so I continued to save for a while before making the purchase, but it changed my attitude concerning monitors. I was so impressed, later I added a 30" NEC PA302W when I found one at a sale price that equaled the sale price of my 27 inch (both use the same X-rite sensor). Honestly, I can't say how much better these monitors are than a cheaper Dell, but I'm overwhelmed by these every time I use them.

Prints were always a problem with my old monitor, especially matching the exposure and color to the screen view. Lowering the brightness to a known, repeatable value when calibrating the NECs fixed this. Whatever you decide to buy, calibration isn't an option - it's a must.

He had a good insight to the problem. Same thing dawned on me, as I don't print . There I was, with those glorious 8K 5DS R files, created using the 70-200 IS F2.8 L ( which I think is fairly good ) in total costing £5,100 and trying to edit and view on an uncalibrated 1080p laptop. The colours changed as the angle of the screen changed!

And I just thought - this is NUTS!
Here I am editing and also more importantly viewing these pics, on such a 'way behind technology' I might as well have just shot the image with my iPhone 6S plus, and viewed 'em on my retina screened iPad Air!

I am overjoyed with the HP Z24S UHD IPS 4K, its on a different planet.

The only negative is , if you look at old images say taken on the 7D on the Laptop, you feel you want to go back in time and retake all your images.

The other point is ... I am sure in a couple of years 4K will be bog standard spec for mundane gear! ( the good stuff will be into using 8K) but your images are forever so I am pleased I moved , the quicker the better.

For me its so good I doubt I will need 8K - tbh by the time its affordable, will my eyesight be good enough to percieve let alone appreciate it?

My advice go 4K as soon as you can.

However, be aware that 99% of people have horrible TN panels with brightness cranked all the way up with some "Vivid Game" mode enabled. None of your photos, if shared or viewed online, will look correct (provided you did the work on a quality calibrated display). Not much you can do about it and it is kind of depressing.