27" display monitors for photography

qveda said:

What are the current top contenders for 27" displays, besides the Apple thunderbolt display (I've heard they may announce a new one when the roll out the new Mac Pro) ? Samsung series 9 ? Dell?

(sorry if this is a duplicate post, I literally could not find the orig one that I thought I posted a few days ago)

Click to expand...

Top contenders - Eizo and NEC (PA series)
then
Dell Ultra Series, HP (their top end), Samsung

If you are serious about ability to colour correct/calibrate really do investigate the NEC PA series. It remains a top choice for a tremendous amount of people in the industry.

The thing that some seem to read into is the connectivity of monitors and wanting all these bells and whistles that don't really add value to what is most important - a quality maintainable calibrated screen. I admit I am not a real fan of Apple's offering (though I have had their 30" cinema display a few years ago) - there are just too many better choices out there whether it be superior screen or simply similar screen for a far better price.

Just my peanuts from the gallery.

qveda said:

(I've heard they may announce a new one when the roll out the new Mac Pro) ?

Click to expand...

I've not seen actual info on a new apple screen. The speculation is fueled by 1) time since the last update and 2) all the capability of the forthcoming Pro. Since the thing can run three 4k at the same time, it seems silly for them not to. OTOH, we aren't swimming in candidate panels, either. It's still a specialty res, so the hope is that apple will change that.

Eizo CG276 (is a 4k screen now)

NEC Spectraview Reference 271

Both of these monitors are better than the ACD as they have matt screens. Despite the improvements with the gloss finish on the apple screens (I'm using one now) they still resemble a mirror compared to the Pro Eizo & NEC offerings.

qveda said:

I've been happy with Dell U series. They display tonal contrast really well. If they are less expensive than Apple, and the color is as good then I'd strongly consider one .

Click to expand...

The Dell U2711, U3011 and U3014 are better than the Apple at covering the Adobe RGB spec.

qveda said:

the NEC 271 seems to be selling for about $1300 (B&H) or much higher at other places. That would be at the limit , or beyond for me.

I've been happy with Dell U series.

Click to expand...

Reserve judgement until you've seen a sRGB monitor and a wide gamut monitor side by side, displaying appropriate material. It's like trying to explain colour blindness. You can not. Period.

I'm not saying you'll be unhappy with a Dell, I'm looking at a trusted pair of FPW2405's at this moment, but you haven't seen green on a computer screen until you've seen wide-gamut RGB color space-green. Eizo and NEC do have valid qualities justifying their prices.

/cheesy rhymes

(oh: invest in some form of calibrating hardware.. Reliable calibration is worth more than the price difference between a Packard Bell and an Apple..)

burne said:

Reserve judgement until you've seen a sRGB monitor and a wide gamut monitor side by side, displaying appropriate material. It's like trying to explain colour blindness. You can not. Period.

Click to expand...

It is a world of difference, but what is your target? sRGB covers 95% off all colour work, it almost completely covers generic CMYK printing and all web use.
AdobeRGB is there to cover the weirdest Pantone colours and far corners of wide gamut CMYK inks.
If you get a AdobeRGB monitor, make sure it has a 3D lut to tame it down to accurate sRGB when needed.
One of the best deals for this right now is the Dell U2713H (not the HM) or the NEC PA271W (which gets nice discounts nowadays cause it has CCFL backlight, which is just as good as the now common W-LED, but more expensive to make)

The new apple screens are very nice and it will be the best for the photography.
-----------

http://www.selogerneuf.com/immobilier/tout/immo-marseille-13/

First of all, the rumors of a new "retina" Thunderbolt Display are not very reliable. The only "evidence" of it is the 2x wallpapers that are included in Mavericks; these could be for the iMac 27" as well. I've also been very clear about this in these forums, but retina displays are not very optimal for photography, since they don't really contribute much from 2 feet away.

That being said, I use a Thunderbolt Display for my photography purely for convenience. I'd hate to plug in 3+ cables into my computer just so it can be on the big screen. The display has a fairly large gamut, albeit it falls short of the 100% Adobe RGB mark. It's very capable nonetheless.

If you're shooting for professional quality, Dell and HP's top-end monitors are very good. As someone mentioned before, the U2711 is a great monitor. If you want even better quality, Eizo and NEC caters to such people with the highest quality displays around.

I'd also get a screen calibrator to help with the color issues. Not only does it make professional monitors accurate but also enhances normal computing and TV viewing experience with correct color reproduction.

Been using a 17" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac as my main displays for editing photos. All of my clients have been very satisfied with my work. In the end, that's really all that matters. Apple screens are awesome!

Apple fanboy said:

Eizo CG276 (is a 4k screen now)

NEC Spectraview Reference 271

Both of these monitors are better than the ACD as they have matt screens. Despite the improvements with the gloss finish on the apple screens (I'm using one now) they still resemble a mirror compared to the Pro Eizo & NEC offerings.

Click to expand...

I agree, working on one now as well.

qveda said:

What are the current top contenders for 27" displays, besides the Apple thunderbolt display...

Click to expand...

All of Apple's screens lack an anti-glare surface. Notice the double negative which reduces to "All of Apple's screen have a glare surface." I can't figure out why Apple did this, their older products where higher quality. Does glare reduction cost that much? Was it purely a cost saving move?

I have a Dell 2713HM. Excellent Monitor. I recommend it. Works well with Macs too

Much depends on:
gamut: narrow or wide. If you don't know, then narrow for sRGB is OK
Thunbderbolt docking station: important or not
Budget: a factor for most folks


For us narrow gamut is enough and TB docking station is important. Therefore there was only once choice....ATD. You can get them for a few bucks less as refurbed from Apple with warranty.

Miltz said:

I have a Dell 2713HM. Excellent Monitor. I recommend it. Works well with Macs too

Click to expand...

This. Been very happy with mine. Is it a wide gamut? No. Do I care? Not really. If you plan on doing pro work, or printing, that may be a consideration. For every day, hobby, internet sharing, etc. It's great.

As others have suggested HP, NEC, Dell all make great displays for this kind of work Expect to shell out a bit to get the premium offerings with the good panel uniformity and colour accuracy.

I personally use a Dell U2713H which is their new GB-LED backlit 27" IPS panel with AdobeRGB gamut. I have calibrated it and it is 99% AdobeRGB, dE less than 1.0, very high colour uniformity (max dE 0.87 vs center) and brightness uniformity is great too (max deviation 99% vs center). The 3M matte hardcoat is nice and not too "grainy". The only problem with it is that I plug it into a Retina MacBook Pro 15" at work... stupid retina screens make everything else look blurry.

I would suggest that AdobeRGB isn't actually important most of the time. Most of the additional colours AdobeRGB adds aren't really in any commonly used palette. Don't get me wrong I do notice, and I do appreciate it when doing editing work. However, properly calibrated it renders most things just like an sRGB screen because most things have sRGB profiles embedded anyways (except anything in Chrome because it thinks everything is sRGB all the time).

Apple's current Thunderbolt Display at the time of this writing is definitely not a contender. It is far, far too glossy. I have used a new thin 27" iMac extensively and the glare is dramatically improved. If Apple released a compelling Thunderbolt Display with iMac levels of glare it would be on the table for consideration. Even if it was only 100% sRGB.

Apple's current Cinema Display at the time of this writing is definitely not a contender. It is far, far too glossy. I have used a new thin 27" iMac extensively and the glare is dramatically improved. If Apple released a compelling cinema display with iMac levels of glare it would be on the table for consideration. Even if it was only 100% sRGB.

Click to expand...

Why would Apple want to release any new Cinema Displays? I can see Thunderbolt Displays, but not Cinema Displays. Apple is pushing Thunderbolt as the high bandwidth way to hookup monitors, disk arrays,....etc.

MCAsan said:

Why would Apple want to release any new Cinema Displays? I can see Thunderbolt Displays, but not Cinema Displays. Apple is pushing Thunderbolt as the high bandwidth way to hookup monitors, disk arrays,....etc.

Click to expand...

Poor language on my part. By Cinema Display I mean Thunderbolt Display. The original post will be edited to reflect that.

Its all about tone and colour..... Apple displays (to date) are 8 bit, so only 256 tones per colour channel. Eizo are higher (I think 12 bit) as are Dell, NEC and just about every other 'real' display. Apple have not made a pro display since crt days when they used Sony Trinitron screens. Budget wise - top end Eizo, bottom end Dell Ultrasharp. Check out dpreview forums or luminous landscape forums for this.... or google search - it's a popular topic.

Also - in my view AdobeRGB is important. You want a range of colours that will be more in line with what modern cameras can capture. sRGB (shitRGB) is the colour space of old crt TVs, and not up to spec with what our printers are even capable of outputting. Unless you are only making work for screens (inc tablets and phones) then you will want something more than sRGB.

Something else the NEC and Eizo offer is the ability to calibrate the screen, rather than simply profile it. This means you can access the display 'signal' (calibrate), rather than the video card 'signal'.

A great site for details on this stuff is http://www.josephholmes.com (I'm a big fan of his Dcam profiles, number 3 in particular).

Anyway - lots of info for you. If you go for the Dell you should be pretty happy.

What's the budget range?

I find this page very useful, which lists some monitors

http://thedigitalcamera.net/best-monitor-for-photo-editing-and-photography/

Its all about tone and colour.....

Click to expand...

Agreed. Do you need narrow or wide gamut? If you show your pictures on monitors at home, on a TV, export them in email, or post them on web pages or social media sites......narrow sRBG support is all you need.

You only need wide gamut support if you are planning to do high end printing, on paper, canvas, or in a high end book. That is for a rare few...mostly pros.

MCAsan said:

Agreed. Do you need narrow or wide gamut? If you show your pictures on monitors at home, on a TV, export them in email, or post them on web pages or social media sites......narrow sRBG support is all you need.

You only need wide gamut support if you are planning to do high end printing, on paper, canvas, or in a high end book. That is for a rare few...mostly pros.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree here. If your camera shoots an Adobe RGB or even SRGB colour space, then why would a monitor that supports less colours be able to produce an image even close to what you captured? Your monitor needs to be able to reproduce the same amount of colours accurately as a minimum.

Apple fanboy said:

Totally disagree here. If your camera shoots an Adobe RGB or even SRGB colour space, then why would a monitor that supports less colours be able to produce an image even close to what you captured? Your monitor needs to be able to reproduce the same amount of colours accurately as a minimum.

Click to expand...

Only if your output,,,,a printer,,,,,does wide gamut. What else will you do with a wige gamut image except print it? You sure can't put in on the narrow gamut internet or show it on most projectors or TV monitor.