Best 23-24" S-IPS Displays for Pro Photoshop Editing?

[DHart]

I'm beginning my search to find a great 23 to 24" display panel to use for my Photoshop editing. I'm a pro portrait photographer and need accurate display color for my work.

I know the Apple 23" is a good panel, but have also heard good things about NEC, HP, and Dell. A cheap display won't work for me as I need a matte screen, 1080p resolution, accurate colors, wide viewing angles, without artificial saturation increase (as found on the aluminum 24" iMac). The ability to lower the display down close to desk level would be really nice. I know the Apple doesn't do this.

The display will be used to edit professional portrait photography prior to being sent to a commercial lab. Skintones, colors, saturation, brightness, all gotta be right! WYSIWYG, baby. And in that regard, I've LOVED my 20" iMac Core Duo 2GHz machines - they have been totally WYSIWYG, producing beautiful, accurate images with just the basic, built-in calibration process. Gotta love Macs!

I will be using a new MacBook 2.2GHz with 4 MB of RAM to drive the display panel - with a Wacom tablet.

Your suggestions would be most appreciated! Thanks, in advance.

 

[reetcher]

I too am in this boat, looking at the new monitors, especially with the idea that they are now claiming to display the adobe 98 color space. Unlike the ACD that is sRGB. Obviously Eizos are rated high.

Shootsmarter.com has a nice review of monitors for color work. (need to sign in with an email address) I am wondering if anyone else has found websites that do trusted detailed reviews of monitors for color work?

 

[Abstract]

^^^What? ACDs are not "sRGB". Every LCD can display sRGB, including Apple's and Dells.



To the OP: If you're looking for ultra accurate colour from your LCD, and yet you were actually happy with the LCD colour accuracy of your iMac, and with just the basic built-in colour calibration(!!), I guess you don't need to be as accurate as you think. In that case, there are a lot of choices.

Go on this website and look at the monitors. Any monitor that uses an S-PVA or S-IPS LCD panel will be perfect for what you do. S-IPS and AS-IPS are the best for colour accuracy, but S-PVA will serve you well.....even better than your trusty iMac.

LINK

 

[Cliff3]

1080p is a home theater term and is not applicable here.

Eizo - here and here - makes top notch graphics monitors. Expect to pay $5300 or so for the first and $2400 for the second.

You're not going to get accurate color using the built in calibration processes, no matter which monitor you end up choosing. You will need to use a colorimeter and color calibration software to profile your monitor and printer(s). If you use a printing service, then they should be able to provide you with profiles for their printers.

 

[reetcher]

^^^What? ACDs are not "sRGB". Every LCD can display sRGB, including Apple's and Dells.

Not sure of your point? (are you going after the semantics?) noticed you didn't list any of the high end monitors in that statement

ACD can "only" display the sRGB color space while the recently released NECs & Samsung's, etc are now claiming to be able to display (with good reviews) the much wider Adobe 98 color space. Allowing you to visually see the minute color adjustments when working in photoshop. High is price but also under the top of the line $5000

My guess the reason why the OP liked the iMac's sRGB color space was that is what most pro labs of that nature actually want however I'm sure the OP can make use of editing within a wider color space especially if they are doing any in house printing

 

[macgruder]

I'm beginning my search to find a great 23 to 24" display panel to use for my Photoshop editing. I'm a pro portrait photographer and need accurate display color for my work.

I suspect the NEC LCD2490WUXi is what you are looking for. It's LG.Philips H-IPS display (i.e. the next generation of S-IPS) and retails for $1050 . I would get it myself but here in Japan ironically it is more expensive. I think you have to spend a lot more for a diminishing return increase in quality.

They claim it has 'Internal 12-bit Look Up Tables (LUTs) allows the display of 16.7 million colors out of a palette of 69 billion, thus providing for more points of shading between white and black and virtual elimination of color banding and posterization effects'

In English I guess this means that it will only display the traditional 16.7 m number of colors, but can choose which ones out of a far bigger range - meaning that if you have a single-color gradation it can choose just those colors to accommodate that (a bit like the way a gif has only 256 colors but can choose whichever it likes but to an extreme level )

There's a more expensive SV version which seems to have a color calibration of some sort.

 

[law guy]

^^^What? ACDs are not "sRGB". Every LCD can display sRGB, including Apple's and Dells.

Not sure of your point? (are you going after the semantics?) noticed you didn't list any of the high end monitors in that statement

ACD can "only" display the sRGB color space while the recently released NECs & Samsung's, etc are now claiming to be able to display (with good reviews) the much wider Adobe 98 color space. Allowing you to visually see the minute color adjustments when working in photoshop. High is price but also under the top of the line $5000

My guess the reason why the OP liked the iMac's sRGB color space was that is what most pro labs of that nature actually want however I'm sure the OP can make use of editing within a wider color space especially if they are doing any in house printing

Where do you find the information re: sRGB on 23" ACDs? I've seen the discussion in terms of color gamut - with ACDs in 2005 displaying 88% (although panels may have been updated since then). That is in the report posted on the Apple web site: http://images.apple.com/pro/pdf/AppleReport2005_rc1_051214.pdf.

It appears that sRGB equates to 72% of the NSTC color gamut - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-testmethods_2.html

So if sRGB is 72% and the ACD 23" was 88% as of 2005 - it seems that the ACD 23" has been much wider than sRGB for a long while now.

I'm trying to understand this. What am I missing?

 

[Cliff3]

I'm trying to understand this. What am I missing?

The holy grail of color spaces for monitors is not sRGB, it's aRGB. And even the gamut of colors displayed by aRGB is limited when compared with newer color spaces like ProPhoto RGB. The first Eizo monitor I linked to in my post above displays 100% of the aRGB color space. I am unaware of any that address the ProPhoto RGB color space.

 

[reetcher]

I'm trying to understand this. What am I missing?

First why the bold?

Second what you & I are both missing is statistics on a chart mean one thing actual real world use & comparisons are another. There is no question the ACDs have not faired well in actual color critical reviews placing them on the bottom of the high end models. (photoshop editing, proofing not gaming or dvd watching)

The real question is whether the newer models NECs, Samsungs are living up to their statistical claims and are there online real-world reviews critically looking at their color?

Back to the OP: sure the ACD would be the best recommendation, not because of it's color but because of it's turnkey consistency

 

[law guy]

The holy grail of color spaces for monitors is not sRGB, it's aRGB. And even the gamut of colors displayed by aRGB is limited when compared with newer color spaces like ProPhoto RGB. The first Eizo monitor I linked to in my post above displays 100% of the aRGB color space. I am unaware of any that address the ProPhoto RGB color space.

Hi Cliff. I am conversant with a basic understanding of the Adobe-used color spaces, and appreciate that sRGB is limited, RGB better, and the default for LR and PS - ProPhoto much better still. http://brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html (a helpful page)

My comment was not a percentage of any of those color spaces but rather I was trying to understand the poster that said the Apple 23" ACD displays only sRGB. I had thought that the Apple technical report idicated that the 23" appears to indicate a wider gamut of colors than sRGB. Looking at it again - link above - what it says is 88% of Pantone swatches could be matched with the ACD and 95% of all off-set print colors - the base lines were ISO standards listed at the end of the report. So I don't have apples to apples there. Reetcher may have an acurate statement re: sRGB, but I wanted to know where I could find more information on it / and figure out if what Apple was saying was that the gamut was bigger (which as noted, they present it in different terms, so it's not clear what the Apple report means for a comparison, unless someone knows that sRGB is 90% of pantone swatches or the like).

This was interesting - but an aside http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kn4TwKVXy10

The discussion is interesting and frustrating. Dell touts 98% or 100% (on it's new 30") color gamut coverage, http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=223-4890 and they say of the NTSC gamut - which looks like its close to the RGB gamut. It would be great if all the display sites gave standard references - or in Apple's case - references as all.

 

[law guy]

First why the bold?

Helps point out the more important text to the point or question for folks skimming.

 

[Cliff3]

It would be great if all the display sites gave standard references - or in Apple's case - references as all.

For the purposes of photography, statements by the manufacturer that the monitor reproduces x percent of the NTSC or sRGB color space are kind of useless. A percentage of the Adobe RGB color space is a more useful measure, with 100% coverage of that space being the ideal (and that mostly for magazine prepress applications or people with really deep pockets).

For my purposes, my color calibrated 23" ACD lets me create prints that are faithful to the colors I see on the screen when the appropriate printer profiles are used. I don't need much more than that.

 

[DHart]

If I am pleased with the results from my iMac 20" Core Duo with its IPS panel, then perhaps I am not needing quite as much precision as I thought. I just wanted to make sure I didn't wind up with a so-so monitor which was anything less than what I was used to.

While graphic designers can do well with pantone colors and running "by the numbers" rather than WYSIWYG, as a portrait photographer using a pro photo lab, I want a display which I can easily calibrate so that what I see on my screen is pretty dang spot on to what I'll be seeing when my prints come back from the lab. (Given the inherent differences of "look" from screen to print.)

I don't want to spend thousands of dollars for an "ultra" monitor and apparently, don't need to!

After several days of research, here are monitors that I'm considering:

• NEC LCD2490WUXi
Probably the best listed here, but quite a price premium @ $1100. Uses an AS-IPS LG.Philips panel.
1,920x1,200 native resolution, a 0.27 dot pitch, a rated 16ms (8ms G to G) pixel-response rate, a rated 800:1 contrast ratio, 178-degree viewing angle
I also read this in a user review: "This monitor uses the same L.G. Phillips H-IPS panel as the new 24" iMac. The only difference is that the NEC uses a polarizer to eliminate hazing at extreme viewing angles."

• HP LP2465
Uses an S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel. (As do almost all Eizo displays, except for the CG- series). Excellent Reviews, especially for graphic design/photographers (static images).

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review3667_main18343.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/hp-lp2465/4505-3174_7-31919307.html

Excellent price at about $575 with current rebate. 1,920x1,200 native resolution, a 0.27 dot pitch, a rated 6ms pixel-response rate, a rated 1000:1 contrast ratio, 178-degree viewing angle

• LaCie 324 S-PVA panel? Est. about $1000? New Product Avail. end of January
1,920x1,200 native resolution, a 0.27 dot pitch, a rated 6ms pixel-response rate, a rated 1000:1 contrast ratio, 178-degree viewing angle, Color Gamut 92% of NTSC / 95% of Adobe RGB / 99.7% of ISO Coated. Luminance 400 cd/m2

• Apple 23" Cinema Display Uses an S-IPS (LG.Philips LM230W02) panel. Great for image editing. About $900
1,920x1,200 native resolution, 0.258 dot pitch
Not versatile in positioning as some other displays are.

• Dell 2407WFP-HC
From the C-Net Review, this monitor is apparently not so great with static images. My very purpose. :-( But good with home AV.
Uses an S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2 or LTM240L2) panel Good price at about $600
1,920x1,200 native resolution, a 0.27 dot pitch, a rated 6ms pixel-response rate, a rated 1000:1 contrast ratio, 178-degree viewing angle

================================

For my needs, I want to try to avoid displays which are likely to have light leakage, overly-saturated colors, or a glossy surface.

For portrait photography production (Photoshop editing in sRGB) am I likely to really see and benefit from the much more expensive NEC vs. the better quality S-PVA panels, which Eizo uses for some of their higher-end displays?

I like the versatility of display positioning which these monitors offer, vs. the limited positioning of the Apple CD.

As for inputs, I don't need vast connectivity, just DVI is fine as I will only be using the monitor with current Macs.

I work in sRGB to match my photo lab, and in RGB for my offset printing output.

Many thanks for all of the assistance you have offered!

 

[law guy]

If I am pleased with the results from my iMac 20" Core Duo, then perhaps I am not needing quite as much precision as I thought. I just wanted to make sure I didn't wind up with a so-so monitor which was anything less than what I was used to.

While graphic designers can do well with pantone colors and running "by the numbers" rather than WYSIWYG, as a portrait photographer using a pro photo lab, I want a display which I can easily calibrate so that what I see on my screen is pretty dang spot on to what I'll be seeing when my prints come back from the lab. (Given the inherent differences of "look" from screen to print.)

I don't want to spend thousands of dollars for an "ultra" monitor and apparently, don't need to!

Does anyone know if the screen on my year-old iMac 2GHz Intel Core Duo 20" is a TN or PVA or IPS panel? Whatever it is, I do like it.

Here are three monitors that I'm considering: (well, possibly four)

• NEC LCD2490WUXi
Probably the best of the three. IPS panel, I think. A bit pricey at $1100.

• Dell 2407WFP-HC
Seems to get good reviews. PVA panel? Good price at about $600

• HP LP2465
Seems to get good reviews. PVA panel? Good price at about $600

• Apple 23" Cinema Display is a possibility, but I prefer greater flexibility in positioning than the ACD provides. What panel technology is the ACD? PVA? IPS?

With my choice, I want to try to avoid displays which are likely to have any light leakage, overly-saturated colors, or a glossy surface.

For portrait photography production (Photoshop editing in sRGB) am I likely to really see and benefit from the much more expensive NEC vs. the other two?

I like the versatility of display positioning which these monitors offer, vs. the limited positioning of the Apple CD.

As for inputs, I don't need vast connectivity, just DVI is fine as I will only be using the monitor with current Macs.

I work in sRGB to match my photo lab, and in RGB for my offset printing output.

Many thanks for all of the assistance you have offered!

What's your feeling on pixel pitch? I note that the ACD has a very good .258 and the NEC is a little less at .27. I have a 23" ACD on the way and one of the reasons I went with it is the clarity at close viewing distances.

 

[DHart]

What's your feeling on pixel pitch? I note that the ACD has a very good .258 and the NEC is a little less at .27. I have a 23" ACD on the way and one of the reasons I went with it is the clarity at close viewing distances.

law guy... I haven't compared pixel pitch to the Apple. Will the other displays I listed (Dell and the HP) be noticibly less clear at viewing distances of about 25" than the ACD?

I work at a viewing distance of about 25-30".

 

[dante@sisna.com]

I• Apple 23" Cinema Display is a possibility, but I prefer greater flexibility in positioning than the ACD provides. What panel technology is the ACD? PVA? IPS?

For portrait photography production (Photoshop editing in sRGB) am I likely to really see and benefit from the much more expensive NEC vs. the other two?
I work in sRGB to match my photo lab, and in RGB for my offset printing output.

Many thanks for all of the assistance you have offered!

The ACD is an S-IPS panel -- Top End. It's gamut is about 80 to 86% of RGB and it calibrates very well with pretty low Delta E between Adjacent Colors after colors-- this is important for image retouching, color balancing, color replacing, etc. This monitor lacks a lot of the adjustability features of new panels but many of them are PVA panels and lack the quality of the ACD.

Higher Gamut IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER for Print and Photo Work you describe. It can lead to output differences between Monitor and Print, even after calibration. Many high gamut panels produce high delta E after calibration. High End NEC's and EIZO's are likely to be superior to ACD's.

Dells, HP's may not be after calibration -- I know we have both a 30" Dell HC and an HP LP3065 -- both are great monitors, but are not our best for image editing.

My 2 cents on a VERY complex and involved topic that few really understand.

 

[conancn]

What's your feeling on pixel pitch? I note that the ACD has a very good .258 and the NEC is a little less at .27. I have a 23" ACD on the way and one of the reasons I went with it is the clarity at close viewing distances.

That's because ACD is 23' and NEC is 24', It would be even closer if you can find the same res. with 22'


Have you consider Samsung 245T. Can't find a monitor for photo editing at the same level is better that.

 

[law guy]

law guy... I haven't compared pixel pitch to the Apple. Will the other displays I listed (Dell and the HP) be noticibly less clear at viewing distances of about 25" than the ACD?

I work at a viewing distance of about 25-30".

I can't say from my experience - I've had the chance to spend some quality time with the ACD 23". I haven't with the Dell or the HP. In general, smaller pixel pitch makes the image "crisper"

CNET did find some fault with the Dell 24 HC on static images - http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitor...fp-hc/4505-3174_7-32514853.html?tag=pdtl-list

"Dell's UltraSharp 2407WFP-HC widescreen monitor gives you tons of input flexibility, strong moving image quality, and a handful of other features that will endear you to it as a digital entertainment display. It's not as strong as we'd like with static images, however, making this display not as well suited to demanding image and graphics professionals"

The poster above notes the simple reason for the better pitch of the ACD - the same resolution at 23" instead of 24".

 

[DHart]

law guy... thanks. Yes, I just read the CNET review myself. I updated my listing above (Post #13) to include the new LaCie 324 monitor as well.

At this point I'm interested in the HP (esp. for the price), the NEC, and the new LaCie.

 

[Abstract]

It appears that sRGB equates to 72% of the NSTC color gamut - [/B]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-testmethods_2.html

So if sRGB is 72% and the ACD 23" was 88% as of 2005 - it seems that the ACD 23" has been much wider than sRGB for a long while now.

All I meant from my reply is that "ACD is not sRGB". I'm not even sure what that means. ACDs can show more than just the sRGB colour gamut.


@DHart: I have never had prints come back EXACTLY how I see it on my monitor, but I have never really had anything that had to be critically accurate. Slight differences are acceptable to me. I guess the key is to find a printing lab that you trust. I've seen some on the net that people like, but they're all in the US.

 

[DHart]

Abstract... I have a great pro portrait lab that I've used for years. They specialize in printing for professional portrait studios. And yes, reflected light from a printed image is always duller than the transmitted light from a computer monitor and colors are never absolutely the same... I don't expect that. In fact, photo paper is not even closely capable of reproducing the range of colors and richness as one sees on a monitor. I do expect that what I see on my monitor will be a very close predictor of what I will see on prints from my lab. Once I calibrate to their output.

 

[DHart]

After two days of research... and reading a lot of great reviews, I decided to test out HP's LP2465 ($575 after rebate). The price of this monitor is at an all time low at this point and I'm betting it will be an outstanding Photoshop editing panel. Like the ACD, it doesn't have a lot of connectivity options (DVI is all I need with my Macs), but numerous reviews say it does have excellent display quality for images and text, colors and sharpness excellent, and it has great positioning options. Add HP's 3-year warranty, awesome bend-over-backwards service, and overnight replacement policy, which is unbeatable. If this HP LP2465 panel doesn't satisfy my moderately discriminating Photoshop-editing needs, HP will take it back and pay shipping without a restocking charge. That's what my sales rep guaranteed me when I ordered it. At around $575 after rebate, I'm going to check it out. If it doesn't measure up, I'll bite the bullet, peel off major big ones and order up an NEC 2490.

 

[DHart]

OK... some of you may be bored with this thread, but I just found a website which identifies what panel technology & make/model is used in any given monitor. Very cool, considering getting this information seems otherwise tough to track down!

The panel used in the HP 2465 that I ordered is an S-PVA panel made by Samsung and also used in the following monitors: (Given the reputation that Eizo enjoys, it would seem that this is probably a pretty good panel.)


Dell 2407WFP (*) (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2 eller LTM240L2) panel.

Eizo CE240W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 8 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Eizo CE240W-K (widescreen) has a 24 inch 8 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Eizo S2410W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 8 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Eizo S2410W-K (widescreen) has a 24 inch 8 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Eizo S2411W-BK (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Eizo S2411W-WS (widecreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Fujitsu-Siemens P24-1W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Fujitsu-Siemens P24-1W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) SPVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Fujitsu-Siemens S24-1W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) SPVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

HP LP2465 (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Samsung 244T (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

Samsung 245T (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240M2) panel.

 

[Zoowatch]

^^^ Hi DHart, can you do the same for 30" displays from different leading brands?

 

[dante@sisna.com]

You should at least look at a lower gamut S-IPS panel like an ACD 23 IF, and only if, you plan to work with your photography in a print setting.

If you are only or mostly going to the web, a PVA will mostly likely suffice.

I would look at the 23" ACD, $799 to $899, or that new NEC 24" with H-IPS for about $1099.

These may cost more than you want to spend especially given the lack of adjustability and ports on the ACD.

If you are interested in the NEC, I'll do the work and get the model #.

d