My secondery screen used for other stuff than editing just broke this morning.

So i am going to buy a new main monitor for use in photo editing (photoshop - lightroom work)

 

I now have a Dell 19 widescreen regular monitor.

 

I was thinking about buying somthing that was better for editing, I have heard that eizo and dell makes good monitors?

 

Eizo coloredge will be to much, so it must be the flexscan series.

 

So do anyone have any good monitors to recomend? Must not be larger that 24".

 

Is the dell ultrasharp better than the eizo flex scan? or is some others brands perhaps even better?

 

I have an x rite color display calibrator that I use, can I use it on the eizo and dell screens?

 

Hope someone got a suggestion

Maybe something from NEC? There are very good too.

 

Will look into that :) Thanks for the comment :) Would be great if anyone had personal experiences :)

Well, I was working as well on DELL, on NEC and on EIZO - if i would have to choose, I would choose something that I can afford :-) - both Eizo and NEC's are pretty good, and prices are pretty similar between that brands, so it shouldnt be problem to find what you need.

Hi,

 

Yes, displays from NEC are pretty good as well and usually cost little less than Eizo monitors. I recommend the MultiSync P or PA series. The price is a little higher, but these are professional displays with the ability for hardware calibration. Maybe the PA241W, it's a older model. NEC did a technology switch to the newer PA242W, I don't know if its better in terms of color accuracy?

A little problem is the software for the hardware calibration. There are different bundles, with or without the software and different prices.

 

Otherwise I heard that some HP Dreamcolor monitors (e.g. HP Dreamcolor Z24x) are maybe good as well, much cheaper than the professional displays from Eizo or NEC.

 

I've a older FlexScan monitor from Eizo. In terms of color accuracy wasn't a good choice. Maybe there are some better FlexScan models out there, I don't know.

 

It depends on what you want: If you do just software calibration you can use the x-rite software usually with every monitor you want. In terms of hardware calibration it depends on the vendor of your monitor hardware and the software they deliver with your monitor. Only with this software you can hardware calibrate these monitors and this software supports only some colorimeters.

 

I use an NEC MultiSync PA271w and love it...if I were to buy another I would check the review sites. There are a ton of them.

Thank you for giving me suggestions. I think the top of my price tagg will stop around the 6 - 700 dollar range. Norwegian prices will for example give me an DELL U2413 ULTRASHARP 24 for that amount. It will also give me an Eizo flex scan i think.

 

Is there any Nec displays in this price range that are better than the ultrasharp?

And do they also have the coating?

 

There are two types of dell ultrasharp the older 2412 and the new 2413. The new one has a better coting for relections? They say the old made word white background look dirty? Any one have one?

 

The new one also have harware calibration , but i dont think i can use it, becuase my xrite eye one display 2 does not support it ? It only stands the pro is supported.

 

Can it still be software calibrated with the xrite? Like i do with my old dell screen?

 

"There is one more thing that confuses me :

The U2410 and U2413 use wide gamut backlighting types (WCG-CCFL and GB-LED respectively) which offer an extended gamut covering 102 - 103% of the NTSC colour space. This can also cover the Adobe RGB reference space as a result and extends considerably beyond the sRGB reference which is still widely used. The support of wide gamut is great if you have a practical use for it and are working with wide gamut content or want to match the Adobe RGB space properly. However, if you are working just with sRGB content, viewing it on a wide gamut screen can lead to issues of over-saturation and neon appearing colours and is difficult to manage for many users. Thankfully both screens include an sRGB emulation mode which is useful in those circumstances. "

 

Will this say if i am in photoshop with some old srgb files i need to change it to srgb emulation? Or else my pictures will look really bad?

 

Hope some of you have som answears and some clarifying.

 

I'm not familiar with these DELL displays. The might be good. I had some weird trouble with DELL monitors in the past, but usually with models in a lower price range.

 

I'm not sure, but I think you will run into trouble with this old colorimeter. The reason is the LED backlight. The backlights spectral composition of light has influence to color and the colorimeter has to correct the measurements. The LED spectral composition of light is much different to the older CCFL backlights. You've to figure out if the eye-one display 2 is supporting LED backlights. I don't think so. Maybe you've to buy a newer one.

 

I don't think so. Not with same the technical specification as the DELL 2413 in the same price range, not even an EIZO FlexScan. The only option I've in mind would be the HP DreamColor Z24x, it should be around $600. It has similar specifications and it can hardware calibrated as well, but you've to buy the color management solution from HP separately. :(

 

You mean an none glare display? I think so.

 

I think the over saturated colors should only be a problem in a non color managed environment. That's the sRGB emulation is for. Photoshop and Lightroom are color managed and you should get correct colors in these programs.

 

Peter

 

Thanks for the feedback. Hope some others have some personal expericene :)

I have read really many complaints on the dell 2413, and i also need to get a new calibrator kit for it, if i am going to buy it.

 

So I think its down to Nec og the Eizo flexscan , they are in similar price range. Does anyone have any experience with the eizo flexscan? Is it better than the dell stock 19 widescreen i am currently on? Hope so atleast ?

The problem will be that all recent monitors from Eizo or NEC are working with LED backlights. So you would need a new colorimeter anyway.

 

The only chance would be finding a older models with CCFL backlight or trying to find a good monitor with a excellent factory calibration and LED backlight (it will save some energy and money), so a colorimeter wouldn't essential in the beginning. Later you can spend some additional money for a new modern colorimeter when it's necessary.

 

Sadly, I don't know models in your price range with a good factory calibration, usually displays around the $1000 price tag will have it.

 

Otherwise you can try to find a medium range monitor for primary office usage around 500 bucks and spend the free $200 for a good colorimeter (like the X-rite i1Display Pro or an simpler x-rite ColorMunki Display). The "Eizo Flexscan EV2436WFS" is getting some good results after a calibration. It's maybe sufficient for your area of application?

 

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-ev2436wfs-bk.html

 

Sorry, it isn't easy to find a good compromise for you. Sadly it is often a matter of money.

 

Lars,

 

I use an iMac for editing and the display is excellent. There's no anti-glare coating, which for me is a big plus as I find the coating on many screens like Dell monitors very distracting, sort of like pale pink and green fuzz all over the screen. If you aren't in a super-high-glare environment, the coating is unnecessary. Apple does sell a stand-alone version of the display -- the Thunderbolt display -- for $999, but it is 27" and I think you said 24" was as large as you want to go. I don't know much about gamut, etc, but color is excellent and can be calibrated.

 

Just a thought. I've tried a lot of displays and I would only buy another model if Apple stops making these.

 

Best of luck!

Thanks for all the help.

 

 

One last really stupid question but bear with me. Its more for myself so i can justify spending money on a screen and not just stick with my old dell stock screen, and get something old and used for my second screen. (the reason i want to upgrade is because my second screen failed, and once used to two screens i can never go back to just one)c

 

The Screen i use now is a stock dell screen 19 widescreen wich i suspect did not cost much. I software calibrate it with my X rite eye one display 2 every 14th day or at least once a month, there are som slight changes in r g b values each time i do this. I do not often print pictures, i mostly work digital, and somtimes I take some pictures of friends kids and stuff in a hobby studio i have. Then they get the digtal files and print them at online foto shops. (probably stupid because of now end control).

 

So if i take the step up and buy lets say the flexscan? What will the benefits from the old dell screen be?

Ips i guess is important if you sit beside a window? My room has windows but they are blinded out? Does it also help from roof lighting? like light bulbs and stuff? Do i really need IPS when i am sitting in a room without any windows?

 

What are the other things that justify it? Richer tones? That I can see colors better? Will the colors be better and more right when my old monitor is calibrated and lets say the flexscan is calibrated? ---- I guess the flexscan holds its calibration longer? But i could calibrate each week on my old screen it does not take that long.

 

And if i take another step up to lets say the nec screen or even higher the screen you have on your work what will the difference be? I now that there must be a diference , but i have never seen the difference with my eyes so i cant really imagine it.

 

So thanks for you help so far, but would be nice to have a more logical explanation so i can justify for myself not to keep the dell i am used to working at and dropping some money i could have spent on lets say a Nikon 85mm 1,4 glass instead

Hi Lars,

 

the most important advantage of a IPS panel over a TN panel is in my opinion that the colors and contrast will not alter with different viewing angles. Depending on the space of your desk and the size of the screen this could be a great benefit. I don't want to miss it. The downside is there can be some sparkling effects and the slower response time of the panel. It doesn't bothering me at no time, especially in terms of image editing.

 

Have a look here:

 

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-ev2436wfs-bk-part7.html#Viewing

 

Yes, professional displays (like the Eizo ColorGraphics or NEC MultiSync PA Series) have a better stability of the colors/gamut over time. The advertising this something similar like "Backlight Ageing Correction". Nevertheless, you will have to recalibrate these displays from time to time as well, but the difference shouldn't be so much. I don't know whats about the FlexScan Series, but I guess it should be much better than your old 19 inch DELL display.

 

Color calibration/profiling and color management are quite complex topics. I'm not an expert on it, but I gained some knowledge over time. I think it would be to much to explain everything here, I will try to keep it simple:

 

First, there's a difference between calibration and profiling. Usually you will do it as one task, but for real there are two steps.

 

1. Calibration brings your monitor to certain specs, like gamma, brightness level, white point etc. If your monitor is not hardware calibrateable you have to do manually and a cheap bad monitor have less and unprecise controls to modify your output. Your colorimeter supports you in the process, but usually it's time consuming and inaccurate. Better monitors have more controls like 6-axis gain or even more precise tools to achieve a good calibration by hand. With hardware calibratable displays your monitor is communicating to the colorimeter directly. This process is more or less done automatically and very accurately.

 

2. The profiling comes after the calibration and measure the differences from standard spec to your actual output. The accurate the calibration and the color reproduction of your monitor is, the less changes has to be done in the profile. Very good monitors have a programmable LUT, that means the monitor process NEARLY everything by it self. This can be very accurate and reproduces colors or color space transformations very precisely. Otherwise, with non hardware calibrateable monitors, the graphics card of your computer is responsible for the color correction. But it is not that precise and the more correction has to be done the more information can be lost (resulting tonal breaks or right colors in one spectrum and false colors in another).

 

A monitor with bad color reproduction is still bad even when it software calibrated. Sure you will maybe improve some color reproduction to have some colors looking right, but you will also loose information. That means that the color shifts after profiling and corrected by the graphics card can cause tonal breaks (as explained a little earlier). Otherwise the total amount of the displayable colors can be very import. The calibration/profiling process cannot conjure up colors that are not displayable by your monitor. That's the reason why the monitor vendors advertising a color space match for sRGB or Adobe RGB etc.

 

A good medium range monitor has usually more representable colors and more control over gamut, brightness etc.. After calibration/profiling you will only do some small corrections, the overall color performance would benefit from it.

 

A hardware calibrated and professional monitor can be very precise because the monitor has his own processor for transforming the colors and you will avoid tonal breaks as much as possible. A lot of new monitors will have 10 bit (via Displayport connectors) color output, that means, that you will able to reproduce about a billion colors. But you will need a professional graphics card and software which can support 10 bit color output. Possible cards are Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL cards. The only software supporting 10 bit output is as far as I know Photoshop. These can be great benefits in my opinion, even gradients will be very smooth and you will not see tonal breaks so far. Of course you have shot in RAW and at least 16 bit images during post production.

 

When you are producing images mostly for screen output and you don't depend on a 100% color reproducible workflow, I think you don't need a very expensive monitor. Even when you are printing from time to time for personal purposes, a small amount of inaccuracy is tolerable. All the precise calibration and color space emulation is nice but I think it is more reasonable for printing or proofing, even in accurate color reproducible workflows.

 

So a good medium range display would do it.

 

I hope this will help you a little. Maybe I will find a good web reference about this topic, if you are interested?

 

Good luck,

Peter

I think i understand more now. And i got asked for a good offer on the flexscan and the hardware calibratiton gear, and got an offer 150 dollars cheaper, so that certanly drags me in that direction of the flexscan. Thanks for the help.

You're welcome, Lars. Sounds like a very good offer. Please keep us posted about your decision and how happy you are with. :)

 

Peter

Will let you now, I have just borrowed a 24" from a friend to see if its fits on my computer desk besides the 19" from Dell... So will probably make a decision in a day or two.

 

Just one more question it seems like the flexscan uses hardware calibration. And not the way i am used to calibrate.

 

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/flexscan/ev2436w/index.html

her is a link to the screen itself.

 

And her is a link to the optional hardware calibration software:

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/accessories/easyPIX/index.html

"EIZO EasyPIX is a hardware calibration solution that directly adjusts the monitor’s color settings to ensure predictable color. EasyPIX is sold separately and consists of software and the EIZO EX2 color sensor."

 

I see in the info under that it can be set up and calibrated to different modes?

 

I am am used to use my X rite 1 one and calibrate the old montitor and then manualy adust the r and g and b colors to match 6500 kelvins, and the adjust the brightness on the screen to around 120 etc.

 

Whit this calibration system will it first calibate the monitor for the profile you want and save itself in windows? Or do i need to make another calibration also after the hardware calibration?

 

I also see in the info that for picture work brightness is set to 80 cd/m2, is this because its a Led screen?

 

On my lcd from Dell and the x rite software its recomended 120 cd/m2?

Hey Lars,

 

oh, I didn't know that the suggested Eizo FlexScan is hard calibratable. That's interesting. I'm not familiar with the EasyPix Solution. I wonder if you can software calibrate monitors of other venders also. By the way, are you on Mac? There is a note with the EasyPix description, that the Software will not work with the FlexScan EV Series in a MacOS environment. I'm a little confused about this. I don't know how flexible this solution is, maybe it's better to disclaim the ability of hardware calibration and buying an independent system?

 

I don't know what you mean exactly. Maybe you mean if the calibration and the profiling have to be done separately? I don't think so, it seems you can do both with the EasyPix solution. Another approach wouldn't make any sense to me.

 

There is no real rule for the the brightness level, these values are just recommendations. You will read a lot of different recommendations for different fields and reasons. In my opinion it depends on personal taste and the brightness level of your working environment. Sure, you should not overdraw it with extreme values.

 

120 cd/m2 are 120 cd/m2, it shouldn't matter if its from a LED or CCFL backlights.

 

I think if are used to work with 120 cd/m2 you should use it in future as well.120 cd/m2 is a common a reasonable brightness level in the most environments. I calibrated my both monitors (one CCFL and the other LED) to 120 cd/m2 and I'm satisfied with it. My room is not to bright, but daylight is coming in (big north window). As tungsten light sources I'm using some reasonable daylight energy saving lamp with a specific color temperature and more or less good Color Rendering Index. The color temperature of the light sources and my monitors are nearly identical. That's not a professional environment, but good enough for a suitable color workflow, even comparing printed pictures to the source material on the monitor.

 

Good luck,

Peter

 

Thanks for the info again :) Helpfull :)

 

I am on a windows computer, so the easypix hardware soulution will work. I have read that hardware calibrated options are more precise than software calibration. Like I now do with my x-rite display on my old dell.

 

Its the easypix calibration i mostly get the good deal on, guess they only sell a few since its tied up to eizo systems?

 

I only get around 30 - 40 dollars on the screen but over 100 dollars on the norwegian web shop price price on the EasyPix.

 

So if hardware calibration is the best way, this is perhaps the right move? Since i get a good price on it also? Could perhaps buy the new x rite pro , but then again it would not be hardware calibrated, i am not sure whats best or worse.

 

Thanks for the input on luminance and brightness :) Will stick with 120 since i am used to that then :)

 

I bought the eizo, and are starting to getting used to working on a 24 instead of the 19 :) Thanks for the help. It works good, and the hardware calibration part was easy.

 

Not quite sure ig 120 cd/m2 and 6500 looks right, but i think its just this screen thats more accurate than what I was used to :)

120 and 6500 are a bit high in my view. For my Eizo CG I use 80/90 and 5500. The EasyPix tool looks exactly like a spyder from Datacolor and the software interface is very similar to the Eizo Colornavigator 6 that is used for the CG-line.

Its just that that was the value i was used to working on on my Dell 19. So i stuck with that, guess i have to borrow a printer or see if it matches what i see.