Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 31, 2005, 5:41 PM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

I did state it strongly, but I stand by what I said... because I didn't say what you said.

I didn't say that an LCD can't have its brightness reduced so that its better (I should have said it is correctable, my fault.) Just that a bright LCD isn't what you want, and that LCDs are getting brighter is in fact BAD for what we do. Doug_M was happy that they were getting brighter, and he shouldn't be if he will use them for editing.

How much do they charge at the labs near you? I have two that I've gone two. One clearly outsourced the prints and they were fairly good for color and contrast and really cheap. $25 for a 11x14 (roughly.) But this lab also cut off the edges of the image on the left/right. Made me really mad.

The other lab is a "real" pro lab. They gave me printer profiles to use. The told me what DPI to use (the other did this, but no profile.) They laid out a set of papers for me to choose from, they called me to say there was corruption in one of my images and suggested I don't have it printed (i.e. they saved me money and improved their reputation.) They even shaved off some of the paper to square off the print on the page (actually, I didn't want this, but it did make the print look better.) They charge $42 for the exact same prints. Huge difference but I got better service and

If you have labs like the first one, I doubt they care much what monitors they use. The second one, that place cares. They had only Lacie Blue CRTs.

But in fact, when I talk about "graphic editing shops" I don't actually mean photo labs (note I didn't say "photo lab" in my post.) I'm talking about places that produce ads for magazines like Vogue and others. Those places absolutely care about quality (more than any of us, I'm sure.) And very few of them use LCDs because they just aren't good enough. Or they buy things like the eizo CG220. Absolutely stunning monitors:

As it was said, it comes down to your standards, expectations, and willingness to spend gobs of money. For me, LCDs are not good enough. Some companies are making good ones but they cost too much. And many of the LCDs are going in the wrong direction (too bright by default, too little detail in the blacks.) Some are correctable, all (to my mind) require hardware calibration - a Spyder or Monaco Optrix will do.

It isn't fatal to get an LCD, but I don't recommend it. Some (many?) people are happy with LCDs I haven't been. The one that xena45 is getting is in the middle tier. Tier 1 monitors are sold cheap(er) at Costco and such and are find for everyday use, but not for photo editing. The middle tier LCDs are not bad, just got "good" (to my standard of good.) You can profile them and they work. I just demand better.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2005, 8:00 PM   #12
Senior Member
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539

I bought a 19 inch Samsung with DVI in for $300 dollars and I'm pretty happy with it.

The larger screen real estate seems to make more of a difference to methan absolute quality (lol).

I've worked with a few customer's Dell LCD's and they are pretty impressive however somewhat pricey, but you get what you pay for.

After working with a 19 inch, I don't think I could go back to a 17 inch LCD for photos without crying.

Probably a 20 or 21 inch monitor would be even more ideal, but it's the law of diminishing returns, as I doubt I'd notice much difference between a 19 and a 20 except the mcuh higher price tag (at this point in time).

I use an INFOCUS DLP projector occassionally to project my images (group slide show), and it's hard to beat a 100 inch diagonal projection with 2000:1 contrast ratio!

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2005, 10:53 PM   #13
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599


You just had to post the link to that monitor didn't you...

*Checks price and faints*

So I don't think we disagree then.

Most LCD monitors aren't much good for photo work, and cheap CRTs aren't great either.

Some LCDs are quite good, but at similar prices CRTs are better. The Sony x-black LCD monitors are really quite usable I think, and some of the Dells are just as good, and of course the Apple offerings too. Also there are the NEC Spectraview range. ( http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=919 )So for people interested in an LCD check those out to see if they are good enough for you. (They're not good enough for Eric, but peoples' needs differ.)

The advantage of the newest printers is that you really can get very good prints at home if you're willing to put a bit of work into colour management. Not as good as the pro graphics shops, but at least as good as the average photo lab.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2006, 9:26 AM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

It should be said that that LCD is probably the absolute best LCD in existance for photo editing right now. It actually can display the entire Adobe-RGB color gambit. That is just amazing. (And one of the reasons I haven't switched to another gambit from sRGB. I wouldn't be able to see it on my monitor any ways. I could print it, I think, but how would I edit the image if I can't see all the actual colors in the image?)

But the price tag is enough to make you faint. I'd get way more out of buying a 1D-MkII N than I would that display. My new monitor should be here Tuesday, so we'll see what I think about using a REAL CRT. My Panasonic isn't bad, but the NEC I'm getting has a high quality made-for-photo-editing tube and only cost me $345 for a 22" (no shipping costs.)

I just look at the cost of a "good" (to me) LCD and I balk at the price. They are around $1,200 or so (last I looked.) I just don't want to spend that kinda money on something that won't give me enough benefit to justify the cost. Now, that 1D-MkII N, that I could justify the cost with!

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2006, 11:33 AM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117

Eric, specifically what NCR did you get and what Sony CRT are you talking about. I'm in the market for a new tube myself and a 22" CRT of the Lacie quality would fit the bill. I don't need a self calibrating gig since I have that equipment.

jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2006, 6:15 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

I believe Sony made the tubes themselves for the Sony Artisan CRTs, and they are considered by many to be the best CRTs every made for photo editing. They are very expensive. They have made an LCD with the same name ("in the same family") but the Eizo's are considered better.

The monitor I'm getting is the NEC FE2111SB-BK. I believe it has the same tube as the Lacie Blue monitors. Since those tubes are no longer made any monitor that uses them (I think there is another beyond the NEC and the Lacie) are very hard to find. By now, they are probably only refurbs (which is what I had to get. It was worth the risk to me.)

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:40 AM.