Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 29, 2007, 7:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
amyjones's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1

All l can seem to find lately, are threads from 2005 regarding what monitors are good for photo editing. I have a hard time believing there haven't been major technology upgrades since then. Any suggestions?
amyjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 20, 2007, 8:31 PM   #2
Senior Member
Gazander's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272

3 letters, fella.


And only the kind that ends in -tron


What you read is a high-end aperture grille monitor. there is no substitute.

Nec Multisync series of CRT are the best. Ever.
Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2007, 3:27 PM   #3
Senior Member
TCav's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826

I agree with Gazanderthat, for serious post-processing, you should get a CRT.

CRT monitors have variable resolution, so you can set your monitor for whatever resolution suits what you happen to be doing at the time, and you'll always get a great picture. LCD monitors, on the other hand, have a fixed resolution, and if you try to change it in the computer, the image on the monitor will lose a lot of sharpness.

Also, CRT monitors have a greater viewing angle than LCD monitors. You can closely examine a small portion of an image by getting very close to the screen, and the rest of the image will still be clear. With an LCD monitor, if you get too close to a portion of the image, the rest of the image will get a tint, and maybe wash out altogether.

LCD monitors are lighter, take up less space, and use less electricity, but if you're serious about the quality of the image on your monitor, you'll get a CRT.

But the "-trons" Gazandermentioned are long gone. The debate between the proponentsof aperature grilles and the proponents of shadow masks included some valid arguments on both sides, but the arguments are now moot.

You should also get a flat screen. Early CRTs bulged out slightly in the center, and some of those are still being sold. The flat screen significantly lessens glare and maintains the correct perspective for post-processing.

NECandViewsonichave CRT monitors that are quite good and very reliable.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2007, 6:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
fewpics's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 210

While the other two replies "MAY" suggest some truth in their replies, I have to add that at the end of the day, when you photo edit, you have to remember one thing => Your Eyes....

In no way can I ever compare any of the many CRT monitors I have had in the past to even some of the mundane LCD sceens around now... Gazing at CRT screens over the past years (and I have had many good CRT's in the past) has made my eyesight go from top-notch to "I now need glasses"...

I have moved over to LCD screens and now I can read fine text again and also edit audio and graphics,without my glasses,, fine text that you can't reproduceon a CRT screen. In the past, I would go after the better monitors and the first thing I would do is sit down infront of them in the shop, and play around with graphics settings and refresh rates and yes, you could get many different results from the likes ofSony, Mitsibushi, Philips and Viewsonic monitors and I would weed out the best before parting with my money... Next would come the graphics card... DON'T overlook this, because if you send crap graphics to any monitor, you will only reproduce crap output to your eyes and while you blame your monitor, it may well be the poor graphics card at fault all the time. Unfortunately you can't get many computer sales shops to chop 'n' change graphics cards just so you can look at them. They usually let you hook up many monitors but not cards as they require more setting up. If unsure just spend until it hurts with graphics cards. Most higher end games cards can give great results but cards designed specially for CAD and other dedicated graphics work will more than likely cost more than the monitor...

Even though I have owned CRT monitors which would let you change to very high resolutions and ultra high refresh rates, at the end of the day, it is the graphics card settings which you were changing, NOT the monitors... For some reason, hooking up a CRT monitor would let you see some unreal high resolutions in the Control Panel settings and you could actually set them to these high settings, BUT your monitor would NOT reproduce them, simply because you can't get that sort of true resolution from any CRT screen, mainly because of each of those little pixels just below the surface. Put youface up close to a CRT monitor and open you eyes. Those little pixels look more like mountains... Remember - The Eye Sees All... Only your eyes will tell you... If it looks blurry at first glance, it will never get better and your eyes may suffer for it, after many hours of staring at it while editing... Download test patterns and other CRT rest programs and try them on any CRT and you will see just how poor they actually perform, especially around the edges. LCD's don't get blurry or go out of focus, as they work on completely different principles than CRT's. With CRT's you have 3 guns firing each colour (red blue green) at certain parts of the back of the screen which is lined with phosphorus. These guns are fired through a neck surrounded by coils of wire with high voltages passing through them, producing a huge magnetic fieldwhich both guide the beams and focus them. If they don't all come together at the right point on the phosphorus particles (which many of them don't), you have blur and overlapping colours and a whole lot of other associated problems. LCD's pixels (if that what you can truly call them) are individually controlled. They are each fired by an electrical current and act like shutters. Increase/decrease the current and the shutters openor closemore letting more or different coloured light pass through. The brightness is controlled by a tube light which lights upin the back of the screen and this is usually the first thing to go, hopefully after years of operation.There isno blur this way as each liquid crystal is competely independent of the others and fired up by its own source. For focul accuracy, a CRT is like trying to hit a bullseye with a gun at 100 metres while an LCD "is"a bullseye - no need toaim and fire,, just light up... Consider too that many CRT "Flatscreens" are not true flat screens - they merely have a normalcurved backwith aflat frontover them. Your nett gain is nil other than peace of mind thinking you have got a flatscreen. True flatscreen CRT monitors are a bit better than the curved ones but but are infact harder to focus around the edges because their beams have to shoot a bit further to reach the screen...

At the moment, I use a 22" LCD and after owning 5 LCD's, each one of them outdoes any of the CRT's I ever owned for. 2 years ago, this would have cost me in the thousands. Now they are in the hundreds and falling, AND, they quality is getting better each day...

Here's a "small" comparison - Why do digital cameras have LCD displays and not CRT.?? Let's pretend you could get a CRT 2.5" screen on the back of your camera. Do you honestly think in your wildest dreams that you could get anything more than a total waste of time trying to view you new images,, and setting up your camera via the menus would be like walking blindfolded through a minefield with only half a white stick. You don't need a rocket scientists brain to figure that one out, do you..? Well the same sort of technology that lets you view your newly taken photos, lets you edit them on a bigger screen.

My brother, who got me into photography, owns Nikon D200 and D70 and has thousands of dollars worth of accessories lenses, expensive tripods and so on but when he comes over here and sees my LCD monitor, he keeps swearing that he MUST get one of those because it is unbelievably clearer than his CRT. He is a pro with his cameras, I am a novice. I am a pro with my PC setup by comparison... I spend far more time on my PC than he does or I do, staring through a camera viewfinder... He uses Photoshop CS3. I use that too but prefer PhotoShop Elements 5.02... I watch him editing for hours on end on his PC and I get sore eyes and have to keep squinting as does he. On my PC, I fall virtually fall asleep at about 2 am - from normal tiredness...

For the average photo editing job, I personally recommend an LCD any day. You are kidding yourself and/or wasting your money if you think a CRT is better in the real world...

!!!...They AREN'T...!!!
fewpics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2007, 10:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
TCav's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826

1. I've been wearing glasses for the past 51 years. I've been working with computers for the past 27 years. My vision has gotten neither better nor worse from spending 12 hours a day staring at a CRT.

2. CRTs can reproduce text and images at higher resolutions and with greater contrast and greater dynamic range than LCDs can. The manufacturers of LCDs have made significant improvements in the past several years, but their long term goal is to make something as good as a CRT.

3. Graphics cards create signals (either analog or digital) that the monitor interprets to create what you see on the screen. The signals generated by graphics cards contain signals that either the monitor understands or it doesn't. There's no half way. Graphics cards don't generate bad graphics that the monitor simply reproduces. The difference between one graphics card and another is the resolutions they can generate, the refresh rates they can generate, and the rateatwhich the graphics card can generate new images to display (as in fast moving video and games.) Graphics cards don't generate "crap", and monitors don't display "crap" from graphics cards.

The only way for "crap" to be displayed on a monitor is if the video cable isn't properly shielded, and another signal is induced from an adjacent cable. This has nothing to do with the monitor or the graphics card.

3. While some inexpensive, poorly performing CRTs might have suffered from blurred images and even chromatic aberation near the edges, most of the manufacturers of those monitors are now only making LCD monitors. One of the failings of LCD monitors, especially large LCD monitors, is that the viewing angle is limited, so when you are looking at the image on one side of the screen, the opposite side might get a tint, or even wash out entirely. This is because of the little tubes that fewpicswas referring to. The light from all the LCDs is projected out each little tube, and if you happen to be off-angle, you miss a lot of the light.

4. When you change the "Screen Resolution" on the "Settings" tab of the "Display" Control Panel, Windows tells the graphics card to change the frequency of the signal it sends to the monitor. If the monitor is a CRT, it just has to draw the image faster in order to diplay a higher resolution image. But LCDs are little tiny electronic devices, and there are a fixed number of them on the screen. So if an LCD monitor has a hardware resolution of, say, 1280 by 1024, and you change the "Screen Resolution" to 1600 by 1200, the LCD monitor has to figure out how to display 1600 dots using the 1280 pixels it has to work with. It has to display every 5 dots the graphics card sent onto the 4 pixels it has. As a result, a 1600 x 1200 image looks blurry on a 1280 X 1280 LCD monitor.

Perhaps you might consider what Viewsonic has to say on the subject of LCD Monitors v. CRT monitors. Viewsonic is a large and well established company that has been making monitors and other display devices for several years, and has no vested interest one way or the other. I lifted the following text straight off http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/

Top Reasons to Choose an LCD
  1. Sleek, space-saving design. These new designs leave more room on your desk (and can be wall-mounted, too). [/*]
  2. Ergonomic features. Reduced eye strain from a brighter, flicker-free screen with virtually no glare. [/*]
  3. Better total cost of ownership (TCO). With twice the lifespan, one-third the electricity usage and minimal heat output compared to similar-sized CRT monitor. [/*]
  4. Safety. LCDs are safer to use because they have no electromagnetic radiation. [/*]
  5. Price. LCDs are now more affordable than ever!
Top Reasons to Choose a CRT[/b]
  1. Excellent Value. CRTs have come very inexpensive for entry-level models, and high-end full-featured displays are now more affordable than ever. [/*]
  2. Precise images. CRTs provide exceptional detail for everything from CAD/CAM applications to word processing, spreadsheets and family photos. [/*]
  3. Vibrant, realistic images . . . even in motion. A full spectrum of rich, saturated colors with incredible depth and superior video response make CRTs perfect for gaming, graphic design, or even watching TV with a ViewSonic video processor.
To clarify a few points that these comments might raise, the "flicker free screen" referred to, is because LCDs have a much higher persistance that the phosphors in CRTs. When a CRT is set to a refreshrate that is too low, or that is a harmonic of the frequency of flourescent lights, the image on a CRT will flicker. Trying a different refresh rate will usually fix the problem. But LCDs don't have this problem because they can only operate at a single refresh rate (60Hz) and it doesn't matter anyway because the image can't change fast enough to display flicker even if you wanted it.

Also, LCDs have less glare because they're flat. But so are the CRTs I mentioned.

And, by the way, CRT monitors are cheaper than LCD monitors.
    TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
    Old Apr 27, 2007, 3:26 AM   #6
    Senior Member
    fewpics's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Posts: 210

    Here's also a quote from a site...

    "Some users will stay with their CRTs until the bitter end, perhaps out of stubbornness and unwillingness to give the new display types a chance or perhaps out of loyalty to an old favorite."

    The site gave what I thought was a fair comparo and did NOT say which was better. It merely pointed out pros and cons of the two...

    LCD's are by no means the answer to a maidens prayer but no matter what stats are on paper, I am positive that the more modern LCDs are much easier to work with. Each year that these displays come out, brings anewer and better generation, which will go on getting better and better. My 22" Widescreenis only a few months old and and it looks far better than any CRT whichI have ever seen or owned. While some people go on about the colour reproduction being not quite as good as CRT's, I can't argue withthis one, but I will say that in all the monitors and TV's I have ever owned (and that would be into3 digits), no two of them ever gave what I could say was "true colour" or the same colour as any other, so the colour accuracy argument goes out the window (or in this case - Windows). I dare anyone to put two monitors or TV's even of the same make/model, side by side with similar/same settingsand get the same reproduction, be it colour, blur, or what have you. It wont happen. I simply adjust to a comfortable level and leave it there... Most anyone else I ever watch, leaves his/her monitor/TV at ridiculously high levels of brightness, contrast etc and that can bring on the poor colour syndrome, CRT or LCD... Adjustmenst are there to be used and you should use them "wisely" by adjusting to a level of comfort on the eyes, instead of brightness. I have most of my settings down quite low and that makes for much better all-round reproduction. It is generally accepted that CRTs are much harsher on the eyes over LCDs, as the eyes are continually focussing on different parts of the screen all the time. You simply don't get this with LCD.

    While I was recovering from an illness for 7 years, I was confined to my room and spent on average 16 - 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, surfing. This is no exaggeration, as my internet bill at the end of each month used to state the hours per month. Seeing over 450 hours a month was quite normal andon numerous accasionsI clocked over 500. Thanks heavens that wasdialup and no limits on downloads.That was when I found that watching any TV and reading magazines suddenly became a nightmare. At this point, the two best things I ever did was to get reading glasses and switch to LCD monitors - I have been using them ever since as it was literally love at first sight. The first LCD monitorI got was just over 15 months ago and I have not looked back and each newer one I have bought was better than the last.

    I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree, as it sounds like you are stuck with your CRT's and I am sure not going back to one... I only hope we haven't got amyjones tear some hair out by now...

    Cheers, my friend...
    fewpics is offline   Reply With Quote
    Old Dec 6, 2007, 3:36 PM   #7
    drgrafix's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2006
    Posts: 39

    I'd agree with almost everything TCAV has noted. I have a Sony G500 21" flatscreen that I just love. But I'm (hopefully) on the verge of switching to a 24" iMac Extreme by the 1st of the year and it will be my primary PC. So I'm going to have to adapt to a non-CRT workstation and a new OS, but I've been on the Apple side before... so that's OK.

    On graphics cards, I still think that there were certain Matrox video cards that flat out were just better at graphics and text than anything available... but sucked for video games, so the market is all about how good a gaming experience can be provided rather than whether anyone is concerned about blurry text or aliasing static graphics.

    My past business used Silicon Graphics workstations to develop computer modeling for toys and video games, and we used Sony G500's and also 20" NEC's because both were easy on the eyes and could render high-resolution animations flawlessly.

    Times do change though, and thousands of artists and designers are using Macs for all sorts of projects from technical illustrations to packaging grpahics and web design. I think these two technologies are closer than they've ever been (at least I think they are) but talk to me after a year on the Mac :?.

    Just a thought... this is like the great Nikon/Canon debate :lol:! Whatever floats your boat.
    drgrafix is offline   Reply With Quote
    Old Dec 9, 2007, 1:48 AM   #8
    hercules71185's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Posts: 71

    I got 2 lcds. One for my gaming laptop and one from my girls set up. had to get 22s
    figured I'd get her the acer x221 and me the samsung 22 series.. well. I can't say I'm even somewhat dissapointed in ANY way with the new setups. GET EITHER MONITOR! they are amazing I promise you won't be let down. acer was cheaper. samsung has no bleeding. acer a lil at the top. using editing programs such as photoshop etc. the top of your screen isn't PITCH black to tell. even then you can bearly tell. but, I notice everything.
    hercules71185 is offline   Reply With Quote
    Old Dec 9, 2007, 8:50 PM   #9
    Senior Member
    VTphotog's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
    Posts: 4,309

    The original question being about photo editing, I should mention that, of the complaints I see in another forum about problems with prints, probably 90% or more are due to LCD monitors. After spending enormous amounts of time and money the root of the problems invariably is the LCD. Minor changes in viewing angle create changes in color and brightness that make it difficult to match prints to what is seen on the monitor. If you are serious about photo editing, and also printing, stay with CRT.

    VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
    Old Dec 13, 2007, 10:20 AM   #10
    Senior Member
    Ronnie948's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2002
    Posts: 721

    My 10 year old HP M-90 19 inch CRT died and I just replaced it with a Samsung 245BW 24inch LCD monitor. I really like the extra large size as well as it is a very crisp and very sharp picture. I have no problems editing photographs using CS3 and the output to all of my printers is a perfect match to what I see on this monitor. All of my Epson printers use RGB and the Samsung 245BW monitor uses RGB. Iset my D200 to use Adobe98 RGB and edit in CS3 using Adobe98 RGB. I let the printer select the color space and I'm more then pleased with the results.

    I purchased my 245BW at Circuit City and they do have a return policy. If it was not good enough to do my editing I could return it and get my money back. It works well for me so I'm keeping it.

    I sit directly in front of the monitor so the off to the side fuzziness does not affect me at all.This monitor is very adjustable as far as height and tilt are concerned so sitting in front of ityou will haveno problem.If by chance you can not sit directly in front of the monitor at all you would probably be better off using a CRT monitor. Ronnie
    Ronnie948 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 On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:46 PM.