What kind of monitor do you use for drawing/painting?

>>2811572
I bought a benQ GWsomethingorother 27" IPS "gaming" monitor that has the panel from one of their photo editing monitors. Everything is now delightfully garish and I see contrast I didn't know existed.

Gamut and calibration matter for photo editing and print work, but otherwise you just want something properly calibrated and well rounded because most monitors are shit and it will look different on every screen you view it on.

Dell UltraSharp IPS

I had a TN LG LCD previously. Connected both as dual display once and was completely amazed at how different the colors looked on them, TN colors looked so washed out and shitty compared to the IPS screen.

I think you should consider it if you're doing color work, didn't know how astonishingly different they were before I saw them side to side. Plus the viewing angles on IPSs are much better. You can see the "true" colors from pretty much everywhere, unlike a regular TN display

TN vs IPS isn't even a question. You're not playing pro Counter Strike. There is absolutely 0 reason to use a shitty 6-bit panel with awful color reproduction, contrast and viewing angles. It's outdated technology and it shouldn't exist anymore.

Any half-decent display won't produce results out of the box that are that vastly different when viewed in another device. If your calibration is that off it's time to buy something that's not a complete turd.

>>2811572
I forgot the model but it's a 24" Eizo ColorEdge which calibrates itself every 48 hours of usage, although I calibrate it manually with a colorimeter once every few months. I use this for work (I work with retouch) and digital drawing, I use my normal monitor for everything else. As some other anon said unless you work in photo/video/whatever it's not needed to have completely accurate color reproduction. Especially since theyre expensive as fuck.

>>2811572

I have a Asus - 27" IPS LED HD Monitor - Silver / model: MX279H ( found on amazon / bestbuy etc etc. )

Bought when it was new tech back in 2013. First time buying a 300+ dollar monitor. Everything else I had was those shitty 89 or less buck ones ( I thought was fine. ) This monitor I manually calibrate, usine some free online testers. Aside from slight loss in reds and even slighter loss in greens on ( Color Bars ). Those its not as bright. Its pretty damn accurate what I see on-screen is what prints out almost 1:1 slightly brighter on my shitty printer.

However. I just ordered a dell Dell UP2716D 27" - 2560 x 1440 @ 60 Hz replacement for it. After getting myself an XP-Pen 22E. This damn tablet is better looking than my Asus.

So. Hopefully this dell works out. I don't game btw, if that matters.

>>2811630
Got one of those as well, 24", love the 16:10 ratio. Very nice and crisp, let's me see more subtle variations then I did on my old-as-balls BenQ. I've never had anything other then IPS panel and would never consider it, for arting it's a must (also, I don't do any of that there "gaming", so can't speak about that)

>>2813757
Oh, and forgot to mention: I only have one monitor,it's big enough to allow me to have a few small refs up if needed, don't see the need for a second one.

If you could only pick from one of these monitors, which one would you choose?

1) Dell Ultrasharp 24" InfinityEdge Monitor U2417H (IPS panel @ 60 Hz)
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&sku=210-AHGF

2) ASUS MG248Q 24" LED Gaming Monitor (TN panel @ 144 Hz)
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/MG248Q/

>>2815335
Did you get lost on your way to /v/? How is this even a question?

>>2815335
only get the second one if you play a fuckton of games and play games that can actually make use of that 144hz and low input lag, and even then it's not really worth it desu. So get the dell.

How badly does one need an IPS for art though. If I have been using a TN panel with an LED backlight and never had too many problems with colors, what would the benefit of an IPS panel bring other than looking nicer?

Windows has a built-in color calibrator, so wouldn't that be enough?

My biggest issue with painting in Photoshop has ALWAYS been the response time of the paintbrush making something happen on screen. I do everything I can to make the response feel like 1:1, and my current monitor is 2ms at 60 Hz. I feel like downgrading to 5 ms or 8 ms and not improving the refresh rate would be a step in the wrong direction even if the colors might look a little better. Wouldn't it be a better idea to prioritize performance and speed?

I've been doing a bunch of animation stuff lately, but there's always this blur whenever I play the animation at a high fps. I think I've passed by IPS monitors in stores, but they didn't look that much better than a normal TN panel. The only time they looked better is if they were a much higher resolution, like 4K playing a 4K video. But just being brighter and more saturated feels a bit overrated. Getting an IPS with a 144 Hz refresh rate is way too expensive. I'm not spending $400-$500 on a monitor and then have to replace it in 3 or 4 years because the pixels start going bad or artifacts start showing up. Even $200-$250 is pushing it imo, it's just a monitor.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong. What's so great about IPS that you have to sacrifice speed and performance.

>>2816710
Photoshop isn't a competitive video game, anonymous.
You'd rather have a monitor that is less than 100th of a second faster, at the cost of color accuracy, bit-depth, sharpness, contrast and viewing angles? If your brushes are noticeably slow you need a better computer, not a gaymin monitor. I don't know what you're doing to your shit if your monitors only last 4 years, or if they suddenly get a storm of dead pixels or start generating artifacts like a broken GPU.
If you think spending $200 on the thing that you're doing your work from and looking at every single day for several years is too much, I really don't know what to tell you. How much did you spend on the rest of your components that you're likely to replace much faster? Why is your monitor somehow less important when it comes to creating visual art?