Monitor Thread

color>res>size

dreamcolor z27x
color edge CG277

>>2921477
You won't get many replies here. Most of the 'prosumer' photogs here use macbooks because the hobby lends itself to the emulation of luddites. They know nothing about monitors

>>2921685
Yeah was curious about what level of interaction I'd get. I have seen a good amount of people telling others to have their colours calibrated and tested so I thought there might be a few responses to this.

BenQ or a good chunk of the DellSharp monitors tend to be pretty crisp and color accurate (which matters more if your printing). Just find yourself a nice matte monitor and you should be set.

I use a pair of dell up2516d for windows and a cine-tal cinemage 24 as a direct 10 bit output from media composer and resolve via blackmagic mini monitor
also my notebook's display is quite alright (lenovo w541)

>>2921477

are dell laptops good in terms of screen quality and color accuracy? how about asus?

I'd recommend a monitor with an IPS panel for up to 100% true colors displayed. I wouldn't recommend 4k, because your PC has to process more pixels, means a slower workflow. Everything up to 1440p is alright.
To recalibrate the monitor I use a "Spyder Express" calibrator, works fine.

>>2921477
I use an NEC PA272W, which is a 27" 1440p LED display with Adobe gamut, and have the Spectraview as well, I can't imagine using anything else now.
4K might be a nice upgrade, but all displays of this caliber are still expensive AF if you want high-res. And after having seen and used the 5K iMac at a friend's house, I'm not sure of going too high-res, as it becomes hard to judge fine detail without zooming way in.

>>2921685
Nice projection

>>2921792
Laptop screens are almost never very good unless it's one of those higher-end business/workstation notebooks that explicitly state that they offer a color-accurate display, in which case Dell, HP and Lenovo are all viable options.

You'll find the best price/performance ratio from the Korean 27" 1440p monitors which use the same panel as the iMac, you can find them for a little under 300 dollarydoos, IPS is awesome and the colour reproduction is far, far better than average (but obviously not $1000 pro monitor stuff, but you can nearly replicate that if it's what you want with a calibrator) Pretty much all of the displays are overclockable too, I've got mine running at 90hz which is enough for me, but you can go further.

Basically if you want to have a future proof monitor you've gotta go 1440p, 4K isn't necessary yet, and you'll find most things to be inappropriately sized. 1440p though is pretty much perfect in my opinion

Look up the Crossfire 27Q or so on. I have literally 1 stuck pixel which you can only notice when the screen goes dark and you're actively trying to find it.

Oh and the 27Q is matte. You have to get a matte monitor, you won't regret it. Gloss is aids.

File: 1234867324765.jpg (37KB, 498x597px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 498x597px

>>2921798
>I wouldn't recommend 4k, because your PC has to process more pixels, means a slower workflow

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2922237
It's not wrong.

>>2922237
>>2922481
The argument makes sense. My laptop is pretty hardcore though so I'll still consider it.
Might be too expensive for me though.
1440 would probably be good though.

I'd recommend checking http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
for monitors and their reviews.

Also colour = reso > size

>>2922481
>>2922485

Saying 4k is not worth it for photo editing is basically a troll.

there are no computers that will edit photos solidly on 1440p and not 4k. The actual edits are performed at the same res. Any GPU can display 4k in non 3d tasks.

>>2922533
Well, as I've already mentioned, I've used a 5K iMac and was not impressed for two reasons:
1. Pixel density is too high to accurately judge images in close detail, it obfuscates artifacts by making the image appear too smooth. Images I thought looked great on that display were actually less than perfect on my NEC.
2. The processing power meme is real, this computer which was 5 years newer than my mid-2011 iMac actually loaded photos SLOWER in Lightroom, because previews and the editing window had to convert four times as many pixels.

My opinion, if you want 4/5K, go for a big screen, like 32-40", and also make sure you have a beefy PC to handle the conversions. Most photo programs are heavily CPU-limited, so get the fastest one you can.

File: 2016-09-11 11.28.42.png (65KB, 207x307px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 207x307px

Can anybody help where this photo is?

>>2922643
Getting an appropriate pixel density is something that you do when purchasing a 4k monitor regardless of your end purpose. buying a sub 32 inch 4K display is retarded. That 5k iMac is 27 inches. Totally fucking retarded.

You can't say that 4k is bad for photo editing because it's possible to buy bad 4k monitors.

Also, all Macs perform like shit relative to their price and relative to custom computers. That's all there is to it. However I would love to hear a viable counterpoint to that.

I use a cheap 24" AOC I got used for $70 last year. I calibrated it the best I could.

So far, so good.

>>2921477

>Color
>Luminance
>Res
>Size

There are so many monitors with decent colorspace but really uneven luminance across the screen, make sure you look up proper tests first.

>>2922643
You're dumber than a box of rocks, cunt.

I was going to give advice, but it would be more of a waste of time than just insulting you.

>>2922533
Wow. I can't believe I posted >>2922485
I am an idiot and I should have picked up on this far sooner.
I think this is sounding sarcastic but it's not. you're 100% right and I feel like an idiot for thinking otherwise.
Just a matter of cost now.

Kinda out of topic, but which laptop would be the best pick for under 1000$? I'll be carrying it around the world for one whole year.

File: you.png (3KB, 280x272px)

3KB, 280x272px

>>2923151
>I was going to give advice, but it would be more of a waste of time than just insulting you.
did you just insult yourself by calling your advice a waste of time compared to simple name calling? wow, you sure showed him!

I have a 25-inch 1440p Ultrasharp and it's pretty cool. I don't remember how much it cost, definitely under €300 though