View Poll Results: which monitor better for photo editing?

Voters
96. You may not vote on this poll
  • CRT monitor

    75 78.13%
  • LCD monitor

    11 11.46%
  • No difference.

    10 10.42%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: which monitor is better for photo editing?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default which monitor is better for photo editing?

    LCD monitor or CRT monitor better for photo editing?

    in terms of resolution, pixel quality, color etc....

  2. #2

    Default

    Google's your friend ... do a search. This is discussed a fair bit in other forums and in articles on the internet.

    In short ... CRT's the way to go.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    ok. thank you.

    bcos i find that when i look at my photos on LCD it look a bit different from my CRT monitor.....

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    South Pole with Penguin
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    depends how long u stare at your monitor daily, i will get LCD to protect my eyes because stare at it more than 12hours a day

    although CRT may have better colour, it is useless if you never calibrate it properly

    anyway I have no regret switching my dual CRT to dual LCD, my eyes really can feel the different

  5. #5
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    LCDs are no doubt slightly behind in terms of color accuracy, but with the proper calibration should not be any inferior to a CRT.

    The benefits of LCDs (size, power consumption and most importantly ... flicker-free/less strain on eyes) far outweigh the CRT in almost all situations unless you are working in a color-critical environment; so for most (94.528% of photographers) of us here, I would say that an color-calibrated LCD will be able to meet our needs.

    I have been using LCDs as the main display device for more than 5 years now ... and the technology has improved steadily to the pont that I cannot see how a CRT (unless its one of those expensive Sony Artisan series) can give me more than what I have today.

  6. #6

    Default

    have tested a few LCDs and CRT, by far, have edited images that are ok on LCD, but when port over to CRT, it shows up heaps of stuff that I didnt clean up.

    good monitors.. hmmmm
    Artisan and Lacie 22"

  7. #7
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    In short ... get a large CRT!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Guilin
    Posts
    1,060

    Default

    My company manufacture Micro X-Ray Inspection System and we have switched from using CRT to LCD monitor. Minute details are not lost.

  9. #9
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    I noticed that large CRT prices are kinda very close to similar sized LCDs...the smaller CRTs are way cheaper....Donno if i'm wrong.

    adam, you have any recommendation on brand/models for large CRT and their approximate prices?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Goi
    In short ... get a large CRT!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anka
    have tested a few LCDs and CRT, by far, have edited images that are ok on LCD, but when port over to CRT, it shows up heaps of stuff that I didnt clean up.

    good monitors.. hmmmm
    Artisan and Lacie 22"
    i noticed that in my photos too!
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  11. #11

    Default

    so which is a "good enough" lcd to recommend for the average joe, apart from lacie and viewsonic 191s and apple cinema display?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    lulu island
    Posts
    6,131

    Default

    open up a photo with hot pixels on both LCD & CRT. you'll see the difference between them.

  13. #13

    Default

    Viewsonic makes very good LCD's that can be callibrated to beyond what most photographers need. The A90 is a 19" Flatscreem for around $200. I have one at work, and aside from matching art prints it does everything else with extreme accurasy. Also dont forget monitors need replacing every 2 years or so, sometimes less time than that.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jj1987
    Viewsonic makes very good LCD's that can be callibrated to beyond what most photographers need. The A90 is a 19" Flatscreem for around $200. I have one at work, and aside from matching art prints it does everything else with extreme accurasy. Also dont forget monitors need replacing every 2 years or so, sometimes less time than that.
    You meant to say "Viewsonic makes very good CRT's............"? The A90 is a CRT monitor.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahheng
    You meant to say "Viewsonic makes very good CRT's............"? The A90 is a CRT monitor.


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user111
    so which is a "good enough" lcd to recommend for the average joe, apart from lacie and viewsonic 191s and apple cinema display?
    The Viewsonic 191B/S already is a very affordable LCD for the average joe.. =)


    Sorta OT:

    Anyone knows where I can still get Eizo CRT's?
    They seem to have stop production/ sales to end-users.. Can only get them as part of packages with Kodak minilabs..

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darren
    LCDs are no doubt slightly behind in terms of color accuracy, but with the proper calibration should not be any inferior to a CRT.

    The benefits of LCDs (size, power consumption and most importantly ... flicker-free/less strain on eyes) far outweigh the CRT in almost all situations unless you are working in a color-critical environment; so for most (94.528% of photographers) of us here, I would say that an color-calibrated LCD will be able to meet our needs.

    I have been using LCDs as the main display device for more than 5 years now ... and the technology has improved steadily to the pont that I cannot see how a CRT (unless its one of those expensive Sony Artisan series) can give me more than what I have today.
    It's not just about colour - there are LCD panels with extremely good colour capability. The general weakness with LCD panels, even the higher end ones, is the quality of their shadow and highlight rendition, as well as micro details. A lot of LCD panels have pixels that are, how do you say, not 'smooth' or fine enough for looking at photographic details.

    Also, a lot of LCD panels, even some higher end ones, are far too bright. And when you turn down their brightness, contrast goes south.

    I'd still go with CRTs for now, despite the fact I am looking forward to the day that LCDs become good enough.

    And BTW, if someone can tell me who sells NEC (Mitsubishi) CRTs retail, I'd be very happy to hear from you. These dopes don't seem to like to reply to enquiry emails.
    Last edited by kahheng; 25th June 2005 at 06:29 PM.

  18. #18
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default

    Hmmm...I also found out that when i connect my laptop to my desktop CRT scrren (Compaq FS740), there is a difference in gamma and contrast...not sure which to follow...
    eat. drink. shoot

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahheng
    It's not just about colour - there are LCD panels with extremely good colour capability. The general weakness with LCD panels, even the higher end ones, is the quality of their shadow and highlight rendition, as well as micro details. A lot of LCD panels have pixels that are, how do you say, not 'smooth' or fine enough for looking at photographic details.

    Also, a lot of LCD panels, even some higher end ones, are far too bright. And when you turn down their brightness, contrast goes south.

    I'd still go with CRTs for now, despite the fact I am looking forward to the day that LCDs become good enough.

    And BTW, if someone can tell me who sells NEC (Mitsubishi) CRTs retail, I'd be very happy to hear from you. These dopes don't seem to like to reply to enquiry emails.

    This is because they don't understand English. Hee...hee.... just kidding.

  20. #20

    Default

    At the moment CRT is the only way to go for colour critical job- that is to achieve a print result that is identical (or at least 95% - 98%) to the monitor.
    BTW to achieve this we need to calibrate the monitor and the printer needs custom profile for the media (paper) and setting.
    But if you are not into colour management then it really does not matter.

    We are not talking about colour look good and comfortable to the eyes which of course the LCD is better. As of now no one can achieve a print result that resembled the LCD even with calibration.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •