which monitor is better for photo editing?

which monitor better for photo editing?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul_Yeo

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2004
2,155
0
0
Sengkang
www.boo.sg
#1
LCD monitor or CRT monitor better for photo editing?

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

ericp

New Member
Apr 27, 2003
577
0
0
Visit site
#2
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.
 

Paul_Yeo

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2004
2,155
0
0
Sengkang
www.boo.sg
#3
ok. thank you.

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

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#4
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
 

Darren

ClubSNAP Admin
Staff member
Jan 16, 2002
8,607
26
48
Melbourne
#5
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.
 

anka

New Member
Jun 29, 2004
417
0
0
#6
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"
 

Ben Loke

New Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,060
0
0
Guilin
#8
My company manufacture Micro X-Ray Inspection System and we have switched from using CRT to LCD monitor. Minute details are not lost.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#9
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?

Adam Goi said:
In short ... get a large CRT! :D
 

djork

New Member
Jul 14, 2002
1,157
0
0
Hong Kong, Pokfulam
Visit site
#10
anka said:
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!
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#11
so which is a "good enough" lcd to recommend for the average joe, apart from lacie and viewsonic 191s and apple cinema display?
 

Drudkh

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
6,129
0
0
lulu island
#12
open up a photo with hot pixels on both LCD & CRT. you'll see the difference between them.
 

jj1987

New Member
Jun 24, 2005
46
0
0
30
FL
www.dodgegallery.com
#13
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.
 

kahheng

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
1,481
1
38
bride.ru
#14
jj1987 said:
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.
 

Firefox

New Member
Feb 15, 2004
716
0
0
Bedok
#16
user111 said:
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..
 

kahheng

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
1,481
1
38
bride.ru
#17
Darren said:
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.
 

Spectrum

Senior Member
Jun 22, 2003
3,779
0
0
Here
Visit site
#19
kahheng said:
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. ;)
 

jopel

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2004
1,175
1
0
#20
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom