DSLR Photography Forum

I was looking at buying a new lcd monitor as the ol' crt is not what it used to be as far as colour representation goes. My notebook gives better colour representation when editing photos. I spent 3/4's of an hour standing and looking at about 16 different lcd monitors that were displaying a slide show of hi resolution photos. Out of all the monitors only one had a gloss screen. Not really great to look at if you are near a window as the reflections can be distracting. However, the gloss screen was the best for not blowing out highlights in white area's. In fact, it was the only one that didn't blow out the whites. So, for me the reflections from the gloss screen is not an issue.

My questions to you who have an lcd monitor is what are your opinions regarding the gloss vs matt screen, colour representation and blown whites?

I changed from crt monitor to lcd monitor and the crt gave a better quality picture. But the trade off for me is the size. I could hardly move with the crt as it stuck out so much behind the screen. And as for lcd I have got used to it. The blown whites can be corrected, if they are not blown on the original pic.
They are both 17" and both Samsung. I used plug and play for both, (never put the disc in) I adjusted brightness, but never calibrated and I am quite content.
One thing with lcd is that by tilting the screen back or forward it alters the brightness, (similar to the screens on digi cameras) so you have to view from a (not exactly) but a fixed position horizontally. If you stand up the screen goes paler. The crt never does that.
Hope that helps. But if you have one on a laptop then you will know that.

I'm using a 19" Viewsonic VX910.

I chose it becaise on the store of the 40+ screens on display 3 stood out as having much more vivid colors and looked most like a CRT, all 3 that stood out were the Viewsonic VX range!. I'm very happy with it.

Mine has a matt screen and I have no problems with the display of whites. I was very happy with it, and then after buying a Spyder2 Pro to calibrate the screen I was even more blown away, my opinion is that it displays colors very well and better than my CRT. Can't say I have ever used a gloss screened LCD.

Can't go wrong with Samsung. I've used several different LCDs - the Samsungs are my favs...

It was a Samsung 19" lcd that I originally went to look at. It was a gloss screen NEC that really caught my eye but double the price. I use a Samsung 750s crt now. I like Samsung too but I know LG is putting out some very nice stuff. Their monitors likely rait with Samsung at this time. I also took a look at a 19" Viewsonic. Also very nice. All in all it likely has nothing to do with a matt screen finish that the whites were blown. I watch a 50" Sony LCD and the picture is amazing especially in HD. Still, I'd like to hear more from people on the issue of blown whites or any other issue for that matter.

The higher the contrast ratio the better. Also - you need to look at response time. How long does it take a pixel to go from black to white to black again? The shorter the better. Some manufacturers only state this specification half way - they will only tell you how long it takes to go from black to white - or even more deceptive "grey to grey". Mind you - if you are not watching videos or playing games on your pc - this latter spec may be immaterial. I really like LCDs because they are far far easier on the eyes - at my age - my eyes get tired looking at a CRT for a few hours.

I've got a glossy LCD on my home laptop (HP)... and a normal matte one on my work laptop (Toshiba). I like the gloss - dunno why, but it just appears richer. Maybe it's the way overhead lighting reflects or is diffused by the surface....

My opinion is more subjective rather than a scientific comparison though...

Hey Peto,

I currently use two different matte-finish 17" desktop LCD's (BenQ and Samsung), and a glossy widescreen 17" notebook LCD (Alienware).
Of the three screens, the Samsung is brightest, the BenQ has most accurate colours (when set to sRGB), and the Alienware has the deepest blacks and is the nicest to actually look at as long as you can avoid reflections (plus it is 1680x1050 while the others are 1280x1024).
The Alienware is the nicest notebook screen I've ever laid eyes on (except for 1 dead pixel that appears sometimes), but its still not quite as bright as a good desktop LCD screen. The Samsung gives really "punchy" images, but that isn't necessarily what you want - personally I'd prefer "accurate" to "punchy". And the BenQ isn't quite as bright as the Samsung, but it needed the least amount of calibrating to get its colours right.
In fairness to the Samsung, it is the only one of the three screens that I haven't colour calibrated at all, but the colour seems way off when I put the calibrated alienware next to it (more so than when I put the calibrated alienware next to the uncalibrated BenQ screen).

But... if you calibrate your screen (which I highly recommend) then really that should take care of a lot of these inaccuracies. But obviously the closer the monitor is to begin with the better off you are (after all, calibrating will lose you a bit of colour resolution)... and the brighter it is the better.. and the more contrast the better.. and so on...

So my main points would be:
1. More saturated colours aren't necessarily better (but usually brighter and more contrast ARE better).
2. Often TVs and monitors come from the factory with exaggerated brightness and colour settings so they look bright and colourful and attract attention when sitting on display in shops. You can't always trust what you see on a shop display (this may explain why the whites were blown out in so many of the samples you looked at - the brightness was probably pumped up).
3. A monitor calibration system will make more difference in getting accurate colours and tones than anything else.
4. Personally I prefer glossy screens over matte ones because they give darker blacks and the image just appears deeper... but thats only as long as you can avoid reflections.
5. I really like the widescreen 17" format (1680x1050) for editing photos, watching movies and when you need two windows side-by-side. But the regular 17" format (slightly talller than 4:3 at 1280x1024) is better for most other things (web browsing, word processing, etc). That's personal preference.

Just my 2c worth...

And I'm a bit excited about screens at the moment because today I scored myself a good deal on one of these bad-boys to replace the 17" BenQ I do my photo-editing on. Can't wait!

I have been thinking about one of those Dell screens for sometime now Adrian. I would be very interested in hearing what you think when you actually get one.

Kombisaurus Wrote:4. Personally I prefer glossy screens over matte ones because they give darker blacks and the image just appears deeper... but thats only as long as you can avoid reflections.
5. I really like the widescreen 17" format (1680x1050) for editing photos, watching movies and when you need two windows side-by-side. But the regular 17" format (slightly talller than 4:3 at 1280x1024) is better for most other things (web browsing, word processing, etc). That's personal preference.

I'm with you on #4 - I personally like them too. They're very vibrant and rich.

I've got a widescreen as well on my HP (14"), and with a resolution of 1280 x 768, it's ok width wise, but I find the height is a bit of a bummer. Especially with apps like photoshop where you're trying to get as much screen real estate as possible, and the window title bar and menus take up almost a quarter of the space... oh well.

Anyway, I got a new IBM laptop with my new job, and this one's 1400 x 1050 so I'm looking forward to that indeed.

Wedding Shooter Wrote:I have been thinking about one of those Dell screens for sometime now Adrian. I would be very interested in hearing what you think when you actually get one.

Chris, I have been looking at them for a while too. They get fantastic reviews and seem like great value. The clincher was that a new model just came out (with 6ms response time and HDCP and stuff), and I managed to score a deal by buying it through my employer where it ends up costing under AU$1k.
In fact we ended up ordering three of them (one for me, the other two for the office). I'll be sure to let you know how they go. 1920x1200, 6ms, 24"... I'm drooling again!

Jules, you don't like widescreen in photoshop? I reckon its great. You can view an entire 3:2 format photo and still have room for toolbars and roll-ups on each side of the image. But the height sucks when doing stuff like viewing web-pages full-screen and things like that. It is possible to view two web-pages side-by-side with some success though. Its strange though because I do also like the slightly-tall format of 1280x1024 LCD's (which accounts for 95% of 17" LCD's)... so don't really have a favourite.

Cheers
Adrian

Kombisaurus Wrote:Jules, you don't like widescreen in photoshop?

I love widescreen in photoshop... it's just the lack of height that makes it feel slightly claustrophobic. Blame it on getting so used to a Sony 19" LCD (1600x1200) at work....

You Dog! Thats a wicked screen. I was also looking at a 21" widescreen Samsung that rotates but thats outta my reach. I agree with your points about the brightness and all being boosted for display but I spent a half hour playing with settings in the store and couldn't get them right. But that was from the monitor itself and not calibration. Still, I found the blacks much better on the gloss screen and much more detail in the white area's. Refections are not an issue for me. I have no windows or light sources behind me.

*sniff* *sniff* I don't get to use it anymore though, since I've changed jobs.

Just bought a viewsonic vx2025wm very happy with the results from it.

Nice JBMan. Hope you're enjoying it.

A good screen makes such a difference IMHO. I partially blame the fact I wear glasses now on using very bad screens for years when I was younger - its one area where I don't skimp on any more. I'd rather use a slow old PC on a good screen than a fast PC on a rubbish screen.

But now something to make us all feel totally inadequate...
I've just found a screen to die for... The Zenview PowerTrio. A 3-panel 52" panoramic workspace with 4960x1600 resolution. Yikes! :o The central panel alone is a 30" LCD.

http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-powertriohd.shtml

one day.... <dreaming>

Geez! Even some of those pc's are nuts. Unless you're launching a nuke or something then I guess it's ok.

I currently use an Apple 20" widescreen which is wonderful - but am tempted with the 24" from Dell.

I've outfitted with a HP super go go machine, no monitor. I was apprehensive about a LCD monitor as I do a bunch of photography and digital art, I relented and bought a ViewSonic Optiquest Q9. I couldn't be more satisfied. I'll keep my CRT and use it as the second monitor.