Monitor

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

debi.lightcraft

Member
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2021
Messages
76
I am getting an M1 Max and was set on the 16 inch macbook pro but having developed an arthritic condition in my neck and shoulder am thinking the new Studio would be a better choice. However, it is very expensive so I would need a more affordable monitor than the one that Apple sells with it. I know that people here use a variety of monitors and would appreciate hearing what monitor would you recommend? If possible, it would have a soft screen to cut down on glare (the glossy screens are beautiful but hard on the eyes) and also offer the ability to color calibrate (a drawback to the laptop at this point). I saw the one recommended by Matt Kloskowski (BenQ SW 271) but it is too pricey and I wonder if there are less expensive excellent options for accurate color and control. Thanks!

​

 
I am a big fan of NEC's PA series monitors. They are well built, well supported (or least least used to be prior to their recent merger with Sharp a year or so ago), have good software for calibration, and the screens are somewhat matte so there is little to no glare. They used to sell them from their outlet at great prices, but again that may have changed since the merger. B&H sells them at good prices.

Good luck,

--Ken
 
Replytoken said:
I am a big fan of NEC's PA series monitors. They are well built, well supported (or least least used to be prior to their recent merger with Sharp a year or so ago), have good software for calibration, and the screens are somewhat matte so there is little to no glare. They used to sell them from their outlet at great prices, but again that may have changed since the merger. B&H sells them at good prices.

Good luck,

--Ken
Click to expand...
Thanks so much Ken. This is sounds very interesting and I will look into it.
 
If buying a monitor for image processing, especially if images will be printed, I would ensure it covers 99-100% of the AdobeRGB colour profile.
A lot of monitors do not meet this standard. I purchased the Benq Sw series and got the 32 inch version on the basis that it is a long term purchase.
For some people the 32 inch is too big. In my case I wanted to avoid buying a 2 monitor setup.
 
Gnits said:
If buying a monitor for image processing, especially if images will be printed, I would ensure it covers 99-100% of the AdobeRGB colour profile.
A lot of monitors do not meet this standard. I purchased the Benq Sw series and got the 32 inch version on the basis that it is a long term purchase.
For some people the 32 inch is too big. In my case I wanted to avoid buying a 2 monitor setup.
Click to expand...
I concur, unless one only wants to work in sRGB. Most, if not all, of the PA series display 100% of Adobe RGB.

--Ken
 
Last edited:
Very disappointing that the new Apple monitors are only P3 and not AdobeRGB…. Not an issue for me, but I know people who would like to stay within the Apple ecosystem. Always tricky trying to decide with so many options . I also found what looked like good options which were AdobeRGB, but then realised they were not 4k monitors.

Also, nothing wrong with sRGB monitors if only working in that gamut.
 
Adobe RGB is not necessarily ideal or always better than P3. As Edward Tufte would ask, “compared to what” is Adobe RGB the best?

Compared to each other, both Adobe RGB and P3 are about the same size.
Compared to sRGB, both are about the same amount larger than sRGB. They both cover many more colors than sRGB.
So far, one is not better than the other.

The main difference is that each spreads its similar volume across slightly different colors.
Adobe RGB leans more toward teals and greens.
P3 leans more towards warm colors.
This website shows visual examples of how sometimes P3 provides better coverage.

So if you photograph a lot of subjects with warm colors, P3 might cover more of the colors in your images.
If you print, Adobe RGB can provide better overall coverage of printing gamuts, though it may not cover some warm printed colors.

Probably the best way to think about the color gamut of the display is to ask yourself: Does Adobe RGB, P3, or sRGB better represent the typical color content of your images, and the color gamut of the target displays and printing gamuts you value the most?

Gnits said:
Not an issue for me, but I know people who would like to stay within the Apple ecosystem.
Click to expand...
P3 is also the display gamut of the Microsoft Surface Studio line of all-in-one desktop computers. Not close to the majority of PCs sold, but it’s just interesting that Microsoft made that choice for their flagship desktop hardware.
 
Good point and a good link. Many people think that AdobeRGB is some kind of standard and anything else, like P3, is automatically worse. The reality is that AdobeRGB was designed to match the gamut of the printing press. With today’s multi-color inkjet printers that is no longer such a good match as you may think. I have seen quite a few paper/ink combinations that have a better match with P3 than with AdobeRGB.
 
Another thing to consider. RAW files have no Color Space until Converted to RGB pixels. Adobe uses ProPhotoRGB as a working color space. It is larger and encloses both AdobeRGB and DCI-P3 as well as the smaller sRGB. DCI-P3 is actually the newer defined color space. It was developed for the digital video industry. AdobeRGB and DCI-P3 are so similar in shape that it probably does not matter which your monitor is limited to. Lightroom will continue to process pixels inside ProPhotoRGB and display them to conform to the limits of the Monitor gamut available. A calibrated monitor will use the icc profile generated for that monitor and according to manufacturers specifications will not exceed the defined gamut in that monitors specs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Many thanks to all who have responded. This is so informative and I will learn a lot reading all the information here so when I am able to purchase an external monitor I will have a better understanding of what to look for.
 
Johan Elzenga said:
The reality is that AdobeRGB was designed to match the gamut of the printing press.
Click to expand...
I thought that too, but have reconsidered because some say that Adobe RGB was not directly based on CMYK. It is actually based on SMPTE 240M (which is more of a video standard), and furthermore, it may include a mistake that was not practical to correct, according to the Wikipedia entry for Adobe RGB. Now, the Wikipedia entry has notes that some of that story is contested. But I still quoted it because some color experts I trust with connections to Adobe have also told this story:

Historical background

…Lead developer of Photoshop, Thomas Knoll decided to build an ICC profile around specifications he found in the documentation for the SMPTE 240M standard, the precursor to Rec. 709….those familiar with the SMPTE 240M specifications contacted Adobe, informing the company that it had copied the values that described idealized primaries, not actual standard ones (in a special annex to the standard). [failed verification] … To make matters worse, an engineer had made an error when copying the red primary chromaticity coordinates, resulting in an even more inaccurate representation of the SMPTE standard.[dubious – discuss] On the other hand red and blue primary are the same as in PAL and green is the same as in NTSC 1953 (blue is the same as in BT.709 and sRGB).

Adobe tried numerous tactics to correct the profile…yet all of the adjustments made CMYK conversion worse than before. In the end, Adobe decided to keep the "incorrect" profile, but changed the name to Adobe RGB (1998) in order to avoid a trademark search or infringement.
Click to expand...

Most of the primaries mentioned at the end of the first paragraph — PAL, NTSC, and BT.709 — are video RGB standards, not based on CMYK print.

This is a really subtle point, so I already think I wrote too much about it. But the point is, Adobe RGB was not necessarily designed to accommodate the CMYK gamut. But what is correct to say is that Adobe RGB (and P3) cover printing gamuts much better than sRGB ever could, so Adobe RGB stuck.

For debi.lightcraft, this discussion about Adobe RGB is getting off course for the question you’re asking. The important thing for you is:

Less expensive displays ($200-$600) cover sRGB, which can be good enough if you never print or only do web and video work.

Some mid-price displays ($600–$900) may be “wide gamut” meaning they cover Adobe RGB or P3. The two gamuts are much more similar than they are different, so for most people either is just as good for printing.

You can use a USB color profiler to create a custom color profile for all of the displays above, but some will reproduce colors better than others. Try review sites like rtings that actually measure the display, and look at the picture quality tests. What photographers and designers care about most in those reviews are the uniformity (consistent performance from edge to edge), and the delta E (dE) values for grayscale and color (a delta E of around 1 or below is excellent accuracy).

Expensive displays may be wide gamut, even higher accuracy, and have more professional color features in the display hardware such as direct hardware calibration, which is better than just profiling. Get one of these if you want the absolute best quality, or if you sign contracts that hold you to precise color standards.

debi.lightcraft said:
…and also offer the ability to color calibrate (a drawback to the laptop at this point)…
Click to expand...
The factory-calibrated wide gamut display on the M1 Pro/M1 Max MacBook Pro is very high quality, a few steps above any other Mac laptop display ever made, and better than some mid-priced desktop displays. It has some features that are more in line with the “expensive” display category above, and Apple has calibration instructions for it. But yes, a proper desktop display can be better for physical health.
 
I have opted for the AdobeRGB metric for monitors because the pro print shops I have used request images with the AdobeRGB profile.

I suppose there is no reason a monitor could not cater for both the P3 profile and the AdobeRGB profile. For example, the Benq SW321C covers 99% Adobe RGB, 100% sRGB/Rec. 709, and 95% DCI-P3/Display P3.

Also, I know cameras can be configured to create jpgs with either AdobeRGB or sRGB. I am not aware if cameras can also be configured to output jpgs with the P3 profile. That is a gap in my knowledge and maybe future cameras will incorporate the P3 profile. I mostly work with raw, so this might be academic to me in the past. However, I have started playing with the Fuji x100v, specifically for its small size and to be able to get certain film and mono styles as jpgs straight out of the camera

I think it is good that this subject has been explored and no doubt this situation will continue to evolve. I would be interested in feedback from pro print shops on their views on dealing with AdobeRGB or the P3 and will discuss this with these printers as and when I get the opportunity.
 
Gnits said:
I suppose there is no reason a monitor could not cater for both the P3 profile and the AdobeRGB profile.
Click to expand...
Of course not. I have an LG UltraFine OLED Pro 4K Monitor 32EP950 monitor, which covers 99% of AdobeRGB and 99% of DCI-P3.
 
Conrad Chavez said:
I thought that too, but have reconsidered because some say that Adobe RGB was not directly based on CMYK. It is actually based on SMPTE 240M (which is more of a video standard), and furthermore, it may include a mistake that was not practical to correct, according to the Wikipedia entry for Adobe RGB. Now, the Wikipedia entry has notes that some of that story is contested. But I still quoted it because some color experts I trust with connections to Adobe have also told this story:



Most of the primaries mentioned at the end of the first paragraph — PAL, NTSC, and BT.709 — are video RGB standards, not based on CMYK print.

This is a really subtle point, so I already think I wrote too much about it. But the point is, Adobe RGB was not necessarily designed to accommodate the CMYK gamut. But what is correct to say is that Adobe RGB (and P3) cover printing gamuts much better than sRGB ever could, so Adobe RGB stuck.

For debi.lightcraft, this discussion about Adobe RGB is getting off course for the question you’re asking. The important thing for you is:

Less expensive displays ($200-$600) cover sRGB, which can be good enough if you never print or only do web and video work.

Some mid-price displays ($600–$900) may be “wide gamut” meaning they cover Adobe RGB or P3. The two gamuts are much more similar than they are different, so for most people either is just as good for printing.

You can use a USB color profiler to create a custom color profile for all of the displays above, but some will reproduce colors better than others. Try review sites like rtings that actually measure the display, and look at the picture quality tests. What photographers and designers care about most in those reviews are the uniformity (consistent performance from edge to edge), and the delta E (dE) values for grayscale and color (a delta E of around 1 or below is excellent accuracy).

Expensive displays may be wide gamut, even higher accuracy, and have more professional color features in the display hardware such as direct hardware calibration, which is better than just profiling. Get one of these if you want the absolute best quality, or if you sign contracts that hold you to precise color standards.


The factory-calibrated wide gamut display on the M1 Pro/M1 Max MacBook Pro is very high quality, a few steps above any other Mac laptop display ever made, and better than some mid-priced desktop displays. It has some features that are more in line with the “expensive” display category above, and Apple has calibration instructions for it. But yes, a proper desktop display can be better for physical health.
Click to expand...
Conrad I just found your reply for which I thank you so much! It will be my guide as I move forward with a screen and I am sure to have more questions. I am leaning toward the studio and want to be sure to get the correct monitor. I have been mostly satisfied with my 2017 iMac as far as monitor and printing and want something as good or better. For me it is all about prints (and the potential for video in the future.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top