Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why my next monitor will be an LCD

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 13, 2005 9:36:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I tried an eary LCD for use with Photoshop and it was very unreliable for
judging color and contrast.
Things have changed.
Not believing what I read in magazines (PopPhoto calls the new Nikon 55-200
a good lens!) or most of what gets posted on the internet I have used a
colorimeter to measure blacks, whites and colors on the CRTs and LCDs to
which I have access and compared a variety of images and color charts. These
are not the highest end monitors because I, and presumably most of us, do
not have access to those devices but they would be considered in that broad
range of "good" monitors.
Conclusion: CRTs "appear" to have smoother color gradations than LCDS,
especially at high contrast. No big news here.
Otherwise CRTs are not really all that more advantageous than LCDs.
What surprised me, and is crucially important, was that most CRTs do not
extend down to the level of black you think they do. This limitation
significantly affects whether one should assume that CRT technology is
inherently superior for demonstrating the true dynamic range of an image.
My experience would lead me to conclude that CRTs in general are not all
that better than LCDs for allowing one to judge the true dynamic and color
range of one's digital photo masterpiece prior to printing.
You have to learn how to use the histographs and out of gamut warnings and
not just trust what you think you see in your image on your computer screen.
I would presume this is old news to people who understand these issues. The
new RAW converter in CS2 wisely tries to force you to do this with its
default settings. This is especially critical if you prefer to make only
global adjustments to an image rather than make mutiple layered small
regional adjustments to parts of the image.
This disconnect between what you think you see and what you get applies
exponentially to those who believe in the religion of 16 bit image
processing in an 8 bit printing world.
Excluding the highest end CRT/LCDs, to which I do not have access, I would
conclude that a knowledgeable user who employs monitor calibration, color
management, understands the limits of these protocols and most importantly
has taken the time to learn how in his/her working environment images
translate from screen to print, recognizing prints have an even more limited
range and gamut than an LCD or CRT and are strongly affected by paper finish
and ambient lighting, can get equal results from a reasonable quality LCD or
CRT.
Those LCDs are looking better and better. In a year or two new organic based
LEDs are supposed to have even better dynamic range because they do not
require a backlight.

More about : monitor lcd

Anonymous
a b C Monitor
August 13, 2005 9:53:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:fcqLe.1374$SR5.989@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> I tried an eary LCD for use with Photoshop and it was very unreliable for
> judging color and contrast.
> Things have changed.

Not unless one has upwards of $4,000 to spend.

> Not believing what I read in magazines (PopPhoto calls the new Nikon 55-200
> a good lens!) or most of what gets posted on the internet I have used a
> colorimeter to measure blacks, whites and colors on the CRTs and LCDs to
> which I have access and compared a variety of images and color charts. These
> are not the highest end monitors because I, and presumably most of us, do
> not have access to those devices but they would be considered in that broad
> range of "good" monitors.
> Conclusion: CRTs "appear" to have smoother color gradations than LCDS,
> especially at high contrast. No big news here.
> Otherwise CRTs are not really all that more advantageous than LCDs.
> What surprised me, and is crucially important, was that most CRTs do not
> extend down to the level of black you think they do.

Sure they do. The limitation with LCDs is with the technology
itself. It's very difficult to produce accurate near blacks using a
backlight.

> Those LCDs are looking better and better. In a year or two new organic based
> LEDs are supposed to have even better dynamic range because they do not
> require a backlight.

Until LED technology "gets there", I'll stick with a CRT.
!