Railfan Technology > Computer monitor for photography

I didn't make the switch to Digital SLR photography until a few years ago, and currently, most of the photos I've been shooting have just sat on the harddrive or flash drives. I recently finally started looking at the photos, but soon discovered that my old, CRT computer monitor that sits on the desk in front of me makes photos look "crappy" because of the distortion from the pixels.

Can someone out there enlighten me on a good computer monitor that has excellent detail and clarity while viewing photos up close on a desk? So far, I miss real photographs (slides and prints) as I can't see the individual dots (old school pixels I guess) of the photograph, but my photos on the screen look jagged and distorted because of the pixels.

Thanks in advance.

cpn456 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't make the switch to Digital SLR
> photography until a few years ago, and currently,
> most of the photos I've been shooting have just
> sat on the harddrive or flash drives. I recently
> finally started looking at the photos, but soon
> discovered that my old, CRT computer monitor that
> sits on the desk in front of me makes photos look
> "crappy" because of the distortion from the
> pixels.
>
> Can someone out there enlighten me on a good
> computer monitor that has excellent detail and
> clarity while viewing photos up close on a desk?
> So far, I miss real photographs (slides and
> prints) as I can't see the individual dots (old
> school pixels I guess) of the photograph, but my
> photos on the screen look jagged and distorted
> because of the pixels.
>
> Thanks in advance.

cpn,

What platform are you using and what is the specs on your computer? This will help a lot in giving you some advice.

J.

If in the Windoze world, there was an enlightening post by Mr FunnelFan that sent me into the Dell website to buy an UltraSharp monitor:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~topic=snp_ultrasharp_monitor_offers

I'm happy with it although the particular one I bought is no longer offered, maybe that's why the price was so agreeable at the time.. there is a Technical Specs tab to check out the technical specs. Just about every Monitor manufacturer has a similar class of monitors for Photographers or for Business types who are looking for large screens and some level of resolution. There are more expensive monitors, there some threshold of pain that goes with this stuff.

If you have a Mac System, just send them more money.

If your pics look jagged, it may be because you are not shooting at a high enough quality, which could harm the looks more than the monitor. What resolution (size) are you shooting, and how are you saving the images (jpg, raw) and what compression?

ddavies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If your pics look jagged, it may be because you
> are not shooting at a high enough quality, which
> could harm the looks more than the monitor. What
> resolution (size) are you shooting, and how are
> you saving the images (jpg, raw) and what
> compression?

Using a Pentax K-7 camera, shooting raw. I've pulled the photo files directly off of my camera using their Pentax Digital Camera Utility program and also Photoshop. The file sizes are quite large (15k - 18k range) and I haven't saved any of these under a different format (they use Pentax's PEF format).

I understand why the photo quality is compromised for the one's I've needed to reduce the file size for the internet with JPG, it's the raw one's that I expected better (in the details).

My operating system is Windows 7.

The next step up will be the 4K resolution monitors. If your camera is over 16G or so you will finally begin to see what your digital camera has recorded. Monitors are still above the $1K threshold and your video card will also need an upgrade. The end of the year is always time to purchase video equipment.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

A very inexpensive monitor compared to others out there with the same or significantly
poor specs is the NIXEUS WQHD 27. I had never heard of the brand but read mostly
excellent reviews. The monitor was sold out for 4 months when it was first announced,
if I recall correctly. I'm very happy with it.

A 4K monitor would be nice assuming you have a card and computer that can support it.
I believe 5K monitors are being introduced too. Might need two video cards to run one
of those!

http://www.nixeus.com/?product=nixeus-vue-27

http://www.amazon.com/Nixeus-27-Inch-Resolution-2560x1440-NX-VUE27/dp/B008M08SN6

/Mitch

cpn456 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ddavies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If your pics look jagged, it may be because you
> > are not shooting at a high enough quality,
> which
> > could harm the looks more than the monitor.
> What
> > resolution (size) are you shooting, and how are
> > you saving the images (jpg, raw) and what
> > compression?
>
> Using a Pentax K-7 camera, shooting raw. I've
> pulled the photo files directly off of my camera
> using their Pentax Digital Camera Utility program
> and also Photoshop. The file sizes are quite
> large (15k - 18k range) and I haven't saved any of
> these under a different format (they use Pentax's
> PEF format).
>
> I understand why the photo quality is compromised
> for the one's I've needed to reduce the file size
> for the internet with JPG, it's the raw one's that
> I expected better (in the details).
>
> My operating system is Windows 7.


I think you mean 15 mg file size, not 15K.

Even a poor quality monitor should look OK just to view, for editing you may need better one but for viewing anything would do to view a jpg.
You never want to view at over 100 pct

Every monitor has settings(ie 1920 x ??) etc., you might want to look at that. If you are viewing RAW without P/S, you may be only viewing the small jpg embedded in the RAW. your O/S needs a proper CODEC for your camera to view RAW images properly.
This little jpg is what you see in the back of your camera when you chimp.

If you are viewing in P/S, I assume it is going through the RAW converter first and then you need to look at your conversion.
It should look OK in P/S but.....

Images look better in P/S 25 pct, 50 pct. than 23.8 pct sized to fit on window. P/S has basic viewing sizes and then interpolates for size in between.

I am pretty confident tho if you have converted to jpg of a reasonable size you could easily take it to Windows 95 machine with a 5 pound monitor and view it properly and even edit with reasonable results in PS 2. the point of saying that is any jpg should look fine on any Windows 7 machine.

Rather than use something like SAVE for WEB you should learn to resize you photos manually and you can control size and quality.



Bob Jordan

add-on

open folder with jpgs, right click and chose view with windows photo viewer or whatever they called in 7.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/15 08:26 by robj.

Bob is right - just about any monitor should present a
good viewing image. A better monitor will have better
contrasts, blacker blacks, better viewing angles, and
more vivid colors (perhaps even more colors, though in
the billions vs millions).

As for jagged lines - that sounds more like resolution.
How many dots (pixels) you are going to use to display
your image. More pixels, better resolution, less jagged
edges).

I'd do a Google search to see what this is all about and
how to change your settings based on the operating system
/video card /monitor you have.

I have a 27 inch wide screen monitor (mentioned above)
my resolution is set to 2560 X 1440 pixels.

If you have a really old monitor, or a very low end
LED /LCD, or an old computer /3rd party video card,
you may not have the capability to display a resolution
high enough to meet your demands, though even lower
resolutions like 1024 x 768 should look OK.

Go to Control Panel if you are using Windows and look
for "Appearance" /"Adjust screen resolution".

/Mitch

You really don't need a 4K monitor for viewing/editing photos. However, everyone has their own personal preferences. I use a 24" Samsung S24D360 with 1080p resolution and it works just fine, though it's no longer being produced as far as I'm aware. Any $100-150 range 1080p LCD should do the trick.

However, if you use crApple, you will pay out the nose for the focus group certified "Retina" display.

Vanakatherock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, if you use crApple, you will pay out the
> nose for the focus group certified "Retina"
> display.

I have a friend with an Apple Retina screen. I would
view his pics and always thought, "Wow, you take the
best ever pictures!" And he dose, btw. But I'd also
question why my own pictures can't touch the quality
of his. And then I saw my pictures on his screen.

Yeah - the Retina screen is a thing of beauty! It's
almost the difference between looking at a photo
through wax paper and without. So silky smooth and
vibrant you feel like you can reach in and grab things
inside the image.

Interestingly - you can not yet? get a Retina monitor
for a PC, nor an Apple if it did not come with it. I
don't even think a video cable could handle the bandwidth
nor could a single video card put out enough info on
it's own. I think you'd need two cards, each outputting
an interlaced image recombined at the monitor.

What's interesting however - and answer me this -

Why do Apple non-Retina screens look so great! I spec'd
one out and it's nearly identical to my NIXEUS VUE-27, yet
it does not seem to match the clarity and contrast. I'm
talking about the non-Retina Apple "Thunderbolt" monitors.

I don't get it - I had though initially, they were Retina.

/Mitch

OLED looks just as good, if not better than the Retina display. Unfortunately, OLED hasn't been produced in reasonably priced computer monitor format just yet, as far as I'm aware.