It is not just the eyes torn>>>>>

[Jocke]

I have use with a worn old monitor equipped with a TN panel in recent years. I have some nice photographic equipment but
have thought that the screen will do well. Today I hook up a 27 IPS panel and it just flashed in front of its nose at me,
what a great suprise.

I can really recommend this upgrade, a whole new world opens up in terms of colors and shades. I now sees things and details
that I had not seen before on good and bad.

It's nice having a little spot on the desktop in PS when the image is 1200x800, which you get when you run in 2560x1440 resolution.

[greggsiam]

Oh god yes. TN panels are just mass produced panels with a fast refresh, but horrible color gamut, viewing angles, etc... A good IPS panel is like going from a B&W tv to color.

Do yourself a favor and calibrate it with software. There are many solutions out there that do a great job. If you are into photography, you owe it to yourself to use correct colors.

Also, when using Lightroom or Photoshop, be sure to set your color space. You can also set it in camera as well. sRGB or AdobeRGB will suffice, but both have distinct advantages.

AdobeRGB. vs sRGB

[77T]

Ah good deal Jocke. Now we can look forward to big colorful future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Originally Posted by greggsiam

Oh god yes. TN panels are just mass produced panels with a fast refresh, but horrible color gamut, viewing angles, etc... A good IPS panel is like going from a B&W tv to color.

Do yourself a favor and calibrate it with software. There are many solutions out there that do a great job. If you are into photography, you owe it to yourself to use correct colors.

Also, when using Lightroom or Photoshop, be sure to set your color space. You can also set it in camera as well. sRGB or AdobeRGB will suffice, but both have distinct advantages.

AdobeRGB. vs sRGB

Interesting article but if you read the comments it would seem that nobody knows whats going on?

[bayerische]

Very few screens (if any), besides high-end ones such as NEC and Eizo can display the full AdobeRGB color gamut. Most (under 1000 euro) screens hit the sRGB color space. Perfectly OK, for 99,9% of us.

What is to me most important when buying a screen, is being able after calibration to hit the sRGB color space, being a Matte screen, being a big screen preferably 30"+.

I recently bought an Acer 32" B326. I find it very good! However, it suffers slightly from a reduced gamut and contrast at a brightness setting of around 80cd. Note, most screens will be close to 200cd out of the box, and will thus display images too brightly, and you will hit problems when printing them = prints too dark. Even a full suite calibration such as the Spyder 4 with screen and printer calibration won't get the problems off your back.

Sadly most calibration hardware/software want you to hit a target of around 120cd. This is still TOO Bright. An Eizo display will be optimized for around 80cd. Not only brightness wise, but also color wise, while the cheaper screens will have an color optimization at around 200cd!

Problem is, and why this is this way is that photographers are a small percentage of computer users. Most want a very bright, vivid display! My new screen is now successfully calibrated to sRGB at slightly above 80cd, 85-90cd if I remember correctly. If you where to look at my screen in daylight, you wouldn't be impressed. Sit for a while working on images, you'll start to realize what you see is what the printer will print. Nothing will hit you "in the face" straight away, but you'll get the point that this is truer, as you step out of the "screen realm" into a "printed realm", much more true to photography. When film disappeared from daily life we got accustomed to seeing super-bright, super-vivid pics on a screen, that looked nothing like their mellow printed cousins. I being a "relic" in the photography world, meaning I can work in a b&w and color darkroom, using magnifiers, and color developing machines, know pretty well what printed photographs should look like. Essentially the same what you see with your eyes.

Another thing you'll see is that almost all cameras nowadays underexposes a lot! IMHO at around 1 stop or more. But I guess this is a great way to make true 6400ISO 12800ISO. Looks great on the spec list paper. But you can do this as you'll be viewing the images on a screen 4 times too bright anyway.

What I was lucky enough to accomplish with a 32" screen at only 599 euro price tag, isn't guaranteed. I had read good reviews of the Acer, and I'm glad I bought it. It was a bit of a risk since I wanted to hit the 80cd brightness level and still have a sRGB color gamut range. Luckily my screen was able to do this, but many don't because they're not made for this. You will encounter (also with mine) a reduced color gamut and reduced contrast.

However, I now get exactly from my Epson 3800 printer what I see on my screen. It was a bit of a journey to get there though.

Last screen I had was an IPS screen from AOC. Cheap screen, yes. It had huge problems already at 120cd. Impossible to use at 80cd.

[greggsiam]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Interesting article but if you read the comments it would seem that nobody knows whats going on?

Some of the commenters are being a bit pedantic. I ignore the peanut gallery as there are always a million opinions and incorrect info being posted in comments. What was originally written is correct. The benefits and tradeoffs between sRGB and AdobeRGB are correct. Throwing in ProPhoto RGB or more info tends to confuse people that are just learning.

Here's a ProPhoto RGB article if anyone wants more info. The problems is when outputting, ProPhoto RGB space is too large, so printers, webpages, etc... just can't use it, which translates into inaccurate colors. It's better to use sRGB.