LCD for Photoshop

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard
  • Start date Start date
R

Richard

My aging Vivitron monitor has served me well for many years but I
would like to replace it with an LCD display. Sam's club has a nice
looking Samsung 913V. Does this monitor have what it takes to make
subtle picture adjustments in Photoshop?

Richard
 
My aging Vivitron monitor has served me well for many years but I
would like to replace it with an LCD display. Sam's club has a nice
looking Samsung 913V. Does this monitor have what it takes to make
subtle picture adjustments in Photoshop?

Richard
Click to expand...

Unless you've already spent a considerable amout of time and money
adjusting your current monitor temperatures to your prints, then you
have no need to worry.

PJ
 
Richard said:
Does this [LCD] monitor have what it takes to make
subtle picture adjustments in Photoshop?
Click to expand...

Does any LCD?
Do you intend to attempt calibration?

Anyway, you might get more useful answers in:
 
The answer is: it depends.
If you do not calibrate and do not understand and use Adobe style color
management then it matters not.
If you frequently make subtle adjsutments to tone and shadow by painting on
curve masks my experience has been that midlevel CRTS are more reliable than
any LCD I have yet seen.
However if you are that sophisticated then you will be profiling your
printer/ink/paper combination to make sure those subtle adjustments are
printable.
There is no real WYSIWYG for hi end color printing.
There are some very high end LCDs, not available at Sam's Club, that are
supposed to compare to CRTs.
 
My aging Vivitron monitor has served me well for many years but I
would like to replace it with an LCD display. Sam's club has a nice
looking Samsung 913V. Does this monitor have what it takes to make
subtle picture adjustments in Photoshop?

Richard
Click to expand...



Unless you Pay Heaps like $2000us LCD's are not good for Photo work.

Colours are all wrong..
 
The answer is: it depends.
If you do not calibrate and do not understand and use Adobe style color
management then it matters not.
If you frequently make subtle adjsutments to tone and shadow by painting on
curve masks my experience has been that midlevel CRTS are more reliable than
any LCD I have yet seen.
However if you are that sophisticated then you will be profiling your
printer/ink/paper combination to make sure those subtle adjustments are
printable.
There is no real WYSIWYG for hi end color printing.
There are some very high end LCDs, not available at Sam's Club, that are
supposed to compare to CRTs.
 
It depends, and I hope someone who owns one will be able to help you..

Probably the most important consideration in using an LCD screen in a
mission critical color situation is how accurately it maintains both
luminosity and color consistency when you sit in front of the monitor
and move you head left to right or up and down.

If the only way you can maintain consistency in the viewing is to hold
your head in a very limited position, in any plain, you will rapidly
begin cursing it. While your eyes will thank you for the lack of
flicker and other fatiguing factors that CRTs create, you neck and head
will hate you when they are forced into limited motion, leading to neck
stiffness and headaches.

Any LCD panel that has a limited accurate angle of view should not be
considered for mission critical color.

Art
 
Arthur said:
It depends, and I hope someone who owns one will be able to help you..
Click to expand...


I have (now pretty old) NEC 1701 and colors are different, although not that
much... It's just i don't work that much with photos, but for someone who
does, i guess it's hard to really see what you did with all filters and
adjustments. For real photo work i think CRT is still only one to go with.
 
[email protected] (Arthur said:
...your eyes will thank you for the lack of flicker...
Click to expand...

Only if running the current CRT at a very low refresh rate. Unless someone
is /extremely/ sensitive to it, there's no reason why the user of a modern
CRT should suffer from flicker.

Jon.
 
Jon said:
Only if running the current CRT at a very low refresh rate. Unless
someone is /extremely/ sensitive to it, there's no reason why the
user of a modern CRT should suffer from flicker.

Jon.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about flicker, it's more radiation and sharpness of LCD.
Once you 're used to LCD, and go back to CRT you can have high refresh rate
but your eyes will still start to pain after less than one minute. Only
after you're used to LCD you see that they have far more sharp picture than
any CRT - of course, if resolution is set to LCD's native one. Also CRT's do
radiate, even if newer models (read expensive) have lower one, and this
radiation causes eye pain.
 
I'm not convinced that the frequency issue can be summed up based upon
what they *think* human physiometry measures up as. I find, speaking
just for myself, that there is a subliminal type of fatigue from CRTs
regardless of frequency setting.

It may just be having those electrons aimed at my eyes at such a close
distance, or the nature of the "glow", or some other factor I can't
quantify. I just find sitting in front of a LCD screen much more
relaxing, and it's an immediate response, too.

I think more research is needed.

Art
 
Interesting, I have the same response, and I use a CRT currently and am
in front of it way too much! I've been waiting for the prices to drop a
bit more on the LCDs and for the color accuracy, or at least the
variability based upon head movement to get a bit better. It certainly
has improved quite a bit over the last few years.

I actually just realized, I do have an LCD screen; my older color
laptop, and although it is old and the angle of view is somewhat
critical (I don't use it for mission critical color work) I've missed
the visual relaxation of the screen since my wife has pretty much
decided it is hers ;-)

Art
 
Arthur said:
Interesting, I have the same response, and I use a CRT currently and
am in front of it way too much! I've been waiting for the prices to
drop a bit more on the LCDs and for the color accuracy, or at least
the variability based upon head movement to get a bit better. It
certainly has improved quite a bit over the last few years.

I actually just realized, I do have an LCD screen; my older color
laptop, and although it is old and the angle of view is somewhat
critical (I don't use it for mission critical color work) I've missed
the visual relaxation of the screen since my wife has pretty much
decided it is hers ;-)

Art
Click to expand...

Yep...
It's interesting, how i've got to this...
My friend's girlfriend (rich father :-) ) bought Sony's LCD some 2 years
ago...then they went to vacation and he brought it to me for testing. At
first i said...damn, i don't want that shit...but, since i did have it, i
tried it. After a day or two, i said...nope, it's not it...too small
letters, not any big difference etc...and i decided i won't buy it. Period.
BUT!!!
after a week he took it away...
Then i installed my old CRT again...
run it...
WOW!!!
first i thought...it must be something VERY wrong with myx CRT...since
letters were all smudged...
then after 2 minutes my eyes started to bloddy pain...
so, i shut it off and...presto i went into the store to buy LCD.

So, my advice is: you can't know until you try to GO BACK to CRT from LCD!!!
 
[email protected] said:
It's not so much about flicker...
Click to expand...

My post was, because I was commenting to your statement: "...your eyes
will thank you for the lack of flicker...".
Only after you're used to LCD you see that they have far more sharp
picture than any CRT...
Click to expand...

Each individual LC pixel may be sharp but that's not necessarily a good
thing for graphic work. The Gaussian nature of a CRT image is very
effective at smoothing out 'jaggies' and makes a CRT the best bet for
graphic work - unless you can afford one of the newer >200ppi LCDs, as
used in displays such as IBM's Big Bertha.
Also CRT's do radiate, even if newer models (read expensive) have lower
one, and this radiation causes eye pain.
Click to expand...

Sorry, SleeperMan, but that's rubbish. No CRT currently on the market
(even the cheaper ones) have levels of non-visible radiation sufficient to
give you eye pain. Sitting too close to your CRT, or an out of focus one,
can cause eye strain* but that's a different thing.

* Being Gaussian (~blurred round the edges) in nature, a CRT image can
make the eyes 'hunt' for correct focus, constantly attempting to get the
sharpest image. This overuse strains the muscles used to focus the eyes.
The best way to avoid this is to use the largest, highest-resolution
monitor of the best quality you can afford and to sit as far away from it
as possible (at least 80-90cm).

If you work exclusively with text, then an LCD is ideal; if you do any
serious graphic work then a good CRT-based display is still the best bet
for most users. By the time you need to replace the good-quality CRT you
buy this year, however, that might not be the case.

Jon.
 
[email protected] (Arthur said:
I find...that there is a subliminal type of fatigue from CRTs
regardless of frequency setting.
Click to expand...

See my later post. CRTs can be a cause of fatigue, even at higher refresh
rates, but it tends to be due to one or more of: a poor quality display;
an old display in which the focus has drifted (they do need servicing
occasionally); sitting too close to the display; bad ambient lighting;
reflections in the screen (often caused by badly positioned lighting).

You might get away with the last two or three if you use an LCD but a
cheap or badly aligned/focused/adjusted CRT is tiring to use and
environmental factors can make things worse.

Jon.
 
To be fair to Sleeperman, I believe it was I who made the statement
about the flicker, not he. And you are correct, it isn't really
flicker, but other aspects of the display that seem to cause fatigue.

I still put up with it because, at this point, I cannot justify another
CRT monitor, especially one of more cost, when the technology is so
radically changing. And I do need the color accuracy.

It's a hard choice for people who don't require absolute color accuracy.
For most, especially if you do not play computer games with fast
moving objects, an LCD screen will probably prove to be more enjoyable
viewing, and prices are such now that it may make sense to switch over
now if your old monitor is either becoming too old or too small for your
needs.

Assuming your monitor isn't drifting badly or so out of focus to make
your eyes tear trying to use it and you are stuck with color mission
critical, you might want to cope with your current monitor for another
year and see if the next generation of LCD monitors has better resolved
color accuracy issues.

Each new version of LCD seems to be improved, with better angle of view,
higher definition, higher speed and higher brightness and contrast ratios.

Art
 
Thank you for the suggestions. I'll consider them and see if anything
can improve the experience. The monitor I use is a middle priced model,
that was considered, for its price, good value about two years ago (17"
model). I just degaussed it for the first time in a number of months,
while I was thinking of it ;-)

Compared to previous monitors I've owned it's a great improvement.

I should probably "visit" some very high end CRT monitories and see if I
find them comforting, just to know, as I can't see buying one now.

Part of the problem is just my aging eyes. I'm at the point where I
should probably get bifocals or transitional lenses.

So, it's probably not the monitor getting too old... it's me! ;-)

Art
 
Arthur said:
To be fair to Sleeperman, I believe it was I who made the statement
about the flicker, not he. And you are correct, it isn't really
flicker, but other aspects of the display that seem to cause fatigue.

I still put up with it because, at this point, I cannot justify
another CRT monitor, especially one of more cost, when the technology
is so radically changing. And I do need the color accuracy.

It's a hard choice for people who don't require absolute color
accuracy. For most, especially if you do not play computer games
with fast moving objects, an LCD screen will probably prove to be more
enjoyable
viewing, and prices are such now that it may make sense to switch over
now if your old monitor is either becoming too old or too small for
your needs.

Assuming your monitor isn't drifting badly or so out of focus to make
your eyes tear trying to use it and you are stuck with color mission
critical, you might want to cope with your current monitor for another
year and see if the next generation of LCD monitors has better
resolved color accuracy issues.

Each new version of LCD seems to be improved, with better angle of
view, higher definition, higher speed and higher brightness and
contrast ratios.
Art
Click to expand...


I believe i did write that LCD's doesn't have as realistic photo as CRT's.
Regarding fast games, my (pretty old) NEC has 16ms refresh rate and i don't
see any shadows or similar even at fastest games. It is seen at LCD's with
bigger rate, like 25ms...
 
Jon said:
My post was, because I was commenting to your statement: "...your eyes
will thank you for the lack of flicker...".


Each individual LC pixel may be sharp but that's not necessarily a
good thing for graphic work. The Gaussian nature of a CRT image is
very effective at smoothing out 'jaggies' and makes a CRT the best
bet for graphic work - unless you can afford one of the newer >200ppi
LCDs, as used in displays such as IBM's Big Bertha.


Sorry, SleeperMan, but that's rubbish. No CRT currently on the market
(even the cheaper ones) have levels of non-visible radiation
sufficient to give you eye pain. Sitting too close to your CRT, or an
out of focus one, can cause eye strain* but that's a different thing.

* Being Gaussian (~blurred round the edges) in nature, a CRT image can
make the eyes 'hunt' for correct focus, constantly attempting to get
the sharpest image. This overuse strains the muscles used to focus
the eyes. The best way to avoid this is to use the largest,
highest-resolution monitor of the best quality you can afford and to
sit as far away from it as possible (at least 80-90cm).

If you work exclusively with text, then an LCD is ideal; if you do any
serious graphic work then a good CRT-based display is still the best
bet for most users. By the time you need to replace the good-quality
CRT you buy this year, however, that might not be the case.

Jon.
Click to expand...

Maybe eye pain does come because of lack of sharpness. But, all CRT's do
radiate, however i agree that newer (read expensive) have very little one.
But note that many people still buy expensive PC and cheapest CRT
available...and those CAN cause eye pain, since (i guess) they are still of
older technology.
End of all, my eyes did pain, whether of radiation of non-sharpness, no
matter...
 
Back
Top