up vote 6 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

I'm currently shopping for new monitors and wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions for good (especially non-TN) LCD monitors in the 22"-24" range. Currently, I am looking at:

  1. HP 2475w - 24", 1920x1200, S-IPS, $534
  2. Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP - 24", 1920x1200, S-PVA, $412
  3. Dell UltraSharp 2209WA - 22", 1680x1050, e-IPS, $300 (Reported price. I would buy two, but I can't find one anywhere.)

Any other suggestions?

link|improve this question

40% accept rate
2480 for effectively £247 rather than £420.. oh to live in the land of the free... – Alistair Knock Jul 31 '09 at 18:46
feedback

6 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

For professional photo editing, having accurate and consistent color across the whole monitor should be your main concern.

I have had several Dell UltraSharp monitors and have found them to have excellent color accuracy. The color/brightness remains consistent from corner to corner. I also find them very easy to profile and to adjust.

The UltraSharp monitors appear to be more expensive than the typical consumer, off-the-shelf monitor used for desktops and gaming. But, for photo and other graphic work, they are a really good bang for the buck.

link|improve this answer
feedback

Regardless of which monitor you buy, you need to also buy a tool to calibrate that monitor. It won't matter how high quality the monitor itself is if you don't take at least elementary steps toward color management.

There are several devices on the market that range in price from under $100 to "how deep are your pockets".

Personally, I have and use a Pantone Huey and am quite happy with it and its results. If you plan to have multiple monitors, you will need the PRO version of the Huey at a small additional cost.

At the original image capture end of the pipeline, it can also be valuable to have one or more color reference cards. I recommend the Whibal for a simple and durable certified neutral gray card with white and black patches, but there are plenty of alternatives. Another traditional choice is a ColorChecker card, which has 24 well-defined color patches.

link|improve this answer
Agreed, thanks for the links! – tghw Jul 29 '09 at 17:14
2  
+1: Calibration of a display will produce a better result than the technologies used to create the display. I wish I could upvote multiple times. – EvilChookie Oct 24 '09 at 16:43
I think calibration is highly overrated. The problem with calibration is that it only applies to 1 ambient lighting situation, and that software profiles are a real pain in your work flow. Eizo and Nec do very decent jobs in setting up calibrated sRGB or AdobeRGB profiles in their displays, and have an ambient light sensor that adjusts backlight illumination for best sRGB or AdobeRGB display possible. If you turn to default on these displays and set the display profiles to the working profiles, you can't do much wrong, and life is much easier. – bert Nov 8 '09 at 17:58
So either buy one of the mentioned screens, and a calibration device, and have a painful softproofing life with the setup, or spent the calibration device bucks on the screen and buy an Eizo 2431, a LaCie 324 or a Nec 2490 wuxi directly. – bert Nov 8 '09 at 17:59
feedback

I would recommend a 24 inch with a 1920x1200 resolution for sure. I can speak for the dell ultrasharp series being well made monitors. I have owned a couple now for the last few years and always been happy with them for the most part. The color profiles are easy to work with. Also, the support for them during the warrenty is very nice if you have an even minor problem with them.

I currently have the dell ultrasharp 2709w and it is one of the best monitors I have ever owned.

link|improve this answer
feedback

You don't need to look any further. Just buy the Dell 2409WFP.

You can thank Dell for really pushing the LCD market. Dell was the first company to make an affordable 20" LCD. The prices then halved a few years later.

link|improve this answer
feedback

The Eizo 2031 is currently on sale, and although it is 20 inch, it has the same resolution as the 22 inches. It is S-PVA and very accurate sRGB out of the box with ambient light adaption. It's around 300$ now and a no brainer for photo accuracy. The HP is an AdobeRGB gamut panel and is really hard to tame to sRGB spectrum, although it looks gorgeous, has a decent grey curve and great viewing angles. Best option would be the Eizo 2431, a Nec 2470 or 2490 or the LaCie 324, they have the same panel as the DELL 2408, but are easier to calibrate. If you can find them at a good price.... The HP LP2275W is an S-PVA, and slightly easier to calibrate than its bigger brother.

One of the big plusses of NEC, Eizo and LaCie screens are that they are calibrated to give very accurate sRGB/AdobeRGB display when set in the user mode that goes with it. By using an ambient light sensor, back lighting is adjusted to give the perfect sRGB/AdobeRGB display in any ambient light situation, whether it is sunlight or winter darkness.

It makes life much easier as you can set your computer in the working-space colour profile, instead of a monitor profile, which keeps the work flow very straightforward. You won't need to learn all nonsense about profiling and calibrating, you don't have to calibrate each month and it won't cost you anything on crap talk in bad colour-work-flow seminars. Just get back to work and do it the easy way!

So the dollars/euro's spent on a calibration device are spent better on upgrading to these 3 brands!

And don't worry about that last 1 or 2 delta-E in calibration. First it is splitting hairs compared to the fluctuation in ambient light, second your eyes are as subjective as a bad politician, and compensate for everything.

link|improve this answer
feedback

I just replaced my Sun 21" tube with the Dell 2409W, and would highly recommend it - I got it for $249 CDN with free shipping.

link|improve this answer
The Dell 2409W is not a serious option for photo editing. It has a TN panel and thus very unstable colours. It's also Full HD, thats 120 vertical pixels too few IMO. Go for 1920x1200 at least. – bert Nov 2 '09 at 8:41
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.