Originally posted by nomadkng a monitor is only a tool and like all tools if the results are bad, then it's time for a replacement.
like putters, I go through 2-3 monitors a year because they can't seem to make my images look good and sell.
so I think you have the question backward, it should be "How does your processing affect your monitor?"
The answer, mine cowers in fear with each new SD card upload because it knows its inevitable fate....
Actually if the results are consistently bad, even after 2-3 monitors a year ( !!! ) then it's not the monitors it's something you are doing wrong. You'll never improve your image editing if you keep blaming it on the tools.
---------- Post added 28-07-14 at 07:05 ----------
Originally posted by Winder If you don't have a calibrated monitor then you are better off shooting JPEG. The color and brightness of your work will be way, way off.
When I moved to a 2560 × 1440 Resolution it was like getting a new pair of glasses. Anyone who is serious about editing will have at least 2560 × 1440 and calibrated.
Calibrated yes, but there's no need for such a resolution.
Quote: The big problem is that 99% of the people who view your images online won't have a color calibrated monitor and won't see the image the way you processed it. I was sitting in the office of an editor for a local publication and she was using some office supply store $200 monitor to review peoples work.
Yes there's a reason for this. A decent image will look great on anything. Publishers and record companies use cheap sound systems to audition music for a similar reasons