[UnknownVT]

I am contemplating getting an LCD monitor and could do with some advice please.

Relatively experienced in pp - and recently I've come across a problem with my old crt monitor - after doing some fairly drastic select area and bringing up brightness and contrast (old dodge and burn processing). I thought my image was fine (on my crt) - but others on this forum could see the processed selected area - these were on LCD monitors.

I have seen this problem before on a friend's overly bright - but premium LCD Mac monitor - and put it down to it being out of whack - but it seems it is becoming more prevalent - as LCD monitors generally are brighter and of higher contrast than my old fashioned crt.

This is the culprit photo -

The shadowed part of the face would appear as if has a lightened mask on it -
it was from my post-processing - select area and brighten to show more detail -
but obviously I cannot see the the problem on my CRT monitor, that I think high contrast LCD screen can.

Just out of interest are there any with LCD monitors who do NOT see that problem even when highlighted please?

ref: page 65 of Pentax High ISO Gallery - POST HERE
starting with post #967 where johnmflores pointed this problem out
two other people said they could see it too - no other responses
and zero response to me asking if anyone with LCD monitor could NOT see it.


So my question and dilemma is which LCD monitor to get so that I can see this kind of problem/incompatibility.

I've done some cursory research and understand "IPS" LCD panels have better gamuts - and ought to be better for post-processing.

BUT please bear with me -
it's not necessarily the "best" LCD monitor for processing that I want
- although that is obviously important -
much more important to me is the ability to see the issue as illustrated in my select area pp photo above. So that I can see any problems doing my selected/limited area dodge & burn processing, without it becoming visible on some monitors.

Thanks for any suggestions,

[XMACHINA]

I’ll start by offering a disclaimer: I’m no expert.

You seem to be laboring under a couple of misconceptions.

First, the fact that your selective photo processing is revealed when your images are viewed on a sufficiently bright monitor is not a defect of the monitor, it’s a flaw in your processing; the brighter monitor is only revealing how the processed area doesn’t match the original image. Here’s the most important thing you’ll read in this post: you must calibrate the monitor(s) on which you process your photos. And by “calibrate” I mean with the use of a colorimeter such as the i1 Display 2.

Secondly, IPS panels do not “have better gamuts”. IPS panels are backlit more evenly an thus produce more accurate color, and they allow accurate display of color at off-center viewing angles. “Color Gamut” is a different, but related, concept. A monitor with an IPS panel could display a color gamut that only encompasses the sRGB colorspace, or it may display the wider Adobe RGB colorspace (or even the wider ProPhoto RGB colorspace). If you choose a monitor that displays a wider color gamut your output, be it print or digital, should be in that gamut. The Internet and most consumer-level print services are using sRGB so it’s likely that’s the gamut that should be displayed by any monitor you use for post-processing.

There is no way to make an image appear the same way on every monitor. What you CAN do is make sure that the monitor you’re using is calibrated the way you want it to be. If your monitor is calibrated, it should print with dark areas, like the one in your example, being sufficiently dark so that your selective processing isn’t visible. But you can’t guarantee that someone with brighter monitor settings won’t be able to see the processed area.

-XM

[UnknownVT]

You seem to be laboring under a couple of misconceptions.

Secondly, IPS panels do not “have better gamuts”. IPS panels are backlit more evenly an thus produce more accurate color, and they allow accurate display of color at off-center viewing angles. “Color Gamut” is a different, but related, concept. A monitor with an IPS panel could display a color gamut that only encompasses the sRGB colorspace, or it may display the wider Adobe RGB colorspace (or even the wider ProPhoto RGB colorspace). If you choose a monitor that displays a wider color gamut your output, be it print or digital, should be in that gamut. The Internet and most consumer-level print services are using sRGB so it’s likely that’s the gamut that should be displayed by any monitor you use for post-processing.

Thank you very much for your response - I really appreciate it -
please let me address my two apparent misconceptions -

Wider gamut came from About.com
LCD Monitors and Color Gamuts - PC Hardware / Reviews - About.com

The average computer monitor will display around 70 to 75% of the NTSC color gamut. This is fine for most people as they are used to the color they have seen over the years from television and video sources. (72% of NTSC is roughly equivalent to 100% of the sRGB color gamut.) The CRTs used in most televisions and color monitors also produced roughly a 70% color gamut.

Those that are looking to use a display for graphical work for either a hobby or profession will probably want something that has a greater range of color. This is where many of the newer high color or wide gamut displays have come into play. In order for a display to be listed as a wide gamut, it generally needs to produce at least a 92% NTSC color gamut.

An LCD monitor's backlight is the key factor in determining its overall color gamut. The most common backlight used in an LCD is a CCFL (Cold-Cathode Fluorescent Light). These can generally produce around the 75% NTSC color gamut. Improved CCFL lights can be used to generate roughly 100% NTSC. Newer white LED backlighting has been able to actually generate greater than 100% NTSC color gamuts.

But I really do take your point since I want my photos to display in the most common sRGB - I ought to work in sRGB and the typical monitor gamut is probably adequate

The advice on calibrated monitors was valuable:

First, the fact that your selective photo processing is revealed when your images are viewed on a sufficiently bright monitor is not a defect of the monitor, it’s a flaw in your processing; the brighter monitor is only revealing how the processed area doesn’t match the original image. Here’s the most important thing you’ll read in this post: you must calibrate the monitor(s) on which you process your photos. And by “calibrate” I mean with the use of a colorimeter such as the i1 Display 2.

First I should be able to use X-Rite i1Display Pro and calibrate my existing crt monitor.

However - before spending the money to do that -
I simply tried adjusting the manual controls on my crt monitor -
and I could not get my crt monitor to reveal that post processing no matter what settings (including max brightness and max contrast) -
that can be seen on some LCD monitors
and I just saw it quite plainly on my friend's overly bright LCD Mac monitor, tonight.

So I actually do not think my crt is physically capable of revealing that post processing problem - even if I calibrated it with i1Display.

So although I fully agree monitor calibration is important - I do not think calibrating my crt monitor can show me that particular problem - that a typical LCD monitor can see. (I think it's because my crt just cannot be set bright enough with high enough contrast)

BTW - I had calibrated my monitor to match my prints on my Epson Photo printer - albeit manually by matching gamma and using graduated wedges - I fully recognize that may not be as accurate as using a screen reading system - but my prints do match my screen display visually.

But the point I am trying to make is that although I can calibrate my crt monitor -
the crt monitor itself is not capable of displaying the post processing problem - that I think LCD monitors can see
probably because of the higher brightness and contrast intrinsic to LCD panels.

and as you say:

There is no way to make an image appear the same way on every monitor. What you CAN do is make sure that the monitor you’re using is calibrated the way you want it to be. If your monitor is calibrated, it should print with dark areas, like the one in your example, being sufficiently dark so that your selective processing isn’t visible. But you can’t guarantee that someone with brighter monitor settings won’t be able to see the processed area.

However I think I have to have a monitor that can be adjusted so that I can see these types of pp problems -
albeit - when adjusted to view the possible problems -
the monitor would then be completely out of calibration -
this shows that calibration - although important -
cannot the main cause of the problem.

Thanks for your input

[cats_five]

IPS panels are the business for photo editing, and at last some which are a reasonable price have appeared - Viewsonic have one, for example, and I have even come across a monster one for under £500 including tax!

Viewsonic Pro Series
Hazro Technologies | Clarity Defined | The Home of IPS Monitors


And yes, I can see the edge of your mask in the image above using a hardward calibrated IPS monitor that adapts it's brightness to the ambient lighting. Despite being calibrated my monitor probably isn't showing the differences between dark areas quite as well as it could - certainly it doesn't show the dark areas in the PhotoFriday check well:

Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool

I suspect your monitor will far worse than mine...

[UnknownVT]

IPS panels are the business for photo editing, and at last some which are a reasonable price have appeared

Yes, a recommended IPS LCD monitor for photo work is
HP LP2275w 22-inch Widescreen LCD Monitor (specifications)

there is also now a higher fullHD resolution at a lower price -
HP ZR22w 21.5-inch S-IPS LCD Monitor (specifications)

I have also seen a fairly low priced FullHD IPS monitor from LG:
LG IPS226V-PN

And yes, I can see the edge of your mask in the image above using a hardward calibrated IPS monitor that adapts it's brightness to the ambient lighting.

Many thanks for that confirmation - on my friend's overly bright but premium LCD Mac monitor the pp looks absolutely atrocious - and there was no way I would have posted it if I saw that - and as I said above - I max'ed out both the brightness and contrast setting on my crt monitor and still could not see it.

So it looks like I am in the market for an LCD monitor that can be adjusted to see that problem - the adjustment may well put the monitor way out of calibration - but I am currently more concerned about making sure my photos with more drastic select area processing will not show the type of problem as above - it is not to do with calibration per se - but not being able to set my current crt monitor to be bright or high enough contrast to reveal the "problem" - it probably isn't well calibrated monitors I would have to be concerned about - it probably is when monitors are set too bright or too contrasty.

As XMACHINA has said:

But you can’t guarantee that someone with brighter monitor settings won’t be able to see the processed area.

So really I need a monitor that can adjusted to see that kind of a problem and do what I can to minimize it or change my pp method......

Despite being calibrated my monitor probably isn't showing the differences between dark areas quite as well as it could - certainly it doesn't show the dark areas in the PhotoFriday check well:
Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool
I suspect your monitor will far worse than mine...

Ha, ha! I also use the Photo Friday Monitor check page - and just now - using that page - surprisingly I can definitely see the steps on the XYZ bright steps on the right side of the screen - at first I thought I could not see the ABC dark steps on the left - even though I thought I could see the difference between B and C on the graduated scale - that is until I read the hint and went F11 to full screen - then turned my room light off then lo-and behold I could see the difference between A & B even -
so despite being an olde fashion crt monitor I really do think it is fairly well adjusted - for a crt monitor -

I really do think it is the basic intrinsic characteristic of the LCD panels that are higher brightness and higher contrast that is more revealing of my more drastic selective area processing.

I don't think any amount of calibration of my current crt monitor can reveal that (as I said the Photo Friday calibration page just showed my monitor is probably pretty well adjusted) - that is why I am considering the acquisition of an LCD monitor.

thanks for the very useful input - I really appreciate it.

[timh]

Short-term fix: Use the graphics card advanced settings (how to get there depends on OS & version) to temporarily turn up the brightness/gamma more than your monitor will allow you to. That way you'll get an idea of how your images look on an LCD panel while retaining the ability to switch back very quickly to your properly calibrated settings.

(Edit: If your screen looks the same as your prints, that's really the most important thing. I don't think you need to switch your primary monitor to a high-end LCD just to make sure stuff looks right on other people's crappy monitors; you could just buy a cheap 17" LCD to use as a secondary display, and check everything looks OK with that.)

[cats_five]

I'm surprised your olde CRT monitor won't go bright enough to show the problem. Maybe the real problem is that it's olde.

[PhilippeG]

I'm surprised your olde CRT monitor won't go bright enough to show the problem. Maybe the real problem is that it's olde.

CRTs tend to become darker with time, to the point the can't reach the minimum luminosity you need. I got rid of my dual CRT displays when that happened to me, and won't look back. IPS panels are the way to go for graphics or photography.

[UnknownVT]

Short-term fix: Use the graphics card advanced settings (how to get there depends on OS & version) to temporarily turn up the brightness/gamma more than your monitor will allow you to. That way you'll get an idea of how your images look on an LCD panel while retaining the ability to switch back very quickly to your properly calibrated settings.

(Edit: If your screen looks the same as your prints, that's really the most important thing. I don't think you need to switch your primary monitor to a high-end LCD just to make sure stuff looks right on other people's crappy monitors; you could just buy a cheap 17" LCD to use as a secondary display, and check everything looks OK with that.)

Now that was some rather unexpected advice - THANK YOU!

I think my screen gamma is a higher than normal around 2.3-2.4 from the recommended 2.2 for PC screens (used this check page) - but I will investigate to see if I can set the graphics card advance settings (motherboard graphics - NVIDIA GeForce 6100 - PC Wizard shows it is capable of gamma ramp - so I need to figure out how).

The cheap LCD is also good advice - although as I see on the later posts about crt gradually losing brightness - may well be another factor to actually replace my olde crt monitor with a (hopefully) better LCD monitor anyway.

You are quite right if my monitor matches my prints - that's really all I ought to need.
(My crt monitor does "pass" the full Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool - where I can actually see/discern the darkest differences ABC)

But since I actually post a lot on the web - other monitors do come into the equation - and over just the last year I have become more aware of the differences between what I see and what other may see on their LCD monitors - although I would like to d*mn the torpedoes - and just say my monitor is fine/adjusted for my printer - my posted results may look cr*p on a regular LCD monitor - and I post far more than I print.

But thank you very much for the input and putting things back into perspective.
Very much appreciated.

[UnknownVT]

I'm surprised your olde CRT monitor won't go bright enough to show the problem. Maybe the real problem is that it's olde.

Me too - especially since I can do the full Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool and actually able to see the differences on the darkest wedges AB&C.

CRTs tend to become darker with time, to the point the can't reach the minimum luminosity you need. I got rid of my dual CRT displays when that happened to me, and won't look back. IPS panels are the way to go for graphics or photography.

Yes this is something - however with my brightness and contrast max'ed - the screen is UNcomfortable to look at (and even then I still cannot see that select area pp problem!), and using several calibration pages (yes I know it is not automated like the i1Display or the Spyders) but I can set the calibration to pass all the tests (except my gamma is higher than normal at about 2.3-2.4 by eye deviated from the standard 2.2 for pc monitors - that probably shows my screen may be a shade darker than the supposed normal)

Nevertheless from my own reasoning above I think I still need to get an LCD monitor - whether I need an IPS - or one that uses LED back-lighting may be down to economics and what I may be able to tolerate.

As I said my monitor does match my prints visually (and I have been pretty @nal about this).

Thanks for all the input so far - you guys have really made me think more and do more research on this - all these are very good things.

Thank you.

[UnknownVT]

(except my gamma is higher than normal at about 2.3-2.4 by eye deviated from the standard 2.2 for pc monitors - that probably shows my screen may be a shade darker than the supposed normal)

Thanks to this discussion and re-thinking my slightly off gamma bothered me -
doing some more cursory research I came across this - which hopefully may interest others -

QuickGamma

" QuickGamma is a small utility program to calibrate a monitor on the fly without having to buy expensive hardware tools. "

it took me mere seconds to adjust my gamma to the standard 2.2 (after reading the fairly simple instructions) - (double checked with this gamma check page)

I was so impressed, that I thought I'd post this find, and hope it is useful to others.

(Oh, and BTW - I still canNOT see my selected area pp problem - this shows that although monitor calibration is important for pp - it still cannot reveal that problem - I believe it's just the different characteristics of the crt monitor I have and the now more prevalent LCD monitors)

EDIT to ADD - since I can use QuickGamma to set my crt monitor to any gamma in the range of the QuickGamma utility - I set my screen gamma to 1.8 which is brighter than normal 2.2 to check - and I still cannot see the select area pp problem - of course, I have now set the gamma back to 2.2 - since it is so easy to do.

[timh]

Now that was some rather unexpected advice - THANK YOU!

I think my screen gamma is a higher than normal already though - around 2.3-2.4 from the recommended 2.2 for PC screens (used this check page) - but I will investigate to see if I can set the graphics card advance settings (motherboard graphics - NVIDIA GeForce 6100 - PC Wizard shows it is capable of gamma ramp - so I need to figure out how).

The cheap LCD is also good advice - although as I see on the later posts about crt gradually losing brightness - may well be another factor to actually replace my olde crt monitor with a (hopefully) better LCD monitor anyway.

Glad I'm of some help!

If you're running Windows 7 (or maybe Vista) try going to
Control Panel > Adjust Screen Resolution > right-click on monitor image > Properties
...then there might be a tab called "Advanced" or something with "Nvidia" in. Then generally there's a way into the video card manufacturer's settings panel, with all kinds of stuff to fiddle with regarding screen rotation, 3D acceleration, colour/brightness, etc.

I think the problem you're experiencing is related to the black-level of most LCD panels being significantly brighter than black, so even if the gamma curves are equal your CRT is starting from actual black and the LCDs are starting from dark grey.

You really just need a way to ensure your post processing isn't leaving patches of differing brightness, and temporarily boosting brightness will do that (as would adding a brightness adjustment layer to the top of the stack in photoshop, if you happen to be working in photoshop).

[UnknownVT]

Glad I'm of some help!

If you're running Windows 7 (or maybe Vista) try going to
Control Panel > Adjust Screen Resolution > right-click on monitor image > Properties
...then there might be a tab called "Advanced" or something with "Nvidia" in. Then generally there's a way into the video card manufacturer's settings panel, with all kinds of stuff to fiddle with regarding screen rotation, 3D acceleration, colour/brightness, etc.

I think the problem you're experiencing is related to the black-level of most LCD panels being significantly brighter than black, so even if the gamma curves are equal your CRT is starting from actual black and the LCDs are starting from dark grey.

You really just need a way to ensure your post processing isn't leaving patches of differing brightness, and temporarily boosting brightness will do that (as would adding a brightness adjustment layer to the top of the stack in photoshop, if you happen to be working in photoshop).

Yep that's about right again - thanks for the valuable tips - BUT unfortunately my crt monitor cannot be adjusted to reveal the very obvious and atrocious pp problem seems like no matter what the settings - I used your hint and was able to access the nVidia panel and the GeForce settings - even with things max'ed out - as in



I still canNOT see the select area pp problems - when it was just so obvious on an LCD monitor - I think you are right in the basic intrinsic differences between CRT & LCD.

So this really means to be able to see that kind of a problem -
I have to have access to an LCD monitor.......

BTW I hope you saw the QuickGamma I posted a bit earlier -
that allowed me to easily set my screen gamma to 2.2, with some confidence.
(I even tried gamma = 1.8 - to check if I could see the problem - and I still could not)

[timh]

Wow.. That's surprising! Whenever I max one of those things out the screen goes so white I can hardly see where to click anymore. I don't suppose there are more brightness/gamma sliders in the "Color Correction" section?

I saw the QuickGamma thing but, as you said, that didn't seem to help either.

If you can open a PSD, can you see the artifact in this?

[cats_five]

Yes - it's far far clearer, and the whole image is far too light which isn't surprising since there is nothing at the left-hand end of the histrogram. It's far better if I hide the brightness/contrast layer - maybe that was there just to make it clear what we need to look at? NB the edit is still visible, especially if I zoom right in when it's glaringly obvious.

BTW CRTs don't start from black - what colour is the screen when they are turned off? Yes, darkish grey. Not black.