Get Back To Each Other On Your Monitor Types And The Art

I recently bought a new Dell 24" monitor.( I have to consider what will fit on my desk) I always had the rather square Dell monitors which I was accustomed to, but since getting the widescreen, I have had to make many adjustments to the layouts on several websites, including the premium site and FAA. So now I am seeing things the way most others do. Finally!

I have begun to look at other profiles here. Amazing. Quite the eyeopener.

As the public fully moves to 4K many of you will have a totally new second life out there.

My work looks best printed out. Preferably large prints. No monitor can give it justice. You have to order a nice large print to see the quality.

Jessica,

I had just looked at your profile thinking of how all your colors would look in 4K. They now remind me of some sort of Wizard of Oz. I do not know how to put it. It is very positive but very different.

Ed,

Get on topic. The monitors are part of the point of sale. We are discussing monitor qualities towards point of sale.

If you do not want to be on topic please leave the thread.

David, can you explain 4K? How does one know if a monitor is 4k?

Jessica,

1080p is the main larger older standard. One of the earlier standards was 720p which is smaller obviously.

1080p refers to a display that has 1,920 pixels arrayed horizontally and 1,080 pixels arrayed vertically. ... The 1,080 pixels are arranged in rows or lines that go from top to bottom. 1,080 (which is referred to as the horizontal resolution) is where the 1080 part of the term 1080p comes from.Nov 6, 2020

A 4K display is one with at least 8 million active pixels. For televisions, that resolution has standardized to 3,840 by 2,160. ... However you define it, it's four times the number of pixels on a 1080p display, and over 23 times the resolution of standard definition television.

What happens as you double the 1080p it is like raising it to the 2 or multiplying by 4. There are four areas of the screen with 1080p going vertically and 1920 going horizontally. Four rectangles or simply put four squares of 1080p becomes 4K.

If you have the manual or if you have the box or if you google the model you will find out.

I'm not pursuing 4k anything. If my next laptop a few years from now supports it, great. Otherwise I use my 1080p laptop 98% of the time. My monitor which I use mostly for working from home, is a fairly inexpensive ViewSonic. It was about $200 and when I do view images on it, they look great. My TV was purchased in 2009 and I have zero reason to replace it. I'm just not one to chase after the latest and greatest. Like Edward, I prefer to view my work printed.

All that said, David make sure your monitor is not in some sort of Sports or Cinema mode. There is also a "demo" mode which artificially enhances colors. It's a sales trick to make it look really cool when on display in the store. A properly calibrated monitor, no matter what resolution, should show similar colors. Pantone is Pantone no matter how it's displayed. What 4k does for you is increase the clarity.

I have a 27" AOC flat widescreen monitor, with a matte ("anti-glare" they say) finish screen. I find working on images on a reflective screen distracting. It's 1920x1080 max resolution. Brightness/contrast levels and color fidelity are phenomenal. This model is not available now (mine's 6-7 years old), but the AOC brand is top-notch.

Chuck,

The monitor is in standard mode. The monitor is bought online from Dell meaning there is no show room mode. I did double check. Thanks for the idea of looking.

The topic is not the expense. But I will say the cost has come way down. The topic is not prints obviously.

Jeffrey,

I was working on an Asus Pro 24" Graphics Monitor. I thought it was excellent. Also about 7 years old.

I was somewhat wrong.

adding side note under contact your premium site is not secured with https or ssl. I can not get to it.

We have the BenQ 32” 4K monitor, it is beautiful.

Steve,

Wow, your images are exploding. I totally agree with you.

In my case my images become much clearer and much more beautiful as an aesthetic.

I know monitors make a huge difference in how my work looks...years ago my Hubby bought me a fancy widescreen monitor....I started creating on it and noticed I was getting no comments and no interest in my newer work. I then asked my best friend to look at my new work on her computer and her laptop. She said they looked horrible. They looked amazing on the new monitor. But I asked Facebook friends to look and report back. My new work looked like utter crap. We tried all kinds of adjustments recommended by techy friends and online pros. No go. So I went right back to my trusted Dell monitor and I was creating magic again. I still use that monitor to create ALL of my art. It is 18 years old...LOL I am so fearful it will die. Once it didn't light up and I panicked...tried everything. Started looking for a used one. Then I smacked it on the right side and it came ablaze....whew!

Abbie,

Note to Sean, the premium websites are not fully engaging the potential of larger sized monitors.

Thank you, David Bridburg, about the pixels site. I can get right to it. But I did see that I had changed it to jeffreyclarefineart but just switched it back to jeffrey-clare.pixels.com.
There is another jeffrey clare here or there was at one time months ago.

Sharon,

That was years ago. I have no idea how or what that new at the time monitor was or the quality.

Your designs are not taking advantage of my 4K. Just the thumbnails are larger. Your work is very very good as usual.

Sharon Cummings, I also had a monitor that needed a slap every so often. It worked like that for a few years and one day it just couldn't be revived with monitor CPR any more. I have two PCs in use with my AOC monitor, and the new Acer PC I just upgraded to Win11. The Lenovo I work on (this one right now) is still on Win10 and I may keep it there because images on the new Acer PC with Win11 look horrible. Color fidelity is way off.

David,

I've got 2-27" monitors, one the HP Pavillion 27XW, is my working monitor, Photoshop stuff on that one and then the other one, ASUS, usually has Bridge on it.

27-inch Full HD monitor (1920 x 1080p @ 60 Hz) with 16:9 aspect ratio and an anti-glare matte IPS LED-backlit panel

ASUS VP279HE 27” Monitor, 1080P Full HD, 75Hz, IPS, Adaptive-Sync/FreeSync, Eye Care, HDMI VGA, Frameless, Low Blue Light, Flicker Free,

The ASUS is fine, but not quite up to the HP, for $169. And the HP is now under $300, but bought it from a tip from Dan Carmichael for under $150! How much was your new monitor? Why is it any better, for practical needs? I think this falls into the "Pixel Peepers" box.....

Rich

I am using a 9 year old Dell Ultrasharp 24 inch monitor, never calibrated since the day I installed it!!

I occasionally do a search on FAA that includes one or more of my own images to check how my images look compared to the competition. Obviously, there are multiple variables that impact on this, like camera equipment, image editing skills, and of course monitor quality, but generally, my images seem to look reasonable compared to other photographers work.

If anyone would like to provide feedback on image quality from my portfolio (colour, contrast, sharpness etc) using their super duper latest high tech monitor, I would welcome your comments. I will probably be buying a new desktop PC in a few months time (current one is also 9 years old), so might be a good time to think if a new high(er) quality monitor would also be a good idea.

Edward,

ALL IMAGES look better on the screen, compared to prints, with the light coming from behind, evenly lit, compared to a print, with light only from the front and not perfectly lit, shadows/highlights never as good as on a monitor....

Rich

3 x 24" iiyama 1920x1080. I can have Lightroom and Photoshop and Chrome etc etc running simultaneously and in-view, 'cept I put all of Photoshop's panels on the rightmost monitor. Have dabbled with getting at least one 4k monitor, so when I've collected a few pennies together I might treat myself.

Rich,

Your images look better to a degree. The resolution is better obviously with the 4K. The image color quality is better as well, but that is just my prior monitor to this monitor. Yet better resolution should improve color a tad.

The topic is not print sales in this thread.

There are photographers who get incredible results on the 4K compared to the 1080p. Part of that is designing for a larger screen and larger thumbnails. Part of that is the resolution quality. It is much better.

Philip,

The greater resolution on your images is very enhancing.

Jack,

I am not sure of some of the things you have. Meaning the AI is a limited number of pixels. Made no real different.

Some of your other work POSSIBLY on a cellphone or lower number of pixels? I do not fully know. The quality is problematic.

To everyone else,

I would like Sebastian on board, he is an engineer. I have to say my hardware configuration is much higher quality. It is not just the monitor. The graphic card and the cable bandwidth play an important role.

In my opinion it is worthwhile upgrading your systems over time. You knew that already.

People running more than 8 bit monitors and graphic cards get a big visual treat.

Listen, I think we went off topic by a mile now, the only thing that I was not agreeing with was the statement about the images on FAA looking much better just because your old monitor was HD vs the new one 4K.

The images here are in fact all in 900px size and stored as 8 bit JPGs because this is what we are uploading to FAA. I think your old monitor was unfortunately not a very high quality display that could have issue displaying whole gamut of colors. The newer high quality monitors which are either 4K or still HD will not have any banding issues that you have described at some point. Maybe this is the whole reason you are seeing the big difference.

For everything else that you are editing on your own computer where you have access to a file that is full resolution and more than 8 bit (not a JPG), I'm sure that your monitor make s a lot of difference.

Just to add, the video that you have linked to not once mentions 4K or 1080 HD. This is what your original post states.

I got all of that.

BH in that video seems to be saying with the transmission of a JPEG things that were done in 10 bit prior and get shown in 10 bit afterwards can have a higher quality than just an 8 bit process all the way through.

You are sticking with the JPEG is only 8 bit. BH sees that differently. There are inherently some slightly different qualities to images in a JPEG.

I will give you a for instance, a cheap cell phone image in a JPEG is not nearly as good as a 10 bit processed image then saved as a JPEG. It is clearer when I state it that way.

I get you are disagreeing with me. But have you seen the BH video. Yes the first minutes are a rehash for you. Most of it is. But hang in there with it. If you have not seen it.

Just to add, the video that you have linked to not once mentions 4K or 1080 HD. This is what your original post states.

True and I am learning from this exchange.

We both know these are dynamics. The higher quality 4K monitors generally offer more potentially more quality. If you shoot on a cheaper older cellphone we have little to work with or see. If you are looking at an 8 bit image on a 1080p monitor I am beginning to get there will be more dithering by the monitor and graphic card.

BTW I fully meant to leave the observations as open ended. I did not come into this having the answers. I just had begun to look around and the qualities of things had changed.

Really my big mistake was assuming this was premised on resolution. There are other technical issues in play.

For everyone here,

The biggest take away for all of us is that editing in 10 bit or higher makes a lot more sense than editing in 8 bit.

10 bit or higher is much more versatile. The costs have come down somewhat. But getting a good graphic card is a nightmare.

I have seen this video couple times already. Lets get something straight, it is very much focused on video, which has its own rules. It is not focused on photography or image reproduction, which is not quite the same. I'm not a video editing expert, but I know a lot about photography. It does not matter what I'm sticking with JPGs being 8 bit, they are 8 bit, please show me an example of a JPG that is more than an 8 bit besides the article from 2014? Where does the BH video claims that they are JPGs that are more than 8 bit? This is the reason why most people that do any editing of their images tend to shoot RAW, there is more data to edit with. Again, the BH video raves about 10 bit video, again not a JPG. My RAW files produced by my Nikon D850 are14 bit.

All your image that are from museums that you are working with for your art, if they are JPGs, they are all 8 bit.

Now we are diverting even farther from the statement that I was not agreeing with, that somehow the resolution of your new monitor is responsible for images on FAA to look better.

How does it matter how the image was obtained? You said that the same images look better now on FAA and you said because your monitor is 4K and this is not the case. Obviously the images that you looked at before and now were still taken with the same camera, and edited the same way, there were not processed any different before and now. The monitor that is using the same type of a panel technology, just 4K vs 1080 HD will not make a different.

Again, I think that your old monitor was just very poor quality, and the resolution was not it's limiting factor.

If you want to continue this discussion you can PM me, I think we have bored most of the people already. Again, congrats on your new purchase, I'm sure your work looks lovely on your new monitor.

Sorry, just saw your last set of answers, yes, I think we are on the same page now, more or less :)

My production is turning to animations. That is the goal of buying the equipment and my studies towards editing videos.

The end results discussed here on this thread for me are just sampling the quality. I am learning here. Photography is not my goal though.

Have a good night. It is getting late here.

Adding it was not so much the monitor was bad, the limited older standard HDMI capabilities did not help, and the built into the Intel CPU graphic handling sucked. The monitor never had a chance. The big reason for the new monitor was to get the newer HDMI standard for video editing.

I was gonna skip this one but wanted to chime in and say Sebastian has nailed it here and add one thing.

Lossless and high bit depth (as in real high) JPEGs do exist in the form of JPEG2000 which you can utilize right instead your photoshop and many other post-production tools today.

Who uses that standard? You will be surprised…

https://comprimato.com/blog/2016/12/15/8-fields-can-find-jpeg2000-compression/

Do they all use it…of course not.

Ok…

So I am not off topic here —-> I have had the same three monitors on my desk for the last 6 or 7 years and the oldest is a very old 22” AdobeRGB monitor that runs at a resolution between 720p and 1080p. I bought it in like 2002 or so (an HP when very few AdobeRGB monitors were available back then) and it’s still running today. Yes I’ve got most of the color snd brightness tweaks pegged to get it calibrated anywhere near perfect.

Second panel is a 40 inch higher-end Sony 1080P that’s gotta be over 12 years old and it runs like it did when it was new.

Center panel is a 27 inch sRGB hardware calibrated wqhd screen.

I’ll switch the 22” or 27” to 4K next but since I don’t do video professionally I have not needed it.

@DB —> FWIW I’m not doing the video nft thing. I’m doing trading card style and some with a little wiggle and I also have a plan for creating animation that I don’t need to edit or render in a traditional sense. Don’t ask me to explain it. 😉

Anyway…plenty of ways to skin a cat and some of my best stuff was done on a 2002 or so 5MP prosumer camera (the best out there at the time —> AdobeRGB, RAW, Very low compression JPGs, 28-200 f2.8 Minolta G fixed lens) and the cheapest damn 15 or 17 inch monitor I could find. Memory cards and hard drives were pretty damn expensive back then if u we’re doing shoots of 1-2k images on the regular. 🙃

So many other factors go into the creative process it’s hard for me to put an overwhelming amount of weight on one particular aspect.

I do have a big 4K in my living room as well as a 32” 720p picture frame. Projector is 1080p but not not gonna do much on it. Pictures look big at 120” in the back yard though.

Cheers

I suggest buying a calibrator (Calibrite ColorChecker Display or Datacolor SpyderX Pro, 120/150$) and setting the monitor at 6500°K (temperature), 120 cd/m2 (brightness) and 2.2 (gamma).

Beyond the quality of the monitor, it is important that it is well calibrated. Too often I see photographs that are too warm or too cold in colors.

6500°K usually is the standard with which all devices (Monitors, Smartphones, TVs) are usually calibrated in the factory. With this standard, all other users should see photos with this color temperature.

For printing purposes you should set the monitor much closer to a paper temperature (often 5000K or 5500K) and a brightness of 80/90 cd/m2, but here things get more complicated and therefore better follow the standard 6500°K / 120 if you are a beginner.

@David: don't get confused. There is no 10-bit editing. The editing (for example with Photoshop) is 16 bit or 8 bit (I recommend 16 bit to avoid artifacts). Viewing 8 or 10 bit monitors is another matter and depends on the monitor, the type of cable and the video card. The 10-bit vision (with a good monitor that supports them, a displayport or hdmi cable (not VGA / DVI) and a supported video card makes you see more shades of tones on the screen (for example you don't see posterizations), but the file it does not change.

If you want to test if your monitor supports 10 bits open this file with Photoshop - http://www.wazer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/test-10-bit.zip-

You shouldn't see vertical bands.

Sometimes it happens that one has a 10bit monitor but has not activated the function (on Photoshop and on Windows through the video card).

I am a professional photographer and I have been working for many years with Eizo CS2731 monitor (for me the best choice) and a second Dell U2722D monitor.

Stefano

Stefano, Your link does not open for me.

Deborah, remove the "-" from the end of the link.

https://www.wazer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/test-10-bit.zip

Sebastian, thank you for the help with opening the file. When I look at it in PS I see a very slight darkness starting on the left growing lighter as I move to the right, but not banding.

Sorry Deborah and thanks Sebastian.

This is the website link: https://www.wazer.eu/10-bit/ ... it's in Italian, look for a translator ;)

Thanks a lot Stefano! I just tested my setup with your file and it had banding. I checked online how to enable 10-bit support in both windows 10 and photoshop and banding is gone. Always learning something new!

if you see any vertical lines, stripes, you see banding, no 10 bit. If you don't see any vertical lines you should be set up correctly.

Stefano, Sebastian and Don,

Thanks. I am always game for learning the technical no matter how unfamiliar it is at first.

My Affinity Photo was on 16 bit. I need a few images made by me for my animations. The few images I create in this will be ultra simple.

I am using Blender to make animations. Other dynamics come into play. Setting it to 16 bit is either much deeper in or not offered. The demands on the system are much greater than photography. The reason I upgraded the hardware. Even if I could go to 16 bit these are cartoon animations and the demands on the system would slow things massively.

The monitor and graphic card were both set to 10 bit color depth out of the box. Or the AMD FreeSync automatically set them. Good to have a better comprehension of that and make sure the settings were in place.

Messing with AMD settings can turn things on and off in confusing ways. I do not need to tamper I wont.

I will say I found in the settings my video settings profile was turned off out of the box. I turned it on and left it on default. This is for the AMD 6600XT.

For others to see your monitor and graphic card settings right click on your screen and click on the appropriate buttons.

Stephano the test does not support RX 6000 as far as I can see.

I have appointments mid day. I need to make an exit till later this afternoon.

I hope I am not off-topic in mentioning this website of monitor calibration test images. I came across it last year when I was monitor shopping.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

Deborah,

If you right click on the screen you can get to monitor and graphic card settings.

I wrote this above in a larger discussion. Not wanting it to get lost I am reiterating it.

...

Don,

It turns out that I got $3.19 off the monitor from Dell. Dell's sale was understated by me in a cursory way as $200 off, it was actually $220. I looked again.

Honey which is owned by PayPal had that c'mon add for $52 and change in a rebate. The $3.19 off from Dell showed up immediately. I was very disappointed. But as of this morning the PayPal/Honey offer was honored after all. I have a few other Honey coins and got back just over $57 in cash to my PayPal account.

Bringing my total on the monitor down around $285. A total steal. The only thing missing is the DisplayPort 1.2 is not version 1.4, but I discovered DP does not have a channel for sound. Odd as heck that. So it is HDMI 2.1.

It would be interesting to know what kind of monitors our shoppers are using. I know we can't get that, but it's probably 50% of what influences what people buy. We can sweat about our own screens and the degree of perfection, but the lowest common denominator, the $70 screen from the office supply store is half of the equation. I have one of those on a utilitarian computer in the basement and often compare my calibrated Mac with the junk screen. It's amazing how different they can be.

Younger folks gaming or well paid office workers at home or even back in the office are using newer better monitors.

I think some of that data is available on Google Analytics.

That makes the heart of this understanding image quality better for any buyer to enjoy.

Doug,

My educated guess, is that MOST of the buyers don't use a calibrated screen to order our art! MOST, if not all. When out shopping or in a Mall, hardly see anybody carrying large monitors.....LOL! MAJORITY ordered off of smartphones, then tablets, laptops and finally monitors, in that order.

The importance of our good monitors is that the file uploaded is as accurate as possible, REGARDLESS how it's seen on any tiny screen. Once delivered, will look perfect to them and their "visual" memory won't remember the slight red/blue/green cast they saw and ordered won't matter....

Rich

Rich - When I started this, I ordered a couple of prints and mugs to see what they looked like. Since then, I've kept my screens adjusted to the products so, for the most part, at least there's no surprises about how they look to me. Fortunately, the prints are very close to the default settings on my MacPro laptop, so I used that as the reference. For a significant number of my images, the colors are NOT accurate at all, because I liked the divergence from reality. They are my best sellers, so I'd like to be able to have a predictable divergence from realism. I want to know when I just jacked up that yellow sky.

Doug,

Well seems you've done a LOT more than most here to verify the color/quality of what we get vs what we see....

Rich