CRTs vs newer monitors for photos and images

[lunzhegu]

I am scanning 35mm photos with internet use as one important application among other more demanding uses. The hardware/software scanning package allows me to address three of four factors: scan quality, film type and condition, and printer profiles. The fourth factor is the monitor. A user can adjust his or her own monitor for fidelity to the original photo but not to the types of display the viewing audience will use, particularly with regard to the two significant adjustments for brightness and contrast.

I am using a moderately high-end CRT ($700 a dozen years ago). Flat-panel non-glare LCDs I've seen just aren't as clear. I haven't been able to see enough of the somewhat more expensive LED monitors to get a feeling for whether they're an improvement over LCDs or how they compare to a CRT. The CRT, however, does not seem to be quite as bright as the digital screens. For example, I've got the brightness set high, and I'm wondering whether I'm on the mark or whether I getting out of whack with the flat-panels on which most people will be see the images on the web. I'm not averse to buying a new and different monitor, but I don't know what will be the right fit of quality for my photo editing and brightness/contrast compatibility for the WWW audience.

Thanks for your attention.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

You have no control over the quality of your users monitors, so I would not even try. Besides, most users are accustomed to photos printing out differently than they appear onscreen.

 

[ssddx]

colors may appear differently depending on panel type, monitor settings, ambient light, characteristics of our eyes, etcetera. what you see is not what someone else would see.

all you can do is pick a happy medium and stick with it. if you truly are that worried create a few samples and have your www audience rate which one they think is best. whichever receives the highest rating.... use those settings for the future.

 

[best-gaming-monitor]

Have you looked into getting an IPS monitor? There are some really high end ones as well.

You should also get a colorimeter if you want color accuracy of your monitor. I use the Lacie Blue Eye Pro but I also recommend the Xrite i1Display.

I use both softwares to do my calibrations on the monitors I test. It's good stuff, check it out.

Andy H.

 

[hang-the-9]

If you like your monitor and not worried about the extra heat/space/power use, keep your CRT. Although if you need to keep it at max brightness it's probably on it's way out in a year or 2 anyway.

If you want a replacement, check on the Dell UltraSharp series, they have always gotten very good ratings.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2733-3174_7-580-7.html

Don't worry about those huge prices, you can find those monitor types for way less, even used on craigslist and such.

 

[lunzhegu]

Thanks for the replies.

I started a parallel thread on photo.net, fishing for something like a general feeling or people's experience that they may have been calibrating their images wrong, particularly with regard to brightness and contrast.

Everyone went through the acknowledgment that there is no way to actually know what the audience sees, but out of a few replies, there was something of a consensus that most non-photographers' monitors are set too bright, possibly because of the ambient brightness in which they are viewed (not even to mention mobile devices). It's my impression too that the backlit digital screens are brighter. CRTs, on the other hand, are acknowledged even on this forum to be sharper and better at dark tones and blacks.

I did not yet receive an answer to the question I asked to the pro photographers: Didn't anyone have an unpleasant moment or two looking at what he or she thought was a well-calibrated image on someone else's screen?

In my case, insofar as my CRT's brightness is already set high, I'm wondering if my stuff will look washed out or overexposed. I've cut back my brightness to the point where I still can look easily into the shadows to assess my scanner's performance. I will also look at my images on a sample of screens when I get the chances.

I would have imagined this situation would be a more widespread phenomenon than the limited public discussion would indicate. Hardware and software reviews go into great detail on how well the gear can accurately coordinate and calibrate the product among the scanner/camera, the monitor, and the printer. Within that circumscribed (and probably dimly lit) detting of image production, one can check one version of an image against the other. Now, however, we have a public display space with a random multiplicity of settings, mostly with boosted brightness.

 

[hang-the-9]

The high brightness and contrast most TVs and monitors are set to are there by default, which is why they are set higher than ideal. Most people just buy the thing and turn it on. Since the default from the vendor is set to be really bright, that's what they work with.

There was an article about software settings, dealing with MS Office specifically. In a survey they found that at least 80% left all the settings at defaults. Same thing happens with hardware. The only calibration you can really do on your end is to match the screen to the real image to a print-out. You can't even create an image that will print the same on every printer, a laser will look different than an inkjet that will look different if it has old ink or new ink, or whatever setting the user prints to, brand differ, many people use 3rd party ink that has cheap formulation and looks bad, paper printed on, etc...

You having fits over a nicely tuned image being looked at with a bad monitor is like a chef spending 2 hours cooking a perfect dish and serving it to a pre-school class. Nothing much you can do about it.

 

[lunzhegu]

One of the photographers on the other forum made a similar observation to the article you mention, i.e., that most people just use their monitor out of the box. The idea that the initial defaults are set to higher brightness -- and I certainly won't argue with that statement -- would indicate that manufacturers are anticipating the ambiance where their products will be used. (Like TV salesmen, they also use display samples with vivid colors and high contrast to demonstrate the capabilities of their products on big-box store shelves, and in that sense, the default brightness might be a legacy of the marketing.)

I would not compare asking questions and responding on an online forum to having fits, though. It is doing something to participate in discussions in order to see how far one's perceptions resonate, and I appreciate your comments.

This brightness issue is something to keep in mind. Just because one cannot control a variable doesn't mean one should not try to account for it. Specifically, as someone who has a new component in my configuration for preparing images for web viewing, I will be more active in seeking opportunities to view my images on various device screens, just as if I were preparing test prints.