«

I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an 8ms
response time and 350 nits brightness. Despite multiple attempts at
adjusting brightness, contrast, and color settings, the screen always
seemed washed out and it was like staring into a cars headlights. So, I
returned the monitor the next day.

On an impulse, I later purchased a Viewsonic VA721 LCD monitor. It
boasted the same 8ms response time, but only a 280 nit brightness. It was
much easier on the eyes as far as the brightness was concerned, but the
screens were still terribly washed out.

In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible. The best
adjustments for viewing photo's made the normal windows screens look
terrible. Moving my head from side to side slightly resulted in weird
"shimmering" effects on the screen. And if I walked into the room and
looked at the monitor while standing up, I could barely even make out the
screen. Pinkish or bluish backgrounds, washed out colors, narrow viewing
angles, black is always a bit "grey", VERY disappointing.

So, I'm back to my old Viewsonic A75S CRT monitor, and what a world of
difference. Unfortunately, my monitor is showing occasional glitches and
other signs that it's on it's way out. So, I can't make do with the CRT
for much longer.

Am I just being picky, is my luck really that bad, am I just picking the
wrong monitors, or are LCD monitors really this sucky?

I can't even find a CRT monitor in the stores anymore, so are there any
LCD monitors you would recommend for photo work?

What about other technologies? Does anyone make a 17" plasma computer
monitor? If so, I haven't been able to find one.

Thanks,

Anthony

Wow, I suggest looking at some of the Samsung LCD's, even my previous
4yr old 170mp had none of those problems; but, it did lack detail in
the shadows and highlights. I replaced it with a Dell 2405fpw with a
1000:1 contrast ratio - one word for it: awesome - and it came with no
dead pixels. I did turn the brightness down quite a bit, plus it
looks even better after running Adobe gamma (or Wiziwyg).

While pros may like high end LaCie LCD's for photo work, I can
definitely say that the 2405 is also excellent (and it can be had for
just $780 if you watch the coupons, like at www.gotapex.com )

"HerHusband" <> wrote in message
news:Xns97147B08DDCFAherhusband@216.196.97.136...
>I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an
>8ms
> response time and 350 nits brightness. Despite multiple attempts at
> adjusting brightness, contrast, and color settings, the screen
> always
> seemed washed out and it was like staring into a cars headlights.
> So, I
> returned the monitor the next day.
>
> On an impulse, I later purchased a Viewsonic VA721 LCD monitor. It
> boasted the same 8ms response time, but only a 280 nit brightness.
> It was
> much easier on the eyes as far as the brightness was concerned, but
> the
> screens were still terribly washed out.
>
> In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible. The best
> adjustments for viewing photo's made the normal windows screens look
> terrible. Moving my head from side to side slightly resulted in
> weird
> "shimmering" effects on the screen. And if I walked into the room
> and
> looked at the monitor while standing up, I could barely even make
> out the
> screen. Pinkish or bluish backgrounds, washed out colors, narrow
> viewing
> angles, black is always a bit "grey", VERY disappointing.
>
> So, I'm back to my old Viewsonic A75S CRT monitor, and what a world
> of
> difference. Unfortunately, my monitor is showing occasional glitches
> and
> other signs that it's on it's way out. So, I can't make do with the
> CRT
> for much longer.
>
> Am I just being picky, is my luck really that bad, am I just picking
> the
> wrong monitors, or are LCD monitors really this sucky?

>I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an 8ms
> response time and 350 nits brightness.

"Boasting" is right. LCD manufacturers cook the numbers so thoroughly
that you really can't trust them.

> In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible.

Of course they did. You didn't calibrate the monitor, did you? Where an
uncalibrated CRT is often somewhat acceptable, the only LCDs I've found that
were even close without calibration have been $1,000 and up. However, even
a relatively cheap one, once calibrated, can do a fairly good job.

steve

"Markeau" <> writes:

> Wow, I suggest looking at some of the Samsung LCD's, even my previous
> 4yr old 170mp had none of those problems; but, it did lack detail in
> the shadows and highlights. I replaced it with a Dell 2405fpw with a
> 1000:1 contrast ratio - one word for it: awesome - and it came with no
> dead pixels. I did turn the brightness down quite a bit, plus it
> looks even better after running Adobe gamma (or Wiziwyg).
>
> While pros may like high end LaCie LCD's for photo work, I can
> definitely say that the 2405 is also excellent (and it can be had for
> just $780 if you watch the coupons, like at www.gotapex.com )

Do you (or anyone else) happen to know anything about the Sony X-Black
LCDs? I've seen them in stores, and they look nice, but they've
obviously chosen to display something that doesn't reveal any flaws.

--
Måns Rullgård

Steve Wolfe wrote:
|| I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an
8ms
|| response time and 350 nits brightness.
|
| "Boasting" is right. LCD manufacturers cook the numbers so
thoroughly
| that you really can't trust them.
|
|| In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible.
|
| Of course they did. You didn't calibrate the monitor, did you?
Where an
| uncalibrated CRT is often somewhat acceptable, the only LCDs I've
found
| that were even close without calibration have been $1,000 and up.
| However, even a relatively cheap one, once calibrated, can do a fairly
| good job.
|
| steve

Where is it possible to find information about calibrating a monitor? I
just acquired a Samsung 19" LCD. It's default for sharpness was too
strong for digital images but once turned down from 100% to 70 it is
quite good.
Rose Weir

> Where is it possible to find information about calibrating a monitor? I
> just acquired a Samsung 19" LCD. It's default for sharpness was too
> strong for digital images but once turned down from 100% to 70 it is
> quite good.

Type "monitor calibration" into your favorite search engine.

By far, the best way to go about it is with a hardware device.

steve

LCD monitor is not for serious image editing work due to its low contrast
ratio (low Dmax or black). Also it Dmin or white is not that pure (tinted).
If you have to use, get the TFT type like what apple computer is supplying
but expensive. Still CRT is preferred. The pros of LCD, beside its size and
resolution, is its color stay consistently for a long time but not CRT. Your
problem is normal.

"HerHusband" <> wrote in message
news:Xns97147B08DDCFAherhusband@216.196.97.136...
>I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an 8ms
> response time and 350 nits brightness. Despite multiple attempts at
> adjusting brightness, contrast, and color settings, the screen always
> seemed washed out and it was like staring into a cars headlights. So, I
> returned the monitor the next day.
>
> On an impulse, I later purchased a Viewsonic VA721 LCD monitor. It
> boasted the same 8ms response time, but only a 280 nit brightness. It was
> much easier on the eyes as far as the brightness was concerned, but the
> screens were still terribly washed out.
>
> In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible. The best
> adjustments for viewing photo's made the normal windows screens look
> terrible. Moving my head from side to side slightly resulted in weird
> "shimmering" effects on the screen. And if I walked into the room and
> looked at the monitor while standing up, I could barely even make out the
> screen. Pinkish or bluish backgrounds, washed out colors, narrow viewing
> angles, black is always a bit "grey", VERY disappointing.
>
> So, I'm back to my old Viewsonic A75S CRT monitor, and what a world of
> difference. Unfortunately, my monitor is showing occasional glitches and
> other signs that it's on it's way out. So, I can't make do with the CRT
> for much longer.
>
> Am I just being picky, is my luck really that bad, am I just picking the
> wrong monitors, or are LCD monitors really this sucky?
>
> I can't even find a CRT monitor in the stores anymore, so are there any
> LCD monitors you would recommend for photo work?
>
> What about other technologies? Does anyone make a 17" plasma computer
> monitor? If so, I haven't been able to find one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anthony

I have set up all the models you mentioned.
Just wondering : have you installed the colour profile on the CD ? have you
auto calibrate the screen ? have you lowered the screen refresh rate to 70Hz
?
and last ... what's your VGA card ? are the drivers properly installed ?

=bob=

"HerHusband" <> wrote in message
news:Xns97147B08DDCFAherhusband@216.196.97.136...
>I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an 8ms
> response time and 350 nits brightness. Despite multiple attempts at
> adjusting brightness, contrast, and color settings, the screen always
> seemed washed out and it was like staring into a cars headlights. So, I
> returned the monitor the next day.
>
> On an impulse, I later purchased a Viewsonic VA721 LCD monitor. It
> boasted the same 8ms response time, but only a 280 nit brightness. It was
> much easier on the eyes as far as the brightness was concerned, but the
> screens were still terribly washed out.

HerHusband wrote:
> I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an 8ms
> response time and 350 nits brightness. Despite multiple attempts at
> adjusting brightness, contrast, and color settings, the screen always
> seemed washed out and it was like staring into a cars headlights. So,
> I returned the monitor the next day.
>
> On an impulse, I later purchased a Viewsonic VA721 LCD monitor. It
> boasted the same 8ms response time, but only a 280 nit brightness. It
> was much easier on the eyes as far as the brightness was concerned,
> but the screens were still terribly washed out.
>
> In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible. The best
> adjustments for viewing photo's made the normal windows screens look
> terrible. Moving my head from side to side slightly resulted in weird
> "shimmering" effects on the screen. And if I walked into the room and
> looked at the monitor while standing up, I could barely even make out
> the screen. Pinkish or bluish backgrounds, washed out colors, narrow
> viewing angles, black is always a bit "grey", VERY disappointing.
>
> So, I'm back to my old Viewsonic A75S CRT monitor, and what a world of
> difference. Unfortunately, my monitor is showing occasional glitches
> and other signs that it's on it's way out. So, I can't make do with
> the CRT for much longer.
>
> Am I just being picky, is my luck really that bad, am I just picking
> the wrong monitors, or are LCD monitors really this sucky?
>
> I can't even find a CRT monitor in the stores anymore, so are there
> any LCD monitors you would recommend for photo work?
>
> What about other technologies? Does anyone make a 17" plasma computer
> monitor? If so, I haven't been able to find one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anthony

Many name brand screens actually sell technology that others sell under a
different name.
For example:
My work has purchased a bunch of 15" LCDs.
One chunk of them were labeled NEC, and the other chunk was labeled some
hokey off-brand.
But...they are the IDENTICAL screen.
The only difference is the menu interface.

All that to lead up to...
Don't be put off of Viewsonic in general due to that particular crappy
model.
I use a 20" Viewsonic, and it is absolutely fantastic...and that, coming
from someone who is *extremely* picky.
It was nearly perfectly balanced simply using the primitive Adobe Gamma...
....But I recently color balanced it with a calibrator (Spyder2Pro) and it is
now as close to perfect as I've ever seen.

The screen has a huge viewing angle, with almost zero change as I move
around it...
-I can see FAR finer gradations than A-Z on this scale:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/45959621/original
-Shadow detail is fantastic
-Highlights are well defined.
-Color transitions are very gradual and accurate.
-Prints from my Epson 4000 Pro PERFECTLY match the screen (including shadows
and highlights).

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that most LCDs seem to come with
brightness set WAY too high.
The other thing is...most cheaper LCDs aren't going to give you the kind of
color/tonal range you'll want for careful photo printing.

I bought this LCD nearly 2 years ago for $1500 (VP201s, which is a 1600x1200
20 inch screen).
But NOW...you can buy this EXACT same screen for a mere $699. That's not
super cheap, but this is a fantastic monitor for photo editing. I would
highly recommend it, along with picking up the Spyder2Pro from Pantone
Colorvision (about $179). With the Spyder, you will get the most out of any
montor you use, including CRT, LCD and even laptops.

-Mark

RoseW wrote:
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
>>> I recently purchased a Viewsonic VA712B LCD monitor. It boasted an
>>> 8ms response time and 350 nits brightness.
>>
>> "Boasting" is right. LCD manufacturers cook the numbers so
>> thoroughly that you really can't trust them.
>>
>>> In both cases, colors in photographs looked terrible.
>>
>> Of course they did. You didn't calibrate the monitor, did you?
>> Where an uncalibrated CRT is often somewhat acceptable, the only
>> LCDs I've found that were even close without calibration have been
>> $1,000 and up. However, even a relatively cheap one, once
>> calibrated, can do a fairly good job.
>>
>> steve
>
> Where is it possible to find information about calibrating a monitor?
> I just acquired a Samsung 19" LCD. It's default for sharpness was too
> strong for digital images but once turned down from 100% to 70 it is
> quite good.
> Rose Weir

I highly recommend the "Spyder2" from Pantone Colorvision.
It is a hardware device (comes with software too) that reads the color from
any screen, and then makes adjustments via running a custom monitor profile
on your computer. It is very straight forward to use, and is extremely
effective.

$179-$279, depending on how much extra software you want with it.
Most people do NOT need anything above the $179 bundle, called "ColorPlus."
The hardware is the same. The only difference is how much additional
software comes with it.
The essential software comes with all versions.

Here's a link:
http://tinyurl.com/bkge8

-Mark