Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > correct CRT monitor color temperature - or Apple Cinema

Reply
Thread Tools

correct CRT monitor color temperature - or Apple Cinema

 
 
Destin_FL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
Hi all.
I have resisted buying an LCD panel to do prepress and Photoshop work because
the graphics capabilities I've seen on everything from $600 down are just plain
abysmal and unacceptable for doing professionally accurate work.

So I have a couple of questions: In sticking with my trusty and incredibly sharp
Viewsonic G90f, I am swayed by all the discussion on the Internet and in the
groups about using 9300K as the color temp or 5500K ????? I have always used
9300K because the whites look white and the blacks I can get to black; 5500K
leaves the whole thing looking dull, dingly, and YELLOW.
And yet so many "pros" claim 5500 is the right setting. I just don't get how
that's possible given how dingy and yellow it is.....
Any thoughts?

ALSO....... I'm using a Velocity Micro 64-bit system with nVidia 6600 card and
of course a DVI out is available. I am genuinley wondering about switching over
to the Apple Cinema Display, probably the 20" at least to start. Is this a
display that will accurately show color and will accurately show editing of
photographs???? Every LCD I have seen under $600 for WHATEVER size, produces
really flaky, fuzzy, poorly rendered graphics and photos, yes, even at the
monitor's native res.

Has anyone here used or is using one of the Apple Diplays? With a PC? Is it as
color-accurate and sharpness-accurate as I'm hoping it will be??????

Thanks tons!!!!

Tim


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rafe b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006

"Destin_FL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1K0Jf.32683$Dh.20211@dukeread04...

> Hi all.
> I have resisted buying an LCD panel to do prepress and Photoshop work
> because
> the graphics capabilities I've seen on everything from $600 down are just
> plain
> abysmal and unacceptable for doing professionally accurate work.


I'd disagree strongly with that, but what the heck.


> So I have a couple of questions: In sticking with my trusty and incredibly
> sharp
> Viewsonic G90f, I am swayed by all the discussion on the Internet and in
> the
> groups about using 9300K as the color temp or 5500K ????? I have always
> used
> 9300K because the whites look white and the blacks I can get to black;
> 5500K
> leaves the whole thing looking dull, dingly, and YELLOW.
> And yet so many "pros" claim 5500 is the right setting. I just don't get
> how
> that's possible given how dingy and yellow it is.....
> Any thoughts?



Nobody uses 5500, but lots of us use 6500. Yeah, it looks
"dingy" at first but the eye quickly adapts. If you're interested
in doing "professionally accurate work" you can't use 9300K.

9300K is meant for generic use in brightly-lit office spaces.
For photo editing, you want to keep the ambient light low,
neutral, and diffuse. "Real" pros often work in dark or
nearly-dark rooms. I generally work with one lamp on --
a 20-watt flourescent, in the far corner of the room, and
situated so that it does not shine directly on the monitor.
The curtains are drawn (unfortunately) so that no daylight
enters. Yeah, that's a drag, but there's no way around it.


> ALSO....... I'm using a Velocity Micro 64-bit system with nVidia 6600 card
> and
> of course a DVI out is available. I am genuinley wondering about
> switching over
> to the Apple Cinema Display, probably the 20" at least to start. Is this
> a
> display that will accurately show color and will accurately show editing
> of
> photographs???? Every LCD I have seen under $600 for WHATEVER size,
> produces
> really flaky, fuzzy, poorly rendered graphics and photos, yes, even at the
> monitor's native res.



You should not see "fuzzy" results on an LCD monitor.
LCDs have none of the convergence or linearity issues
of CRTs.

I've been using a Samsung 213T LCD for a year or so
now, for photo editing and everything else I do on my PC.
It's not perfect, but *very* pleasant to use and quite
accurate enough for my work. It's calibrated/profiled
with a Gretag Eye-One Display. I paid around $750.

The successor to this monitor is the 214T, $680 at newegg.com.

21.3", 1600x1200 native res, 900:1 contrast ratio.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
"Destin_FL" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Hi all.
> I have resisted buying an LCD panel to do prepress and Photoshop work because
> the graphics capabilities I've seen on everything from $600 down are just plain
> abysmal and unacceptable for doing professionally accurate work.
>
> So I have a couple of questions: In sticking with my trusty and incredibly sharp
> Viewsonic G90f, I am swayed by all the discussion on the Internet and in the
> groups about using 9300K as the color temp or 5500K ????? I have always used
> 9300K because the whites look white and the blacks I can get to black; 5500K
> leaves the whole thing looking dull, dingly, and YELLOW.
> And yet so many "pros" claim 5500 is the right setting. I just don't get how
> that's possible given how dingy and yellow it is.....
> Any thoughts?


The expert advice I've seen actually recommends 6500K for photo work
on monitors, and that's what I've been using (with the old ColorVision
MC7 monitor calibrator puck).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Destin_FL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
Thanks Rafe, so much... I have always read that Samsung really has it together
for their displays.

When I have looked at nearly any LCD display from say $600 at 19" and then on
down in size/price, I am just amazed at how poorly they render, particularly
sharpness, compared to my Viewsonic, or pretty much any really good CRT. And
even to this day I continue to read on the Internet, and the bulk of graphics
professionals are still using CRT's because of that sharpeness issue and because
of color accuracy, and being able to actually get a CRT calibrated properly,
which seems to be a problem for the LCDs. LCD's for text..... sure, awesome...
but not so much yet for graphics and photography.

I realize I could go to the big super-expensive LaCie stuff and probably be
completely thrilled, but I am hoping the Apple Cinema will get me close in
quality for less money.

So I'll still be very very interested to hear real-world users' opinions of the
Cinema Displays.....

Thanks

Tim


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
"David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)-b.net...
> "Destin_FL" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Hi all.
> > I have resisted buying an LCD panel to do prepress and Photoshop work because
> > the graphics capabilities I've seen on everything from $600 down are just plain
> > abysmal and unacceptable for doing professionally accurate work.
> >
> > So I have a couple of questions: In sticking with my trusty and incredibly sharp
> > Viewsonic G90f, I am swayed by all the discussion on the Internet and in the
> > groups about using 9300K as the color temp or 5500K ????? I have always used
> > 9300K because the whites look white and the blacks I can get to black; 5500K
> > leaves the whole thing looking dull, dingly, and YELLOW.
> > And yet so many "pros" claim 5500 is the right setting. I just don't get how
> > that's possible given how dingy and yellow it is.....
> > Any thoughts?

>
> The expert advice I've seen actually recommends 6500K for photo work
> on monitors, and that's what I've been using (with the old ColorVision
> MC7 monitor calibrator puck).


Yes, 6500K is the predominant standard.

You need to give your eyes a few days to adjust to the proper
white point. It's amazing how it works, but if all you've ever
used is 9300K, 6500 will look horrible at first. Then one day,
usually 2-3 days later you'll turn on your monitor and everything
will look great.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Destin_FL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
I am soooooooo glad to hear that. It has now been 24 hours and it is looking
less yellow to me than yesterday. OMIGAWD - it was horrible yesterday when I
switched it over. Still can see a yellow tinge to it though.... maybe tomorrow
it'll all just seem perfect!

T







Yes, 6500K is the predominant standard.

You need to give your eyes a few days to adjust to the proper
white point. It's amazing how it works, but if all you've ever
used is 9300K, 6500 will look horrible at first. Then one day,
usually 2-3 days later you'll turn on your monitor and everything
will look great.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
"Destin_FL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:No6Jf.32973$Dh.11068@dukeread04...
> I am soooooooo glad to hear that. It has now been 24 hours and it is looking
> less yellow to me than yesterday. OMIGAWD - it was horrible yesterday when I
> switched it over. Still can see a yellow tinge to it though.... maybe tomorrow
> it'll all just seem perfect!


It will. What's even more amazing, after your eyes adjust and you
try setting your monitor back to 9300K, you'll see probably for
the first time just how horribly blue it is, and how inaccurate colors
really are.

>
>
>
> Yes, 6500K is the predominant standard.
>
> You need to give your eyes a few days to adjust to the proper
> white point. It's amazing how it works, but if all you've ever
> used is 9300K, 6500 will look horrible at first. Then one day,
> usually 2-3 days later you'll turn on your monitor and everything
> will look great.
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott Schuckert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
In article <1K0Jf.32683$Dh.20211@dukeread04>, Destin_FL
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Has anyone here used or is using one of the Apple Diplays? With a PC? Is it
> as
> color-accurate and sharpness-accurate as I'm hoping it will be??????


You may want to take my advice with a grain of salt, as I used to work
for Apple; but:

The Apple Cinema displays are quite good for an LCD, and many, if not
most, of my graphics customers are using them now. They all pretty much
use the Colorvision Spyder to calibrate them. like any properly working
LCD at its native resolution, they are deadly sharp.

(You may have seen LCD adjusted to other than their native resolution,
or ones connected to an analog connection on the computer)

That said, LCD's iMHO still are not quite as good for color as a good,
well set up CRT. The best example would be the old Apple Studio
Displays, based on the Mitsubishi DiamondScan monitors. Still he best
display for accurate color I have in the house. Since those used a
standard VGA connector, they ca easily be used with a PC.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monitor Recommendation ? Samsung 206BW to the Apple 20" Cinema Display LawrenceT Digital Photography 7 11-10-2007 02:17 AM
What color temperature to use for LCD monitor for photo editing? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 1 07-07-2004 07:31 AM
Does anyone make a color test card for CRT/printer setup color adjustment ? Al Dykes Digital Photography 8 04-13-2004 01:31 AM
Apple 23 Cinema Display Mick Mc Grenaghan Computer Support 1 11-13-2003 09:14 AM



Advertisments