Best Monitor for Photo Editing

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PJ, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. PJ

    PJ Guest

    I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are best for
    photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT or LCD?

    Thanks.........PJ
     
    PJ, Nov 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    PJ wrote:
    > I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
    > best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
    > or LCD?
    > Thanks.........PJ


    The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
    irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
    color-managed workflow.
    I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
    I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE I
    waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See below...

    For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on your
    screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
    **colorometer.**

    I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
    minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
    you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with a
    photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be the
    master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so
    many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.

    Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
    calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
    serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.

    Mark²



    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PJ

    Pete D Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:sRt5h.2676$...
    > PJ wrote:
    >> I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
    >> best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
    >> or LCD?
    >> Thanks.........PJ

    >
    > The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
    > irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
    > color-managed workflow.
    > I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
    > I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE
    > I waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See
    > below...
    >
    > For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on
    > your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
    > **colorometer.**
    >
    > I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
    > minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
    > you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with
    > a photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be
    > the master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot"
    > that so many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.
    >
    > Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
    > calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
    > serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.
    >
    > Mark²
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson
    >


    What are they like on spell checkers? ;-)
     
    Pete D, Nov 12, 2006
    #3
  4. PJ

    Pete D Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:sRt5h.2676$...
    > PJ wrote:
    >> I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
    >> best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
    >> or LCD?
    >> Thanks.........PJ

    >
    > The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
    > irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only in a
    > color-managed workflow.
    > I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is done.
    > I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look like BEFORE
    > I waste ink/media, and my results are completely predictable. See
    > below...
    >
    > For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see on
    > your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is a
    > **colorometer.**
    >
    > I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After about 30
    > minutes of running through its straight-forward instructions/procedures,
    > you'll have a monitor that displays colors properly. Follow that up with
    > a photo editor that is properly set up, and you'll finally be able to be
    > the master of your images, rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot"
    > that so many people endure when it comes to prints that match your screen.
    >
    > Once you have this most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
    > calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
    > serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.
    >
    > Mark²
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson
    >


    I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the current
    range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good hardware to choose
    from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a little more than I want to
    spend for home just now, the 22's are about half the price of the 24's, and
    about 1/4 the price of the 30 inch Dell that some use at work, they are
    stunning by the way.
     
    Pete D, Nov 12, 2006
    #4
  5. PJ

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    PJ wrote:
    > I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are best for
    > photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT or LCD?
    >
    > Thanks.........PJ
    >
    >

    I wouldn't like to say what monitor is best as I don't know but I am
    happy with my 'Samsung SyncMaster 753DF' I got mine from my wife last
    year when I bought her an lcd monitor. This one has a flat screen
    surface and give results that please me. I don't know if they are still
    available new.

    --
    Neil
    swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Nov 12, 2006
    #5
  6. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:sRt5h.2676$...
    >> PJ wrote:
    >>> I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
    >>> best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
    >>> or LCD?
    >>> Thanks.........PJ

    >>
    >> The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
    >> irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only
    >> in a color-managed workflow.
    >> I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is
    >> done. I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look
    >> like BEFORE I waste ink/media, and my results are completely
    >> predictable. See below...
    >>
    >> For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see
    >> on your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is
    >> a **colorometer.**
    >>
    >> I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After
    >> about 30 minutes of running through its straight-forward
    >> instructions/procedures, you'll have a monitor that displays colors
    >> properly. Follow that up with a photo editor that is properly set
    >> up, and you'll finally be able to be the master of your images,
    >> rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so many people
    >> endure when it comes to prints that match your screen. Once you have this
    >> most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
    >> calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
    >> serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.
    >>
    >> Mark²
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>

    >
    > I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the
    > current range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good
    > hardware to choose from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a
    > little more than I want to spend for home just now, the 22's are
    > about half the price of the 24's, and about 1/4 the price of the 30
    > inch Dell that some use at work, they are stunning by the way.


    Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
    video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
    1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.

    My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
    way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money. -Especially
    laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty screen that means I have
    to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a web-page, document, or etc.
    The ONLY thing they are any good for is watching wide-screen movies. Other
    than that...they are HORRIBLE for working on documents...editing
    portrait-orientation photos, and even worse for viewing web-pages. You're
    basically paying for a screen that has had the top (or bottom) pixels
    trimmed off.

    I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard ratio
    screen...at whatever size.

    I'll now step off of my soap-box... :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 12, 2006
    #6
  7. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:sRt5h.2676$...
    >> PJ wrote:
    >>> I'm ready to update my years-old monitor. Understand that CRTs are
    >>> best for photo editing. Anyone have a recommendation for either CRT
    >>> or LCD?
    >>> Thanks.........PJ

    >>
    >> The old generalization that CRTs are highly superior to LCDs nearly
    >> irrelevant for most users any more. Both will work well...but only
    >> in a color-managed workflow.
    >> I get fantastic results with my LCD, but only after calibration is
    >> done. I'm very picky about knowing exactly what my prints will look
    >> like BEFORE I waste ink/media, and my results are completely
    >> predictable. See below...
    >>
    >> For anyone interested producing prints that TRULY match what you see
    >> on your screen, the component that is absolutely essential, IMHO, is
    >> a **colorometer.**
    >>
    >> I recommend the Spyder 2 from Color Vision for about $159. After
    >> about 30 minutes of running through its straight-forward
    >> instructions/procedures, you'll have a monitor that displays colors
    >> properly. Follow that up with a photo editor that is properly set
    >> up, and you'll finally be able to be the master of your images,
    >> rather than being subject to the "crap-shoot" that so many people
    >> endure when it comes to prints that match your screen. Once you have this
    >> most essential device, you'll be able to properlyl
    >> calibrate any and all monitors in the future, as well. No one who is
    >> serious about photo editing/printing should be without one.
    >>
    >> Mark²
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>

    >
    > What are they like on spell checkers? ;-)


    Ya ya ya... I type extremely quickly, and don't always think to hit the
    ckecker...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 12, 2006
    #7
  8. PJ

    Pete D Guest

    <snip>
    >>
    >> I am also looking to upgrade my monitor soon and am looking at the
    >> current range of 22 inch wide screen monitors, some pretty good
    >> hardware to choose from. At work I use a 24 inch Dell but they are a
    >> little more than I want to spend for home just now, the 22's are
    >> about half the price of the 24's, and about 1/4 the price of the 30
    >> inch Dell that some use at work, they are stunning by the way.

    >
    > Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
    > video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
    > 1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.
    >
    > My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
    > way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more
    > oney. -Especially laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty
    > screen that means I have to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a
    > web-page, document, or etc. The ONLY thing they are any good for is
    > watching wide-screen movies. Other than that...they are HORRIBLE for
    > working on documents...editing portrait-orientation photos, and even worse
    > for viewing web-pages. You're basically paying for a screen that has had
    > the top (or bottom) pixels trimmed off.
    >
    > I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard
    > ratio screen...at whatever size.
    >
    > I'll now step off of my soap-box... :)
    >



    Agree up to a point, the 24 inch is as high as the non wide screen 19 inch
    though and the 22 inch wide screen is not far off. I also do video at home
    and have a HDTV setup on this PC so wide screen is a great idea.
     
    Pete D, Nov 12, 2006
    #8
  9. PJ

    Joan Guest

    Think about using 2 widescreen monitors with one in portrait mode.
    From what I've just seen they can all pivot.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:nyA5h.458$...
    :
    : Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a
    specialized
    : video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use
    two
    : 1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.
    :
    : My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a
    nice
    : way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more
    oney. -Especially
    : laptop screens. The LAST thing I want is a squatty screen that
    means I have
    : to endlessly scroll up and down just to see a web-page, document, or
    etc.
    : The ONLY thing they are any good for is watching wide-screen movies.
    Other
    : than that...they are HORRIBLE for working on documents...editing
    : portrait-orientation photos, and even worse for viewing web-pages.
    You're
    : basically paying for a screen that has had the top (or bottom)
    pixels
    : trimmed off.
    :
    : I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200
    stadard ratio
    : screen...at whatever size.
    :
    : I'll now step off of my soap-box... :)
    :
    : --
    : Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    : www.pbase.com/markuson
    :
    :
     
    Joan, Nov 12, 2006
    #9
  10. PJ

    Richard H. Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a specialized
    > video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing, really. I use two
    > 1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite excellent.
    >
    > My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice
    > way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money.
    > [...]
    >
    > I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200 stadard ratio
    > screen...at whatever size.


    Well, if you were buying the same resolution on a shorter screen, I'd
    agree. But why not take that 1600x1200 and add to it?

    As always, the devil's in the details. Big isn't always better.
    *Native* resolution is key, as are contrast ratio, pixel size, etc.
    There are some gargantuan LCDs out there with maybe 1024x768 resolution
    - ick!

    I've been happy with a 1920x1200 24" widescreen (predecessor to this
    model:
    http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCD_Digital/LS24BRBABXAA.asp).
    That Apple 30" is awesome, but it takes 2 DVI video connections to drive
    it. At the time, this 24" was the largest that one DVI controller could
    handle.

    Widescreen is very close to 2:3 ratio, which is really nice for large
    photo viewing. The size also fits a lot of thumbnails, and it can be
    rotated to portrait. For normal use, it holds 2+ "full-size" windows
    (or one whole "sheet" of paper in portrait mode). So, there is value to
    the size & width, but you need the resolution to make it really useful -
    this means a lot of RAM in your video card.

    Mind you, I paid more for the monitor than the computer it's attached
    to. But I've learned over time that it takes 2-3 PC generations for
    each evolution of screen specs, so I spent the money and got a warranty
    to back it up.

    Cheers,
    Richard
     
    Richard H., Nov 12, 2006
    #10
  11. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Richard H. wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> Ya, I've drooled a bit over that 30" Dell... It requires a
    >> specialized video card just to feed all those pixels... Amazing,
    >> really. I use two 1600x1200 Viewsonic LCDs, and they are quite
    >> excellent. My personal opinion is that the wide-screen craze is a scam.
    >> It's a
    >> nice way for the LCD makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money.
    >> [...]
    >>
    >> I think you're much better off sticking with a good 1600x1200
    >> stadard ratio screen...at whatever size.

    >
    > Well, if you were buying the same resolution on a shorter screen, I'd
    > agree. But why not take that 1600x1200 and add to it?


    Of course that's preferable, and in keeping with what I'm saying.
    Most wides don't keep the 1200 vertical spec.

    > As always, the devil's in the details. Big isn't always better.
    > *Native* resolution is key, as are contrast ratio, pixel size, etc.


    Ya, no kidding! Who said anything about non-native resolution?

    > There are some gargantuan LCDs out there with maybe 1024x768
    > resolution - ick!


    You are simply talking nonsense here.
    I challenge you to find ANY mainstream LCD above 17" that is only 1024x768.

    > I've been happy with a 1920x1200 24" widescreen (predecessor to this
    > model:
    > http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCD_Digital/LS24BRBABXAA.asp).
    > That Apple 30" is awesome, but it takes 2 DVI video connections to
    > drive it. At the time, this 24" was the largest that one DVI
    > controller could handle.
    >
    > Widescreen is very close to 2:3 ratio, which is really nice for large
    > photo viewing.


    Photo VIEWING? Is that why you bought it???
    How about photo EDITING?

    The point here is that most wide format screens do not offer advantages in
    terms of screen real estate and pixel count. Your 1920x1200 is not typical.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 12, 2006
    #11
  12. PJ

    Richard H. Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > You are simply talking nonsense here.


    And this isn't?
    "... the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice way for the LCD
    makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money."


    > I challenge you to find ANY mainstream LCD above 17" that is only 1024x768.


    There are large-format LCDs well over 17" that would seem fantastic
    until one reads the specs. Apparently these are intended for public
    displays, like airport flight info screens, where size is important and
    resolution is not. No, I'm not going to dig up a URL just to prove it.

    And the last time I looked, it was important to view a photo to edit it.
    Get a grip.

    The point is... there *are* practical benefits to wide-screen displays,
    but for the OP's benefit (remember him?) it's important to watch the
    specs because bigger ain't always better.
     
    Richard H., Nov 13, 2006
    #12
  13. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Richard H. wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> You are simply talking nonsense here.

    >
    > And this isn't?
    > "... the wide-screen craze is a scam. It's a nice way for the LCD
    > makers to sell you fewer pixels for more money."


    In most instances, I believe it is simply a way to sell you less...for more.
    All you have to do is look at laptops. They actually have blank hardware
    space above and below many wide-screens, with no increase in pixel count.

    >> I challenge you to find ANY mainstream LCD above 17" that is only
    >> 1024x768.

    >
    > There are large-format LCDs well over 17" that would seem fantastic
    > until one reads the specs. Apparently these are intended for public
    > displays, like airport flight info screens, where size is important
    > and resolution is not. No, I'm not going to dig up a URL just to
    > prove it.


    Right. Because you've made an erroneous claim.
    :)

    > And the last time I looked, it was important to view a photo to edit
    > it. Get a grip.


    What an insight!

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 13, 2006
    #13
  14. PJ

    Richard H. Guest

    Here's what I was referencing. There's a segment of LCD displays above
    23" that look attractive on size vs. price, but they're targeted at
    low-res applications like retail and public information displays.

    LG L2323T 23" 1280x768
    LG M2343T 23" 1366x768
    NEC LCD2335WXM 23" 1280x768
    NEC LCD3000 30" 1280x768
    NEC MultiSync LCD3210 32" 1366x768
    Elo 3220L 32" 1360x768
    Samsung SyncMaster 320 32" 1366x768
    Samsung SyncMaster 323T 32" 1280x768
    NEC LCD4000 40" 1280x768
    NEC MultiSync LCD4010 40" 1366x768
    Samsung SyncMaster 400 40" 1366x768
    Samsung SyncMaster 403T 40" 1280x768
    Philips BDL4211V 42" 1280x768
    NEC MultiSync LCD4610 46" 1366x768
    Samsung SyncMaster 460 46" 1366x768

    One could argue semantics about whether these are chopped-down
    medium-res or widened low-res, but the fact is they only do 768 vertical
    pixels, while their quality counterparts do 1024 or 1200 resolution.
     
    Richard H., Nov 13, 2006
    #14
  15. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Richard H. wrote:
    > Here's what I was referencing. There's a segment of LCD displays
    > above 23" that look attractive on size vs. price, but they're
    > targeted at low-res applications like retail and public information
    > displays.
    > LG L2323T 23" 1280x768
    > LG M2343T 23" 1366x768
    > NEC LCD2335WXM 23" 1280x768
    > NEC LCD3000 30" 1280x768
    > NEC MultiSync LCD3210 32" 1366x768
    > Elo 3220L 32" 1360x768
    > Samsung SyncMaster 320 32" 1366x768
    > Samsung SyncMaster 323T 32" 1280x768
    > NEC LCD4000 40" 1280x768
    > NEC MultiSync LCD4010 40" 1366x768
    > Samsung SyncMaster 400 40" 1366x768
    > Samsung SyncMaster 403T 40" 1280x768
    > Philips BDL4211V 42" 1280x768
    > NEC MultiSync LCD4610 46" 1366x768
    > Samsung SyncMaster 460 46" 1366x768
    >
    > One could argue semantics about whether these are chopped-down
    > medium-res or widened low-res, but the fact is they only do 768
    > vertical pixels, while their quality counterparts do 1024 or 1200
    > resolution.


    Uh...Richard?
    Here's the quote I asked you to substantiate:

    Richard said:
    "There are some gargantuan LCDs out there with maybe 1024x768
    resolution - ick!"

    You didn't find a SINGLE 1024x768 monitor over 17", much less "gargantuan"
    monitor running at 1024x768 as you stated it.

    I rest my case.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 13, 2006
    #15
  16. PJ

    Mark² Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Richard H. wrote:
    >> Here's what I was referencing. There's a segment of LCD displays
    >> above 23" that look attractive on size vs. price, but they're
    >> targeted at low-res applications like retail and public information
    >> displays.
    >> LG L2323T 23" 1280x768
    >> LG M2343T 23" 1366x768
    >> NEC LCD2335WXM 23" 1280x768
    >> NEC LCD3000 30" 1280x768
    >> NEC MultiSync LCD3210 32" 1366x768
    >> Elo 3220L 32" 1360x768
    >> Samsung SyncMaster 320 32" 1366x768
    >> Samsung SyncMaster 323T 32" 1280x768
    >> NEC LCD4000 40" 1280x768
    >> NEC MultiSync LCD4010 40" 1366x768
    >> Samsung SyncMaster 400 40" 1366x768
    >> Samsung SyncMaster 403T 40" 1280x768
    >> Philips BDL4211V 42" 1280x768
    >> NEC MultiSync LCD4610 46" 1366x768
    >> Samsung SyncMaster 460 46" 1366x768
    >>
    >> One could argue semantics about whether these are chopped-down
    >> medium-res or widened low-res, but the fact is they only do 768
    >> vertical pixels, while their quality counterparts do 1024 or 1200
    >> resolution.

    >
    > Uh...Richard?
    > Here's the quote I asked you to substantiate:
    >
    > Richard said:
    > "There are some gargantuan LCDs out there with maybe 1024x768
    > resolution - ick!"
    >
    > You didn't find a SINGLE 1024x768 monitor over 17", much less
    > "gargantuan" monitor running at 1024x768 as you stated it.
    >
    > I rest my case.


    OK... Richard. (sigh)
    I'd like to apologize for getting so testy here.
    It's likely overflow from another thread... ;)
    Truce...?

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 13, 2006
    #16
  17. PJ

    Richard H. Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Truce...?


    Deal. :)
     
    Richard H., Nov 13, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Monitor for photo editing

    , Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    3,116
    Flycaster
    Jan 8, 2004
  2. Jean

    Need new monitor for photo scan editing

    Jean, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    474
    Flycaster
    Feb 23, 2004
  3. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    What color temperature to use for LCD monitor for photo editing?

    Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,733
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 7, 2004
  4. Ray Paseur

    Desktop Monitor for Photo Editing

    Ray Paseur, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    761
    Douglas
    Jul 13, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,252
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page