correct CRT monitor color temperature - or Apple Cinema

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Destin_FL, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. Destin_FL

    Destin_FL Guest

    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
    Destin_FL, Feb 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Destin_FL

    rafe b Guest

    "Destin_FL" <> 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
    rafe b, Feb 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Destin_FL" <> 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, <mailto:>, <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Destin_FL

    Destin_FL Guest

    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
    Destin_FL, Feb 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Destin_FL

    Mark C. Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message news:-b.net...
    > "Destin_FL" <> 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.
    Mark C., Feb 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Destin_FL

    Destin_FL Guest

    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.
    Destin_FL, Feb 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Destin_FL

    Mark C. Guest

    "Destin_FL" <> 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.
    >
    >
    >
    Mark C., Feb 16, 2006
    #7
  8. In article <1K0Jf.32683$Dh.20211@dukeread04>, Destin_FL
    <> 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.
    Scott Schuckert, Feb 17, 2006
    #8
    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. Mick Mc Grenaghan

    Apple 23 Cinema Display

    Mick Mc Grenaghan, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    441
    Mitch Hughes
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Al Dykes
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    3,717
    Wilt W
    Apr 13, 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:
    7,657
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 7, 2004
  4. jim evans

    Correct White Balance Doesn't Mean Correct Color??

    jim evans, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    979
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 27, 2005
  5. LawrenceT
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    707
    John Turco
    Nov 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page