It's unaffordable right now, but check this new
flatscreen out.
Rich Seiling, of West Coast Imaging, has this to say on monitor color capability:
In digital imaging, your display is a critical tool because it is the only way you can view your image without making a print. This is even more true if you are using a digital camera. With film, you have a physical original you can view on a light table. With a digital file, you only have numbers, which must be converted to light to be displayed. If that conversion is not done accurately, you have no way of knowing what you actually captured. Was the dress red or orange? Without an accurate display, you won't know for sure.
Several display manufacturers are making it easier to know just how accurately a display shows color. This helps set our expectations, so we don't expect an imperfect display to be perfect. It also helps us make a more informed decision when purchasing a display.
Specifically, NEC and LaCie are starting to list the percentage of a color space their high-end displays are capable of reproducing. After 15 years of spending sometimes outrageous sums on “color accurate” displays, it’s nice to finally have some meaningful data on how accurately a given display can reproduce color. It allows us to easily compare displays, and make a more educated decision.
Here is a quick rundown on some current offerings and their color ratings:
19 inch
NEC MultiSync LCD1980SXi-BK-SVII $999
70% of NTSC
69% of AdobeRGB
LaCie 319 LCD $1249
72% NTSC
21 inch
NEC MultiSync LCD2180UX-BK-SVII $1749
72% of NTSC
69% of AdobeRGB
NEC MultiSync LCD2180WGLEDBKSV $6999
100% SMPTE-C
LaCie 321 LCD $1849
72% NTSC
NEC Diamondtron UWG RDF225WG CRT $4999
97.6% of the AdobeRGB
93.3% of NTSC
But what do all of these numbers mean?
The displays listed above show the degree of accuracy for three separate color spaces: AdobeRGB, NTSC, and SMPTE-C. As you might guess from the numbers, these color spaces are fairly similar. They are not the same, but they are close
(Gare's note: no, they're not, Rich. NTSC's for broadcast and has a gamma of 2.4 or higher, compared to Windows 2.2, and Mac 1.8 ), and they give us a good point of reference for how one display compares to another. I’m guessing here, but I don’t think there would be much difference between a display that shows 70% of AdobeRGB versus one that shows 72%. I would hope (and expect) that there would be a difference between a $1749 display that can show 72% of AdobeRGB and a $6999 display that can show 100% of Adobe RGB.
As a side note, if in late 2005 it costs $999 to achieve 69% of AdobeRGB, how much of AdobeRGB do you think your old $300 display can reproduce? To this point, we've been able to make inexpensive CRT displays work very well, but it's exciting that even more accurate displays are now available. It's obvious that the best displays cost a lot of money.
Is it worth it to spend $6999 on a display? For most photographers, probably not. In a prepress environment where a press run costs $10,000 to $100,000+ dollars, it is of huge importance to be able to proof on-screen as accurately as possible, because it can save huge amounts of time and money. It is very expensive to proof on a press. However, for the average photographer engaged in non-commercial, personal expression, who has the time to make and evaluate proofs, and can print them at a very low cost, it's not as critical. While you want a really good display, the money to get "the best" would be better spent on time off to make more photographs.
And while it’s great to know how much of AdobeRGB a display can reproduce, even 100% of AdobeRGB is smaller than what a Chromira with Fuji Crystal Archive or an Epson 9800 can print. In the end, we still need to make hard proofs to really judge the color. Hard proofs and experience have and will continue to let us bridge the deficiencies of displays.
This brings us to the truth that even very accurate displays are merely guides--the ultimate definition of what a photograph should look like must come from the print itself. Since displays transmit light, and prints reflect it, even the best displays can't perfectly show what your final print will look like.
I have met very few photographers for whom money is no object. My experience using the previous generation of displays, which we can assume were less perfect than the $1000-$1500 models listed here, tells me that even a good display can be used to make the finest quality prints. This is because perfect equipment doesn’t give you vision or experience.
Ansel Adams was once said, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." This is as true today as when Ansel said it. Vision and experience can't be bought, and displays are only tools that help the vision that we've developed. They don't help us take better pictures...they give us a more accurate view of what we've already captured.
So what am I going to do? Photography seems to favor the axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," so I'm not rushing out to buy a new display tomorrow when I already have a system that works. But when it
does break, the next display I purchase will likely be one of the $1000-$1500 NEC displays...hopefully it will be worth the money!
p.s. Did you notice that the CRT that can show 97.6% of Adobe RGB is $2000 less than the very best LCD display? It’s still cheaper to make a very accurate CRT than it is to make a very accurate LCD. That’s changing slowly, but it just goes to show how expensive it is to make a really accurate display.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So I'm getting busy mowing my neighbors' lawns for chump change for my next monitor...
My Best,
Gare
