Monitor differences

[walwyn]

I've just upgraded my computer and found that there is a large difference between my old monitor and the new LCD monitor. An image that I'd tweaked the levels and saturation on previously lacks punch on the new monitor.

If I re-tweak it on the new monitor then it looks overdone when viewed on the old monitor. I suspect that the old monitor (7 years old) is probably wrong, as I've had the ocassional comment that the contrast could be increased, but one never knows. Any comments?

[Don Hoey]

walwyn,

I guess I am seeing the same as you as I have lcd monitor. Image 2 is spot on for me.

Don

[Nigel G]

I'm still on a CRT but image 2 is better for me also - slightly more punch on the colours.

[Roy C]

I am also on a CRT and #2 looks best to me.

[walwyn]

Thanks.

It seems that the old monitor is more red biased, contrasty and the colours look more saturated. This is what the second image looks like on the old monitor.

Scary.

[Christine]

Yes original image no2 looks much better than the last one you have posted,as viewed on the old monitor.

[Gidders]

After 18 months of using a 17" flat screen monitor, I went back to a CRT monitor with a 21" trinitron tube 12 months ago, because I could not get the flat screeen properly balanced. Now acording to some of the guys in our camera club, flat screens have improved in the interveerening 2 1/2 yrs and they can be properly calibrated now, if you are prepared to buy a good one. 1 chap paid nearly £1000 for his

The bit that I struggled with was the shaddow & highlight detail - my prints didn't look like what I saw on screen , although the mid range colour balance and contrast was fairly good.

What calibration method, if any, is anyone using on their own monitor? I use Adobe gamma, which is OK but not that sophisticated - WYSIWYG is another package which enables you to judge by eye the white & black points and the separage RGB gammas. For accurate balancing/profiling you realy need a spyder

[nirofo]

I use a CRT monitor for most of my critical work, I find they still have the edge for quality reproduction, top quality LCD displays are far too expensive for the average serious amateur. I've just had a look at both your images on my CRT monitor and find the second one is far better than the first in contrast, sharpness and colour. My monitor is calibrated regularly and is automatically re-set daily. I have also viewied both images on a good quality graphics LCD display, ViewSonic VP930, I find they both lack the visual punch and sharpness I get on my CRT.

I use Quick Gamma v2.0.0.3, it works far better than Adobe Gamma and is a free download with full instructions from the following web link. www.normankoren.com

Also loads of other tips and tutorials for setting up your monitor correctly. One thing to remember if you use this, you must disable Adobe Gamma first.

Incidentally, some LCD displays cannot be adjusted for Gamma, contrast and brightness, they are factory set.

nirofo.

[nirofo]

Originally Posted by walwyn

Thanks.

It seems that the old monitor is more red biased, contrasty and the colours look more saturated. This is what the second image looks like on the old monitor.

Scary.

I think your monitor is in desperate need of recalibration, the image looks nothing like that on my monitor and it's calibrated regularly!

nirofo.

[yelvertoft]

Interesting topic as I've been toying with the idea of swapping my CRT for a flat screen, simply to gain desk space. It looks like I'm better off leaving things as they are.

I'm currently viewing this thread from work using a cheap LCD panel, both of the images look near identical to me, scarily so. I'll view from home later using my 1/2 decent CRT.

Has anyone got any recommendations for calibration tools such as the spyder? I note that they can be had for about £65 upwards now. For amateur use, is this good enough? I'd guess that it's certainly better than doing nothing and hoping everything's ok.