> > I don't think it would be a lesson though. Our company bought a couple > of 17" flatscreens for our purposes. Or may be it was 15". It does not > really matter. They were on a mid-cheap band of the spectrum <g>. So > we got them installed and calibrated. You know, setting brightness and > stuff. Then we went to look at some photos on one of my web pages. It > was acceptable for a casual viewer. It was definitely not acceptable > for photo editing. Even if you would'be been sitting just in front of > the darn thing.
That sounds very much as though they were still using a monitor gamma response curve. LCD displays have a very different gamma value. > If you are going to do photo editing I would dare recommend you look > for monitors that are based on Sony Trinitron on similar tech. I have > one such monitor which is about 3 years old but still works (knock on > wood of my head). It is mere 17" but for me it does its job. In my > office I have 19" LG Flatron F900B that comes with some special > routine and some kind of gray card for calibration. It is, I would > say, acceptable. It would mean that if you were to buy one from more > respectable manufacturer, it would be a sensible decision. > > LCD panels are probably good for anything but graphical design or > photo editing... Sshhh - don't tell the guys in the film industry. Back when I was working for SGI the biggest customers for the LCD displays were from the folks working on special effects for films. One of the major selling points of the LCD was the ability for it to be accurately (and repeatably) calibrated for colour reproduction. Another was the contrast ratio, which far exceeeds what a conventional monitor can do. As Herb has pointed out, there *is* one big problem with LCDs; the viewing angle is far less than for a CRT. Gamut ia a problem for both LCDs and CRTs, but even there I believe the LCDs fare rather better (I'm less certain of this, though).
