144mhz vs 4k for photography

Messages
470
Name
CrazeUK
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

Wouldn't say I am new to photography, but I have been out of touch of late.

Work gave us a working from home allowance to buy kit.

During the black Friday sales I bought a Samsung curved 144mhz 27" monitor
LC27JG50QQUXEN

Neither my work or my personal laptop are rated at 144mhz, also I never use them for gaming (not a gamer).

Is a 144mhz monitor any good for photo editing or would you recommend a 4k?
 
During the black Friday sales I bought a Samsung curved 144mhz 27" monitor
LC27JG50QQUXEN

This is good for the bin for many reasons. Curved is one of them

Is a 144mhz monitor any good for photo editing or would you recommend a 4k?

Why would a static image require 144Hz? If you were developing 144Hz content then I would say yes. Even most videos don't go near that.

4K is a image related feature so certainly that is on the list. It also needs to be IPS type and support decent colour gamut. It probably won't be Samsung because I don't think they have anything decent.
 
pretty much every monitor on the market today would be good enough for photo editing

both my displays are 1440p, 4k would be a bit sharper, but I like 1440p. 144hz is irrelevant, i'd put money on the fact that you're running it at 60hz anyway since it will come out the box set to 60 afaik

there are better monitors for colour accuracy, but i'm talking like, professional graphic design work colour matching specific shades of red for a picky client- colour accuracy is something people obsess over too much when they should really be focussing on taking better pictures instead

curved can make it more difficult to make sure your lines are straight, but you get used to it, also this is why photoshop has tools to help you

only thing is, with it being a VA panel, watch out for the colours changing as you sit further off axis- but if it looks good to you, it probably would look good to me too
 
Last edited:
This is good for the bin for many reasons. Curved is one of them



Why would a static image require 144Hz? If you were developing 144Hz content then I would say yes. Even most videos don't go near that.

4K is a image related feature so certainly that is on the list. It also needs to be IPS type and support decent colour gamut. It probably won't be Samsung because I don't think they have anything decent.
The hign refresh speed is nothing to do with editing, it's what makes it a gaming monitor. Higher refresh rates equal better movement on the screen.
 
I recently got a Gigabyte Aorus FI27Q 1440p 165hz, and also important excellent colours for a gaming monitor, 86% srgb coverage.

This is a good site to check the finer details of a monitor.
 
I recently got a Gigabyte Aorus FI27Q 1440p 165hz, and also important excellent colours for a gaming monitor, 86% srgb coverage.

This is a good site to check the finer details of a monitor.
86% might be OK for games but not all that good of a spec for accurate colour work in Photoshop or whatever other editing software you use.
you need to be getting something like THIS which is bang on for colour accuracy, well mine is :(
 
I cannot abide curved screens, much like EVFs.

Right, a good photo editing screen must be straight. Your prints aren't curved, your camera sensor isn't curved so straight away your screen isn't going to represent a) what comes off the camera b) what your output will be.

86% Adobe colour space coverage is too low. Ideally you want 99% Adobe colour space coverage and 100% SRGB coverage. You eqnt a delta E value of under 2 and IPS.4k is nice to have but only on very big screens.

The screen you have will be fine for office and gaming applications but look at the Asus Pro Art range, Eizo and Benq range (although I've seen mixed reviews about their QC). Don't knock a high end dell ultra sharp but the specs I mention is what you need.

Refresh rate is irrelevant for photographers. It's important for gaming though.
 
Why not use the monitor you have? Is it giving you any problems or is it just a vague sorry of "am I doing this properly?"?

There is no properly, just what works for you.
 
Thanks for the response.
Why would curve make it fit for the bin?

It wouldn't. It might not be the best design for photographic use and it isn't to some people's taste but to suggest that you just throw out perfectly usable kit is silly.

@LongLensPhotography has a history of (1) speaking bluntly and (2) disliking curved monitors.

Use it. Make your own choices. If you hate it, sell it to a gamer :)
 
I bought the BenQ PD2700Q and it's great for photo work due to the high percentage colour gamut.

3 year warranty too.

Can't beat it for less than £300.
 
It wouldn't. It might not be the best design for photographic use and it isn't to some people's taste but to suggest that you just throw out perfectly usable kit is silly.

@LongLensPhotography has a history of (1) speaking bluntly and (2) disliking curved monitors.

Use it. Make your own choices. If you hate it, sell it to a gamer :)

You are right. They are for gamers exclusively. If you can't load more than 1080p you don't really care what the monitor is capable of and pretty much nothing else matters but the action.

I have to come near one at my client's office so believe me it hurts the eyes even for Office applications.

86% Adobe colour space coverage is too low

Indeed, but here they are discussing if 86% SRGB is enough. Enough for what? A dark game or a spreadsheet - maybe.
 
You are right. They are for gamers exclusively. If you can't load more than 1080p you don't really care what the monitor is capable of and pretty much nothing else matters but the action.

I have to come near one at my client's office so believe me it hurts the eyes even for Office applications.



Indeed, but here they are discussing if 86% SRGB is enough. Enough for what? A dark game or a spreadsheet - maybe.

I also have a 144hz 1440p for my gaming setup (my main editing is done on an imac), and I actually dont really like high refresh rate, even for gaming! Fast paced fps games, ok yeah, but for anything else I hate how it looks, in game, and even in the desktop, it's probably just a familiarity thing but it just doesnt look right to me- so in the future i'll be getting mini LED, and I'd be happy with 4k 60
 
You are right. They are for gamers exclusively. If you can't load more than 1080p you don't really care what the monitor is capable of and pretty much nothing else matters but the action.

I have to come near one at my client's office so believe me it hurts the eyes even for Office applications.



Indeed, but here they are discussing if 86% SRGB is enough. Enough for what? A dark game or a spreadsheet - maybe.
86% sRGB.

I didn't know such ghastly screens existed.
 
86% sRGB.

I didn't know such ghastly screens existed.
Yawn.
"excellent colours for a gaming monitor" I wasn't taking about some pro grade media monitor.

60hz, I didn't know such ghastly screens existed anymore. My phone has a better refresh rate than that. 60hz just looks terrible a flicker fest even just on the desktop.
 
Last edited:
Yawn.
"excellent colours for a gaming monitor" I wasn't taking about some pro grade media monitor.

60hz, I didn't know such ghastly screens existed anymore. My phone has a better refresh rate than that. 60hz just looks terrible a flicker fest even just on the desktop.
May I direct you to the last word of the title of this thread...photography.

100% sRGB yes. 86% no.
 
Back
Top