Does a high resolution monitor make a big difference in editing?

shaylou

shaylou

Messages
1,781
Name
Shayne
Edit My Images
No
I recently was in an electronics store and came across a iMac with something around 2450 by 1400 resolution and was so impressed with the picture quality I decided to open my flicker account on it. Wow what a difference! I have a 2011 MacBook Pro and it has decent picture quality but nothing like that iMac.

I noticed that there was a little noise on one of my pictures that I couldn't see on my laptop and started to wonder. (You see, the timing of this just happened a to be when I came back from an art show and decide to print my work and try to sell some of it.) On that large screen I saw things that I didn't see before. There will be some of my pics that I will want to print pretty large and my worry is that my editing will not be as good as it should be.

Simple fix right, just buy a high res monitor with some size to it. Wrong my graphics card won't support that high of a resolution and Apple being Apple made it so it can not be replaced. So now I am faced with a major purchase of a new system to accomplish really high quality image editing (I think). It's not the end of the world if I need to purchase an iMac and I'm sure I will really enjoy it as a matter of fact but I was wondering if it make a big difference during editing with a high res monitor.

Now I'm sure there are a lot of people that edit with medium res monitors and are very happy with it and that's great but this question is not for you. I am asking the people with high res monitors if they think it makes a big difference when editing compared to a lower res monitor.

Thanks for your help.
 
I don't have a high res monitor but I'll offer you my two-penn'orth anyway.

If it's detecting and fixing noise you're worried about, you don't need a new monitor. Just look at your images at 100% scale on your existing monitor.

The thing is, noise gets averaged out when you look at a scaled-down version of an image. If it's there, you'll see it best when looking at a full-sized version of your image. But even a high res monitor has nowhere near as many pixels as your photo, so you'd still have to magnify the image to see it at 100%.

There may be other benefits to using a high res monitor. But this isn't one of them.
 
How big was the image on Flickr? Was it as big or bigger than the resolution of the monitor? I doubt that so they'll be some scaling going on.

However, those 27" mac monitors are good, and I've never liked proper editing on a laptop monitor, I can never get good results on them.

Personally I use a pc with a 24" dell monitor at 1920x1280 res, which I find is great. I've also a spyder for monitor calibration.

Without knowing what you've got, it's hard to recommend, but those mac monitors alone are £900?

There are some very good 24" monitors now for under £200 that would be worth considering and your laptop would probably support those.
 
I used to laptop edit but I have noticed a massive difference since I moved to a Mac Mini + 24" monitor.
 
Gloss = false sense of contrast.

I always get slated for saying that but it's true. How many of the top end screen manufactures make a glossy display.

You don't NEED high res to edit but the extra screen real estate helps.
 
What allows you to see noise and dynamic subtleties is a well calibrated monitor. If you have an uncalibrated (and possibly cheap - I have no idea what the panels are like in the MBP you have) small panel, you are fighting both screen area and ability to display colours and grey levels appropriately. Monitor size isn't it either as the 27" imac screens have relatively small pixels - much smaller than a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitor (I know, I have a 27" 2560x1400 next to a 24" 1920x1200 monitor here and the pixels are way bigger on the 24"). What you do get to see is more of the picture on screen with a high res monitor. Having said that, what all my monitors (2 x 24" 1920x1200 and a 27" 2560 x 1440 - all Dell Ultrasharps) have in common though is the fact they are calibrated with a hardware calibrator (i1 display Pro) and come out of black and go into white reasonably correctly.

I also don't like glossy screens - far too many reflections to look through although you do get a sense of more detail/sharpness on them when you can see through the reflections.
 
neil_g said:
Gloss = false sense of contrast.

I always get slated for saying that but it's true. How many of the top end screen manufactures make a glossy display.

You don't NEED high res to edit but the extra screen real estate helps.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. But that false sense of contrast does look gorgeous.

Having said that, I'm posting this on my 2560 X 1440 iMac which also has a couple of Dells running at 1920 X 1080. The Dells look very nice and natural, but the iMac looks "better". Also, that's just about enough screen real estate for me. But 3 X 27s would probably be tidier.
 
when i got a 1440p monitor at first it seemed big and took a while to get used to but now looking at a 1080p screen it seems tiny and i would hate to go back to one - the difference between the sale of the old screen and the new one was about £250 but money well spent
 
I LOVE my 27" Imac. The screen is one of the main reasons I got it. Yes I know you can buy everything separate but when you add all the equivalent components together you start to wonder if it's worth the hassle or just go get the imac and get on with it.

For me the greater resolution does come in handy for editing. And it's great for LR too as you have more screen estate to display your thumbnails.
 
i think the main thing with an "all in one" pc is that pc technology tends to move faster than tft technology so you could end up with a super screen but an ageing "pc" element
 
SThornton said:
I used to laptop edit but I have noticed a massive difference since I moved to a Mac Mini + 24" monitor.
Click to expand...

What monitor did you move to? The Mac mini will not support a high res monitor because of its graphics card. So unless I'm missing something the only advantage you got from your move is the actual size of your viewing area. Is that correct ?


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
What allows you to see noise and dynamic subtleties is a well calibrated monitor. If you have an uncalibrated (and possibly cheap - I have no idea what the panels are like in the MBP you have) small panel, you are fighting both screen area and ability to display colours and grey levels appropriately. Monitor size isn't it either as the 27" imac screens have relatively small pixels - much smaller than a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitor (I know, I have a 27" 2560x1400 next to a 24" 1920x1200 monitor here and the pixels are way bigger on the 24"). What you do get to see is more of the picture on screen with a high res monitor. Having said that, what all my monitors (2 x 24" 1920x1200 and a 27" 2560 x 1440 - all Dell Ultrasharps) have in common though is the fact they are calibrated with a hardware calibrator (i1 display Pro) and come out of black and go into white reasonably correctly.

I also don't like glossy screens - far too many reflections to look through although you do get a sense of more detail/sharpness on them when you can see through the reflections.[/
quote]
Thanks for the reply. Thats a lot of good information but I'm struggling to see how to use it to figure out what direction to go with my setup .


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
Click to expand...
 
shaylou said:
What monitor did you move to? The Mac mini will not support a high res monitor because of its graphics card. So unless I'm missing something the only advantage you got from your move is the actual size of your viewing area. Is that correct ?


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
Click to expand...
i think it has a thunderbolt output so would do up to 2560x1600
 
shaylou said:
I recently was in an electronics store and came across a iMac with something around 2450 by 1400 resolution and was so impressed with the picture quality I decided to open my flicker account on it. Wow what a difference! I have a 2011 MacBook Pro and it has decent picture quality but nothing like that iMac.

I noticed that there was a little noise on one of my pictures that I couldn't see on my laptop and started to wonder. (You see, the timing of this just happened a to be when I came back from an art show and decide to print my work and try to sell some of it.) On that large screen I saw things that I didn't see before. There will be some of my pics that I will want to print pretty large and my worry is that my editing will not be as good as it should be.

Simple fix right, just buy a high res monitor with some size to it. Wrong my graphics card won't support that high of a resolution and Apple being Apple made it so it can not be replaced. So now I am faced with a major purchase of a new system to accomplish really high quality image editing (I think). It's not the end of the world if I need to purchase an iMac and I'm sure I will really enjoy it as a matter of fact but I was wondering if it make a big difference during editing with a high res monitor.

Now I'm sure there are a lot of people that edit with medium res monitors and are very happy with it and that's great but this question is not for you. I am asking the people with high res monitors if they think it makes a big difference when editing compared to a lower res monitor.

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

I upgraded my monitor a couple of weeks ago. It makes a HUGE difference to have a high res monitor.

Previously I was using the standard Dell monitor they supplied with a bundle. I replaced it with this:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008RM235I/ref=oh_details_o04_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I got it for £115, which was an awesome deal, I see the price is back up to £140.

I see colours I never seen before, it is so much sharper, contrast has improved. I'm seeing my images as I never saw them before, very tempted to go back and re-PP a lot of my work.

it also works brilliantly with my X-Rite i1Display calibration system, it does it all for me, I don't have to adjust a thing manually.
 
As already mentioned it'll be due to a properly calibrated higher quality monitor of the iMac compared to the Macbook.

Higher res won't help you "see" more however it will give you a larger workspace to use so you can physically see more of the picture at once. 1:1 or 1:2 is the same ratio no matter the screen resolution.

Agreed 100% with the glossy comments. Glossy is "great" for TV's and devices you consume stuff on (most tablets for example) as it gives greater contrast and makes things pop, however for processing photos and video it's a bad idea. Just a FYI the screen used in the Apple 27" display is also used in the Dell U2713HM and a couple of other screens, main (visible) difference being the Dell has a satin/matt finish so better for photo work.

EDIT: OP, sure your Macbook doesn't support a 2560x1600/1440? Not sure exactly which model you have but Apple seem to suggest it should be fine on the early 2011 13 and 15" models and the late 2011 models

e.g. http://support.apple.com/kb/sp619

That means you can buy the Dell mentioned above (for example) and using a cheap adaptor run it off your laptop. As an example my mid 2011 Air runs the above Dell fine at native resolution.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
As already mentioned it'll be due to a properly calibrated higher quality monitor of the iMac compared to the Macbook.

Higher res won't help you "see" more however it will give you a larger workspace to use so you can physically see more of the picture at once. 1:1 or 1:2 is the same ratio no matter the screen resolution.

Agreed 100% with the glossy comments. Glossy is "great" for TV's and devices you consume stuff on (most tablets for example) as it gives greater contrast and makes things pop, however for processing photos and video it's a bad idea. Just a FYI the screen used in the Apple 27" display is also used in the Dell U2713HM and a couple of other screens, main (visible) difference being the Dell has a satin/matt finish so better for photo work.

EDIT: OP, sure your Macbook doesn't support a 2560x1600/1440? Not sure exactly which model you have but Apple seem to suggest it should be fine on the early 2011 13 and 15" models and the late 2011 models

e.g. http://support.apple.com/kb/sp619

That means you can buy the Dell mentioned above (for example) and using a cheap adaptor run it off your laptop. As an example my mid 2011 Air runs the above Dell fine at native resolution.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the info. I have early 2011 macbook pro and it supports 1900x1200 (full hd) from what I have been told. I actually bought a asus high res monitor before I realized my system will not support it so I took it back and here I am.
 
shaylou said:
Thank you for the info. I have early 2011 macbook pro and it supports 1900x1200 (full hd) from what I have been told. I actually bought a asus high res monitor before I realized my system will not support it so I took it back and here I am.
Click to expand...
Apple says the 2011 models:

  • Intel HD Graphics 3000 with 384MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory5
  • Dual display and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colors
  • FaceTime HD camera
  • Thunderbolt port

Exactly which model is it?
 
shaylou said:
Thanks for the reply. Thats a lot of good information but I'm struggling to see how to use it to figure out what direction to go with my setup .
Click to expand...
Resolution isn't everything, you need the right monitor as well. If you are critical on colour and greyscale correctness, you should probably budget for a hardware calibrator too (yes, even on calibrated imac screens). Personally, I'd also prefer a non-glossy screen.

I.e. Find out what the highest res. and through what connector it is supported:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm is a good place for really in-depth reviews of higher end panels.
 
4k displays are now available... And not overly expensive either!
 
shaylou said:
You need a dvi cable. I bought one when I bought that monitor and still only got hd resolution. :banghead:
Click to expand...

You'll need a specific type of DVI cable or just use Displayport which should be available on most decent 27 and 30" monitors. Your machine will power a 2560x1*** display.

I'd go for the hm (well I did) version of the Dell because it's LED backlit rather than CCFL. Saves power but more importantly it puts out a lot less heat. It's cool to the touch unlike the 30" CCFL screens I use at work. It "only" has 99% or sRGB rather than higher on the h version but as most people process and print using sRGB the extra has no real benefit and may make colours a bit odd when printing if not properly calibrated.
 
Neilc28 said:
4k displays are now available... And not overly expensive either!
Click to expand...
Any good one is still over £1k+ at the moment AFAIK. There are a couple of 28" screens that have just been announced at £500 but they are both TN panels.
 
And how much are glossy apple thunderbolt displays? They are highly overrated and people still pay top dollar for them.

4k displays are getting cheaper and cheaper, and as shown at CES are of exceptional quality..

Still can't justify it myself, but one day...
 
shaylou said:
What monitor did you move to? The Mac mini will not support a high res monitor because of its graphics card. So unless I'm missing something the only advantage you got from your move is the actual size of your viewing area. Is that correct ?


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
Click to expand...

I'm using the HDMI output at 1920x1080 but it also has a thunderbolt output.

I was more talking about a fixed desktop screen vs the moveable laptop screen.
 
A lot of my Redmond-based colleagues are using the cheap new wake of Taiwanese 4k screens with great results. They're starting around $400 for the Seiki branded ones - eBay tends to be the best source from the manufacturer. Really good feedback from some very picky people so far. There are also a few Windows devs using the 39" TVs as 4k monitors. Refresh rate of the latter is low and definitely not suitable for gaming but they love them for coding and media work:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/12/16/revie...splay-for-a-2013-macbook-pro-with-intel-iris/
 
Neilc28 said:
And how much are glossy apple thunderbolt displays? They are highly overrated and people still pay top dollar for them.

4k displays are getting cheaper and cheaper, and as shown at CES are of exceptional quality..

Still can't justify it myself, but one day...
Click to expand...
£899 from apple.

Overpriced and horribly unreliable. Which is why I've managed to convince my manager to buy in U2713H moving forward.

No doubt we'll get whined at by the users for it being Dell and not Apple. :rolleyes:
 
We just recently purchased 2x Dell 24" IPS monitors (1920x1080) for just under £200 each to increase our editing capabilities.
The resolution of the screen doesn't really make editing 'better' other than the fact you can fit more in, so your picture itself takes up more of the screen.
We run multiple screen setups on our editing machines, so in Photoshop for example, all the layer windows etc are on separate screens to the image you are editing.
We also loupe Lightroom to a non calibrated screen, so we can see what 'joe public' will see when they look at the image.
No idea on your eyesight, but if your vision isn't 100%, bear in mind that higher resolutions mean smaller buttons and text!
IPS monitors (or their equivalents) are well worth looking at, as they allow for a wider viewing angle. We really love our new Dells, they are amazing!!
Now LED lit LCD technology has improved, they are a better option than standard (tube lit) LCD screens, as you get a more even light across the whole of the screen.
And as everyone has mentioned, they really need to be calibrated. We use a Spyder 3 Pro to calibrate all of our machines.
 
shaylou said:
This is the monitor I tried,
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors_Projectors/PB278Q/

and this is the cable,
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A/mini-displayport-to-dual-link-dvi-adapter

my system,
View attachment 8917
Click to expand...

If your monitor has displayport then you are probably better off with a simple £5 mini displayport to displayport lead instead of the £85 mini displayport to dual link dvi adaptor. Having displayport pretty much makes dvi redundant as it is a much more advanced technology and I'm surprised a lot of monitors (and graphics cards) still don't support it.
 
I'm not sure if you noticed but there is two graphics cards in my system. Perhaps I need to some how tell the system to use the other card because one card clearly does not support anything over 1680x1050. I think a call to Apple is in my future.
 
boliston said:
If your monitor has displayport then you are probably better off with a simple £5 mini displayport to displayport lead instead of the £85 mini displayport to dual link dvi adaptor. Having displayport pretty much makes dvi redundant as it is a much more advanced technology and I'm surprised a lot of monitors (and graphics cards) still don't support it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is a better method but according to my research using a dual link dvi cable will work just fine. IMO we don't have a cable issue here.

Thanks for the reply.

:canon:
 
shaylou said:
I'm not sure if you noticed but there is two graphics cards in my system. Perhaps I need to some how tell the system to use the other card because one card clearly does not support anything over 1680x1050. I think a call to Apple is in my future.
Click to expand...
no they automatically switch seamlessly depending on what the system need GPU wise and to save battery (intel chip for standard desktop, NVidia chip for GPU intensive tasks). both chips will handle the highest res stated in the spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top