Timeline for What should I look for in a monitor for photo processing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2013 at 8:41 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 4, 2013 at 10:22 | |||||
| Jun 1, 2011 at 4:39 | comment | added | stephenmm | I respectfully disagree with drfrogsplat comment that you want to edit your pictures according to the lowest common denominator. You want the best possible monitor you can afford so that you can correctly edit your photos in a no-destructive manner. Once you have the photos edited properly on your monitor you can then enjoy them on that monitor or you can output them to a printer which will take advantage of the higher IQ or you can save them for the web, in which case you convert them to the lowest common denominator at the very last moment possible. Preserve the quality for as long as u can. | |
| May 27, 2011 at 11:34 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Jan 19, 2011 at 19:14 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Jan 19, 2011 at 18:57 | comment | added | kacalapy | You can get a better display than the iMac as long as money is not a factor. Take a look at the great answers I got to almost this exact question photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6376/… | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 12:19 | comment | added | ysap | @drfrogsplat - +1 for the comment, however, I think that in the long term, the high quality displays will become the mainstream. Preparing your photos for publishing in high quality will make them more future-proof. | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 6:36 | comment | added | Matt Grum | You should look for "TFT central" on google! | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 6:02 | comment | added | drfrogsplat | On the one hand, you may want something that makes your photos look better... on the other hand, you might want something that makes them look the same as most other people will see them (on your blog/flickr stream/etc). I tend to think the former is better (since there's just too much variation in the latter), but its definitely worth thinking about whether you want others to see it how you see it or whether you just want to see them looking "right" yourself. | |
| Sep 4, 2010 at 18:25 | vote | accept | Karel | ||
| Aug 10, 2010 at 14:11 | vote | accept | Karel | ||
| Sep 4, 2010 at 18:25 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2010 at 21:45 | history | edited | Karel |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 30, 2010 at 10:22 | comment | added | Fredrik Mörk | If any manufacturer would make a square monitor I would buy it immediately. The traditional formats (and especially the widescreens) are a pain when you shoot half your images in portrait orientation. OK, most screens can be turned, but it's a pain. | |
| Jul 30, 2010 at 9:00 | history | edited | Karel | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 126 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jul 30, 2010 at 8:46 | history | edited | Karel |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 30, 2010 at 1:52 | answer | added | Kyle Brandt | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 20:39 | answer | added | Joanne C | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 19:35 | comment | added | ahockley | What aspects? I'd say either 16:9 or 3:2 :) Tip your waitresses, folks! | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 19:05 | answer | added | Reid | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 18:46 | answer | added | jrista | timeline score: 37 | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 17:52 | answer | added | chills42 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 29, 2010 at 17:27 | history | asked | Karel | CC BY-SA 2.5 |