Mint Photographers recommend a monitor for RAW

[Petermint]

So I could start publishing with LaTex right away..

You use LaTex instead of vi?

[Petermint]

I am testing this page across two monitors of different brands. The white and green areas look exactly the same. The Forum rules area looks beige on one screen and pink on the other. Both screens would be perfect for editing a photograph of lettuce. One of the screens would be horrible for editing skin tones.

The screen with the beige pink is the one with the best resolution, despite having fewer pixels. I think it is the fake anti glare coating on the pink screen. Selling a matt finish as anti glare is fraud.

[vansloneker]

I know a professional photographer who works with exactly this Canon. He is so satisfied with the JPG's that he doesn't work with RAW's anymore...
He converts the JPG's into TIFF's - it is faster done with the work and he can go home earlier. That's why you still need a good color-accurate monitor. The employer or customer wants something for his/her/their money...

It's got to be a very good JPEG or it's not a good camera! The JPEG is the camera manufacturer interpretation of the RAW photo data. RAW gives the extra bit of headroom for editing and JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm. Converting JPEG to TIFF is ridiculous and increases file size, does not save space.
I really can't imagine a professional photographer shooting in JPEG just to save a few megs. On the other hand, on many jobs a good JPEG is all that is needed.

To bring this back to what this forum is about:
Windows is the Microsoft JPEG of a computing operating system, lossy, limited editing possibilities, you have to accept it as it comes, it adds noise and degrades after every update. Only doesn't save on file-space.
Working with Linux is like working with RAW, about everything is configurable, you can build your operating system as you want it, every update is build from RAW and in the end it even saves file-space.

[vansloneker]

I am testing this page across two monitors of different brands. The white and green areas look exactly the same. The Forum rules area looks beige on one screen and pink on the other. Both screens would be perfect for editing a photograph of lettuce. One of the screens would be horrible for editing skin tones.

The screen with the beige pink is the one with the best resolution, despite having fewer pixels. I think it is the fake anti glare coating on the pink screen. Selling a matt finish as anti glare is fraud.

Did you look into the settings menu of the screens and are the settings basics comparable? If e.g. the color temperature is set different the output will be different.

[absque fenestris]

If we already look at monitors critically - here the biological RGB and light-sensitive sensors are tested...

http://www.xrite.com/hue-test?PageID=77&Lang=en

[mediclaser]

Hi,
I'm just getting into this--I am a complete novice but enjoying photography.
I am currently using a crop sensor camera but hopefully I will have a 5D mk III before summer.
I have been using rawtherapee and a LG monitor at 1920x1280.
I am wondering if I should consider a higher resolution monitor. Is there better Linux software?
What do you use?

I am curious as to why you are so particular about the monitor resolution. Do you simply want to minimize zooming in and out the image(s) you work on?

As an amateur in photography, the worst handicap for me when I moved to Linux is the inability to use the Canon DPP for RAW image processing (because Canon won't make a Linux version of it). I have experimented with UFRaw, RawTherapee, and DarkTable and I can tell you I can't even make the RAW images match the out-of-camera JPEG quality using these tools. Maybe I just don't have the skills, but the way Canon DPP software makes it so easy for me to do exactly what I have in mind tells me it's not my skills that matters...it's the tools that helps get the job done.

I stopped working with RAW images when I realized I could get better quality with out-of-camera JPEGs under Linux (not to mention it saves a lot of time). I just need to make sure I get the right exposure setting and white balance. For any adjustments in sharpness, EV, retouching, etc, GIMP has taken the place of Photoshop for me. But RAW? I would rather go back to Windows than deal with the existing RAW image tools in Linux.

[absque fenestris]

Balsam into my heart: but the madness goes on - the dear photographer friends buy the newest Canon / Nikon etc.
They are missing the newest PlugIns for Adobe Lightroom (...they don't work in principle with the attached tools from the manufacturers) and/or OSX / macOS doesn't support the corresponding Adobe CS (...or whatever is called) anymore and they are in the subscription trap by Adobe & Apple ..

This was one reason why I was very, very careful when I bought a digital SLR camera. When I saw the Nikon D3300 (which I recommended to my niece...) in operation, I decided to buy it.
I could do RAW, I haven't done it yet - the JPG's are (very) good - and RAW... I do it only against payment...

[absque fenestris]

A calibrated and profiled monitor under Linux (whatever...) without a colorimeter would be a good thing - Windows and Mac shows that it's basically possible...
These settings - as well as Kelvin settings - do not exist under Linux (... whatever)

Too bad - or are patents/copyrights due to cause here again?
...I know, you can hack the settings - but I prefer system settings, where I can judge the display with a simple before/after - without terminal...

[Petermint]

4K screens have less pixels than a 5D mk III. 8K screens have more pixels than the 5D, giving you space for editing info around the image. The Samsung 98" 8K screen should work nicely.

[absque fenestris]

4K screens have less pixels than a 5D mk III. 8K screens have more pixels than the 5D, giving you space for editing info around the image. The Samsung 98" 8K screen should work nicely.

...but it's still not enough for the portrait format. Interesting price by the way...


https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions- ... 900rbfxza/

[BG405]

For pixel-perfect editing, I don't think such a high resolution monitor would help much unless you have REALLY good eyesight .. and a very steady hand. 4K should be OK when used (as I do) with the zoom features of the likes of GIMP. Definitely not worth the cost of a house for a monitor (you'd need a big house for something that size, though).

[absque fenestris]

Reminds me somehow of CinemaScope theaters and that I felt particularly smart when I sat in the front row - pretty far to the right.
Must have been about 1965... children's afternoon

[I2k4]

Not to make too fine a point of it, a monitor is for your own satisfaction and enjoyment, and that of whoever is sitting next to you looking at that screen. The second an image goes "out there" to intermediating web services, they'll rerender and possibly even modify it to suit their limitations, and then real fun starts with the viewing audience that is going to see it on their own screens of whatever quality and size, from living room wall to laptop to iPhone 5s.

Where it is crucially important to have a fine, calibrated monitor is to ensure output conformity with a good printer or print shop - to export exactly what you see for the machine to reproduce it exactly. Even so, then google up a manically fussy film / print photographer's image, especially in color: say Red Room by William Eggleston. The first five internet images I see on screen have different colored light bulbs, not to mention the tones of red. I've used that as desktop wallpaper on several devices, and it's different every which way.

[all41]

It's been awhile. Thank you to the ones responding and interested.
Regarding monitors and digital modes:
How do photographers deal with the 18% grey scale using Linux
regarding monitor accuracy.
Please allow for my lack of perception, I am very new to this.

[absque fenestris]

It's been awhile. Thank you to the ones responding and interested.
Regarding monitors and digital modes:
How do photographers deal with the 18% grey scale using Linux
regarding monitor accuracy.
Please allow for my lack of perception, I am very new to this.

This is still one of the best test images I know:
http://www.eci.org/_media/downloads/mon ... est_pc.zip

Medium grey, black and white point, grey gradations and gamma are verifiable with this image.

18% refers to the light reflection of a standardized grey card (e.g. Kodak) - which is perceived by the human eye as medium grey " 50% ".
A screen does not reflect light - a screen emits light. How this ominous 18% reflected gray should be accurately displayed on the screen by RGB - one argues about it...
The medium grey tone on the ECI test pictures seems to be a good compromise. In any case, you can immediately determine the color direction of any color cast on the monitor.
More exactly it goes with a colorimeter - only then these things are more expensive than e.g. a LG monitor...


P.S. :
A screen can, of course, "reflect", which means that a nonmatted, glossy screen surface can reflect incident daylight or artificial light.
Particularly in digital image processing, appropriate measures should be taken: Matte surfaces, favourable workplace arrangement in relation to windows and light sources, etc.
Experience shows that amateurs are more conscientious than so-called "professionals": What I have seen in graphic studios on monitors and workplace conditions has completely disillusioned me.