Today, I just replaced my old CRT monitor on my PC#2 with a new LCD.  I am still running an NEC CRT on my PC#1.

Quite the difference!.....Text is crisp, white looks really white, no dead pixels....Haven't changed much "out of the box" settings other than turn down the brightness....but I'm not sure yet because all my image editing is done on PC#1 with the NEC CRT.  I have calibrated that CRT and the images come out good via print and look reasonably well on the screen.  Now, I look at my uploaded images with the new LCD and well, the images don't look that good....(OK, I know you'll say the images are crappy anyway..LOL)  But, what I notice is that the LCD viewed images seem to be oversharpened and seem to be much lighter even though I've turned down the brightness setting already.  The bottom line is my uploaded images look totally different (read worse) with the new LCD monitor!

So, my questions are;

1)How many of you use LCD's vs CRT's to view and to edit images?

2)Do you adjust images differently for LCD viewers?

3)Honestly, do my images look oversharpened and over contrasty for those of you with LCD screens?

4)Same images, two quite different looks....which one is correct?...should they both be the same...or is that just a function of LCD monitors?

I will try and calibrate the LCD over the next few days and see what difference that makes. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your views/experiences with the two types of monitors.

Forgot to add....I am using DVI connections from PC to LCD monitor.

I'm using a samsung 913t...its LCD... your images don't appear to be overly sharpened or "over contrasty" to me. They look just fine. When I first got mine some of my pictures looked completely different, mostly the brightness, but I haven't seen any changes that are unbearable..

I'm working on an iMac with LCD monitor. One thing I've always known is that images coming from a Mac are displayed much darker on a PC with a CRT monitor (but I forgot why that is). But I'm pretty sure that the PC is the culprit (or the video connexion type), not the monitor itself... Anyway, I know that some people use Apple displays with their PC's, because very few (if any) displays can match Apple's...

Yeah, I use an Apple LCD on my PC via the digital input on graphics card...didnt have to change any settings....dont forget though, LCD's have different contrast ratios and diff refresh rates...makes all the diff imo.

Also, because we now use the PC/Mac as a digital darkroom, I personally believe its important to have a damn good graphics card and monitor too.

The sceen gamma is the culprit Geert. Gradient, most LCDs are inherintly (sp?) more contrasty than CRTs. I don't have that issue on my Apple monitor at work, though my wife does at home, even with calibration. If you got a good one, you should be able to tweek it so that it more closely matches what you are used to. Try these links for assistance: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html http://www.generaldigital.com/products/utilities/utilities.htm http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2506.html ;^P Good luck!

1)How many of you use LCD's vs CRT's to view and to edit images?

I use a Viewsonic LCD. It came with very impressive software calibration, compare it to Adobe's that comes with PS like you would compare curves with levels. Not as perfect perhaps as hardware calibration, but really astonishing.

2)Do you adjust images differently for LCD viewers?

No. Not necessary. Calibration you do for yourself and a select minority. Most monitors that are connected to the internet are not calibrated but, at the best, set to their user's personal preference. So there's no possibility to have everyone see your images the way you intend them to.

3)Honestly, do my images look oversharpened and over contrasty for those of you with LCD screens?

Not really.

4)Same images, two quite different looks....which one is correct?...should they both be the same...or is that just a function of LCD monitors?

No, of bad calibration.

As for the difference between mac and PC: set your gamma (=central) slider in levels to 0.80 or 1.20 to know what the other sees/wants you to see.

CRT for all graphics... TFT's, no matter how good, still don't cut it for me.

1. I use an LCD, it is hardware calibrated.

2. No. I adjust images to suit what I see on my screen.

3. No they don't. Sharpening is a bit subjective, what is over sharpened to one maybe not be to another.  I do sharpen differently for web images to the sharpening I apply to print images.  Your last upload the sharpening is visible, but acceptable for web use imho.

4. The NEC CRT monitor if that is the one that is correctly calibrated. My experience is that LCD monitors are very poorly set up straight out the box, if you calibrate it colours and tones should be the same on both, assuming the LCD is of the same quality.

"CRT for all graphics... TFT's, no matter how good, still don't cut it for me." Obviously you've never used and Apple Cinema Display. I would have agreed with you until I got mine at work...

They're a bit on the expensive side :P Another problem I have with TFT's is that on other resolutions than it's native resolution basically messes it up. Some have acceptable interpolation methods, but it's still blurry. Currently I run my 19" CRT at 1600x1200 and it's razor sharp. Not many 19" TFT support this resolution. The 20" Apple Cinema Display is 1650x1080. It's bigger with less resolution.

It comes down to personal preference I think. My preferences are different from yours, that's why I still prefer CRT's

Thanks for your thoughts/experiences and thanks Kort for the links.  I will try to calibrate the new LCD monitor (Samsung 931c) later this weekend....hopefully that will get things in line.

One interesting point that was raised is that most monitors that are connected to the net and viewing our images...are NOT calibrated....and I agree with Onslow that "out of the box" settings seem to be very poor.  Which leads me to a simliar question...for web viewing, do we adjust for the masses?    Because, if I calibrate my LCD monitor, it still won't be in sync with what most people see......

Starting to chase my tail here...lol!

Which leads me to a simliar question...for web viewing, do we adjust for the masses? 

No. IMO you should calibrate for your use, I have seen my images on other peoples un calibrated monitors (scary) if you calibrate for the masses, well IMO you cant as there are simply too many variables, in my experience many un calibrated monitors are way to bright and images look washed out, to make them look right you would have a load of underexposed/too dark images.

I use both TFT and CRT both calibrated and profiled, and look visually identical on screen.

I agree with Rinz, TFT’s not being run on their native resolution look awful, also agree with Richard, web/print sharpening are two separate methods and should be treated as different media. If you used print sharpening for web use it would look way over sharpened on the flip side web sharpening for print would look soft.

Love my TFT for general viewing, but still believe the CRT (flat screen) is superior for any editing work.

Richard hit the nail square on the head, out of box TFT = not good, they must be properly calibrated and that is the main problem with the masses, they either don’t know any better or don’t have the know how/equipment to do it.

Conduct a little survey, next time you are round a friends house (someone that dosnt know about photography etc), look at their PC and ask them if they have calibrated their screen and wait for the blank expression on their face.

I got my first LCD (Liquid Crystal Diode) screen about three years ago and I'll never go back to a CRT, and, pretty soon, most people in the USA will not be able to purchase anything else, including Television Sets.

Not only is the look of the image far superior to anything a CRT can show, but there are other issues which have caused the US Congress to pull out its Article One, Section Eight Commerce Clause Club:

Far too many people who have worked with computers for decades are experiencing symptoms of macular degeneration where the center of their vision gets blown out. While they did not want to pay for research out of fear of consumer litigation and workmen's compensation, which could bankrupt international companies, they did want the use of CRTs to end for more than health reasons.

If you track your energy bill closely, you should see a reduction in your electric usage. The energy required for an LCD monitor is minuscule compared to a CRT. With the increase in demand for energy being primarily caused by the "Computer Revolution" the solution to our electrical infrastructure which caused the huge blackout from Michigan to New York, the gradual phasing out of the CRT made practical sense.

Three years ago, SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) announced that all automotive manufacturers world wide would be eliminating incandescent bulbs for the lower energy consuming LED (Light Emitting Diode) by 2008. The reasons behind this was all the toys people want on their cars these days are causing manufacturers to change over from 12 volt systems to 36 volt systems.

After the huge blackout which effected fifty million consumers, the Congress called for testimony of the heads of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) in an attempt to restore or rebuild the electrical infrastructure of the United States. ASCE keeping up with its SAE counterparts asked that key members of the latter be allowed to make representations as well.

The outcome of the hearings resulted in several bills which will phase out all CRTs, incandescent light bulbs, and florescent lamps; for LCD's and LED's. LED's for traffic lights have been used in some regions of the country for decades. They are now available for screw in lighting fixtures and the prices are dropping rapidly. By 2010, screw in LEDs and Fluorescent bulbs (lamps) will be all you can buy.

By 2012 the long stick florescent lamps will be phased out and replaced by LED's as well. While florescent fixtures do use less energy than incandescents, the ballast (which is actually a capacitor) used in start up become toxic waste when they blow out. Also, replacing florescent fixtures with LED's will cause for great energy savings, results in lower pollution in electrical generation, and can better mimic both actinic and sunlight in ranges of 300° to 80,000° Kelvin, than even florescent lamps!

The end effect should be better lighting in both home and office which will allow the human skin to absorb correct light waves for production of vitamin D, ease your eyes from bombardment of a cathode ray gun, as well as lowered energy consumption, and pollution.

:b_unbelievable: Thanks for all that info Joe!

Awww, a little too deep???

LMAO!!

Seriously though, while I still have some problems with symptoms of macular degeneration, that isn't really in the macular or pupil, sitting and staring at a computer screen all day no longer bothers my CAD Monkey Eye's.

A real plus!

Miniscule? It's about half the usage. That's hardly miniscule, albeit a big improvement ;)

Where does the MD come from? Personally I find LCD screen brighter than my CRT. I couldn't find any documents connecting computing on a CRT with MD. Just some suggestions on lifestyle to minimize risks (i.e. diet, not smoking etc). And don't say radiation, the amount is miniscule thanks to regulations (unless you're using a stone age monitor :D )

IMNSHO 99% of the problems people have with CRT's is bad settings. Most people just leave the refreshrate at 60Hz for example. A sure fire way to get a headache. Other problems are usually due to using old screens which aren't as sharp as they were causing people to squint.

I won't dispute the uses TFT's have. For most basic desktop work they're perfect.

Quote - Not only is the look of the image far superior to anything a CRT can show

That's an opinion I don't share :)

I suppose thats what I get for giving more than 2¢ worth, however, the last time I put a Kill-O-Watt meter on a CRT and compared the usage over 24 hours with that of an LCD, minuscule would be a proper term to use.

Radiation, radiation, radiation.

...and yes, I began staring at these things 26 years ago on main-frames and yes, I was on the internet back then too, only it was called ARPA Net and was run by Honeywell Front End Network Processors. For some that could be considered the stone age. But then, that would be someone else's 2¢...

florescent ligting is just so damed ugly...I do have a new one in the living room that has a warm yellowish tone to it...

They do have a filter for florescent that makes it  look more like an incandescent fixture..

I used some theatrical lighting gels in my office because the florescent was killing my eyes..
Now everyones asks.."why is there a purple light comming from that room"
(well, it's not really purple)

LED light...same issue..once they get a decent color temp..it might be OK..

LCD displays...Tow issues that were important to me...

Space and weight....There are a few things I miss about my old crt...but it made my desk seem small..

If one takes the time to set an LCD correctly..It's fine..

LCD TV's...They are getting better as the contrast ratio is getting better...the response times are also getting small..

I saw a (new)LG display...the contrast ratio they claimed was 1600 to 1...
about a year ago most were 800 to 1 or less..

You can still get motion blur on most of the sets they sell today..

@3Dguy...the LCD monitor uses in the order of 38 watts...compared to probably 200-300 watts for the CRT's....but that was not my reason for replacement...bad cable on the older CRT was the reason, cable could not be replaced.  I will still keep my NEC CRT for image editing/graphics as I tend to agree with you.

@pushinfaders...the Samsung 931c has a rated contrast ratio of 2000:1 and response time of 2ms....at least that's what they say....

Haven't had a chance to play with calibrating yet...maybe tomorrow.

My 19" IIyama uses around 145W.. not 200-300. The 22" version surprisingly uses less @ 138W. Ok, that's 3 times as much as a TFT ;)

Quote - Most people just leave the refreshrate at 60Hz for example. A sure fire way to get a headache.

OK what should the refreshrate be set at then and why :blushing:

Noeline

I have no real input but to say we use LCD at work...business stuff and not calibrated. At home I use a NEC CRT monitor calibrated as best can without the hardware and software of the pro methods.  This works for me just fine. My images edited here look just fine on the LCD's at work even if a bit more contrasty sometimes.   LCD has come a long way from the ones that left tracks with every movement of the mouse...I have considered one but for now the NEC with tube is just fine.            TomD'Art.

Quote - > Quote - Most people just leave the refreshrate at 60Hz for example. A sure fire way to get a headache.

OK what should the refreshrate be set at then and why :blushing:

Noeline

Well, 60Hz in a computer screen is on the edge of perception looking straight on you can't really see it, but from the corner of your eye you probably can. While you don't consiously see it, your brain still registers it. This causes headaches. Now with TV's the glow time of the fosfor is longer so it doesn't flikker as much, plus it's interlaced (which means half the picture is visble at any given time) that helps alot. With TFT's you don't really suffer from this because the pixels stay lit until changed. As opposed to a fosfor pixel on a CRT that only glows briefly when the beam hits it.

With CRT's you need at least 75Hz, preferably higher 85 or 100Hz suffices if your CRT can handle that.

Thanks

@3DGuy...yes, you are correct...I just checked my 19 inch NEC CRT...it uses 165 watts.  The 17 inch Sony CRT I just replaced used 140 watts.

I have a 24 inch Dell LCD widescreen which has the same apple panel... Recommended by Richard.. Thanks mate tis a beauty  and also use a large CRT but the Dell is superb it worked perfectly out of the box but on changing to a better graphics card seemed to be a lot worse so  I replaced the old card and again perfect.. Apart from some of the good advice it is always worth making sure you have the best driver for your card... The power savings are certainly worth having on the LCD