Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, RR: 13 Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2757 times:
Hello screeners!
I would like to ask you about the computer monitor. Which monitor are you using to screen? LCD or CRT?
I have both LCD and CRT. I am trying to figure out. I use CRT to edit and upload photos. The photos look sharp while using CRT monitor. After you accepted some and I checked them with LCD monitor and I can see some are soft (which I assume you are using CRT) Some of them rejected due to soft (I assume you are using LCD) I checked them with CRT and they do not look soft.
So my question - some screeners use CRT and some use LCD which make different result while screening? Should are are you all using CRT only? Do you know what I mean? I am looking at both LCD and CRT. Photos look softer with LCD and they look sharp with CRT.
Just a thought to ask you a question.
Thank you!
Frank
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2741 times:
On the other hand. At specific photos, they look good with LCD and they look oversharped (jagged) while look at CRT. It is another question. Wonder how can they be avoided as all of us have 2 different monitors. Maybe it would be much easier and save all of us if we all are using one standard monitor. Would that be helpful?
One negative thing is not all of us have $$ to buy to meet all standard monitor.
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
Quoting Scotland1979 (Reply 2): It is another question. Wonder how can they be avoided as all of us have 2 different monitors. Maybe it would be much easier and save all of us if we all are using one standard monitor. Would that be helpful?
One negative thing is not all of us have $$ to buy to meet all standard monitor.
Frank, I don't think the difference between LCD and CRT is significant (yes, they're slightly different). I don't think that causes any problems that some of us are using CRT and others are using LCD. And for your "negative thing", I could let you know that my current monitors (by which I normally edit my shots as well as screening) are not too expensive at all. So, to me, it shouldn't matter as long as the monitor isn't a low-end product.
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
I think it is a reasonable question to ask though. I get many "soft" rejections and yet they look sharp, sometimes oversharpened on my LCD monitor. This means to get photos accpeted I effectively have to guess how much sharpening they need. Sometimes I get it get right, sometimes not.
If LCD and CRT sharpness is different and with the fine line between acceptance and rejection, I think it could make all the difference. If an image has been sharpened using an LCD monitor, I would suggest that screener A may accept the image if he views it with a similar screen. If screener B sees it with an CRT monitor he may reject it for being soft. Conversely, images edited on CRT monitors may be rejected for oversharpened.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2613 times:
Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 6): This may explain some very strange 'jaggy' rejects I've experienced lately.
Hi Gerry
Would you like to show one or two examples? Even if normally I edit my photos on LCD's, I still have two CRT monitors and I would like to try to see if those rejections are strange.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2605 times:
Gerry
If possible, you could add one image to your profile and link it back to this thread. Or, maybe you could post one or two links of your rejected shot here.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 31 Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 4): So, to me, it shouldn't matter as long as the monitor isn't a low-end product.
I assume my LCD-screen was mid-range, but it failed after 3 years of usage (it is currently under investigation whether it can be repaired...), which is way too soon!
I guess it might be usefull to compare technical specs of the monitors (pixels-per-inch, contrast ratio (e.g. 700:1 - 2000:1), brightness (e.g. 300cd/m2), resolution (e.g. 1280x1024 - 1920-1200), response-time (e.g. 2ms - 8ms),...etc) that are considered adequate by their users.
Furthermore, I also think that the "performance" of a monitor is also dependant on the type of graphics/video-board used in the PC...
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5427 posts, RR: 49 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
To the screeners... you've all gone soft, I asked this question a couple of years ago and was almost flamed off the forum and virtually accused of casing the screeners equipment to arrange a break in & robbery!!
Walter may have a point, The CRT v LCD question is likely not as important as the LCD v LCD question.
Getting the right LCD with the correct specs and operating it at it's native resolution and correct setup is important.
A 19' LCD with a 1280/1440 H res is not going to be as effective as one with 1920 or more.
This subject is too complex for a simple forum post but there are many good websites that will explain this.
Just remember because you can get a 19"/20" or larger monitor at a good price doesn't mean you should.
Cheers
Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
LCDs are inherently sharper than CRTs because they have a fixed grid of pixels. CRTs are analog devices depending on wire grilles or shadowmasks to put pixels in their place. You do not have to worry about convergence errors on an LCD, for example.
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2511 times:
I agree with the CRT vs LCD sharpeness thing. I also think that pictures on small sized but high res LCD screens (i.e. laptop screens or those small HD monitors) look sharper than on normal sized screens. It's a problem for me. As I get a lot of soft rejections lately which (I would say) look fine on my screen.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
This thread brings up an important question of resolution.
I run on my laptop 1440x960 and on my desktops it is the same proportions but at about 1680x...
I find that when using these i have to view photos at at least 1200x800 to make accurate decisions about the image. So if a screener is running a 1920x... screen resolution how do they find viewing a 1024x683 image? This isnt a criticism i am just curious to find out if indeed you all run large resolutions or have it set at say 1200x800 for screening, etc.
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2497 times:
Hello Derek,
all you pictures look soft to me!
The finnair is completely soft.
The BMIbaby at the nose section, the upper fuselage and the leading edge of the vertical Stab (the Stab look a bit like you used the blur tool to cover some jaggies.. I am not saying that you did!). But the passenger windows and the titles for example are almost oversharpened. So be careful...
The same applies for the chopper.. nose is soft, while the upper part of the fuselage is almost oversharpened!
BTW I am using my notebook screen all the time for editing. 17" Widescreen LCD from ASUS and normally have no problem regarding sharpening...
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 13): The CRT v LCD question is likely not as important as the LCD v LCD question
Very true! LCD screens with TN technology are made for gaming not photo editing and will differ greatly from more expensive lCD screens.
Quoting DerekF (Reply 19): They look OK to me on my monitor. The last one has some jaggies that I can see which would make me reluctant to sharpen it any more.
They do not look soft on my LCD nor my CRT that I use for screening (only very very slightly). In my experience it's best to oversharpen a little on LCDs in which case they usually look perfect on a CRT.
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 18): I find that when using these i have to view photos at at least 1200x800 to make accurate decisions about the image. So if a screener is running a 1920x... screen resolution how do they find viewing a 1024x683 image? This isnt a criticism i am just curious to find out if indeed you all run large resolutions or have it set at say 1200x800 for screening, etc.
Chris I'm no expert on screens but LCDs run best on their native resolution. So if you have a screen made for 1920* and you set it at 1280* it's not gonna look good at all.
Quoting Ranger703 (Reply 14): I was under the impression that ALL screeners used correctly calibrated CRT monitors! As this changed recently?
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 18): So if a screener is running a 1920x... screen resolution how do they find viewing a 1024x683 image
I'm running at 2560x1600, and I can judge smaller photos pretty well. But yes, since pixels are smaller, errors (like jaggies and especially grain!) is harder to spot on this screen. It was a big transition in the beginning (from a 1024x768 screen) and I'm still need getting used to it a little bit. It's also different editing my own shots, as they look so awesome at (almost) full size, resizing them to 1024 is often a bit disappointing, losing so much detail (I just realised how decadent that sounds... ).
So far I don't think my screening changed very much after changing screens. As most photos are screened by 2 or 3 screeners, I can see the comment the other guys leave behind and almost always I can see the same issues they bring up (colour problems, jaggies, blurriness, etc.). So when it comes to that we're all quite close together. No probs there...
Hi Ed, that is surely a massive screen-resoltion! This started me thinking again about my earlier remark:
Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 12): Furthermore, I also think that the "performance" of a monitor is also dependant on the type of graphics/video-board used in the PC...
I wonder if you have tried to hook up your screen to a less performing PC (i.e. with a less performing video-driver) to see what it does to the quality? I am just assuming that you also upgraded your PC when you started working with your new screen...
I think this will be valuable info for anyone who want to upgrade the screen, but at the same time sticking to an "old"-type of PC...
25 IL76: No, I couldn't. This monitor needs a video card with 2x DVI. Not every computer can handle it. I had to upgrade my video card in order for this monit
26 Walter2222: That's what I thought. Thanks for the feedback, Ed! PS: I just received the news that by faulty screen could not - economically - be repaired... I wi
27 KLM772ER: Maybe I am completely wrong here, but I had a closer look to your picture and did play a little bit with it (hope this is ok to you!) and I think it
28 TimdeGroot: I would agree they look better now Tim
29 DerekF: I see what you did and I agree it is better but my point is that the pictures looked fine on my monitor, whatever the settings. I have to say I genera
30 Alexandru: Hello, I don,t want to be smart but I would say that no screeners should use LCD - TN panel monitor for screening. The TN-panel has a fast respons but
31 TimdeGroot: Most screeners use a CRT and the ones I know that do use TFT have an S-PVA (as do I but I still use a CRT for screening). If you show some examples w
32 Alexandru: Hello Tim, Thank you for replying. I am not mad about rejection. If all the screeners use CRT,s and S-PVA or S-IPS calibrated than this is it. It is
33 Scotland1979: DerekF I checked your photos on my both monitors (LCD and CRT). Yours look soft with my LCD and they look perfect with my CRT. It will be debated for
34 TimdeGroot: First one has a slightly soft nose. Second one looks good as does the third one but they are a bit flat I would have to say. 'Screened' on my CRT, on
35 Chris78cpr: I run mine at their native and maximum resolution and i have also heard that this is when they perform their best. What i find hard on mine is what E
36 Vaporlock: I'm a graphic designer and look at my monitor all day long. I have a new computer both at home and work and they have LCD monitors that are not cheap.
37 TRVYYZ: I had started a similar thread when I bought my LCD monitor. I asked about resolution optimal for an anet shot( i guess it would vary on the size of t
38 DerekF: Do you ever get "oversharpened" rejections?
39 Alexandru: Hello Tim, When referring of "flat" you ment depth of field? I am using f8 or higher. Is " flat" a rejection category for a.net? If there is somethin
40 Scotland1979: My photos often rejected due to soft which I used CRT (perfect sharp monitor) and obviously they used LCD to screen. And other time I used LCD and to
41 TimdeGroot: By flat I mean lacking contrast, they seem a little 'washed out' Tim
42 DerekF: My experience appears to be the reverse of yours. I always edit on a TFT monitor and the rejections are for soft and if I understand correctly. This
43 ChrisH: They must be cheap if your CRT beats them... if you're a GFX designer then im sure you've heard of Eizo, or LaCie... Get one, and live happily
44 Dvincent: This is bogus, the fixed pixel nature of an LCD combined with no flicker actually makes them easier on your eyes. What's your ambient light siutation
45 Alexandru: Hello, I am just concerned about the levele of contrast you mentioned. On my monitor they look ok for me it could be the diffrence between our monitor
46 DerekF: That is true I think. How about a process whereby a potential "soft" or "oversharpen" rejection is checked on a LCD or CRT monitor as appropriate?. D
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5427 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, 
). 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}