Affordable recommended monitors

[ColinM]

My monitor has developed a yellow band which comes and goes.

I've got a few hundred € available for a replacement.
What would you recommend (connecting to a Windows PC)?

[Frank Fremerey]

I still have my 2009 Hewlett Packard 24 inch wide gamut S-IPS that I can still calibrate with Gretag/X-Rite Display 2. It was 550€ about 11 years ago and I am still happy with it.

downside: It heats up, it is heavy and it uses up a lot of Electricity, more than 100 Watts

[Nikfuson]

I left the "high photographic monitor demand" train and chose a cheap 4K Philips 276E8VJSB which I have calibrated.
Paired with my Mac Mini 2018 it works the charm.

[Ann]

Take a look at the BenQ monitors.

After some eight years of faithful service, my very expensive 27" wide-spectrum NEC became too dim and could no longer be calibrated.

I have replaced it with a 27-inch wide-spectrum (99% AdobeRGB) BenQ which can be hardware calibrated and profiled through LUTs with either the xRite or the Spyder 5 pucks.

These monitors are quite moderately priced and mine included a well-made hood.

If you edit Photographs for printed output, you absolutely do need a wide-spectrum monitor which can be calibrated and profiled.

[Frank Fremerey]

Yes, BenQ are the other brand to look for, but you need 700 to 800€ for these, because they are hardware calibrateable

current model is BenQ SW270C and it is 850€

so look out for last years model that might be 200€ cheaper

[Erik Lund]

I left the "high photographic monitor demand" train and chose a cheap 4K Philips 276E8VJSB which I have calibrated.
Paired with my Mac Mini 2018 it works the charm.

Thanks! Looks like an affordable yet good performing option to the very expensive monitors,,,
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/philips-276e8vjsb/

[Ann]

But note the "negative" comments at the end of the Review and especially this one:
"No support for extended gamuts".

That would prevent the use of this monitor for my purposes.

My feeling is that the Philips was built as a Gamester's Monitor and has only a limited sRGB gamut and is therefore not suitable for professional photographic editing and calibrated and profiled output purposes.

[Erik Lund]

Yes, but not everyone must have RGB 


It's a nice monitor if one is working in sRGB 99% of the time as I am now for instance.
So I would be happy with this one I believe 

[Ann]

If you always shoot only JPGs and no longer shoot RAW, the Philips might be OK.

I always shoot only RAW (and then convert to ProPhoto RGB 16-bit} so I want to be able to see, and work with, as much of the captured spectrum that I can — even if copies of some of the images may later be saved as sRGB JPGs for web site display.

[Erik Lund]

I shoot raw and deliver jpg in sRGB for all the stuff I do now it’s by far enough.
Nothing scientific or high end printing will come out where more is needed.
It’s good enough for me and by far better than risking an RGB file ends up on the web 

[ColinM]

Dear all thank you so much for your recommendations and sorry to not come back quicker than this.

There's plenty of food for thought here.  I'll  go & have a look and see what my budget can cover.
Meanwhile just to show you the equipment only misbehaves when it thinks you might be inconvenienced, the yellow line has now disappeared from my monitor so I have a little bit more time

[CS]

Dear all thank you so much for your recommendations and sorry to not come back quicker than this.

There's plenty of food for thought here.  I'll  go & have a look and see what my budget can cover.
Meanwhile just to show you the equipment only misbehaves when it thinks you might be inconvenienced, the yellow line has now disappeared from my monitor so I have a little bit more time

Perhaps more time, perhaps not. The fuse is lit, making it quite possible that it will quit when you need it the most.

[arthurking83]

If you always shoot only JPGs and no longer shoot RAW, the Philips might be OK.

I always shoot only RAW (and then convert to ProPhoto RGB 16-bit} so I want to be able to see, and work with, as much of the captured spectrum that I can — even if copies of some of the images may later be saved as sRGB JPGs for web site display.

I think I'd be less disruptive if the advice were concentrated on the OPs specific requirements, not the advisors personal requirements!
What you choose to do may not be what Colin needs.

I shoot raw, never shot anything else. Don't care for jpgs, all get deleted once they get used, I have no issue with a budget monitor($200) for the majority of useage.
But yes, I have an extended gamut(Samsung) screen that cost a bomb(for a non pro, a highly superfluous expense).
It's use is appreciated, but side by side, the difference is so trivial, having it now I see the 'folly' in having used those funds on something that I didn't really need.

To the OP. be weary of 4K screens. Make sure your hardware can support it properly.
i.e. is your graphics card(or chip) capable of that output? If so, be sure it's properly capable of it(i.e. at 60fps, not 30fps).
There are a few gotchas when it comes to hardware you should make yourself aware of.

Another thing to be mindful of with 4K, is software. Not all software devs have the brains to set their interfaces up for 4K(looking at you Nikon!)
Some do, others don't. CaptureNX-D was updated with 4K support a while back.
ViewNX-i took longer to update. Both totally unusable at 4K before their respective updates .. near impossible to see their 'microfonts', and click on the correct part of the tool!
Most software works properly, but some don't.

Not that long ago I had to research screens(again) for my son .. maybe 6 months ago.
Found at that time, a Samsung 28" U28E590D, was the best value for money. Not the cheapest, cost me Aud $500 .... which would work out to about 300 Euro or so.
The only thing I don't like about it is the very plasticky stand they used. For son, it's fine. He does graphic design/animation type stuff.
Screen quality when calibrated is top notch(very low deltaE, using BasicColor).
Compared to my $2.5K Samsung, you wouldn't notice any difference unless your workflow was all in 10bit(hardware). Even then, the difference is too minimal to justify the additional $2K expense.

These extended gamut screens that Ann refers too, are specialist stuff. Totally useless if your entire hardware isn't capable of 10bit hardware settings. Not all graphics cards have that ability, no on board graphics chip(that I know of) has.

So if you do decide 4K is something you want(for the future too), then be sure your hardware can support it properly.

[CS]

I think I'd be less disruptive if the advice were concentrated on the OPs specific requirements, not the advisors personal requirements!
What you choose to do may not be what Colin needs.

I shoot raw, never shot anything else. Don't care for jpgs, all get deleted once they get used, I have no issue with a budget monitor($200) for the majority of useage.
But yes, I have an extended gamut(Samsung) screen that cost a bomb(for a non pro, a highly superfluous expense).
It's use is appreciated, but side by side, the difference is so trivial, having it now I see the 'folly' in having used those funds on something that I didn't really need.

To the OP. be weary of 4K screens. Make sure your hardware can support it properly.
i.e. is your graphics card(or chip) capable of that output? If so, be sure it's properly capable of it(i.e. at 60fps, not 30fps).
There are a few gotchas when it comes to hardware you should make yourself aware of.

Another thing to be mindful of with 4K, is software. Not all software devs have the brains to set their interfaces up for 4K(looking at you Nikon!)
Some do, others don't. CaptureNX-D was updated with 4K support a while back.
ViewNX-i took longer to update. Both totally unusable at 4K before their respective updates .. near impossible to see their 'microfonts', and click on the correct part of the tool!
Most software works properly, but some don't.

Not that long ago I had to research screens(again) for my son .. maybe 6 months ago.
Found at that time, a Samsung 28" U28E590D, was the best value for money. Not the cheapest, cost me Aud $500 .... which would work out to about 300 Euro or so.
The only thing I don't like about it is the very plasticky stand they used. For son, it's fine. He does graphic design/animation type stuff.
Screen quality when calibrated is top notch(very low deltaE, using BasicColor).
Compared to my $2.5K Samsung, you wouldn't notice any difference unless your workflow was all in 10bit(hardware). Even then, the difference is too minimal to justify the additional $2K expense.

These extended gamut screens that Ann refers too, are specialist stuff. Totally useless if your entire hardware isn't capable of 10bit hardware settings. Not all graphics cards have that ability, no on board graphics chip(that I know of) has.

So if you do decide 4K is something you want(for the future too), then be sure your hardware can support it properly.

Wow, Ann merely posted her reasoning for her display choices. Please don’t tell people concerned with color accuracy that their inPut is worthless because you are willing to settle for less than that. Some folks shoot for museum quality, they’re people too.

[Frank Fremerey]

CS: amusing post. arturking is an agent provocateur. possibly another multiple identity of Almass Ethan ...