Posted by Darren White on June 28, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I am curious as to what everyone has their screen set at...with so may variables and different monitors all images look different on different monitors/settings
I have a dual monitor setup with a Samsung SynchMaster 214T 21" LCD as my primary running at 1600x1200 and a Dell wide format 19" LCD running at 1680x1050. I put all the Photoshop pallets on the Dell while doing editing on the Samsung. I also put Adobe Bridge on the Dell when I'm using it. Now if Adobe could get Lightroom to be dual monitor aware that would be just jiffy eh?!
Posted by Tom Kloster on June 28, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I work at 1162x864 on a 17 inch eMac. When I grow up, I want a larger monitor! (probably in iMac with a larger display - like the one-piece designs). My two laptops are set to higher screen resolutions, but I like to do photo adjustments on a CRT (still), since my laptops are a couple of years old, and LCDs hadn't quite arrived to their full potential yet.
Here's a stat from Portland Hikers that is informative -- and sobering: over two-thirds of the hundreds of subscribers there view the site at 1024 x 768! Something to keep in mind when designing for the web.
1600 x 1000 on my 20" Apple Cinema Display here at work. The old, old 15" Sony to it's left is set at 1024 x768. The Sony is actually the oldest and crappyest monitor of all the monitors, Peggy and Mark and Hood River Coffee Co. own right now (let's see seven computers- three old iMacs, one Mini Mac, one 15" laptop and two MacPros).
I have ONE monitor. Samsung SynchMaster 215TW (wide screen) set at 1680x1050. Contrast ratio is 1000:1 Contrast ratio is a spec that makes a BIG difference when viewing photographs. I calibrate with a Spyder2 about every 6-8weeks.
At work I have crappy Dell flat panels set to 1280x1024. the sub-$200 variety, so I have to be carefull what I comment on when I'm at work.
One thing some people forget about flat panels, is that they usually look crappy on anything other than thier native resolution which is *normally* the highest available setting.
We've sent stacks of them to the landfill - especially the laptops, which have a habit of losing their lids over time. I noticed that they're in cutback mode down at Dell, so maybe the quality gap is finally catching up with them..?
Actualy I'm pretty happy with most of Dell's hardware. just not the monitors it's all we have at work. The thing is, they concentrate on the corporate end of the business so they're not oriented to highend graphics and the gamer market. At least that's my impression. We have boatloads of GX150's and 620's that we use for test beds. considering how many we've purchased in the past 5 years, I'm amazed at how few failures we've had.
The GX150's we have are mainly thier small footprint machines. They use thier laptop CD Drives in them. Those drives have a very high failure rate. That's the biggest problem I've seen with thier systems.
But as for the monitors, we've only been buying the flat panels for a couple years as we gradually replace the failing army of CRTs.
Posted by Ned Fenimore on June 28, 2007 at 10:03 PM
1280x1024 on both calibrated CRT and palette CRT (19 inches)
Posted by Darren White on June 28, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Ok I just changed my settings to 1156x864 or something there close....I guess my thinking is that if we are all on the same resolution at least we would have one thing in common but since we all have different monitors with different contrast ratios, its just a crap shoot! Ill give this a try for a while and see how it works!
Posted by Zack Schnepf on June 28, 2007 at 11:44 PM
1920x1200 on my apple 23", and going to be insane once I get the 30"
I think it also matters what size monitor you have. I have a 22" Samsung 226BW at 1680 x 1050 res and it looks great. For website design, I stick with 1024 x 768 b/c that's what most people use for websurfing.
I'm waiting for July 2 for my new computer (DVI input - ya!).
Kevin, you'd actually be surprised how much native screen resolution for web browsing has changed in the last 5 years. When I started off in College (2000), we were basically told that you should design for 640x480, and several of us in the class where this came up quickly pointed out that even then, nobody ran that low of a resolution any more. I've been designing for 800x600 for quite a while, but now even 1024x768 is on the low end of things. Pretty much all laptops have native res of 1280x900 now, and every LCD I see being sold with computers is 1280x1024. The trend seems to be to stop designing for fixed width screens and utilize expandable content (which is a pain in the butt when thinking from a design standpoint). I imagine that in another 5 years, 800x600 will be the supported resolution on cellphone browsers (if they aren't up to that already).
Shouldn't you run the resolution on a LCD at the native resolution of the panel its self? If you don't the driver interpolates (up or down) and it isn't near as sharp. I believe the 23" is native 1920x1200. Not running it there isn't optimum.
In fact the apple website states "1920 x 1200 pixels (optimum resolution)"
I am running a 30" Apple at 2560x1600 and I am adding a 2nd soon. 1Ds2 files can be displayed at 50% resolution full screen. It is pretty wild. The 2nd monitor now is a older 19" at 1280x1024. Its a pain not having both at the same resolution (hence the need for a 2nd 30" - at least that is what I keep telling myself )
On a crt you can run the resolution where ever you like since its analog and it shouldn't matter on the contrast ratio. Just the flicker caused by the refresh rate is the only concern and of course the text size. Course you can change the text sizes in the GUI (both the OS and PSCS3) to adjust for bigger ones as you up the res...
Hmmm... I may have to rethink this, at the native resolution, things do seem pretty dang sharp and nice...
Posted by Philip Kuglin on June 30, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Mark,
Can't you go into the options menu on PSCS3 and change the GUI fonts size to a larger one and do the same in the OS? This should help resolve te resolution causing everything to be so small.
Can't do it, it's too hard to see everything. I can't imagine that after all these years of not even having an LCD monitor, that now, all of a sudden, simply not having it at the native resolution will make any difference.
Where would I go to change the text size globally in the OS? I've looked around a bit.
Well if I new OSX better I could help, maybe goto the Apple site and ask in the forums. I am sure you would get an answer shortly. If you can in Windows Xp/Vista - you can surely do it in OSX
In PSCS3 goto the Edit Menu, in the Preferences/General dialog box there is a "UI font size" drop down box.
I can't imagine that after all these years of not even having an LCD monitor, that now, all of a sudden, simply not having it at the native resolution will make any difference.
Not sure what you mean.
I can say that a LCD is a digital matrix of rows and columns of pixels just like a sensor in a camera. If you display an image from the sensor at the native resolution it will look best - i.e. 1:1 in photoshop. If you zoom out say 50% there is interpolation. This same thing happens when you change the resolution of an LCD away from its native resolution. The LCD can do it, or the driver in the OS. When this happens sharpening is effected - just like downsizing in a web image.
I searched all over and can't find a global place to adjust the size of all the font and menu in one spot.
What I meant was that I've been working photos for years now on screens that far worse than the LCD Apple I have now, and also probably not at the native resolution. My output has been perfectly acceptable and my workflow, for me, is perfectly acceptable. Working in the native resolution won't all of a sudden improve my workflow or the quality of my images.
Let's just say this, all of the historic, classic, awesome and famous photos ever take were taken and processed with equipment far, far less sophisticated than what we're using today.
Discussion
23 repliesI have mine at 1024x768
Here's a stat from Portland Hikers that is informative -- and sobering: over two-thirds of the hundreds of subscribers there view the site at 1024 x 768! Something to keep in mind when designing for the web.
Tom
At work I have crappy Dell flat panels set to 1280x1024. the sub-$200 variety, so I have to be carefull what I comment on when I'm at work.
One thing some people forget about flat panels, is that they usually look crappy on anything other than thier native resolution which is *normally* the highest available setting.
We've sent stacks of them to the landfill - especially the laptops, which have a habit of losing their lids over time. I noticed that they're in cutback mode down at Dell, so maybe the quality gap is finally catching up with them..?
-Tom
The GX150's we have are mainly thier small footprint machines. They use thier laptop CD Drives in them. Those drives have a very high failure rate. That's the biggest problem I've seen with thier systems.
But as for the monitors, we've only been buying the flat panels for a couple years as we gradually replace the failing army of CRTs.
Zack, things seem dang small at 1920x1200! My eyes can't take that anymore.
I'm waiting for July 2 for my new computer (DVI input - ya!).
Kevin
Shouldn't you run the resolution on a LCD at the native resolution of the panel its self? If you don't the driver interpolates (up or down) and it isn't near as sharp. I believe the 23" is native 1920x1200. Not running it there isn't optimum.
In fact the apple website states "1920 x 1200 pixels (optimum resolution)"
I am running a 30" Apple at 2560x1600 and I am adding a 2nd soon. 1Ds2 files can be displayed at 50% resolution full screen. It is pretty wild. The 2nd monitor now is a older 19" at 1280x1024. Its a pain not having both at the same resolution (hence the need for a 2nd 30" - at least that is what I keep telling myself
On a crt you can run the resolution where ever you like since its analog and it shouldn't matter on the contrast ratio. Just the flicker caused by the refresh rate is the only concern and of course the text size. Course you can change the text sizes in the GUI (both the OS and PSCS3) to adjust for bigger ones as you up the res...
Can't you go into the options menu on PSCS3 and change the GUI fonts size to a larger one and do the same in the OS? This should help resolve te resolution causing everything to be so small.
Where would I go to change the text size globally in the OS? I've looked around a bit.
In PSCS3 goto the Edit Menu, in the Preferences/General dialog box there is a "UI font size" drop down box.
Not sure what you mean.
I can say that a LCD is a digital matrix of rows and columns of pixels just like a sensor in a camera. If you display an image from the sensor at the native resolution it will look best - i.e. 1:1 in photoshop. If you zoom out say 50% there is interpolation. This same thing happens when you change the resolution of an LCD away from its native resolution. The LCD can do it, or the driver in the OS. When this happens sharpening is effected - just like downsizing in a web image.
What I meant was that I've been working photos for years now on screens that far worse than the LCD Apple I have now, and also probably not at the native resolution. My output has been perfectly acceptable and my workflow, for me, is perfectly acceptable. Working in the native resolution won't all of a sudden improve my workflow or the quality of my images.
Let's just say this, all of the historic, classic, awesome and famous photos ever take were taken and processed with equipment far, far less sophisticated than what we're using today.