Monitors for B&W

[Hans Berkhout]

Are certain monitors better than others if only used for B&W ? Haven't been able to find info on this topic, thanks.

[bob carnie]

Hans

I think any medium to high price monitor is able to do what you want.

[lbenac]

There are a lot of recommandations for the NEC 2490 and subsequent models that are sRGB only.
That is what I have.

[Bill Burk]

Look for an X-Ray display. I'm not joking, these monitors would be the BEST for black and white. Of course you have to be filthy rich.

But one can dream...

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-radiologysite/cat-medicalproducts/product-LMDDM50/

[Tin Can]

I have seen some used B&W X-Ray monitors for sale on eBay.


Look for an X-Ray display. I'm not joking, these monitors would be the BEST for black and white. Of course you have to be filthy rich.

But one can dream...

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-radiologysite/cat-medicalproducts/product-LMDDM50/

[paulr]

Has anyone used an x-ray monitor? The one in that Sony link has a 10 bit signal processor, which suggests 1/16 to 1/64 the tonal resolution of the current high end graphics monitors. Most computer graphics cards are just 8-bit, but the added bit depth allows the monitor a wide range of calibration withoug any information loss or banding.

The best graphics monitors are hardware calibrateable, and the really best ones, like higher end NECs and Eizos, have proprietary software that lets the monitors calibrate and profile themselves. This upkeep trivially easy.

As others have mentioned, you can save money by getting an sRGB model instead of a wide gamut one.

[Bill Burk]

I've seen one of these, it's a remarkable image.

That's 10-bit Monochrome, 1024 shades of Gray.

Though it is suited to the task, I think it would be an impractical choice of monitor. Really you have to look at black and white images all day every day to make this worthwhile, that's why the people who need to... Radiologists... use this kind of monitor.

As photographers, it helps to see things in color once in a while.

But it would be interesting. And it may provide unparalleled accuracy for editing a monochrome digital negative.

[wilderness]

I've been scanning articles and images from previously published older periodicals for an approximate fifteen years, and I'm able to confirm that I did not care for the transition from an analog monitor to the newer monitors (what ever they are currently called) when dealing with black and while image.

The analogs offered sharper displays of black and white.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've been scanning articles and images from previously published older periodicals for an approximate fifteen years, and I'm able to confirm that I did not care for the transition from an analog monitor to the newer monitors (what ever they are currently called) when dealing with black and while image.

The analogs offered sharper displays of black and white.

Absolutely not true in my experience.

[jp]

I would not buy a monochrome display for image processing; if the tint doesn't come out of the scanner or capture right, you won't be able to see that till it's on someone elses's monitor or on paper.

My last B&W display was an IBM 19" display made for the PS2 (the display was great for desktop publishing use, where it was output on a B&W laser printer), and before that, a DECstation 2100!

[Bruce Watson]

Are certain monitors better than others if only used for B&W ? Haven't been able to find info on this topic, thanks.

Nearly all available monitors are color monitors. Since you aren't interested in hue or saturation, what you need is a monitor that will calibrate (and you MUST calibrate it) to a solid neutral axis (sometimes called the gray axis). IOW, you need a neutral axis that gives you linear transition from black to white.

The best calibration systems tweak the hardware to give you that solid neutral axis. They then use this axis to establish linear axes from neutral to red, green, and blue. You don't care about this, but the point is that without a solid neutral axis, it's difficult to get a solid R, G, or B axis. They do it for color, but you benefit from it for B&W.

Third party calibration "pucks" can't access the display hardware. What they do is make look up tables (LUTs) to translate what the display does "naturally" into linear transitions. Not as good a solution as tweaking the hardware directly IMHO. But often sufficient, at least for color work.

Hardware calibration capable displays include the Eizos and the NEC SpectraViews. There may be others, IDK.

Hardware or software calibration, if you don't calibrate your color monitor, your B&W will inevitably be off. Because the monitor's neutral axis will be off, and you therefore won't get a nice linear transition from black to white.

Personally, I've always used NEC SpectraView monitors. I've done a ton of B&W with mine, and get a good solid match between monitor and print.

[paulr]

I would not buy a monochrome display for image processing...

+1

I was going to say this too, but wasn't sure the x-ray monitor was monochrome. If it is, then forget it. It's important to be able to soft proof the actual colors of you print materials. This makes a difference in any tonal decisions you make. A much bigger difference than an infinitesimal increase in accuracy over an Eizo or NEC.

[Bill Burk]

I was going to say this too, but wasn't sure the x-ray monitor was monochrome. If it is, then forget it. It's important to be able to soft proof the actual colors of you print materials. This makes a difference in any tonal decisions you make. A much bigger difference than an infinitesimal increase in accuracy over an Eizo or NEC.

Haaa, you are right. Soft-proofing the paper base. Never mind the x-ray monitor then.

[Shootar401]

I have an 24" Eizo with a built in calibrator. Best $1700 I've spent on a piece of computer hardware.