Glad o hear it - Karen used it for all her work for a couple of years and only the need to get a new computer changed it. I did say it would go well with a Mac Mini, but the big iMac won out ;-)
@@KeithCooper Keith. I bought the Mac mini (new M1 version with16gb ram) this year . Always a pc man before. This again is by far the best computer I've had. However I always made do with less power than I really needed due to high costs for more ram etc. Well the Mac mini effortlessly handles everything I throw at it. Huge file's (panorama's) and I have a medium format camera. It's never went into meltdown yet.... Well done apple. Barrie
Good review Keith. I'm interested in picking up the slightly newer SW271C, but your words around text size still make me think the 32 inch model would be better....perhaps I'll spot a show bargain at The Photography Show next month!
Cool, thanks for the tips. The 5K iMac 10-bit color, 445 nits screen (passes the HDR requirements of 400 nits, barely but HDR will show if HDR RUclips videos on Chrome are played) even though it's 7 years old is still amazing, very amazing (I use Display P3 color profile all the time, though it's calibrated in the factory, the iMac profile is perfect as well, though, the ACES profile used by The Oscars are great are bonfires fires, also the PhotoPro but it's too darkish brownish for some scenes). It's best not to forget to switch ON the sleep setting if one has configured the computer to be an always ON Mac (no shutdowns, it's ON 24/7/365 days but it sleeps), else there's be burn-in if left static overnight (also se the menus, Dock to hide and background to change every 5 minutes). I can't wait for Apple's 2022 or 2023 displays (hopefully it's more than 10 bit colors and can do CIE-1931, which is all the visible colors our eyes can see they say- that's the ultimate gamut and the LED are smaller than miniLED- hopefully it's picoLED, as small as atoms but brighter than OLED, though I think OLEDs are the future once they figure out a mix w/ the organic chemicals to make it as bright as LED backlighted). I have a technique with using 5K native have more screen real estate but still get to read and view photo details easily in and out without going to to a lower resolution that'll disrupt the workflow. Search on Twitter: "Alvin Albert's Triptych System". God bless, Rev. 21:4
Kieth, I always enjoy your videos. I just purchased the Benq sw272Q to replace my aging NEC monitor. I went with the 2k because I primarily only work in B&W. I was wondering if you have done a review and a setup guide to for this monitor?
I got one when they first came out and were sold as the “Photographers Monitor” and it has ‘performed brilliantly when dimmed’ (to 100 lumens or less). Good to see that many other pros are using them now too. Eizo must be annoyed!
@@KeithCooper Good Idea, that! Your 4000ºK screen looks just like the prints that you are handling - very clever! I will get the new 32" and set the old one up to mat MY room lighting for client meetings. Thanks Keith!
Hi Keith , Great informative videos. Can I ask why you would need a monitor that shows the full Adobe RGB colour spectrum when the printer cannot produce this & also 99% of monitors & phones cannot also & only sRGB? It's always confused me.
Actually, decent inkjet printers can produce some colours well beyond what A98 covers, so if you print, the A98(ish) monitors are distinctly useful. The wider gamut gives you a closer look. However if you are doing web work, it can indeed be a bit of overkill. See this I wrote a while ago about printing strong colours www.northlight-images.co.uk/a-photo-print-of-some-bright-red-flowers/
Apologies for coming to this video late but I do have a question regarding colour space for monitors. It is widely reported that 100% Adobe RGB capability gives the ultimate for end use printing. However in real world use what does this mean compared to say a 100% sRGB monitor when printing either at home or via a lab Any advice much appreciated
Ah - "widely reported" - is this by people selling monitors? ;-) As a working pro photographer I used an Apple Cinema display [24" sRGB] up until about 10 years ago. I don't remember any problems with my colour images for clients or my large (and very large) prints. Now that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the benefits of a wider gamut, but whatever space you use, an appreciation of what 'Gamut' really means is what helps... See here for example ruclips.net/video/lNJwj_VZAYY/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/a1O__CFXKxE/видео.html
@@KeithCooper Keith many thanks for taking the time to reply. Whilst there is some promotion of Adobe RGB monitors by manufacturers, my initial online research found articles and forum posts stating you needed a full Adobe RGB monitor to get the best prints. Your suggested videos have been very helpful and you are the first person I have come across to have demonstrated the effects of the different colour spaces using an actual image My question was prompted by the need for a new monitor and as I'm sure you are aware full Adobe RGB items are not inexpensive! Hence I was seeing what lower cost monitors are available with a smaller gamut and the potential impact this might have. I appreciate this is just one of the several areas to consider before purchase e.g. screen uniformity, 4k or not, what size monitor to etc and I've still got to work through these in addition to draw up a list of candidates Once again many thanks
Hi Keith. I currently use a 2017 iMac 27 inch 5K monitor, but when it's time to replace I may go to the BenQ SW 271C monitor and possibly a new Mac mini. I currently have my colour space and DSLR set to sRGB versus Adobe 1998. Given the higher amount of colour info in Adobe 1998 would you suggest changing my camera and monitor colour space to this mode for photo editing in Lightroom and Photoshop when I upgrade?
Camera colour space setting only apply to the camera JPEG files. So, in a RAW file based workflow have no real meaning. I've used A98 as a general working space (in Photoshop) for print since long before I had a monitor anywhere near capable of displaying it. The only time I ever work in sRGB is for saving images for web, for my articles. Now, there are arguments for all sorts of colour space choices, especially if you print, but using A98 need not require waiting for a wide gamut monitor?
As with the 321... Do you mean the Paper Color Sync software? I just checked the latest Mac version and it only covers Canon PRO-10/100 and Epson P600/800 I looked inside the code to see the printers, which are the same ones as when I reviewed the software. I've not tested it any more, since it dislikes having two (BenQ!) monitors attached. It is not a 'feature' that would figure in my buying decision for the monitors ;-) It shows promise, but is too limited for any more advanced use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, you have said in other videos/articles, printed output will not match what you see on screen. So how does calibrating your monitor help with your prints?
True, a print and screen view are two different things. However a screen gives you an idea what the print will look like - experience in printing also gives you a feel for how prints and screen differ for different papers and images. Calibration and profiling gets your screen to a known good (consistent) point. This means that in editing you can be confident that you are editing errors/faults in your image, not the screen. - yes, even for a good screen like the SW271 here. Setting up the screen well is particularly important if sending images away to be printed or for my work supplying photos to clients. As part of the calibration, you set a specific screen brightness - getting this wrong is the biggest cause of prints 'coming out too dark', whether on your own printer or someone else's For myself, colour management is about getting things 'right first time' more often. If something looks wrong, having a good colour managed workflow means I can rule out a lot of potential causes right away
TYVM for your detailed reply. I understand things a bit better now. I have a Viewsonic monitor. Don't know how good/bad it is for photo editing though I suspect not as good as a BenQ or a Eizo. I use Colormunki for calibration. I don't see a massive difference between factory setting and after calibration - just a little colour shift. I set the luminance to 90 cd/m2. Even so, my initial test colour photos come out darker than what I see on screen - Epson P700, Epson Premium Glossy paper. So far, I have done three test prints, each time brightening the darkest areas. The prints still look too dark/black compared to what I see on screen. Despite that, I like my test prints and have no qualms about printing it A3+ as is. The dark areas are not a significant part of the photo, it won't bother me at all. Probably, another day, another photo, I'll have to do a lot more fine tuning to get my screen and prints to match as close as possible.
Remember that chasing a screen/print match only goes so far before it becomes a waste of paper/ink/time ;-) The whole point of printing known good test images for any new paper/printer is to better understand the differences and be confident in dealing with them.
Thanks for the comments re 4k and screen size. As someone with poor eyesight, I will take on board what you've said re 4k needing a larger screen and stick to 1080P or QHD as 27" is as large as I think I'd want. I've been tempted to treat myself to an Asus ProArt - as they're noticeably cheaper than anything else that is Calman certified colour accurate. I realise it's probably a long way behind this monitor given the noticeably lower price, but as a non-professional I think it'd probably still exceed my needs/ability, and may still even constitute "all the gear and no idea"! Would it be best to get a calibrator and take a reading on day 1, or is it best to use the monitor for a period of time to allow it to settle in?
At 27" I do sometimes find 2560×1440 more usable (like with the SW2700) I'd calibrate/profile immediately after setup and then at regular intervals - typically monthly. Modern monitors are a lot more stable.
Thanks for another very well done video. I have been tempted to purchase one of the X-Rite calibration tools. They appear to no longer be sold by X-Rite and have been taken over by a company called Calibrite. Their web site has no phone number and their address, when checked, is a company called Registered Agents Legal Services which sounds more like a legal firm than a imaging company. Sounds a bit strange.....any comments?
Yes, the calibrite products, hardware and software, are the same ones - but with a different branding. Basically it's the photography/video products that have been split off and sold via a new company. They are made in the same factory AFAIK. If you get a Calibrite version of the i1Display, the only difference will be the writing on it and the box ;-) Now I've tested X-Rite stuff since Gretag Macbeth days and for several years have been one of their test people for development work (I should note that I'm a photographer, and have no interest whatsoever in selling kit!) Calibrite have asked me to work with them on the current stuff and developing new stuff too. This shouldn't cause any conflict since my paper profiling uses X-Rite tools and software. I agree it's a bit odd looking with the business side (I assume this is in the US?), but all the same people I've dealt with at X-rite seem to still be around. Going forward I'll be testing stuff from both - I'm not paid and it's only ever on condition that if I get a lemon, I'll call it a lemon! Hope that's of some help?
@@KeithCooper Thanks for your comments. I always check companies out before I purchase from them. X-Rite seemed to be a legitimate business, but Calbrite has no contact phone number and the mail-postal address they have listed on their web site is for a legal firm in Delaware, not a company or Calbrite's company. That is a bit disturbing. Thanks for your response in any case.
I want to get this monitor. I have a 17" HP Envy laptop which is great, bu the monitor displays only 72% of Adobe RGB. Also, I want a Mac. Windows keeps uploading junk files that foul up Lightroom and prevent Photoshop from opening until I delete the junk files. Getting a Mac would solve that problem.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Keith - as it’s the monitor I use it’s good to hear you being nice to it.
It's definitely a nice monitor to use.
I have this monitor. One of the best things I've bought for photography. Started creating colour work after buying.
Glad o hear it - Karen used it for all her work for a couple of years and only the need to get a new computer changed it. I did say it would go well with a Mac Mini, but the big iMac won out ;-)
@@KeithCooper Keith. I bought the Mac mini (new M1 version with16gb ram) this year . Always a pc man before. This again is by far the best computer I've had. However I always made do with less power than I really needed due to high costs for more ram etc. Well the Mac mini effortlessly handles everything I throw at it. Huge file's (panorama's) and I have a medium format camera. It's never went into meltdown yet.... Well done apple. Barrie
Thank you Keith, no questions today;)
Good review Keith. I'm interested in picking up the slightly newer SW271C, but your words around text size still make me think the 32 inch model would be better....perhaps I'll spot a show bargain at The Photography Show next month!
Yes, very dependent on your work, eyesight and computer type. The 271C just has improved USB-C functionality I'm told.
That was really helpful, thanks.
Thanks
Cool, thanks for the tips.
The 5K iMac 10-bit color, 445 nits screen (passes the HDR requirements of 400 nits, barely but HDR will show if HDR RUclips videos on Chrome are played) even though it's 7 years old is still amazing, very amazing (I use Display P3 color profile all the time, though it's calibrated in the factory, the iMac profile is perfect as well, though, the ACES profile used by The Oscars are great are bonfires fires, also the PhotoPro but it's too darkish brownish for some scenes). It's best not to forget to switch ON the sleep setting if one has configured the computer to be an always ON Mac (no shutdowns, it's ON 24/7/365 days but it sleeps), else there's be burn-in if left static overnight (also se the menus, Dock to hide and background to change every 5 minutes).
I can't wait for Apple's 2022 or 2023 displays (hopefully it's more than 10 bit colors and can do CIE-1931, which is all the visible colors our eyes can see they say- that's the ultimate gamut and the LED are smaller than miniLED- hopefully it's picoLED, as small as atoms but brighter than OLED, though I think OLEDs are the future once they figure out a mix w/ the organic chemicals to make it as bright as LED backlighted).
I have a technique with using 5K native have more screen real estate but still get to read and view photo details easily in and out without going to to a lower resolution that'll disrupt the workflow. Search on Twitter: "Alvin Albert's Triptych System".
God bless, Rev. 21:4
Kieth, I always enjoy your videos. I just purchased the Benq sw272Q to replace my aging NEC monitor. I went with the 2k because I primarily only work in B&W. I was wondering if you have done a review and a setup guide to for this monitor?
Thanks
I've looked at the very similar 4k version of the 272
ruclips.net/video/jMNzqw4JMo0/видео.html
I got one when they first came out and were sold as the “Photographers Monitor” and it has ‘performed brilliantly when dimmed’ (to 100 lumens or less). Good to see that many other pros are using them now too. Eizo must be annoyed!
Yes, they work very well. An older SW2700 is the one I use in many of my newer videos, where it's calibrated to 4000K and matches the room lighting.
@@KeithCooper Good Idea, that! Your 4000ºK screen looks just like the prints that you are handling - very clever! I will get the new 32" and set the old one up to mat MY room lighting for client meetings. Thanks Keith!
Hi Keith , Great informative videos. Can I ask why you would need a monitor that shows the full Adobe RGB colour spectrum when the printer cannot produce this & also 99% of monitors & phones cannot also & only sRGB? It's always confused me.
Actually, decent inkjet printers can produce some colours well beyond what A98 covers, so if you print, the A98(ish) monitors are distinctly useful. The wider gamut gives you a closer look. However if you are doing web work, it can indeed be a bit of overkill.
See this I wrote a while ago about printing strong colours
www.northlight-images.co.uk/a-photo-print-of-some-bright-red-flowers/
@@KeithCooper Cheers Keith, very informative!
Apologies for coming to this video late but I do have a question regarding colour space for monitors. It is widely reported that 100% Adobe RGB capability gives the ultimate for end use printing. However in real world use what does this mean compared to say a 100% sRGB monitor when printing either at home or via a lab
Any advice much appreciated
Ah - "widely reported" - is this by people selling monitors? ;-)
As a working pro photographer I used an Apple Cinema display [24" sRGB] up until about 10 years ago. I don't remember any problems with my colour images for clients or my large (and very large) prints.
Now that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the benefits of a wider gamut, but whatever space you use, an appreciation of what 'Gamut' really means is what helps...
See here for example
ruclips.net/video/lNJwj_VZAYY/видео.html
and
ruclips.net/video/a1O__CFXKxE/видео.html
@@KeithCooper Keith many thanks for taking the time to reply. Whilst there is some promotion of Adobe RGB monitors by manufacturers, my initial online research found articles and forum posts stating you needed a full Adobe RGB monitor to get the best prints. Your suggested videos have been very helpful and you are the first person I have come across to have demonstrated the effects of the different colour spaces using an actual image
My question was prompted by the need for a new monitor and as I'm sure you are aware full Adobe RGB items are not inexpensive! Hence I was seeing what lower cost monitors are available with a smaller gamut and the potential impact this might have. I appreciate this is just one of the several areas to consider before purchase e.g. screen uniformity, 4k or not, what size monitor to etc and I've still got to work through these in addition to draw up a list of candidates
Once again many thanks
Glad it was of help!
Good info I use EIZO
yes, they are good as well
Hi Keith. I currently use a 2017 iMac 27 inch 5K monitor, but when it's time to replace I may go to the BenQ SW 271C monitor and possibly a new Mac mini. I currently have my colour space and DSLR set to sRGB versus Adobe 1998. Given the higher amount of colour info in Adobe 1998 would you suggest changing my camera and monitor colour space to this mode for photo editing in Lightroom and Photoshop when I upgrade?
Camera colour space setting only apply to the camera JPEG files. So, in a RAW file based workflow have no real meaning.
I've used A98 as a general working space (in Photoshop) for print since long before I had a monitor anywhere near capable of displaying it.
The only time I ever work in sRGB is for saving images for web, for my articles. Now, there are arguments for all sorts of colour space choices, especially if you print, but using A98 need not require waiting for a wide gamut monitor?
Thanks for the video, do you know if it is compatible with canon pixma pro 200 or where can I find the updated list of compatible printers? thank you
As with the 321...
Do you mean the Paper Color Sync software? I just checked the latest Mac version and it only covers Canon PRO-10/100 and Epson P600/800
I looked inside the code to see the printers, which are the same ones as when I reviewed the software. I've not tested it any more, since it dislikes having two (BenQ!) monitors attached.
It is not a 'feature' that would figure in my buying decision for the monitors ;-) It shows promise, but is too limited for any more advanced use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, you have said in other videos/articles, printed output will not match what you see on screen. So how does calibrating your monitor help with your prints?
True, a print and screen view are two different things.
However a screen gives you an idea what the print will look like - experience in printing also gives you a feel for how prints and screen differ for different papers and images.
Calibration and profiling gets your screen to a known good (consistent) point. This means that in editing you can be confident that you are editing errors/faults in your image, not the screen. - yes, even for a good screen like the SW271 here.
Setting up the screen well is particularly important if sending images away to be printed or for my work supplying photos to clients.
As part of the calibration, you set a specific screen brightness - getting this wrong is the biggest cause of prints 'coming out too dark', whether on your own printer or someone else's
For myself, colour management is about getting things 'right first time' more often. If something looks wrong, having a good colour managed workflow means I can rule out a lot of potential causes right away
TYVM for your detailed reply. I understand things a bit better now.
I have a Viewsonic monitor. Don't know how good/bad it is for photo editing though I suspect not as good as a BenQ or a Eizo.
I use Colormunki for calibration. I don't see a massive difference between factory setting and after calibration - just a little colour shift.
I set the luminance to 90 cd/m2. Even so, my initial test colour photos come out darker than what I see on screen - Epson P700, Epson Premium Glossy paper.
So far, I have done three test prints, each time brightening the darkest areas. The prints still look too dark/black compared to what I see on screen.
Despite that, I like my test prints and have no qualms about printing it A3+ as is. The dark areas are not a significant part of the photo, it won't bother me at all.
Probably, another day, another photo, I'll have to do a lot more fine tuning to get my screen and prints to match as close as possible.
Remember that chasing a screen/print match only goes so far before it becomes a waste of paper/ink/time ;-)
The whole point of printing known good test images for any new paper/printer is to better understand the differences and be confident in dealing with them.
Thanks for the comments re 4k and screen size. As someone with poor eyesight, I will take on board what you've said re 4k needing a larger screen and stick to 1080P or QHD as 27" is as large as I think I'd want.
I've been tempted to treat myself to an Asus ProArt - as they're noticeably cheaper than anything else that is Calman certified colour accurate. I realise it's probably a long way behind this monitor given the noticeably lower price, but as a non-professional I think it'd probably still exceed my needs/ability, and may still even constitute "all the gear and no idea"!
Would it be best to get a calibrator and take a reading on day 1, or is it best to use the monitor for a period of time to allow it to settle in?
At 27" I do sometimes find 2560×1440 more usable (like with the SW2700)
I'd calibrate/profile immediately after setup and then at regular intervals - typically monthly. Modern monitors are a lot more stable.
@@KeithCooper Perfect, thank you for the advice Keith.
Thanks for another very well done video. I have been tempted to purchase one of the X-Rite calibration tools. They appear to no longer be sold by X-Rite and have been taken over by a company called Calibrite. Their web site has no phone number and their address, when checked, is a company called Registered Agents Legal Services which sounds more like a legal firm than a imaging company. Sounds a bit strange.....any comments?
Yes, the calibrite products, hardware and software, are the same ones - but with a different branding. Basically it's the photography/video products that have been split off and sold via a new company. They are made in the same factory AFAIK. If you get a Calibrite version of the i1Display, the only difference will be the writing on it and the box ;-)
Now I've tested X-Rite stuff since Gretag Macbeth days and for several years have been one of their test people for development work (I should note that I'm a photographer, and have no interest whatsoever in selling kit!)
Calibrite have asked me to work with them on the current stuff and developing new stuff too. This shouldn't cause any conflict since my paper profiling uses X-Rite tools and software.
I agree it's a bit odd looking with the business side (I assume this is in the US?), but all the same people I've dealt with at X-rite seem to still be around.
Going forward I'll be testing stuff from both - I'm not paid and it's only ever on condition that if I get a lemon, I'll call it a lemon!
Hope that's of some help?
@@KeithCooper Thanks for your comments. I always check companies out before I purchase from them. X-Rite seemed to be a legitimate business, but Calbrite has no contact phone number and the mail-postal address they have listed on their web site is for a legal firm in Delaware, not a company or Calbrite's company. That is a bit disturbing. Thanks for your response in any case.
Good telly
I want to get this monitor. I have a 17" HP Envy laptop which is great, bu the monitor displays only 72% of Adobe RGB. Also, I want a Mac. Windows keeps uploading junk files that foul up Lightroom and prevent Photoshop from opening until I delete the junk files. Getting a Mac would solve that problem.
I'm told that this monitor works very well with the new Mac Mini as well
@@KeithCooper OK, thank you. I'm considering the mini.