is an IPS worth it? I do photography and video work, but I dont make any money from it yet. So its not really a business. i have a 27" right now with YUV that I bought in 2011 that's been running ok
>adjust the colors perfectly while using an IPS display
>the people that view the image do so on a TN panel and it looks like shit
feels bad ma
>>55252480
>ideal color profile set
>everyone looks at it with srgb and complains the colors are off
>>55252338
IPS is pretty good, just bought 23'' a few days ago and i gotta say that it really looks great.
Just make sure to pick your monitor with a non-reflective surface, unless you want your image to look like ass.
>>55252338
>glossy
never again
>>55252772
>>55252753
Glossy seems to show colors better, unless I am wrong
>>55253064
are you fucking blind to see these shitty reflections?
>>55253064
You are wrong.
>>55253064
Glossy is shit. ESPECIALLY when it comes to photography work.
>>55252338
You can get an IPS/VA display these days for pretty cheap. Since your profession really benefits from an IPS display I say go for it.
I have a couple AOC IPS displays and they're pretty good.
Thinking about selling the pair for something with a higher resolution, though.
Everybody here has forgotten the colorimeter for display calibration and profiling. No matter the screen you choose, if you don't calibrate the panel, any color decision you make based on the monitor output will be incorrect.
Got my first IPS a few weeks ago and it's beautiful. I suggest you get a recent model because mine is very recent and it has none of the "IPS bleed" that people complain about.
>>55253064
You aren't wrong. You're being memed.
Glossy objectively has better and more accurate colours. People just hate it because it reflects a lot, even though some Matte panels have worse haze than Glossy does reflect.
https://pcmonitors.info/articles/matte-vs-glossy-monitors/
>>55254756
Photography work? You're getting more accurate colours on the Glossy panel. I guess pictures are printed badly and are matte though, but it's not a fault of the glossy panel.
>>55255642
>objectively
Did they measure both screen types with a colorimeter or spectrophotometer to reach that conclusion?
>>55255752
You can go on Prad.de if you want a real in-depth analysis. I'm pretty sure they have pictures of the sub-pixel structure in their reviews. They usually compare the sub-pixels from the monitor they're reviewing to that of a matte and glossy display. The matte one is always mushed, whereas the glossy one is sharp and accurate. Some "semi-glossy" displays will have a structure in-between.
>>55255752
>>55255793
Here. Far left is glossy.
