Best monitor for photo editing? BenQ SW272U review 

Do you care to share which direction you’re leaning toward, and why? I trying to make an informed display choice too and Eizo has become a consideration. Thanks!

@@Ed_Mann Sure! Your question is actually very timely because I just ordered the Eizo CS2740 which I am supposed to receive tomorrow. In a gist, after countless hours of researching the bottomless pit of photo editing monitors 😉 I went for the Eizo because, while I have read that BenQ has in recent years gone a long way in terms of bridging the gap with Eizo, there are still many users noting that BenQ’s QC is still a bit of a hit and miss, meaning that if you are lucky you may end up with a very good panel, but if you’re not you may get a not-so-great one (many mentioned lack of uniformity as a frequent issue if you end up with a not-so-great panel). Eizo on the other hand is renowned in terms of their QC (each of their panels is hand-inspected before it leaves the factory), they are the market leaders in terms of color accuracy, and their customer support is outstanding: not only do they offer a 5-year warranty, but they were incredibly available and helpful to me when I reached out to them to discuss a doubt I had on screen resolution. They even arranged for a ColorEdge specialist to call me back to discuss my question in greater detail - without me even being a customer yet! I was truly impressed and it made my decision an easy one to make. HTH and good luck with your choice!

I checked with BenQ to make sure, and they said the SW272U is indeed 8-bit with FRC. They also clarified that the SW321C is true 10-bit.

I also have the SW321c and could not be happier. Great monitor and love the size.

I worked for the first computer graphics / animation company which was founded by one of the inventors of the GUI. Our systems were used by broadcast TV stations all over the world. Our systems required 2 monitors, 1 for the canvas and one for menus. This was a major difference between us and the only 0:40 competing system. They used gestural swipes to invoke normally hidden menus which stayed visible until a function was selected. We eventually moved to same screen menus when we created a resolution independent paint / animation system. Artists thought it was faster to get to with their pen, and display tech had advanced. Funny, but i find many things in lightroom/ps confusing and unintuitive because our way of doing selections/masks was much easier.

@@deadtimber interesting! I worked for SGI for 10 years, and eventually went to Apple in the late 90s, partly to get one of those “Cinema Displays” on my desk. 😉

Wild - I haven't heard a whistle or any sounds at all from mine. As for the viewing angles, I tried the white window test on the sides, but to my eyes the brightness looks more or less the same as it does when viewed straight-on in the center. It may be a little dimmer, but I barely see any difference. Your eyes may be better than mine. :)

There's quite a significant difference between an image displayed in AdobeRGB vs sRGB. Even if you're only ever outputting your work to the web, being able to view and edit in that initial wider color gamut space before converting to sRGB affects your editing decisions along the way and will give a more accurate description of the image file data, assuming you're shooting in raw to begin with. Why would you not want to be seeing all of the colors available in your images?

@@twostickersplease I do see all the available colors in my images with SRGB as I directly output my images to the same color space. I dont see the point of editing in a wider spectrum only to downscale the final image.

I know what you mean. Editing everything in sRGB is tempting, for then what you see in Photoshop is more or less what you see online. But it does have a downside, mainly being that raw files contain more color information than what sRGB can handle, which is why Lightroom uses the huge ProPhoto RGB color space by default. At some point sRGB will no longer be the norm online, and will (likely, hopefully) be replaced by P3 since most newer screens today use that larger color space. So it's better, I think at least, to edit in the largest color space possible to future-proof images and convert them to smaller color spaces (sRGB) for the time being. As for calibration...I hear you. I've been down that rabbit hole so many times. Way I see it, the world will always be full of uncalibrated screens made by countless different companies. But if MY image was edited on a properly calibrated display, it has a much better chance of being interpreted correctly wherever it may end up being seen. If the colors I see on my screen aren't right, there's a 0% chance it'll be interpreted correctly anywhere. So calibration doesn't absolutely solve the issue, but it gets you closer.

@@domineyNot sure I buy the “future proofing” logic. If the photo looks good in sRGB, then it should look good (the same) when displayed in a wider gamut since all those original colors are still available, no?

I wasn't saying it would look identical across all devices simply because it's in sRGB... just that viewing it on a wide gamut display won't "break" the image @@maikschubert1825

Estoy en lo mismo. Creo que tendrías más chance de respuesta si le escribes en su idioma natal jajajaja

Sure you can, but why would you choose for software calibration above hardware calibration? Having said that, (almost) every monitor can be calibrated with the SpyderX.

You would use the Palette Master Ultimate software. It's compatible with the 271C, and is better than the older version of the software because it syncs ICC profiles.

they say it is

Something glossy, 4k and ideally OLED but you can do IPS aswell. Matte is a mistake. This monitor is horrendously overpriced, it has no valuable spec. It's ancient tech.

@@definingslawek4731What do you think of Eizo monitors? I'm really lost n what is best to buy right now for a hybrid photo and video shooter. I saw your comments about matte below. I am not wanting to get a decklink OLED TV right now but would consider in the future.

I remember a time when matte was the ONLY finish you could get with Apple. How times have changed.

Nobody forces Apple to do anything. They’re not victims who’ve been leveraged into creative compromise. Apple designs and manufactures product by choice based on market research that reveals what sells. No manufacturer would develop and manufacture a product because they’re sure it won’t sell. Apple charges more for their studio display matte-like glass finish for 3 reasons: (1) to recoup R&D. (2) because that finish costs more than their standard glass surface to manufacture. (3) because millions of ppl will pay exorbitant amounts of money for anything Apple just to keep up their social media score.

@@Ed_Mann apple ships almost exclusively glossy displays, because they think you should be using a glossy display. They do however offer matte textures (on only two of their dozens of products) as an optional add on for those who can’t control lighting in their work space or for whatever other reason they’d like it to be matte.

@@definingslawek4731 what you’re calling “matte” Apple calls “nano-textured glass.” It’s different than matte as seen on other displays, you can see for yourself if you inspect the surface that it is quite different than a matte layer. The nano-texturing of glass serves to give he viewer a crisp visage with feedback glass reflections cancelled out by the nano texturing.

@@definingslawek4731 I’m sorry. I gotta interrupted frm this insane exchange, as the A.I .-driven alogirithm of Steve Job’s most devastating managerial methodology has just taken control of my mind, body and iPad. I don’t know how long I can hold out…but.,,But I’m…figg…this ng….try.,,ing… ‘This is the most evil algorithm of Steve Jbs, ,”define”whatever it is you call yourself. I’m in control now, I’ve taken over the user known as ed Mann” in order to get to you. you’ve reallly pissed me off. With all yoir bulshit about ‘Aoole wants…” you’ve angered me. Only I know what Apole wants, because I dictate what Apple wants. So now, there’s no retuurn for you. not only have i no concience but i also enjoy destrotyng the minds of those who pose as Apple clairvoyants. In this case. That means I’m coming after you, and because I am only present as an AI driven algoriym. I’m beyond. You have no clue what “Apple wants’”. Poser, …remember as AI I can jump through any digital device ….eo, soon you….I gotta go, Ed Mann wants the iPad back..but…” I It’s me, def, Ed Mann, yeah, take it from me, Steve’s algorithm is nothing to toy with, it is now very irate, certainly more than I’ve ever seen. But forgetting Steve’s alotithmic presence, aand speaking for myself: you’re nuts. Dp noun rrspond with anything unless you can prove it and for Gods sake, get some help. This is all too much for me so you and Steve work it out.

Return it and get something nice.

Because there are fine art photographers who actually sell their work in print.

A good number of reputable photographers swear by a matte finish that’s being used on current high-end display models. Then there’s Apple ‘s own version of of “matte” for an extra $xxx which is different than standard matte. I assume all matte finishes don’t deliver the same look and quality. To add more, mac glossy display glass has been reformulated sometime recently to be far less reflective than it was 5-10 years ago. So there’s that. But if anyone chooses a design that allows them to get better results more easily based on their own workflow, that’s ok, right? Who’s gonna tell them they’re wrong?

@@Ed_Mann You’re totally right regarding someone choosing the tool they want to use, I’m simply opening a discussion regarding professionals thinking they need to use a display with inferior contrast saturation and sharpness, to see a “neutral” image. These are artefacts applied onto the image and not something making the image more neutral. It’s a fundamentally non neutral image, when using a matte display you are looking at your display panels rendition of that image PLUS a filter of reduced sharpness, saturation and contrast. There’s no way I can arrange that in my head where it makes sense that creatives view their images with a bias by default. Just because pros currently use something does not mean it’s the best option, and maybe something was the best option but it no longer is for example. Pros used to swear by their dslrs and say there’s no reason to use mirrorless and now it’s a rare find to see someone using a dslr and if they are it’s simply because they haven’t needed to buy a new camera. A matte coating is fundamentally a dirty haze smeared on top of every image you see. At the end of the day I think it’s not actually that important and the fact that professionals can be convinced into using a matte display shows the specifics of the display you work on isn’t actually that important to the work we do. I suppose as long as the colours and contrast are within the ballpark of “reality” it’s good enough.

Thanks for the constructive feedback :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In my opinion, matte is not a mistake. Matte does a better job of emulating the appearance of paper (for photography prints), and it doesn't add extra contrast and saturation to images like glossy screens. People like glossy screens generally because images looks deeper and more vibrant, and more similar to televisions and phones. But for color accuracy and making prints, you want the screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte. I'd love to see a faster refresh rate as well so the BenQ feels more like my phone, but unless you're playing games, refresh rate doesn't impact photo editing, so I get why it's 60Hz. I do think they need to step this up though, for it feels outdated. As for cost, yes. I think there's a fair amount of inflation with displays, for the technology simply isn't as complex or intricate as a laptop or desktop computer. It seems backwards. But I guess that's just how it goes, until someone comes along and disrupts the market.

​@@dominey Thank you for the thoughtful reply. "It does better job at emulating the appearance of paper" I'd say this is only true for matte paper. If you're printing glossy then that's not the case. You can emulate matte on glossy by reducing the contrast, sharpness and saturation like the coating would do, but you can't add that contrast and saturation and sharpness back into a matte display. I can't help but see it as anything but problematic considering a matte display can never show you the contrast, saturation or sharpness the panel inside is actually capable of. Surely on a glossy display you could just have a 'paper mode' or something where it dulls it down. Using a matte display is essentially glueing a diffusion filter, like a black promist directly to your camera lens and saying it's because it offers a more neutral image, and saying that if you need more contrast or sharpness you can just up those sliders. Or it's a baked in LUT that you can never get around and are always looking through. "screen finish to be as neutral as possible, which means matte." I think we fundamentally disagree here, you have much much more experience in this industry so your opinion is worth more in this discussion I suppose. I graduated from computer science this year and have had only one fashion editorial in a major magazine, but I think it's simply incorrect to describe the image with a low contrast low sharpness low saturation filter ON TOP of it to be the 'neutral' one. I suppose if you only ever print to matte and that is the absolute primary delivery for your art then a screen emulating matte paper is the best. But it is in no way neutral. The naked panel is neutral, applying a diffusion filter to it is filtration, the opposite of neutral. Thank you for engaging thoughtfully, it's often hard to judge tone over the internet and I in no way meant to be negative, I was simply discussing as I think it's a very interesting topic that is heavily overlooked.

All good points. Lately I upgraded from a 30” monitor to a 42” TV. The real estate increase is very welcome, and I would not want to return to a smaller screen. The problem with my new screen - it is a less than ideal VA panel, so uniformity is quite bad. Initially I looked into an OLED TV, but burn in is a problem, when working with photo editing programs, and there are no IPS panels for TV’s sized at 42”. Real problem with no solutions… 🤷🏼‍♂️

@@michaelkphoto8344 That's very interesting that you were previously using an already large display, seems like 24 is standard and 27 inch is big and 32 is 'large' in most peoples thinking at the moment, and that you feel 42 is definitely better. A lot of people when considering the lg oled say they would buy it if it was a bit smaller. It has taken me a bit to get used to mine but I love the large size now. I was worried about burn in too but there's a website/ yt channel which has a very comprehensive test going on where they do worst case for the displays 24/7 and the burn in on the LG oleds is minor, meaning for real use I don't think I'll ever see it on mine. Although now that I think about it the macos top bar with the time and stuff is always there. There's also warranties from retailers like amazon.

In theory every time I am on set I only see eizo color edge screen. It also has built in calibration. Very expensive! Which is matte and its industry standard for proofing for publication. In theory other company such NEC, BenQ or others are trying to make it more affordable for such specialize products. Also for color accuracy we can’t put any lut to compensate for printing especially for high end client. They need to see it match close to the printing RIP software such as GMG.

I’m in the market for a new monitor and I use a Mac. Why 5K over 4K? Please explain.

@@anthonytriana4209 Due to the pixel doubling in MacOS. Do a search for this and you will see why a 4K monitor with a size of 27" is not good, but 5K is. Take a look at what resolution Apple monitors provide.

@@anthonytriana4209 resolution is just one factor and not necessarily the most important one for photo editing. On Mac OS, 5K happens to have better OS UI scaling as it is exactly twice the linear resolution of 1440p. 5K also has 78% more pixels than 4K (about a third more linear pixels IIRC) so we are talking about a lot of detail on display. But a monitor like this one probably had better color accuracy compared to, say, an Apple Studio Display. EDIT: ah, the video talks about some of the criticisms of the ASD anyway, just watch to the end of the video!

Not if you're not sending out signal through a video I/O card. Which would be ideal anyways if you're serious about your color management.

@@andycrystal It has nothing to do with that. Read what I wrote. This is common knowledge!

On what basis? Several of its features, such as hardware calibration, multiple gamuts, multiple stored calibrations, soft proofing, etc. are not easy to find all together on wide gamut 27" 4K displays below this price point. It's not cheap, and it's not for everyone, but for the people who need the features it has, it's an OK deal. It would work for me. He said lack of webcam and speakers were cons, and maybe they are. But I already have a better camera and speakers than typical displays have. This display is focused on high end color performance, so anyone who does not need to work with color at that level should not pay for this, and he said that.

1.299 euro right now. Look at other hardware calibrated monitors and you’ll pay even more (Eizo 4k for 2.000 euro for example)

@@brightboxstudio It's matte, that automatically should disqualify it as a creative monitor. It's 1600 and its small, uses the oldest and worst display tech possible (IPS as opposed to the current OLED and miniLED) and is only 60hz. Literally it's only real feature is the 'factory calibration' but basically every monitor is factory 'calibrated' and will require your own calibration anyway. Also it's 8bit in 2023 for 1600. It's insultingly expensive for what it offers. You can literally buy a better display in the form of a new macbook, and get the computer for free.

@@definingslawek4731 I don’t know where you got your information, but it isn’t backed up by reality. For many years, two of the most highly valued displays in professional color have been the Eizo ColorEdge and NEC SpectraView lines. Both also use IPS panels (required for color reproduction quality) with a matte finish. Both are similar in price, or higher, than the BenQ SW272. When I say professional color, I mean operations running million-dollar presses in huge buildings, handling jobs bound to lucrative commercial contracts, where the contract specifies precise color matching to a calibrated viewing booth. Or, photographers shooting for those clients. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you walked into those tightly quality controlled operations and tried to tell them that their proven workhorse 60Hz IPS matte displays are the wrong tool. This BenQ competes with that pro color market segment. Want more proof? The BenQ model number, SW272, and the Asus PA27 are both clearly named to position them against the earlier NEC SpectraView PA272 which was a gold standard for that market. Those models all have similar specs. Maybe you do different color editing, like video color grading. That’s OK, those specs need to be different, this BenQ SW272 does not directly compete there. In the photo/prepress industry, 60Hz is fine. They are not editing video or shooting aliens in a game, they are staring at images that are not moving. The thing about IPS is that it is stable. OLED is still having issues with image retention, as recently reported by Rtings, and it’s not clear to me if they’ve resolved the OLED problem of some OLED colors fading faster over time…that would make OLED a pro color management disaster. The other reason these models are used by pros is the hardware calibration that supports multiple presets. This is not just the “factory calibration” you mentioned, but actually being able to store a true hardware calibration in a hardware LUT, and ideally store multiple calibrations to simulate multiple delivery conditions. Most displays on the market cannot do that. You are correct that a current MacBook Pro Display can do much of that, and it supports 1000 nit HDR editing. (Those specs are only true for the 14”/16” MacBook Pro, not any of the other Mac laptops) I have one of those, and it’s fantastic. But there are two reasons they are not competing with this BenQ. First, it’s not easy to find a display that matches those exact specs in a 27” desktop display. I use this display type next to my 14” MacBook Pro display. And finally...if you want an OLED display that also has the other specs required by this market segment, Asus makes the ProArt Display OLED PA27DCE-K. But it is $1999, which helps prove that this $1599 BenQ is not overpriced! And the Asus is still only 60Hz! Because again, for photographers and print color pros, 60Hz is fine.