Seeing most of us that are active with modelphotography are stuck with something else to photography I think a guestblog post (or more, feel free to contact me) about other subjects can be interesting, today Simon Choi…. so take it away.
The Best Aperture For Landscape Photographs When you are trying to take the best landscape photographs, you are trying to balance sharpness with the scope and breadth of the image. There are a few rules of thumb listed below that you can use, and you can use these tips as you adapt to your style of photography. You can read how other photographers do their work, but you need to find the “sweet spot” that works best for you.
What Is The Basic Rule Of Thumb? The best aperture for landscape photographs is often f/8 or f/11. This is because photographers have found that these apertures blend a good mix of breadth and focus. You could move to these apertures right away to see if they work, and you can adjust from there. You may want to try a few shots from the f/8 or f/11 aperture. You can look over the shots you have, and you can decide if you like them. You might feel comfortable with one aperture or both. If you do not like the way they look, you can use another rule of thumb that helps photographers everywhere.
Come Back Two Or Three Stops When you are clicking through the f/stops on your lens, the sharpest picture often comes from the stop two or three from the end. Therefore, if your lens ends at f/11, you should come back to f/8 or f/9 to get the sharpest image. If your lens goes all the way to something like f/14, you can come back to f/11 or f/12.
You can test these stops much like the optometrist does when you get a new prescription. Toggle between the two until you decide which one you like most. This is a better way to get good images because you are not trying to force an image that appears to have been shot by a panoramic camera.
What Happens If You Go Too Wide? If you go too wide, you will find that the background is too blurry. This is why this article is not using f/4 or even f/2.8 to describe landscape apertures. You will get quite a lot of material in the shot, but only the foreground of the image will be sharp. The background will look like it came from an impressionist painting. However, for certain types of photography where you want some bokeh it can be great. For example, I recommend starting with an f/4 for lensball photography so the image in the lensball is very clear and to have some blur in the background. Lensball photography involves using a crystal ball for creative photography, it is used most commonly for landscape photography.
We are talking about the overall sharpness of the image. You need to move back to something a little bit smaller to get the results you want. You will be able to see all the items in the shot, and the clarity in the images will make it much easier for people to enjoy them.
What If You Use Something That Is Too Narrow? When you use anything that is too narrow, you might blur anything that is in the foreground. This is might be a good way to make the whole image look nicer, but you could lose some sharpness around the subject itself. You need to balance your focus on all the things in the background of the image with the subject.
It makes much more sense to consider the whole picture before you get started. When you are fixated on just one object, you will lose some of the items that are just as interesting. These photos can be so wide that you will not even notice some of the most interesting parts. Review the area before choosing your lens.
What If You Are Not Getting The Results You Want? When you are not getting the results you want, you might want to use a technique called focus stacking. You can take different pictures of the same area as you change your lens. You will get different levels of sharpness in different parts of the image, and you can mix them in the editing process. This might be the only way for you to get the results that you want, and you can create images that are nearly impossible to shoot with a standard camera.
Photographers often get frustrated when they are trying to choose the appropriate lens or find the “sweet spot” on the lens. You can use editing to help make your images look better. However, you will get better at finding the “sweet spot” over time.
Conclusion You should invest some time in finding the sharpest image possible when you want to cover a wide area. Do not go too wide because you will lose any items in the foreground. If you are using something too narrow, you will lose items in the foreground. You do not want to compromise the quality of the images you are shooting, and that is why you need to go through some trial and error until you find the ultimate “sweet spot” on the lens.
Simon Choi is an avid landscape photographer based in Melbourne, Australia. After departing a corporate career in Financial Services and Consulting, Simon pursued his passion for landscape photography, nature and creativity. He started Refractique, an online niche photography retailer which distributes the lensball.
Hope you guys enjoyed the guestblog, if you have ideas again feel free to contact me and who knows… maybe you’re next.
https://frankdoorhof.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/LensballSunset.jpg13822000Frank Doorhofhttps://frankdoorhof.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/studioFD_Logo-1FV.pngFrank Doorhof2020-05-18 10:04:502020-05-18 10:04:51Guest post : Simon Choi on landscape photography
For years I’ve been wanting to record this tutorial but never found the time. I could have done a shorter version but when I do release something I always want it to be as complete as possible.
So during the “lockdown” I decided it was time to create the tutorial you guys have been asking me for for years 🙂
After hours of recording and editing I’m proud to present my brand new tutorial about Photoshop and Lightroom.
In 7 hours and 30 minutes I take you through almost every trick and technique I know in Photoshop and Lightroom.
The tutorial is aimed at both the beginners and medium to advanced photographer/retoucher with information on the tools within Photoshop but also with tips for vintage looks, skin retouching, bringing pores back into overretouched skin, smoothing backgrounds, my favorite gear and plugins, quick tips and longer tips. It’s all there.
One might say we woke up in a “bad” sci-fi or horror movie. No more going outside for a lot of people, no more photoshoots, no more….. well in the Netherlands we are “happy” that at least we are not in a full 100% lockdown but still have some things we are allowed to do. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those protesters that believe the government is keeping us inside for other reasons. Trust me if they want the damage to the economy to be limited they will open up as soon as possible, if your country does not yet open up, don’t do it yourself, this is a virus we are fighting with each other not an enemy you can see.
So of course one of the things I miss most is doing photoshoots. I know some people still do it, but I think that’s irresponsible, you have to move to the location, there is a huge chance of infection during that travel or on location, if you do it in your studio you have to clean literally everything and they still don’t know for sure how long the virus will be active in a room where there is little to no ventilation, in fact they already know it can be spread via the HVAC system, so you might not infect yourself but maybe someone in that building. So just don’t take the risk.
To show you guys that you can do photoshoots even without leaving your home my friend Andy set up this special photoshoot (and all credits go to him for this).
Andy is a dear friend of us, but he lives app. 6000 miles away. So talk about keeping your distance. Andy is also a photographer, but also a good looking dude, so he came up with the idea to do a long distance photoshoot. And with todays technology this is of course very possible.
Our setup. During the lightsetup I switched between the small camera and the desktop. So for the shoot the desktop was large and for setting up the lights I switched the two cameras so I could clearly see what was going on.
So what did we do? Andy put his camera on a tripod and connected it to his laptop via a Tethertools cable of course. Thanks to Capture One I was able to switch between shooting modes, settings and very importantly live view (without live view forget about this).
One camera (from his laptop) we set up so I could see most of the room, this made it easy to see where the lights were placed and give directions to how to angle the lights. Of course Andy was able to do the metering and place the lights.
As soon as everything was setup I switched over to the live view mode inside of Capture One and posed Andy. Now to be honest when we started this shoot I didn’t expect it to go as smooth as it actually did. For the “meeting” software we used ZOOM, but you can also use Skype or any other software that supports both taking over someones desktop and using a camera at the same time. Zoom actually worked like a charm (this was my first time using Zoom).
When everything was set up correctly I could see Andy posing via the live view and getting the shadows right was easy. When I started this my initial idea was to just use flat lighting, this is easier to get a good shot, but when we saw how smooth the connection was we just immediately went for the more contrasty lighting. Now I have to add Andy was a real champ and stayed exactly the way that I told him, there is always a slight delay between shots and directions but in all honesty it felt almost instant, so this is without a doubt usable.
Now in real life I can make better shots, will experiment a bit more with different positions, fine tune the light, freak a bit more with flares etc. but I have to be honest for a remote shoot this was not only a boat load of fun (thanks buddy) but the results aren’t that bad either, in fact if you take more time for it (we did a session of 30 minutes) I think you could do some really cool stuff.
So what do you need? Make sure you connect your camera via USB to your laptop/tablet. Make sure you use software that can show you the live view of your camera, for example Capture One. Place one camera that can see the whole room and use this as the standard “webcam” Use software that is pretty solid in the connection and has the option to take over someone’s desktop, you have to have mouse control. The software you use to make the connection has to support also the option that both the desktop AND camera stay active Make sure the software makes it possible to see both the desktop and the extra camera
Now if you want to go fancy (and who doesn’t) You can use a dedicated videocamera and connect that to your desktop. We use a blackmagic HDMI to USB device for this and in our home studio a Magewell HDMI to USB device. Both do the same thing, they get a HDMI signal from your camera and convert it to something your desktop sees as an extra camera in “all” software. It replaces the often bad webcams and gives you more room to move it around and show the room.
And… well that’s about it. After the shoot Andy send the files to me and I retouched them to show you guys the results today.
There is one thing that was a bit more difficult than expected. In real life you see everything in 3D, in other words you see depth. On a screen this is highly reduced, this made setting up the accent light for example much more tricky than normal, but in the end we got one shot out of it, I wanted to play more with that but Andy’s room was pretty bright and small so the light scatter was very hard to control, so we opted for the more darker looks 🙂
https://frankdoorhof.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Me-Frank1611.jpg10581250Frank Doorhofhttps://frankdoorhof.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/studioFD_Logo-1FV.pngFrank Doorhof2020-04-29 12:41:202020-04-29 12:41:56A distant modelshoot in a time of social/physical distancing
Some reviews are easy and some reviews are hard. To be honest writing a review about a monitor can be quite easy, but also incredibly hard, actually the better a monitor gets… the more difficult it gets writing a review. When for example a monitor has color issues, or luminosity errors you can explain what it is and why it’s important to take note of that. This often means that writing reviews for cheaper monitors is a blast, loads of things to explain so to say.
So why do I start this review with this small note… Well you have to know a bit of history.
Years ago during an UK tradeshow I met the guys from BenQ for the first time, at that moment they told me they were starting to promote specialty monitors for video/DTP and photography and they wanted to really make a dent in the market to deliver high-class, great specked monitors for very affordable prices. Now from any other company I would probably just thought “yeah, sure and who are you again” because let’s be honest the market had been very tightly controlled by only a hand full of brands, and in fact at that point most photographers only edited on 2 brands if they were serious about their work.
So why did I take BenQ serious from the Get-go. When you look at companies there is always a history, and what most of you probably already know is that before we took on photography full time Annewiek and I ran a PC-company for over 20 years (with great success) and one of the things we always experienced is that if a gamer entered the shop it was always …. BenQ. We’ve sold pallets of BenQ monitors to the gaming community in our area, but also CD drives and the nice thing from the BenQ products was great support and they hardly ever broke down, and on latency for gamers…. well if negative was an option they would probably add this too. So this is a company that didn’t just appear out of nowhere, I dare to say that if one company knows how to build imaging display for pro work BenQ absolutely would be on that short list without any doubt. So when they announced the new line I was all ears, eyes and what not more.
My first BenQ monitor was several hundreds of euros cheaper than the monitor I used at that time and to give you an idea about technical knowledge I have to tell you a small story.
The monitor I was using at that moment had a hardware calibration unit. Now I never got this feature, it metered in a corner, it was a tristimulus meter and was not replaceable and could not be recalibrated. When I asked about this “weird” solution I got some even “weirder” answers.
First off all, the meter was linked to the monitor so it knew the degradation of the panel and adjusted itself, also it was placed in that position because…. well never got an answer to that one.
Well let me burst your bubble for now. Besides running a PC-shop for many years in 1997 we also started a Home Theater branche (this is also how we worked with BenQ in the past) in 2001 we were in the states (yes during 9/11) and I got my ISF certificate (Imaging Science Foundation) I won’t go into the very technical details, but let me put it this way, I know how to calibrate a display manually and I also understand how an analyzer and a panel works, and how they interact.
It’s impossible to calibrate an analyzer to “predict” the degradation of a panel for professional use. For consumer use you will get close enough, but for critical work it’s absolutely ridiculous to make statements like that, Both panel and analyzer drift over time. For our professional analyzers we send them in every year or two for a recalibration, this is not cheap but it’s necessary for professional grade calibrations. Now both drift, but they won’t drift according to a “plan” we could only wish, no both drift in different ways, also depending on the surrounding area of course, usage and simply put the panel itself.
One could roughly say that for professional use an automated calibration system could work just fine for 2-3 years, after that we go down to consumer level, still ok, but depending on your own nitpicking, not that good anymore.
And than talk about placing, why in the middle or corner or edge? Well when you look at your monitor you mostly look at the centre, right? So it makes sense to calibrate that part, so why should you calibrate only a corner or edge? It just didn’t make any sense at all.
Now one of the main reasons these kind of solutions are actually very good is because those setups use something called hardware calibration. Let me make this really simple. With a normal calibration the software creates a so called ICC profile, this is a profile where you set a goal (for example Adobe RGB) and the software “calculates” from the sensor readings how far certain colors are off and corrects this, so for example you will see R +1, -10, +3, often these calibrations are done on the primaries (RGB) and secondaries (CMY) and often also some shades in between, during the calibration you also see them vary in output, this is mostly used for gamma and to prevent clipping within the colorspace/color.
In all essence it’s not really hard to understand. We have a fixed set of coordinates and we have a variable set of coordinates that has to be “guided” towards that fixed set. In most cases you get pretty darn close, but it will never be 100% perfect, the difference is what makes a monitor good, better or worse. This is also why you often see 98% Adobe RGB and 100% srgb, it means that when calibrated to Adobe RGB you will get 98% close, and when calibrated to SRGB you get 100% close.
Now where does it get interesting. When we do this in software there are limits. Think about what happens when you use curves in Photoshop, when you pull on two sides everything is fine, when you start adding 3-4-5 points you will see huge problems in for example an 8 bits version, and less problems in a 16 bits version. The reason is again simple, with 8 bits you get 256 steps of luminance per color and in 16 bits you get a whopping 65536 tonal values PER color. Don’t confuse this with a 10 bits panel (which the 321C uses). As you can see here the difference between 8 and 10 bits panels.
8 bits10 bits
When we look at the calibration itself we have a few options. Profiles can be matrix-based or LUT (lookup table) based both of which include the white point of the device (mostly D65 or 6500 degrees Kelvin) Matrix-based profiles are small and LUT profiles are larger and also a lot more complex.
A matrix profile is a mathematical model made up of the three primary colorants of the device and some simple tonal curves, referred to as a 3 x 3 matrix.
A LUT-based profile contains much more information, consisting of a table of numbers that allows you to find an input value and its corresponding output value.
One could say that simpler devices could use a matrix profile, it’s fast and easy. But for monitors and printers I’m a huge supporter of a LUT based calibration.
This is also where the monitor comes into play. You probably heard the remark hardware calibration quite some time when you read my reviews. This actually means that you don’t calibrate your monitor via an ICC profile, there still is one, but it will be “neutral”, all calibration is done inside the monitor. Personally with the BenQ I always choose the 16bits LUT, native panel, V2 (don’t use V4) relative blackpoint (with relative it will keep the gamma in tact, with absolute it will yield a higher contrast ration but gamma is sacrificed a bit) and large. This takes some time but the result is butterly smooth and very accurate.
Now there is one setting missing, and I want to give some extra attention to this, light output? When a gamer or consumer buys a monitor one of the things we always heard was “light output” and a rule of thumb was… the brighter the better. Well that’s true for those usages, but what about DTP or photography? everyone that ever edited an image on their phones or iPad in a dark room with the brightness on full blast knows this hurts your eyes, but also the results are WAY too dim, in other words as soon as you look at them on a normal monitor it’s just too muddy and dark.
But can’t you just lower the output of the monitor? Yeah to a certain extend you can, but you do have to realize that there is a limit, at one point the contrast (white point) will keep going down, but the brightness (blackpoint) won’t, you are now entering the danger zone, you are now seriously hurting your contrast ratio, and this…. you don’t want to do.
Seeing we need lower light output for photography (mostly between 80-130 cdm) it’s wise to choose a monitor that has a sweetspot for contrast ratio around that light output, although now a days with HDR this is a bit different, but let’s for now keep that out of this story.
End of the story So for a good monitor that can be used for photography we need : Hardware calibration, with a replaceable analyzer (not a fixed one) A sunshade (also handy when you have a controlled lighting area) At least 98% Adobe RGB A good panel that doesn’t look red on one side and blue on the other (and yes there are a lot of them out there) A good panel that doesn’t look like a natural vignette (brightness differences, very annoying) Good service and support Good price
pffff sounds like a lot of boxes to check.
The sunhood can be mounted in landscape and portrait
321C (or like I like to say it 3.2.1 COLOR) Let’s take a look at the beast that is called the 321C First off all I appreciate you guys still reading so let’s make this very short. The 321C checks all the boxes, BenQ really picked a great panel for this monitor. I could have stopped the review here, or bore you guys with technical details which you can also find on the product page, and I hate those kind of reviews so I’m not spending any time on that, let me put it this way…. it’s very impressive on paper.
However, being impressive on paper doesn’t mean anything when you have the monitor on your desk. So let’s take a look at some things that REALLY caught my eye.
The first thing is of course color. I’ve had several BenQ monitors on my desk over the years and they all are great value for money. I love their P3 series for step in photographers that need a bit more than sRGB but can’t yet afford a full ARGB monitor, but I also love their professional series. Now seeing the pretty steep price difference between them I was very curious to see what this monitor brought more.
Connections Let’s do the boring stuff first. This is a USB-C monitor, and all devices should be by now. It means no slow ports if you connect to your monitor.
You get HDMI (v2.0) x 2DisplayPort DisplayPort (v1.4)
USB 3.1 Hub USB Downstream x 2USB 3.1 Hub USB Upstream x 1USB Type-C Yes (PD60W, DP Alt mode, Data)
Card Reader SD/MMC type Support Format: SD/SDHC/SDXC/MMC
Sharpness I can’t really put my finger on it exactly but the 321C is a seriously detailed monitor, the first time I connected it without proper calibration I already saw that my taskbar was more defined, looking a bit more 3D, after calibration some “blooming” was gone and it was crystal clear (no pun intended) this monitor is fricking sharp, the panel and coating is one of the most detailed I’ve ever seen in a monitor. Now do be careful, sharpness can also be added digitally, this is however not sharpness, this is “ringing”, do remember that your monitor has a fixed resolution and if you send in that exact resolution you can never ever get a sharper image than without any processing. In projectors and TV sets you do often find sharpening via for example super resolution or 4K enhancement modes, and in movies this can work like a charm, but you always have to realize that you are losing fine details. So for a monitor on which you have to do sharpening for output to a digital billboard, poster or thumbnail it’s vital that the signal is as clean as possible, and from what I can see…. the 321C is pretty close to “honest”.
Coating Another thing is the coating. Also here I can’t really find any information on it from a technical standpoint (not important) but it just “feels” different. All the BenQ monitors I used before were pretty similar in appearance and “feel”, this one clearly is different, and in a very positive way. The glare is different (don’t worry these screens are matt and don’t glare like some consumer screens, laptops or iMacs. But still it feels different if you know what I mean.
Paperlike This is brandnew, and in all honesty, I’m a bit skeptical about this feature.
The main reason you buy a monitor at this price point is of course to be able to judge an image or piece of work on color accuracy and dynamics, so you need a very “honest” preview of what’s to come. Now we all know the frustration that when you send something to your printer it comes out like junk. With paperlike the 321C makes it possible to judge the output of your printer on the screen, sounds awesome right? (and it is) but there are some things you REALLY have to be careful about.
First off all. You have to make sure you calibrate your monitor before every “judging” round, at least let it warm up for 30 minutes and calibrate, but also your printer has to be calibrated or using a profile that is valid for the kind of paper and inkts you use. We for example use Epson Premium Luster paper almost exclusively, I’ve calibrated my Epson 3800 for this paper and my PC, when Annewiek prints something it looks slightly different, (after I gave her my settings not anymore, so there is a huge BUT there)
In essence paperlike is absolutely fricking awesome.
By using paperlike you can select your printer and paper and see on the monitor what would roll out of the printer. You have realize that a printer has totally different colors than a monitor, we call this subtractive color or additive colors. A monitor emits light and uses RGB as main colors (although you also see some panels using extra Yellow) and a print actually reflects or absorbs light and uses as a base CYMK (K= key). Add to this that also the colorspaces are different per paper and inkt and that in a dark room the monitor will look awesome but the print sucks, and outside the monitor will suck and the print will look awesome…., and here we go…… you get the idea why these worlds can cause so much frustration for you (and me).
Paperlike promises (and does) solve some of these issues. And let’s be honest, we don’t and never will have exact the same image on screen and on paper, but it has to be as close as possible of course. So what does paperlike, or paper color sync do?
First off all the monitor itself has to be prepared for this, and this is were that new coating comes into play, it’s just a bit more closely to paper so to say. After that it’s actually pretty simple. You can download the free software from BenQ, install it and choose your printer and paper…… yeah…. well don’t know what to say more, it’s really that simple. No voodoo or magic, it’s actually a very smart thing they did, and I can’t imagine why this wasn’t released earlier.
Now one could say…. “he Frank we have a softproofing in Photoshop and Lightroom?”, and indeed yes you do (well spotted), but see this as a WAY WAY more accurate way of doing that softproofing, I advise everyone to use softproofing when you shoot for important work where color accuracy and gamma are vital, and Photoshop comes a long way, but if you want it “perfect”….. well you really should think about the 321C.
Now as mentioned you do have some severe limitations, and it’s up to BenQ to see how this will work in the future. The limitations are actually to be expected and should also be there, this is NOT negative, in fact it’s 100% POSITIVE, if they would have released a one size fits all solution it would be just a slightly better version (or worse) of Photoshops proofing.
What they did (and still do) is take into account readings from papers, printers, ink AND the monitor and throw them into profiles. This is a proven and very accurate way of working, heck it’s how we all look at our monitors displaying Argb when we edit, it’s just measurements and profiles, nothing more. To make a monitor and print look similar this is however not an easy task, and a lot of people will be disappointed. Like I mentioned before it’s vital to realize that a monitor is NOT a print and a print is NOT a monitor. Use colorsync in a dark studio and you will wonder why you’re print looks like crap, so for serious judging EVERY print station should be outfitted with a full spectrum daylight bulb/led light. ONLY that way can you really judge a print.
One might wonder, what if a customer…… Well I know your pain. We’ve had exhibitions where my images looked awesome, and we’ve had exhibitions where I hardly recognized my own work. The key element was light. One gallery used natural light from outside and to put it mildly, some moments they looked ok. And the other gallery had lights mounted on every single piece of work, to be short… that looked right.
But when you have this into place, the results can be shockingly accurate. Ok so what about that limitation I keep telling you about, that was the light right?….. no sorry. To make this work you really have to be using the printer AND paper AND ink that is available in the BenQ software, at the moment it’s still a bit limited but seeing they can add profiles very easily I expect this to grow a lot during the coming months.
The Puck With the 321C we find the “famous” BenQ puck. In all honesty at first I didn’t use it all, and still it’s…. well it’s connected and I do use it occasionally, but there is one thing that is really cool about the puck. You can program two color spaces under the buttons, so with a press of a button you can set your monitor to the sRGB colorspace or to Adobe RGB, this is a very very useful function when you publish a lot for the internet.
But there is one other feature that I think is very useful for some people
GamutDuo Connect the BenQ with 2 cables and it’s possible to see an Adobe RGB version next to a SRGB version on the same screen. This is a huge thing for people that will convert to colorspaces a lot and where it’s vital all the nuances are shown.
Multiple monitor accuracy In the top line of BenQ you can add several monitors together and they will give you a very similar look and feel of your images. This is something that might be very important for video editors, for photography I don’t use that feature but when doing video on 2 monitors I often use one for a preview and one for the time line, having a proper balance between those two is not only easier but can actually be vital for proper color grading and balancing the contrast.
Conclusion We have arrived at the end, wow you kept reading (or did you skip). This is not the cheapest BenQ monitor and one might wonder that if you don’t need the Paper color sync software if it’s still the monitor for you? Well let me try to answer that.
In all these years that I’ve edited images/video on a boat load of monitors this monitor really shines above all others I’ve tried. I’m just in love with the coating and the sharpness of the monitor and for me, even without the paper color sync software this warrants the premium price and lets be honest compared to the competition this is actually a pretty standard price for the high-end monitors, in fact taking everything into account one could say it’s not that expensive, although it’s still a lot of money.
I do have to come clean on one part. I’ve already seen and worked with this monitor since December, I believe the first beta sample was in our studio for the first look and I’m running on one of the first production models. One could ask “why wait so long for a review”
Well the reason is very simple. Sometimes you see reviews minutes after a product is released, we also sometimes do this and one might wonder “how the heck?” well some products we get a few days or even weeks before the release and with some products you know within hours or days if it’s good or not, but a monitor….. I never trust reviews of monitors that appear right after the release. In my opinion you have to also take into account how the monitor grows on you and how it keeps it’s color. Now even a few months of intensive use is not enough for that last question, I can only say “so far so good”, but that growing part I can be very short about. Over the past few weeks the monitor keeps growing in my appreciation, due to the lock down I’m working a lot from home, on another BenQ monitor (of course), every time I walk into the studio and I work on the 321C I go “aaaaaaah…..” and that’s a good thing, the 321C is a very complete monitor with more features than most of us will ever use. It’s simply put a monitor for the serious pro that demands “everything” from him/herself and also expect the gear to follow that trend. And the 321C can keep up…. it’s awesome.
Add to this that the 321C is verified by Calman (a professional calibration system that I also use) and it’s also Pantone validated and you just know this is not just talk or commercial mambojambo.
During the review I aimed at photographers but I do have to add that the 321C also support HDR10/HLG and supports the native 24/25P frames per second that is important to detect judder during editing.
HIGHLY recommended for pros, or hobbyists that are not satisfied with “it’s pretty accurate”
You must be logged in to post a comment.