|
I like your analysis Bojan. It is true that colour is an interpretable visual aspect. There is no right or wrong, but aesthetic and ugly. All of which depends greatly on the individual.
That said, in the digital realm colours come with numerical values. Distinguishing the difference between adjacent hues has become childs play. Sure, I may visually not be able to see the difference, but from numerical values I become well informed and can then make judgement on contrast, balance, saturation or basic push pull of channels. The digital darkroom of today delivers unprecedented colour accuracy.
Most monitors display the traditional sRGB colour space fairly accurately. With hardware calibration, it is possible to come close to near perfect colour presentation. So regardless of the monitor you choose, make sure you calibrate it regularly if you're keen on keeping your work to publishing levels.
I've been using a Eizo 21" ColourEdge monitor with hood for approximately two years now. They are pricey, but you're paying for the quality and level of colour accuracy. Get a good monitor and it will last you a while - just like a telescope mount. You'll be forever upgrading the PC as advances in micro computing continue. Monitors on the other hand do not see such a rapid change. LED will probably be the next shift assuming it is possible to reproduce colours with extreme accuracy. It has taken a while for publishers to adopt LCD's for that reason.
|