Forum Moderators: not2easy
So I am shocked that this issue hasn't become a major one. I now have nothing but LCD monitors and I am the owner of a web site. I have hired designers who, like most of you, still use CRTs because of the color accuracy.
Major problem.
What they design looks completely different on my monitor. That wouldn't be a big deal if I was the only LCD flat panel user out there. 100% of laptops and 99% of new monitors however are LCD flat panels.
So what is the solution? Its almost humorous because the hardware everyone is transferring TO is less accurate! That must drive designers insane! But the hard reality is that you have to design for the majority, not the minority. In the next 5 years everyone is going to be LCD'ing it.. and right now everyone on laptops is already LCD'ing it.
I have seen sites designed for LCD's that look like hell on CRT's. But I guess that is the tradeoff. Just like how we migrated away from designing down to 640x480. Tough luck to the stragglers basically...?
Before you say the differences are not that noticeable, let me say "Yes, they are".
I spent a week struggling over why my designer seemed incapable of producing the color "Brown" or "Tan". We went through 4 revisions and I still ended up with a reddish purplish cow colored brown and a very light pink. On his monitor he saw a flat brown and khaki.
This seems to be a major major problem and I am not sure what to do about it. I am actually sending him an LCD monitor to design my sites on.
Help!
Given that:
...you had better try to ensure that there's some connection to reality built into the process somewhere. There's less reason to assume that the panel you send your designer to work with will be representative of monitors in general than there is to assume that his calibrated monitor represents something like the standard which monitors in general try to achieve.
The best solution overall is probably to instruct the designer to design with the limitations of accurate colour reproduction in mind, but to design on equipment that shows true colour. Something that you may have to sacrifice is the prospect of moving very far outside the traditional 216 colour 'web safe' palette.
-B
Actually, a worse problem is when designers don't take the gamma settings of the audience's equipment into mind during the design process...
i would agree that the gamma/contrast is actually a bigger issue than the color differences are... lcd's will not do a full deep black, so the contrast range on an lcd is d.o.a.
the best thing you can do is to adjust everything you have to a standard, starting with the contrast range, which is done with the room dark and a stairstep graphic on the screen... you will quickly see how the lcd cannot get that full deep black, sitting side by side against a crt.
People on LCD screens are alredy aware of their limitations of the scren so they would not be suprised if it renders slightly differently.
It is certainly possible to have a CRT and LCD monitor display two entirely different renderings of a color scheme, but I think you may be overemphasizing the problem a little, as there are plenty of other issues besides the CRT/LCD discrepancy that affect how your end users will see color... i.e., if they have stock Apple or Windows OS gamma values, or what brand of monitor they have, or if their monitors are dusty, or have a glare on them, or if the user prefers an abnormal brightness/contrast ratio, or if they're color blind, or basically anything else that can be on a specific user's end that you have absolutely no control of.
You can't defeat the fact that no two people have the same exact view of a web page, which is why designers rely on hex codes or PMS colors: to absolve themselves of any responsibility over incorrect color.
But certinaly the hex codes (or whatever they are called) is the best way to solve the problem, many graphic programs can generate them, and I think you can even get them from some websites.
I tell website clients that faithful color reproduction on screen is impossible as every screen will render colors differenty and every user can fiddle with their contrast, brilliance etc.
As above, web-safe colors will help. Also high contrast colors next to each other and black text on white backgrounds.
But it is simply unreasonable to expect color swatches to be valid on screen - even with hax nukbers supplied. It is a salutary experience to view a few sites you have designed on a completely different machine...
If I were an expert designer with artistic skills, I could send him the HEX numbers. That solution was discussed. Unfortunately he is the expert, and he has the color matching skills. If you leave deciding colors up to me, the page will look terrible.
Despite my comment that the color differences *are* major, several of you still said they aren't.
I am fully aware of slight variations between monitors, but that isn't what im referring to. Certain colors just plain get converted to different shades on LCD. I even gave an example of a light tan on CRT being displayed as Pink on LCD.
The other major issue I didn't see responded to was the huge issue of "Designing for the Majority". Chicken innacurately implied that few people are using LCD. Id say upwards of 70% of people are using LCD now. Go to the store and see how many CRT's are for sale. Zero? 1? So we just design for the minority? Let 70% of the population see the wrong thing?
One good point was made - that eventually, maybe, one day, LCD's will achieve proper color display, so you shouldn't design to today's LCD's. Probably wise input, but what about today? ... and for the next "X" years before LCD's actually display accurately on a global basis?
If you want an example of how extremely different a site can look between CRT and LCD ... look at www.heralopecia.com.
On LCD this site has a beautiful purplish lavendar color to it with wonderful green swirls and a nice soft flowery tone.
On CRT this page looks flat gray, from start to finish. When I saw this site on CRT I almost hit the ceiling.
I do not see a solution to this problem.
There are many people who just buy basic machines, or have machines from a few years back and never upgrade.
Although you see the new technology in the shops, I would imagine only 2-10% of ALL users of computers have LCD screen.
Good link here....
[answers.google.com...]
Enjoy!
My monitor was a $750 SHARP LLT19D1.
Touted as "amazing!" and "wonderful!" and ... BLAH.
It has four settings.
1) VIVID
2) OFFICE
3) sRGB
4) STD
I had mine set at Standard which ... introduces a nice bluish tint to everything. Thus making certain colors in the purple/reddish range when they should not.
Unfortunately, changing it to sRGB, while much closer to CRT monitors, it adds a nauseating amount of yellowish tint to everyting. So much that I had a headache after 5 minutes.
It should also be noted that the back has three plugs. One is for Digital, and two are for ... i guess analog? whatever the standard monitor inputs are.
About 1 yr ago my digital went haywire on me and made everything bright pink so I stopped using it. Maybe if I were still using digital and it was working properly, this monitor would live up to its ratings.
Suffice it to say that when I finally looked at another LCD side by side, things looked almost identical to CRT. Id say just a bunch brighter and more vivid looking, but basically the same shades of color. So I stand corrected, you guys were right. Properly working LCD's don't have too much variation from CRT's.
Anyone want a used LCD? :)
Anyone want a used LCD?
Not if the coffee pot socket is broken, sorry ;)
Solution found.
[snip]
Touted as "amazing!" and "wonderful!" and ... BLAH
I guess it has been said before: people should calibrate their monitor ;-)
No kidding, I do a lot of work in digital imaging and photography. Believe me, without proper color management it is impossible to have two systems render the same colors from one image.
Enjoy!
