Are today's common budget monitors as effective as 2006 pro monitors?

Problem 1 is that specifications are just what the manufacturer says it does, but do not communicate enough about actual performance.

Problem 2 is that you’re right to look at numbers, but they aren’t the right numbers. These are some of the numbers that really matter today, and some that don’t.

Brightness. This is becoming a complex topic. If your work mainly targets print, then the same guidance applies as it has for many years: Aim for between 90 cd/m² and 120 cd/m², depending on the print process. But now that screens have become a dominant final delivery medium, 150 cd/m² and up can be appropriate if most of your work ends up on a website or in an app. Now Adobe is leading the charge to full HDR. It isn’t yet time for most people to require this, but if you do, then to unlock full HDR editing in Adobe photo apps, Adobe recommends a display that can sustain 1000 cd/m² and peak even higher for HDR highlights.

Number of colors. Not important, almost everyone has enough. First, it has long been standard for even the cheapest computers and displays to support 24-bit RGB video (which means 8 bits per RGB channel) video or 16+ million colors; in 2024 you will find it extremely difficult to find a display that can’t. So this is not a differentiator. Some pro graphics hardware has gone to 10 bits per channel or higher.

Size of color gamut. Aha, now we have something important. Color range can make a difference. In the past, your 16+ million colors was often distributed only within the sRGB color gamut or less. It has become much more common for mobile devices, televisions, and computer displays to be capable of reproducing a wider range of 16+ million colors, using color gamuts such as Adobe RGB and Display P3.

Refresh rate. Very important for motion media, often not important for photographers staring at the same image that is not moving. Many high end pro color displays are still 60Hz, but have far better color accuracy than anything else out there.

Pixel dimensions. 4K and up is nice to have, but because it has absolutely no effect on tonal and color accuracy, it isn’t necessary for photography. It affects only the density of detail you can see at a given magnification.

Color accuracy. This is often not on a spec sheet. You are looking for a low Delta E number. Some websites such as RTings do measure and review this. It is very important for photography.

Uniformity. Also very important: Does a given tone or color look the same from edge to edge? Is it darker in the corners? If it is, it will be hard for you to make edits consistently across the image Again, most spec sheets do not cover this, look at reviews that measure uniformity.

Are cheap new displays as good as old pro displays? Potentially. For example, in the 2000s, the Apple Cinema displays were held up as a high standard. But I think those old Cinema displays (I have one) would not be near the top given what’s available today. It seems like the average level of quality has gone up quite a bit since the 2000s. I think it’s more like a $350 display today is like a $800 display a few years ago, and pros might now spend $800+ where 10 years ago what they need might be $1500+.

What to do on a budget? There are two things you can do:

1. Again…go to a good review site that measures tone and color accuracy, and uniformity. Many inexpensive displays now score well enough for most work, although the high end pro models can still stand out beyond that.

2. After buying the display, run a color measurement tool on it to generate a custom display profile, to specs appropriate for your typical delivery medium. At this point, it should perform quite well, and buying a pro display might not improve things all that much.