I'm in shock...

On my CRT both would be very acceptable. It's a tough call as to which is better though.

The first one has better shadow detail and a more golden glow on the water. The second is slightly more intense.

I can see I need to plug my CRT back in and see what the second one looks like in comparison. Certainly on the new one, I'd agree with 'terrible' for the first one.

I could easily enough have lifted the shadow detail in the second one, without increasing the noise in the sky (I did try it, just didn't like it quite as much).

I think it raises an interesting issue, though - all those monitors out there, many of them 'calibrated' (my old one was, too, by the way - it just wasn't as bright as the new ones).... who's 'right'?

It's a real problem and calibration doesn't necessarily help totally if there's a mixture of monitor types and different native resolutions out there.

Now that we are having Inter-Club competitions using digital projection it's also becoming an issue there. Typically, high key images do not project well and all the subtelty is lost. There is even some degree of disagreement over what pixel counts to use, some clubs wanting 1024x768 and others wanting higher figures.

Personally I'm keeping my CRT for as long as feasible. Its dot pitch is smaller and the contrast is not so severe as many LCD screens. Does any one else also find that CRTs are easier on the eye?

In some ways yes, but I like the sharpness, flatness and minimal deskspace of LCD monitors very much.

With any kind of monitor, I make sure the brightness and contrast isn't so high that my eyes are strained for too much of time. Sometimes, though, it means the settings need whacking up to view a photo properly - especially on a laptop.

welcome to the 'real' world

Lilly