I've been pleased enough with my recent photos and want to display them in the real world as opposed to online and after a month of researching I'm ready to ask some questions.
I'm looking at getting a third monitor to display whatever image I'm working on. A "proofing monitor" would be the term I guess. I want to be able to accurately work with B&W images as well as color but B&W is a priority. My computer is a couple of years old, an AMD Phenom 4x CPU running XP, two FireGL v3350, with CaptureOne for RAW development and CS4 for editing. The FireGL doesn't have DisplayPort and can't support a 10bit to the monitor (although the ATI literature indicates 10 bit support).
I'm interested in several wide gamut NEC monitors with varying percentages of aRGB and sRGB coverage that are calibrated with the Spectraview HW/SW combo to their respective monitor's internal 10- 14 bit LUT. It seems to me that profiling a monitor with a colorometer custom calibrated to the respective monitor's hardware is the way to go but how does the DVI output of my non-10 bt video card get interpreted by NEC's internal 10 bit LUT?
I don't want to change my video card, OS, CPU, software, etc. just yet. So, does getting a wide gamut Spectraview II monitor with a high aRGB coverage do anything for me within the context of my current system or should I consider an sRGB monitor? In addition, should I be looking at a PVA or IPS monitor for B&W? I've research and read that that there are "deep blacks" in PVA but a "lack of shadow detail" especially when viewing "head on" or "dead center". When reading about IPS there seems to be issues with blacks not being rendered true but "shadow detail" is better. There will come a time for upgrades so I don't mind a bit of future proofing as long as it doesn't effect tonal depth & color accuracy in the mean time.
I've been researching this stuff for a month and don't feel any closer than I did before. I feel like I know even less. I understand the importance of color management and it seems that a color managed monitor should get me accurate result from a reputable lab if I don't choose to print at home. At home I have an Epson R800 and have started to consider an Epson 3880 with a Colormunki Photo for paper profiling. Profiling a printer, however, seems to be a huge can of worms that can be be avoided by using a lab as long as my monitor is accurately calibrated.
Thanks in advance for any insight.
Mick