There was discussion here a while ago on whether flat panel monitors are good enough for photographic work. Since then I've done a lot of digging to try and get to the bottom of this subject, and thought I'd summarise my conclusions as to why exactly LCD monitors generally don't seem to cut the mustard. If anyone has any additional comments or recommendations on monitors that are good enough but don't cost the earth, feel free to chip in. Any prices below are for 20" 1600x1200 monitors, which is what I was looking for. Despite claiming 16.7 million colours, most LCDs have 6 bit LUTs (6 bits per channel colour) whereas we all know that 8 bits is required for true colour. Samsung monitors (around £600) seem to have 8 bit LUTs, and the better NEC models have 10 bit LUTs (but cost £900+). The fluorescent backlights use by LCDs have colour deficient spectrums and only cover 70% of the NTSC colour gamut, whereas CRTs cover 90%. White LED backlights are better but are only just starting to become available. Most LCDs are around 500:1 contrast. CRTs are around 3500:1, which is the same as 35mm film. The difference is largely in the black level. At least 1500:1 is needed for convincing blacks. The optimum brightness of a display in normal conditions is about 90cd/m2, which is what CRTs give. LCDs are 2-3 timed brighter (probably to punch out a bit more contrast, albeit at the expense of even worse black levels). In summary, for photo use a monitor should have an 8 or 10 bit LUT, and the highest contrast you can find at the lowest brightness level. Unfortunately most monitor specs do not say how many bit colour they have but simply say (almost certainly wrongly) that they give 16.7 million colours. Go for LED backlighting if available/affordable. A photo-quality 20" LCD will probably cost £900-1000, though it's possible that some £600 displays are suitable (I haven't been able to determine this for sure because of the LUT issue). In contrast, a 22" Diamondtron can be had for £350-400 these days.