With EISO you can not go much wrong...

Another tick for Eizo ColorEdge.

What about FlexScan EV2736W ?

It is significantly cheaper than monitors from ColorEdge line, but still it is Eizo.

Eizo, of course.
Some Dell Ultrasharp are not so bad too.

Before to use the Eizo ColorEdge CG243W I have used a Dell U2410 with a lot of satisfaction.
I still use the Dell in vertical position, it is very useful as second monitor

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/04/24/best-monitor-for-photo-editing-4-top-models-tested-and-rated/

Let me ask again, do I need a monitor the huge value of which is displaying 99% of AdobeRGB while stock agencies still convert images to sRGB ?

Obviously you don't.

Stock agencies want sRGB I guess.

Don't guess.
Check the requirements for each and every agency you intend to submit to.
I submit AdobeRGB to iS and Alamy.

Can't help with your monitor info request as I have a 19" monitor, an upsize from the 17" one I was using until cFeb. Both were LGs and that's where I'd look first in future.

Samsung Syncmaster 850 - 27 inch around $850

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-syncmaster-s27a850d/
http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LS27A850DS/ZA

I would be more worried about what to shot and how to shoot, more worried about the ideas

Sorry for the off topic

I haven't tested these for color calibration, but have used them:

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM95-P-ultrawide-monitor

The extra-wide format is awesome for multi-tasking (having Photoshop, web pages, server directories, etc..., all side-by-side on one screen).  If you're doing a lot of heavy workflow lifting...moving files back and forth, multitasking with multiple applications and windows, etc..., it's an interesting choice.

The only issue is that they can be hard to find, but they do come up on Amazon at the normal retail price from time to time.

Best,

Scott

and while we got you here , on monitors and calibration. are all ss reviewers required to have
proper monitors?  thus, to ensure when the rejection WB off , at least we all know it is justified

I regularly calibrate my monitors (verify at least twice a month) because I feel more safe in this way.

But color calibration is a kind of lure, very good to sell you �special� monitors and expensive calibration systems��

An accurate color calibration is almost useless�
You calibrate your monitor wearing a black shirt, and the day after you use your monitor wearing a red shirt, and everything change.
You begin to work at 9.00 with the sun entering through your blue curtains and everything change. You end your work day at 21.00, it is night and in the room where you work some tungsten lamp (2700 �K) are switched on, and everything change�
You combine any of the different situations of ambient light or reflection and everything change�

Calibration is almost useless�
Two monitors of the same brand and model, calibrated with the same calibration system (hardware + software) will show different results�
Each monitor gives a different result.
I bet that 90% of microstock buyer use bad monitors� so?

The man�s brain is the best calibration system.
The brain automatically define/decide what is (should be) white on you monitor and make a full correct color correction, in real time, automatically. (If you want you can always  open a new empty/white document in Photoshop and after a moment of adaptation your brain will consider it as the white reference).

In a monitor it is very more important a correct regulation of luminosity and contrast.

+10 hobo
i have 3 monitors and really, the best monitor makes my image look good all the time. but the only important thing to me is when i print . i use only my desktop , an ancient workstation for most computer nerds, when i print for my clients.
as you said, if it looks like crap on my old desktop, it will in fact print like crap.

i also use this old desktop to finalise my stock photos. i am only satisfied when it looks good on this dinosaur with the cheapest monitor of the three.

yes, nowadays they're making such a big fuss about calibration, mostly for PR and marketing reasons.

as for the display of reference, what's the gold standard ? there's no accepted gold standard and never will.

if i look around i see people using tablets and smartphones and laptops.
well, that's maybe the only reference at the moment.

if your pics look good on an iPad and on a cheap-as-s android smartphone you can bet they will also print OK.

Contrast is the crucial factor that differentiate a screen from the other but colors are more or less acceptable nowadays.

there's no more such a big difference between monitors as in '90s .. now even the cheapest screen will have decent colors at least.

calibration will be needed only if you love over saturated colors, in that case you need to be careful as most of the consumer screens are already high on saturation but as i said before i found it easier to do this on a cheap screen because they're already looking like sh-it compared to pro monitors.

pushing the Reds too much for instance, don't do it.
but look at the histogram and you can't go wrong, you can edit a photo using the histogram even on a b/w monitor ...

this for generic images.
of course if you have special needs that's another story.

as for prints, it's getting better and better compared to the past !
before you had to print in a Lab, now the cheapest prints are a decent tradeoff as long as they dont do any color correction in pre-print.

moreover, prints will be eventually framed behind a glass, that's another factor, what glass you'll be using ? real glass, plastic, whatever.

or they'll be coated with anti-UV film, even worse as it will affect the white balance, turning it a bit yellowish.

it's a never ending battle, what you see in never what you get but again things are a lot better than in the past and we can't complain.

pushing the Reds too much for instance, don't do it.
but look at the histogram and you can't go wrong, you can edit a photo using the histogram even on a b/w monitor ...

this for generic images.
of course if you have special needs that's another story.

moreover, prints will be eventually framed behind a glass, that's another factor, what glass you'll be using ? real glass, plastic, whatever.

+10 again
second point first (glass). i don't even bother framing my prints. i find it looks better without the glass.  we used to frame all prints to prevent them from fading.
today, prints are so cheap , if it fades, i print another one.
in fact, i still have the old resin-coated prints of the 80s which have not faded.
so i am certain i will grow old or die before i need to print a new print which i printed last week or last year 

first point (pushing reds)
you said it. i went crazy 4 months ago. trying to print an abstract of a strawberry shortcake
which i splatter the strawberry all over to make an abstract
overlayered with a model wearing a lighter red dress and white .
impossible to print to my satisfaction.
on the monitor it looks great. all the different variations look awesome.
but none of the print actually succeeded looking good at all.

sorry to get this off-topic. but maybe not, as it is related to the needs of understanding what monitors can do and cannot. much in the same way we had to understand the difference between how a kodachrome slide of subtle shades would never  print to anyone's critical satisfaction, even using custom printer and cibachrome (the master print media at that time).

nice chatting with you on this. thumbs up ! hobostocker.