Although, if you can find a monitor with great contrast ratio that only has a 3ms response time, don't fret. Those response times are usually a moot issues when it comes to editing photos; response times are most crucial for video and gaming.

Damon is correct

I read somewhere that most Dell's, minus the 30"ers, don't have S-IPS panels?

At this point, I'm thinking dual 23" ACD's are a good option. More horizontal real estate than one 30". Trevor, what are you using to calibrate yours? Spyder2?

Thanks for all the input, guys.

I realize Eizos are the best of the best, but they're just too much $ for me.

I have been looking at a lot of screens, and many look "good". Some of the HP's, some of the Dell's, obviously the ACD's. Like Andy said though, I'm most concerned about color accuracy. Anyone know how ACD's compare to Dell's and the like for that?

I read somewhere that most Dell's, minus the 30"ers, don't have S-IPS panels?

At this point, I'm thinking dual 23" ACD's are a good option. More horizontal real estate than one 30". Trevor, what are you using to calibrate yours? Spyder2?

According to an Apple Rep my husband is friends with, ACD's have something called "WASP Certification" or something like that-- the same thing Eizo Displays have. It's basically what others have said about having CONSISTENT color over time-- not having to recalibrate every week, and not having it look slightly different after each calibration, etc. The Apple Rep pointed out that all the other monitors that have that are wayyy more expensive, like the Eizo's, but I wish they'd make that point more clear so it didn't seem like they were charging so much just because of the pretty aluminum case

Thanks for all the input, guys.

I realize Eizos are the best of the best, but they're just too much $ for me.

I've heard a lot of people say that the apple displays are actually made by dell... while i'm not 100% sure of that, i do agree that they are in need of an update. however, i own two 23" apple displays (one of which i just bought with my mac pro - running dualies now!) and i love them. worth every penny in my opinion. they calibrate well, hold calibration accurately, they're plenty bright, and they look good. i think dells are ugly personally, but then again, they're made for PCs.... go figure. looks aren't necessarily important.
anyway, it's really up to you. i've been waiting for an ACD update for a while and it has yet to come - i wouldn't really worry about buying one, they're excellent and bulletproof.
yeah, that reminds me. dell displays are plastic. apple's are aluminum. MUCH more robust. I've shipped them across the country in hard equipment cases which have taken a beating - and the displays are perfectly fine.
just some food for thought. good luck!

So, after much research and even returning a highly touted NEC model, I ended up with a Dell 2707 Ultrasharp Widescreen. It's a gorgeous 27" brushed metal encased flat panel on a solid black glass base that will not tip or move out of place. The screen is beautiful and I keep it calibrated with an eye-one display 2. The only thing I didn't like was the shiny Dell logo on the front, so I covered it with my own logo. The monitor is so impressive that everyone who comes into my office immediately takes notice and comments.

The difference between the two monitors is this: the Apple display (which I own) must be color adjusted in the video card. The Eizo display (which I wish I owned) can be color adjusted in the monitor itself.

By adjusted, what I mean is this: let's say that the color calibration software detects that your monitor is displaying grays with a very slight red cast. The software needs to turn down the red.

On the Apple monitor, it must do this by loading the video card with a Color Look Up Table (C-LUT) that slightly tones down the reds. So, while green and blue run from 0 through 255, red might run only from 0 through 250 to compensate for the monitor's red tint.

So there's the problem - you've just lost 5 levels of red. The issue is that the video card C- LUT is only 8 bits, so even slight adjustments of the tones cause a not-insignificant loss of levels.

The Eizo, on the other hand, has a 10-bit C-LUT built right into the monitor itself. So the 8-bit C-LUT can preserve all your video card levels, while the tone compensation is done by adjusting the 10-bit table in the monitor. 10 bits means 1,024 levels, so the relative loss of levels is much less than with the 8-bit (255 levels) video card C-LUT.

It's not that the Apple display won't show you accurate colors. It can, with the right software and hardware calibration system. The problem is the loss of tonal range as the adjustments are made to show you accurate colors. The Eizo has a much smaller loss of range.

If accuracy and wide tonality are essential and you can afford it, the Eizo offers more. Whether you can see the difference is another thing entirely. I imagine you would on images with lots of blue sky or skin tones.