I think this belongs more in the photography forum rather than the monitor forum or what to buy forum. I'm in the market to find a 24" monitor and I posted a comment in another thread asking what is the difference between a IPS and a VA monitor. Essentially I know that its essentially down to 8-bit (IPS) or 6-bit with dithering. However if on specification values alone, TN monitors are rated at higher constrasts and response times than IPS/VA, then why do people still continue to buy IPS? Now a significant portion of people here would have forked over the premium (Which is pretty major, and starts at roughly double the price). I'm wondering after colour calibration and having a stationary positioning of the monitor (so viewing angle doesn't really come into play. Or does it?), how much better (in terms of value) is it to have the more expensive 8-bit screen? I do quite a bit of photoshop work for uni and I am kind of into my photography (well I am more photo journalistic than photo artist with my photography) so I guess I should get into colour matching just for being able to get prints out. However I'm a person who doesn't really print out my photos and when I do, its usually the $5 10x15" prints from Rabbit photo (so nothing amazing). With this in mind, is there a real reason for my to go for a more expensive screen? Can I even get the information for Rabbit photo printers so I know what to calibrate to?