little bit off the topic, yesterday I went to sony center and one of the salesman was trying (unsuccessfully) to convince me to buy a $3k 40" led screen, and one of his argument was that people use it as a big photo frame :)

IMHO I agree with mb - You need a good printer to display Your photos, as most of the time it's the best option

I just go to costco to get stuff printed. It is surprisingly good for the price.
(and why yes, the prints do look better, than the screen.)

C’mon guys, none of commercial LCD screens (monitors or TVs) has more than lousy 2Mpix resolution, dynamic range, color gamut and accuracy on most of them is just a fraction of what you can get with a good quality printer.
And if you are going to show your work somewhere you will almost certainly be stuck with a non calibrated monitor at the place if you are lucky, otherwise you will have to settle with a projector that will eat details and colors from you pictures for desert.

any of these should work nicely

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2102640411+138902005+138982080+1389027313&QksAutoSuggestion=&Configurator=&Subcategory=411&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

Honestly, the display should match the print. (Actually it should be the other way around, the print should match the display and the display should have very close to accurate color.) What sort of display are you using? Cheap monitors are rarely good for anything but spreadsheet work. A good display designed for graphics will have much better color (once properly calibrated) and may actually look better than a quickie inkjet print and costs far less to show off dozens of images quickly.

Do you guys print your work?
I find out that it is impossible to really see and present my shots without a print; monitor is just a poor substitute.
I personally prefer Epson printers, but I would like to know your experience and thoughts about this.