new photo processing computer ...

RovingEyePhoto · November 27, 2011

I've been away from DG for quite a while, looking forward to renewed contribution here.

My most immediate interest is deciding on a new photo processing computer. I'm a long-time PC guy, being dragged kicking and screaming to Mac. Well, not really kicking and screaming, I've invested a good deal of time at our local Apple Store attending workshops and doing exercises on the iMac 27", am about half way through Pogue's "Mac OS X Lion" ("missing manual" series), have the dough set aside, and am well impressed with the whole iMac/Lion package. Where I'm groping a bit is in consideration of the iMac screen. I'm fairly confident I can put up with the glossy front, work in a light controlled room so am able to minimize reflection, just uncertain about two other screen aspects: what I understand to be the iMac's limitation to only an sRGB color gamut, and it's ability to be properly color calibrated. I get only speculative answers from the Apple Store people I've dealt with, so am asking here.

First, relative to color gamut, am I correct in understanding that the iMac screen covers only up to sRGB? If so, am I showing my ignorance in admitting that all the screens I've ever processed on have been similarly sRGB limited, and am well satisfied with results to date (internet only, Flickr keyword "rovingeyephoto", have a look-see)? Processing for print isn't a concern, I'll cross that bridge if ever I get there. I've considered a Mac Mini coupled with a LeCie 526 or equivalent (approximately 98% of RGB and claimed high consistency across the screen), but the Mini falls short in power compared to the souped-up iMac I'd go for, and raw computer power is tough to trump. A Mac Pro coupled with something like the LeCie would be overkill, so not going there. Comments? Suggestions?

Second, relative to color calibration, I've used the Eye One Display Two for calibration of past screens. I notice there's a Mac version of the Eye One software, so is there any reason why the Eye One wouldn't work effectively on the iMac 27"? As said, I get only speculative responses from the Apple Store people on this, am hoping to find more experienced/absolute responses here.

Perchance pertinent, I shoot an Oly E-3, primarily 14-35 f/2, all in RAW and processed through Photoshop. I'd stick with PS on the Mac, not Aperture. Most of my processing is through ACR, but employing PS patch/brush/stamp and other tools as needed. Always learning on the latter, each shoot produces new discoveries.

Nice to be back here at DG. Thanks in advance, and looking forward to responses.

NeilL · November 29, 2011

The topic of display vs graphics card vs OS vs applications in terms of native workingspace/colourspace/gamut, and calibration is a wild one, and not many here in the forums like to go there!

However there are some related discussions to be found, eg http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=209261

This topic is a science, and has to be studied. There is information available in websites/videos and books, though the digestibility of many of them is questionable. Peachpit have a special deal on many publications atm which includes some on this topic.

To get going, practically speaking, you calibrate your native working space (display), and choose your editing colourspace (to convert your RAWs to) in your editing software, eg Ps. For printing, your get a softproof profile from your lab to load in your editing app.

Neil

Newsy · November 29, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

First, relative to color gamut, am I correct in understanding that the iMac screen covers only up to sRGB?

Correct - the iMac and Cinema Display monitors more or less cover the sRGB colour space. They are NOT considered to be wide gamut monitors.

If so, am I showing my ignorance in admitting that all the screens I've ever processed on have been similarly sRGB limited, and am well satisfied with results to date (internet only, Flickr keyword "rovingeyephoto", have a look-see)? Processing for print isn't a concern, I'll cross that bridge if ever I get there. I've considered a Mac Mini coupled with a LeCie 526 or equivalent (approximately 98% of RGB and claimed high consistency across the screen), but the Mini falls short in power compared to the souped-up iMac I'd go for, and raw computer power is tough to trump. A Mac Pro coupled with something like the LeCie would be overkill, so not going there. Comments? Suggestions?

Depending on $$ budget and what color space you wish to stay in, there are several options for monitors. The good news is that today you have more choice than 2 years ago. Monitors you could consider that would give you imho 90% of the accuracy of a Lacie or Eizo for half the cost or less... if calibrated with a decent device.... are as follows.

Dell U2711
... 16:9 2560x1440 resolution
... H-IPS tft panel (aka P-IPS from other mfg's)
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... about 100% coverage of sRGB + 100% AdobeRGB colour spaces
... pseudo 10bit panel offering about 1.04 billion colour depth (see note below)
... 12bit internal non-writable LUT
... DisplayPort connectivity
... about $700 during recent sales

When I state "pseudo 10bit" it is in all likelihood an 8bit + AFRC system where Advanced Frame Rate Control is used to simulate a 10bit color depth. If you read the marketing literature for these "10bit" monitors, in some brochures you'll find statements like "a color depth of over 1.04 billion colours of which 16.7 million is selected for display". In the budget class of IPS monitors (below $400) it is the common practice of the industry to use a 6bit + AFRC panel to simulate an 8bit 16.7 million color depth. The new 6bit + AFRC algorithm's are working fairly well with technical reviews reporting minimal banding issues and only minor issues with artifacts showing in dark areas of an image - more than adequate for most hobbyist digital photographers.

Dell U3011
... 16:10 2560x1600
... bit depths etc similar to the U2711
... about $1000 USD during recent sales

HP ZR2740w
... 16:9 2560x1440
... W-LED back light
... standard sRGB gamut, about 97% coverage
... pseudo 10bit panel
... note! no OSD menu controls for RGB, etc
... about $650 USD

HP ZR30w
... similar to Dell U3011
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... note! no OSD menu controls for RGB, etc

NEC PA271w
... 16:9 2560x1440 resolution
... H-IPS tft panel (aka P-IPS from other mfg's)
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... about 100% coverage of sRGB + 100% AdobeRGB colour spaces
... pseudo 10bit panel offering about 1.04 billion colour depth (some claim true 10bit)
... 14bit writable 3D LUT
... available SpectraView II calibration kit (extra cost or bundled)
... many more features making this an upscale pro tool

NEC PA301w
... 16:10 2560x1600
... as per PA271

Samsung LS27A850DS
... 16:9 2560x1440
... S-PLS tft panel (new Super PLS tft panel from Samsung; similar to IPS)
... W-LED back light
... standard sRGB gamut
... pseudo 10bit ??
... 12bit internal non-writable LUT ??
... DisplayPort connectivity
... early reports of back light bleeding (common to many LED backlit monitors/HDTV's)

Second, relative to color calibration, I've used the Eye One Display Two for calibration of past screens. I notice there's a Mac version of the Eye One software, so is there any reason why the Eye One wouldn't work effectively on the iMac 27"? As said, I get only speculative responses from the Apple Store people on this, am hoping to find more experienced/absolute responses here.

It should but be aware that there is some speculation in various forums that the i1Display2 has a limited lifespan due ageing of the color ships used in the puck sensor. I own one of these and now keep it in a dark temperature controlled space inside a sealed bag with moisture absorbing dessicant.

Also, the unit to unit accuracy of the i1Display2 puck was somewhat broad. It has recently been replaced by a new sensor with the introduction of the i1Display Pro. NEC has also updated their SpectraView calibration kits with a shift to the new type sensor/pucks as found in the i1 product.

Perchance pertinent, I shoot an Oly E-3, primarily 14-35 f/2, all in RAW and processed through Photoshop. I'd stick with PS on the Mac, not Aperture. Most of my processing is through ACR, but employing PS patch/brush/stamp and other tools as needed. Always learning on the latter, each shoot produces new discoveries.

The default working colour space of Photoshop CS3/4/5 is "AdobeRGB". For Lightroom it is "ProPhotoRGB" and in Lightroom you cannot change it as you can in Photoshop. It makes some sense that to edit accurately you may want to use a wide gamut monitor. Just be aware that with wide gamut monitors there are significant color management issues. I don't use a Mac so I'm not aware just how tedious (if at all) this can be in that system but in a Windows system you have to dot your i's and cross your T's to avoid certain issues such a sRGB images appearing over saturated when viewed on a wide gamut monitor with a web browser that is not color managed.

Here are some web pages that may illuminate or confuse you:

http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
... fyi, FireFox 8 is ICC v4 aware but you enable it

http://gearoracle.com/guides/firefox-color-management/

.

NeilL · November 29, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

For Lightroom it is "ProPhotoRGB" and in Lightroom you cannot change it as you can in Photoshop.

...

but in a Windows system you have to dot your i's and cross your T's to avoid certain issues such a sRGB images appearing over saturated when viewed on a wide gamut monitor with a web browser that is not color managed.

You can however choose what colourspace to convert into when exporting from Lr. I RAW convert into ProPhotoRGB to Ps, and ProPhotoRGB is my Ps workingspace. My HP display is sRGB. I am able to softproof to the lab's Epson and print with excellent fidelity.

Graphic card + display + photo editing app is not the same as graphic card + display + browser, isn't that so? That is unless browser is colour managed.

Neil

Newsy · November 29, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

You can however choose what colourspace to convert into when exporting from Lr. I RAW convert into ProPhotoRGB to Ps, and ProPhotoRGB is my Ps workingspace. My HP display is sRGB. I am able to softproof to the lab's Epson and print with excellent fidelity.

Graphic card + display + photo editing app is not the same as graphic card + display + browser, isn't that so? That is unless browser is colour managed.

Photoshop CS3/4/5 is fully color managed in that it can reference the monitor's ICC profile but Lightroom is not managed to the same level. I'm just parroting what others have stated as I don't use CS3/4/5 or Lightroom and have not really looked at them other than some of their configuration color management pages posted to web forums.

A number of editing programs are not color managed and could potentially have issues with sRGB tagged images on a wide gamut monitor or AdobeRGB tagged images on a sRGB gamut monitor. i.e. Picassa, Photoshop Elements, etc.

Ditto viewing software and printing software.

.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

Correct - the iMac and Cinema Display monitors more or less cover the sRGB colour space. They are NOT considered to be wide gamut monitors.

Depending on $$ budget and what color space you wish to stay in, there are several options for monitors. The good news is that today you have more choice than 2 years ago. Monitors you could consider that would give you imho 90% of the accuracy of a Lacie or Eizo for half the cost or less... if calibrated with a decent device.... are as follows.

Dell U2711
... 16:9 2560x1440 resolution
... H-IPS tft panel (aka P-IPS from other mfg's)
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... about 100% coverage of sRGB + 100% AdobeRGB colour spaces
... pseudo 10bit panel offering about 1.04 billion colour depth (see note below)
... 12bit internal non-writable LUT
... DisplayPort connectivity
... about $700 during recent sales

When I state "pseudo 10bit" it is in all likelihood an 8bit + AFRC system where Advanced Frame Rate Control is used to simulate a 10bit color depth. If you read the marketing literature for these "10bit" monitors, in some brochures you'll find statements like "a color depth of over 1.04 billion colours of which 16.7 million is selected for display". In the budget class of IPS monitors (below $400) it is the common practice of the industry to use a 6bit + AFRC panel to simulate an 8bit 16.7 million color depth. The new 6bit + AFRC algorithm's are working fairly well with technical reviews reporting minimal banding issues and only minor issues with artifacts showing in dark areas of an image - more than adequate for most hobbyist digital photographers.

Dell U3011
... 16:10 2560x1600
... bit depths etc similar to the U2711
... about $1000 USD during recent sales

HP ZR2740w
... 16:9 2560x1440
... W-LED back light
... standard sRGB gamut, about 97% coverage
... pseudo 10bit panel
... note! no OSD menu controls for RGB, etc
... about $650 USD

HP ZR30w
... similar to Dell U3011
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... note! no OSD menu controls for RGB, etc

NEC PA271w
... 16:9 2560x1440 resolution
... H-IPS tft panel (aka P-IPS from other mfg's)
... wide gamut W-CCFL back light
... about 100% coverage of sRGB + 100% AdobeRGB colour spaces
... pseudo 10bit panel offering about 1.04 billion colour depth (some claim true 10bit)
... 14bit writable 3D LUT
... available SpectraView II calibration kit (extra cost or bundled)
... many more features making this an upscale pro tool

NEC PA301w
... 16:10 2560x1600
... as per PA271

Samsung LS27A850DS
... 16:9 2560x1440
... S-PLS tft panel (new Super PLS tft panel from Samsung; similar to IPS)
... W-LED back light
... standard sRGB gamut
... pseudo 10bit ??
... 12bit internal non-writable LUT ??
... DisplayPort connectivity
... early reports of back light bleeding (common to many LED backlit monitors/HDTV's)

It should but be aware that there is some speculation in various forums that the i1Display2 has a limited lifespan due ageing of the color ships used in the puck sensor. I own one of these and now keep it in a dark temperature controlled space inside a sealed bag with moisture absorbing dessicant.

Also, the unit to unit accuracy of the i1Display2 puck was somewhat broad. It has recently been replaced by a new sensor with the introduction of the i1Display Pro. NEC has also updated their SpectraView calibration kits with a shift to the new type sensor/pucks as found in the i1 product.

The default working colour space of Photoshop CS3/4/5 is "AdobeRGB". For Lightroom it is "ProPhotoRGB" and in Lightroom you cannot change it as you can in Photoshop. It makes some sense that to edit accurately you may want to use a wide gamut monitor. Just be aware that with wide gamut monitors there are significant color management issues. I don't use a Mac so I'm not aware just how tedious (if at all) this can be in that system but in a Windows system you have to dot your i's and cross your T's to avoid certain issues such a sRGB images appearing over saturated when viewed on a wide gamut monitor with a web browser that is not color managed.

Here are some web pages that may illuminate or confuse you:

http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
... fyi, FireFox 8 is ICC v4 aware but you enable it

http://gearoracle.com/guides/firefox-color-management/

.

Many thanks for taking the time, as you say, most want to avoid the intersection of these issues at all cost. You've achieved your goal, both illuminated and confused, but the confusion will lead to at least partial illumination by the time I'm through studying through your several references.

I draw a few quick/practical conclusions, always of course subject to correction. First, the iMac 27 screen is about the same in terms of color gamut as I've used throughout my serious-hobbyist work span. I take this as a plus, as my current Dell Ultrasharp is in its 5th year, and there have to have been tech improvements over the interim that have seeped into even the mundane world of sRGB color gamut screens.

Second, the iMac screen can be calibrated same as my Ultrasharp, just probably is time to replace my EyeOne. Do you have any particular recommendations on what might be the best replacement for an sRGB color gamut screen. Would a different calibrator be necessary for a wide gamut screen?

Third, for the work I do and the manner in which I display, a wide color gamut screen (95+% of RGB) may or may not produce a noticeable difference in my work. I am conscious of banding and dark-area artifacts, am aware that sometimes I'm unable to effectively process around them, but to the extent I can see them, they're not an everyday thing, much more the exception than the rule. I deal with banding primarily through contrast adjustment in PS's ARC Tone Curve, generally serves the purpose. As for dark artifacts, think there's a lot I don't see, process as best I can and am satisfied with or dump the outcomes. I don't actively market my stuff, sometimes am approached to sell/license groups of images as broker stock, even found one in a magazine once backing a feminine hygiene ad lol, but overall the only really critical eye is my own, and I'm an older guy, eyesight's on the downhill side of perfect.

Fourth, I'm aware of the Dells you mentioned, have considered one of them possibly as a second screen to the iMac, indicates how strongly I'd like to go with the iMac, the machine bleeds wow! And Lion strikes me as just short of miraculous, been studying and running exercises at Apple Store preparatory to changing platforms, loving the flow and interface (not the trackpad, that stands improvement, will stay with the mouse, but the rest seems otherworldly!) I'm at a time in life when I'm trying to simplify, and the iMac seems a simple overall-computer solution, already all hooked up, all answerable to only one manufacturer. So if wide gamut isn't that critical an issue for the way I practice the art, and I can calibrate the iMac screen to be at least as good as my old Ultrasharp plus 5 years tech advancement, seems a workable way to go. If wide gamut seems to be a critical issue, then the LeCie 526 (or equiv) isn't out of the question, would couple it with a Mac Mini, all doable financially and I'm guessing doable technically. Does introduce multi-manufacturer complexity, but if I must, I must. If a wide-gamut screen would likely improve my game, how could I not? I put in a lot into shooting/processing, it's all people/intimidation-centric, you'll see that on my Flickr page, and eats time like a sponge, so if strong reason to get complicated, guess I'd do so; if equally strong likelihood that wide-gamut might not have much of an impact, then lucky me, I'd probably stick with mediocrity. That make sense?

Fifth, one new fact since my initial post, I'm now the proud owner of PS CS5 for the Mac. I'm determined to leave the chaos of PC, and Black Friday made it possible to upgrade my old CS3 for PC at what seemed to me a sniveling price of $139, plus an equally sniveling price of $21 for Adobe's "CS5 Photoshop: Classroom In a Book", so kind of a slam dunk, and the platform decision is made.

Sixth, think you've figured out by now that I'm not looking for "serious color management issues" (your phrase). Not that I'm not serious about my processing, or that I'm unable to continue to learn/perform, just at an age where I'm wanting to stay out of the rain. If a wide-gamut screen is just tougher to calibrate, think I can manage that; but if seriously tougher to get near right, then who am I kidding? I'm not fully color managing anyway, no printing, and you mention calibrating the web browser, something I've never even considered (somehow missed that completely in my learning/research), so am I so short of accurate color processing that a wide gamut screen would be jus an ornament, not a serious improvement?

Seventh, yes, I've always processed in Adobe RGB, seemed to make sense as I understood color space in PS. I convert to sRGB only after sizing and at the point of saving for web devices. So I have archives full of RGB TIFFS, but none processed on a wide color gamut screen. Maybe I save them for my really old age when I can't get around to shoot anymore, buy a then-current wide gamut screen, and redo the best of those TIFFS from ORF (Oly's RAW), put together a great coffee table book. Kind of the same thing I've been planning for B&W conversions, wait for old age and then hit the best of those thousands of TIFFS with gusto.

Finally, maybe it all comes down to your initial sentence, "Depending on $$ budget and what color space you wish to stay in ...". Budget-wise I'm flexible, can afford more than I've earned the talent/right to handle. As for color space I wish to work in, of course want the best color rendition available, but who do I expect ever will view my work on other than narrow gamut screens? Which raises an interesting thought, are all those HD TV screens now crowding the market wide color gamut, or just high saturation/resolution? The web will soon be a common commodity on TV, is that how sites like Flickr will soon be viewed?

Sorry, throwing a lot of thoughts out here, but you sound like you know your tech stuff, and knowing the tech stuff often is the only way of getting to the bottom of what in reality are fairly non-tech/practical questions. Again, thanks for the response, and if you made it through all this, thanks for the stamina.

Stan

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

Photoshop CS3/4/5 is fully color managed in that it can reference the monitor's ICC profile but Lightroom is not managed to the same level. I'm just parroting what others have stated as I don't use CS3/4/5 or Lightroom and have not really looked at them other than some of their configuration color management pages posted to web forums.

A number of editing programs are not color managed and could potentially have issues with sRGB tagged images on a wide gamut monitor or AdobeRGB tagged images on a sRGB gamut monitor. i.e. Picassa, Photoshop Elements, etc.

Ditto viewing software and printing software.

.

Good input, Newsy. just gave long winded response to earlier post. I appreciate your comment about sRGB on wide color gamut screens and visa versa, I presently convert all to sRGB for web devices, so hadn't been exposed, hadn't thought of that.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

You can however choose what colourspace to convert into when exporting from Lr. I RAW convert into ProPhotoRGB to Ps, and ProPhotoRGB is my Ps workingspace. My HP display is sRGB. I am able to softproof to the lab's Epson and print with excellent fidelity.

Graphic card + display + photo editing app is not the same as graphic card + display + browser, isn't that so? That is unless browser is colour managed.

Neil

Many thanks. Left a long reply to Newsy's post, comment there about my ignorance when it comes to color managing the browser. After a lot of years thinking I have a pretty good handle on what I'm doing and liking the results, along comes new info. God bless DG ...

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

The topic of display vs graphics card vs OS vs applications in terms of native workingspace/colourspace/gamut, and calibration is a wild one, and not many here in the forums like to go there!

However there are some related discussions to be found, eg http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=209261

This topic is a science, and has to be studied. There is information available in websites/videos and books, though the digestibility of many of them is questionable. Peachpit have a special deal on many publications atm which includes some on this topic.

To get going, practically speaking, you calibrate your native working space (display), and choose your editing colourspace (to convert your RAWs to) in your editing software, eg Ps. For printing, your get a softproof profile from your lab to load in your editing app.

Neil

Thanks for the input, Neil. I presently process in Adobe RGB color space, convert to sRGB when saving for web deviced as JPEG. I left a rather long-winded response to Newsy's post, possibly if you find time you can browse it, maybe something pertinent. Meanwhile, I'll follow your reference, sure it will be valuable.

Stan

NeilL · November 29, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Many thanks. Left a long reply to Newsy's post, comment there about my ignorance when it comes to color managing the browser. After a lot of years thinking I have a pretty good handle on what I'm doing and liking the results, along comes new info. God bless DG ...

Yes, it does not need to be nerve-rackingly arcane!

Calibrate your sRGB display (but not with i1Display!), choose your RAW conversion colourpsace and match with Ps workingspace, and with a simple setting in Safari (for Mac) colour manage your browser.

Done! Simple!

Neil

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

Yes, it does not need to be nerve-rackingly arcane!

Calibrate your sRGB display (but not with i1Display!), choose your Ps workingspace, and with a simple setting in Safari (for Mac) colour manage your browser.

Done! Simple!

Neil

Hey hey, love it! If I get hung trying what you say, I'll be back at you. One thing, why not EyeOne. In reply to Newsy's comment that EyeOne's wear out over time, I agreed I probably need a new calibrator. What should I be looking at that's preferable to EyeOne's latest? Is there something generic to the EyeOne that makes it non-Mac friendly?

Again, thanks for the assist.

NeilL · November 29, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Hey hey, love it! If I get hung trying what you say, I'll be back at you. One thing, why not EyeOne. In reply to Newsy's comment that EyeOne's wear out over time, I agreed I probably need a new calibrator. What should I be looking at that's preferable to EyeOne's latest? Is there something generic to the EyeOne that makes it non-Mac friendly?

Again, thanks for the assist.

I got in an edit to my post you quoted after you posted.:D Please check back.

Re colorimeter, I quote:

I’d get an X-Rite ColorMunki display.
__________________
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/

That's straight from the guy "who wrote the book"!

D

Neil

Newsy · November 29, 2011

Re calibration hardware

Dry Creek Photo recently updated their analysis of the sensors.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

.

RovingEyePhoto · November 30, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

I got in an edit to my post you quoted after you posted.:D Please check back.

Re colorimeter, I quote:

I’d get an X-Rite ColorMunki display.
__________________
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/

That's straight from the guy "who wrote the book"!D

Neil

Again thanks, Neil. I couldn't imagine you meant not to calibrate the iMac screen, if that's the way I go. As for choice of brand calibrator, gotta love "the guy" ...

RovingEyePhoto · November 30, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

Re calibration hardware

Dry Creek Photo recently updated their analysis of the sensors.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

.

Many thanks, Newsy, I'll read this closely. As for my earlier long winded post, I just re-read, seem to be answering my own overall question. The direction I seem to be leaning is toward sticking with an sRGB gamut screen by going the simpler iMac route, as opposed to facing the new frontier of either Mac Mini plus a wide gamut screem or iMac plus a second screen. Feel free to whack me upside the head if you read my leaning as hiding from reality, I'll take it in good spirit, react, re-question, maybe even switch leaning. I know whatever I do is totally my responsibility, not looking for a crutch, just straight-talk info.

Thanks again,

Stan

Newsy · November 30, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

The direction I seem to be leaning is toward sticking with an sRGB gamut screen by going the simpler iMac route, as opposed to facing the new frontier of either Mac Mini plus a wide gamut screem or iMac plus a second screen. Feel free to whack me upside the head if you read my leaning as hiding from reality, I'll take it in good spirit, react, re-question, maybe even switch leaning. I know whatever I do is totally my responsibility, not looking for a crutch, just straight-talk info.

I'm not a big fan of the Apple Cinema series from a purely technical bang for buck point of view. There are a lot of alternatives out there now. Gotta give them points for style though.

I didn't mention it earlier but the NEC PA series has a very good sRGB preset mode. Bang on when new. Probably require some calibration as the monitor ages. So.... wide gamut and standard sRGB in one monitor. Think about it.

RovingEyePhoto · November 30, 2011

Newsy wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of the Apple Cinema series from a purely technical bang for buck point of view. There are a lot of alternatives out there now. Gotta give them points for style though.

I didn't mention it earlier but the NEC PA series has a very good sRGB preset mode. Bang on when new. Probably require some calibration as the monitor ages. So.... wide gamut and standard sRGB in one monitor. Think about it.

Ha ha, yawn, I'm thinking, I'm thinking ...

The NEC sounds sweet, more food for thought. Is it in the LeCie kind of class, or more the Dell class? As posted before, I'd been thinking of the Mac Mini coupled with the LeCie 526 before softening on simplicity of iMac, know nothing about its presets, but good point.

I know I'm paying for name with the iMac, but as you say, points for style. Toward that end, curious if in what you're saying you mean not good "technical bang for [sRGB] buck", name premium deducted, in other words just plain not a good quality sRGB screen; or not good "technical bang for buck", costs more than even a good quality sRGB screen should cost. I can live with the latter, don't want to touch the former. I've read a Shutterbug piece that describes the iMac as great for "students and well-to-do housewives", but writer's focus was buying on the cheap and soley for photo processing. I'm fortunate to not have to buy on the cheap, and will use as an all-purpose home/home-business computer (lots of spreadsheets, documents, web browsing, research, email, iTunes, the whole bag), so altogether different foci from the Shutterbug writer. I can understand the "housewife" analogy, experience at the Apple Store has been nothing but impressive, seems a fine-colored/contrasty/bright/HD screen. But what do I know, not much to compare it against, and eyesight probably not up to serious comparing anyway? So that's why I ask about your "bang for buck" comment, would help to know your meaning.

As always, thanks for taking the time. I know I'm fighting your instinct here to go for a wide color gamut screen; being swayed by the simplicity of a totally Apple package, coupled with what I consider good past experience with calibrated sRGB screens for my style and presentation. The question's still open in my mind, but no doubting my leaning. But leaning only if the iMac screen, which I'm told is Cinema series, is a good sRGB screen, and that's what you've touched on here.

Stan

NeilL · November 30, 2011

I have never been able to see the Apple-Mac advantage. Every item from that stable I have encountered has left me unconvinced. Part of that reservation is about value for money. I get the icky feeling that there's a cult subscription being paid with purchases. Even the styling of the devices which is so piously venerated makes me feel a touch comatose, a hospital white and so edgeless and smooth as if those devices were meant for endoscopy. I certainly have a *gut* reaction to their displays. They repel me. They have at the same time a pastel indistinctness and a gaudy contrastiness. All in a shiny plastic minimalism that gets louder and louder as you sit in front of it! And now I would be additionally disturbed, if I had one, that the founder's alpha ghost was looking back out through it at me subliminally, demanding worship in death as in life!

No, I don't want treatment, thanks!

D

Neil

Overfocused · December 1, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

I have never been able to see the Apple-Mac advantage. Every item from that stable I have encountered has left me unconvinced. Part of that reservation is about value for money. I get the icky feeling that there's a cult subscription being paid with purchases. Even the styling of the devices which is so piously venerated makes me feel a touch comatose, a hospital white and so edgeless and smooth as if those devices were meant for endoscopy. I certainly have a *gut* reaction to their displays. They repel me. They have at the same time a pastel indistinctness and a gaudy contrastiness. All in a shiny plastic minimalism that gets louder and louder as you sit in front of it! And now I would be additionally disturbed, if I had one, that the founder's alpha ghost was looking back out through it at me subliminally, demanding worship in death as in life!

No, I don't want treatment, thanks!D

Neil

And you forgot, no true 10 bit support yet! Win7 supports 10 and 16 bits/channel natively

(although it's only up to 10-bit consumer level)

angevin1 · December 1, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Ha ha, yawn, I'm thinking, I'm thinking ...

The NEC sounds sweet, more food for thought. Is it in the LeCie kind of class, or more the Dell class? As posted before, I'd been thinking of the Mac Mini coupled with the LeCie 526 before softening on simplicity of iMac, know nothing about its presets, but good point.

Stan

I'd venture more inline with the LaCie class. The NEC I bought is here: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop%20-monitors/pa241w-bk-sv

I bought it off of Newsy's recommendation after comparing them to Lacie, Eizo, etc. Bang for buck.

And he's right, even now a year out it really is still in line with it's calibration. When you hook up the puck to calibrate this Monitor, and initiate the process, it does the rest including installing/writing the new calibration. And Bonus: I had trouble getting the software to work out of the box, due to it's being so new at the time. NEC was readily available to chat with me Online and had me fixed up almost immediately with new drivers. Can I tell you how refreshing it was to chat with an actual engineer instead of some person trying to flip thru a tech-help manual? One of the neatest things for me is if I shift my editing from photos to video, I can reach up in the Spectra view box and select: broadcast video. Just super to have so many choices at your finger tips for editing.

Another thing I enjoy about this Monitor is the USB ports. I can run more usb driven devices off of it.

my budget didn't allow for a larger size at the time, so part of the equation for me to save money was size, ergo 24".

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2011

angevin1 wrote: »

I'd venture more inline with the LaCie class. The NEC I bought is here: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop%20-monitors/pa241w-bk-sv

I bought it off of Newsy's recommendation after comparing them to Lacie, Eizo, etc. Bang for buck.

And he's right, even now a year out it really is still in line with it's calibration. When you hook up the puck to calibrate this Monitor, and initiate the process, it does the rest including installing/writing the new calibration. And Bonus: I had trouble getting the software to work out of the box, due to it's being so new at the time. NEC was readily available to chat with me Online and had me fixed up almost immediately with new drivers. Can I tell you how refreshing it was to chat with an actual engineer instead of some person trying to flip thru a tech-help manual? One of the neatest things for me is if I shift my editing from photos to video, I can reach up in the Spectra view box and select: broadcast video. Just super to have so many choices at your finger tips for editing.

Another thing I enjoy about this Monitor is the USB ports. I can run more usb driven devices off of it.

my budget didn't allow for a larger size at the time, so part of the equation for me to save money was size, ergo 24".

Thanks, Tom, this is really helpful input.

My frustration here lies in consideration deeper than just the screen, goes to Mac/PC platform and the limited Mac configurations available. I never would have said that six months ago, have always been a Windows guy, but the load of study and experimenting I've put myself through with Lion and the iMac 27" has got me leaning. I know I could do the NEC with the Mac Mini, but iMac's power is awesome by comparison, and since it's an all-in-one, that sticks me with the iMac screen, not the NEC. Unfortunately the Mac Pro is out of the question, way too far into the world of overkill. As for platform, I'm totally sold on Lion, find it logically superior to Windows in practically every way, find it smooth as a whistle, think it could pretty painlessly allow me to forget every workaround I've ever learned in dealing with Windows, and there are a bunch. Don't know if you've been exposed, but Lion truly feels that good.

Maybe a question I should post here is: any reason Lion wouldn't team up as well as Windows with a third-party wide-gamut screen such as the NEC? I can't imagine there is one, but I'll discuss with NEC, just in case. Assuming there is none, I'm down first to the power question, can I be happy with the Mac Mini vs the iMac? If so, the door is open to a third-party screen. But then there's the second question, can I see the sRGB/RGB gamut difference significantly affecting my output? If I printed or relied on my photo work for food on the table, that would be one thing, and if I was confident wide-gamut would have a noticeably positive effect on all the other everyday stuff I use the computer for in home/business, that would be another thing. But I'm not sure of either of those, so why complicate my life by relying on two vendor sources (actually far more considering disk players/burners, card readers and such), when I could be relying on just one; and why put up with the army of bad guys lurking around every internet move I make with Windows (which is pretty much everything outside of my Photoshop work), vs a much smaller band sneaking around the much more tightly controlled Mac environment?

It's exciting to be standing at this crossroad of choice, but also a huge frustration. After much effort, my commonsense and first-hand inputs are leaning me one way, my limited tech savvy is leaning the other. The one input I haven't had, though, is first-hand involvement with a wide-gamut screen, been looking around, maybe I'll find one to experiment on. Wish me luck.

Thanks again for taking the time.

Stan

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

I have never been able to see the Apple-Mac advantage. Every item from that stable I have encountered has left me unconvinced. Part of that reservation is about value for money. I get the icky feeling that there's a cult subscription being paid with purchases. Even the styling of the devices which is so piously venerated makes me feel a touch comatose, a hospital white and so edgeless and smooth as if those devices were meant for endoscopy. I certainly have a *gut* reaction to their displays. They repel me. They have at the same time a pastel indistinctness and a gaudy contrastiness. All in a shiny plastic minimalism that gets louder and louder as you sit in front of it! And now I would be additionally disturbed, if I had one, that the founder's alpha ghost was looking back out through it at me subliminally, demanding worship in death as in life!

No, I don't want treatment, thanks!D

Neil

White bread vs rye bread, I guess. I think what's nailing me is Lion, have spent quite a bit of time with it now, studying and experimenting, really is amazing. I'm an older guy, have lived my computer life with workaround after workaround with Windows versions, have put up with security demands/slowdown and viruses that have gotten through, terrible on both ends, see a much smoother ride with Lion. With the all-in-one iMac, the screen just is part of the deal, I'll calibrate it, dull down contrast if need be, very impressive so far in the many hours of experimentation I've put myself through (they're beginning to see me as part of the furniture at the nearby Apple Store). So regardless of what I end-up doing about a screen, I'm pretty sold on the Apple system, it seems to beam.

Thanks again for taking the time. Everything I see here is helpful, not in huge hurry, but looking forward to a screen decision point.

angevin1 · December 3, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Thanks, Tom, this is really helpful input.

My frustration here lies in consideration deeper than just the screen, goes to Mac/PC platform and the limited Mac configurations available. I never would have said that six months ago, have always been a Windows guy, but the load of study and experimenting I've put myself through with Lion and the iMac 27" has got me leaning. I know I could do the NEC with the Mac Mini, but iMac's power is awesome by comparison, and since it's an all-in-one, that sticks me with the iMac screen, not the NEC. Unfortunately the Mac Pro is out of the question, way too far into the world of overkill. As for platform, I'm totally sold on Lion, find it logically superior to Windows in practically every way, find it smooth as a whistle, think it could pretty painlessly allow me to forget every workaround I've ever learned in dealing with Windows, and there are a bunch. Don't know if you've been exposed, but Lion truly feels that good.

Maybe a question I should post here is: any reason Lion wouldn't team up as well as Windows with a third-party wide-gamut screen such as the NEC? I can't imagine there is one, but I'll discuss with NEC, just in case. Assuming there is none, I'm down first to the power question, can I be happy with the Mac Mini vs the iMac? If so, the door is open to a third-party screen. But then there's the second question, can I see the sRGB/RGB gamut difference significantly affecting my output? If I printed or relied on my photo work for food on the table, that would be one thing, and if I was confident wide-gamut would have a noticeably positive effect on all the other everyday stuff I use the computer for in home/business, that would be another thing. But I'm not sure of either of those, so why complicate my life by relying on two vendor sources (actually far more considering disk players/burners, card readers and such), when I could be relying on just one; and why put up with the army of bad guys lurking around every internet move I make with Windows (which is pretty much everything outside of my Photoshop work), vs a much smaller band sneaking around the much more tightly controlled Mac environment?

It's exciting to be standing at this crossroad of choice, but also a huge frustration. After much effort, my commonsense and first-hand inputs are leaning me one way, my limited tech savvy is leaning the other. The one input I haven't had, though, is first-hand involvement with a wide-gamut screen, been looking around, maybe I'll find one to experiment on. Wish me luck.

Thanks again for taking the time.

Stan

two things you've mentioned once at least cause me to ask: Why is a MAC-Pro overkill? I just cannot imagine any photo editor buying a computer today feeling like that would be overkill with the only caveat being the other thing you said: "My limited tech savvy." Everything you mention seems you're gonna be happy with the Mac system, and a lot of people are. You might want to ask some other folks opinions, but I don't think a Mac-Pro would be overkill. I could imagine it being overkill if you didn't edit photos, or if you edited photos and you never got another camera, and you never did anymore editing than you do now and your present workflow is as clean and fast as you need. SO all I'm really getting at is, ask yourself about tomorrow when buying this computer, not just today~

Wishing you Luck!

Overfocused · December 3, 2011

angevin1 wrote: »

two things you've mentioned once at least cause me to ask: Why is a MAC-Pro overkill? I just cannot imagine any photo editor buying a computer today feeling like that would be overkill with the only caveat being the other thing you said: "My limited tech savvy." Everything you mention seems you're gonna be happy with the Mac system, and a lot of people are. You might want to ask some other folks opinions, but I don't think a Mac-Pro would be overkill. I could imagine it being overkill if you didn't edit photos, or if you edited photos and you never got another camera, and you never did anymore editing than you do now and your present workflow is as clean and fast as you need. SO all I'm really getting at is, ask yourself about tomorrow when buying this computer, not just today~

Wishing you Luck!

It's not at all! What is overkill is the price

. I made my PC for $1,050 that has the same performance as a $3,000 mac-pro. Other than a 24" 1920x1200 instead of the 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

W.W. Webster · December 3, 2011

Overfocused wrote: »

What is overkill is the price . I made my PC for $1,050 that has the same performance as a $3,000 mac-pro.

At what hourly rate and total cost did you value your time in sourcing and collecting the components, and building the PC - or was that considered to be free? And I presume you over-clocked the processor to ensure you fully maximised your 'investment'?

basflt · December 3, 2011

W.W. Webster wrote: »

considered to be free?

i cannot speak for Overfocused , but
i have built my own PC , not have it built for me
costs a bit more , but saves on labour
advantage of DIY is ; you know what you get
and you can always alter it

Overfocused · December 3, 2011

W.W. Webster wrote: »

At what hourly rate and total cost did you value your time in sourcing and collecting the components, and building the PC - or was that considered to be free?

I didn't keep track of my time. I enjoy researching computer components and internet shopping so I did it in my free time... for me the upgrade was for function, but the process is/was fun, lol. I don't keep track of my time when I do this stuff.

And time for sourcing components can't really be an argument since I'd personally research the parts available from the Mac store anyway and whether it's what I need or not. Most people don't even know what the heck they're actually buying. I could just as easily go willy-nilly and buy the same (or equivalent) limited selection of components that apple lists available in their machines and save myself time and money too, without looking into it at all and just chucking my cash at other stores that offer those components for much, much less.

And I presume you over-clocked the processor to ensure you fully maximised your 'investment'?

I have a feeling that the main intention of this question has nothing to do with you actually wanting to know if I'm overclocking or not, but I'll answer it anyway.

No. I use an i5 2500k so it has native "overclocking" from 3.3GHz to 3.7GHz/4.1GHz available. Kind of like the turbo modes on the 386/486 intel CPUs from the old days. I'm going to look into OC'ing it later though. Right now I'm just letting myself and old programs use the new hardware to see if it smoothly operates everything I transferred over from my old machine even at stock settings. So far so good.

NeilL · December 3, 2011

angevin1 wrote: »

two things you've mentioned once at least cause me to ask: Why is a MAC-Pro overkill? I just cannot imagine any photo editor buying a computer today feeling like that would be overkill with the only caveat being the other thing you said: "My limited tech savvy." Everything you mention seems you're gonna be happy with the Mac system, and a lot of people are. You might want to ask some other folks opinions, but I don't think a Mac-Pro would be overkill. I could imagine it being overkill if you didn't edit photos, or if you edited photos and you never got another camera, and you never did anymore editing than you do now and your present workflow is as clean and fast as you need. SO all I'm really getting at is, ask yourself about tomorrow when buying this computer, not just today~

Wishing you Luck!

Agree! Buying 'forward' is best.

Neil

NeilL · December 3, 2011

W.W. Webster wrote: »

At what hourly rate and total cost did you value your time in sourcing and collecting the components, and building the PC - or was that considered to be free? And I presume you over-clocked the processor to ensure you fully maximised your 'investment'?

True. But if at the same time o'f was making 1,000 of his units per day and he was an exploited 3rd world worker what becomes of your calculation??!!

Neil

Newsy · December 3, 2011

Ans this is why I usually don't bother reading the "need a new computer" threads. They almost always degenerate.

Overfocused · December 3, 2011

Huzzah!