Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I think its very cool but for photographers it has a big question mark. If it can't be calibrated correctly I want no part of it.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Actually, this does make sense to me.Yea and I can name 20 that use wide gamut monitors. You all missed the point. I never said you can't work with a monitor coming from Apple or any other SRGB monitor. What I am saying is if you want to see and use the full range of your raw file which BTW has a even bigger gamut than Adobe 1998 than a wide gamut monitor has the biggest gamut. As far as offset printing yes things are converted to CMYK and the presses can only handle so much color. But in the same vein this is also changing for the better. These are multi million dollar machines and are color managed and the industry standards are much higher than your SRGB monitors and from I read this monitor can't even be calibrated. Really what's the point of shooting high end color if your not using a color managed system. It makes zero sense. No one said you can't get by and we been getting by for years but now with these higher gamut monitors you can actually see the full range of your DR and color. Frankly when I spend 40 k for a back I want to see that range. I had both at the same time a Apple cinema 30 inch and a NEC 30 inch the diffrence is huge and I could not sell that Cinema Display fast enough. My Epson printer a 7900 is a perfect match for these monitors .
Do want you want folks but you can't escape the facts. That's all I'm putting down. Look at the gamut Lloyd posted. Those are facts that can't be changed. You can work around them like many do but if I'm spending 1200 on a monitor I'm buying a wide gamut. I see no value than seeing less than what my raw file can do.
With that Im out of this thread. My words obviously have been twisted enough to fit someone else's agenda.
Who said anything about "forging ahead with an uncalibrated and low gamut display"? Certainly not me. I calibrate and profile my displays and produce prints with a 100% color managed workflow. (Fer gosh sakes, I taught simple color management workflow techniques for a year and a half in the late 20-oughts.)...
I understand what Godfrey meant about how accuracy was not important to him as much as pleasing results are. That is often the case for many artists and in many media, but to just forge ahead with an uncalibrated and low gamut display seems such a waste of time, if nothing else. Even if you are going to evaluate on the basis of test prints (which I agree is a good way to go!), just getting repeatable and consistent results saves you so much time and hassle. If you are printing on a regular basis, wider gamut monitors are so much easier and less-frustrating to work with. ...
Indeed it is ... Few of these hotly debated technology discussions have any significant impact on the making of photographs.Nattering about technology is irrelevant?
That's amusing.
Really than you are very naive in thinking almost every studio and high end advertising photographers are not using wide gamut Eizo and Nec. You want to buck industry standards than that's your gig but to sit here and constantly give out bad information to others is a disservice. Sorry your ego is being tested here but your so wrong it's almost embarrassing . There I said what I probably should not have said. Let's be very clear this is not arguing with me at all I'm just passing on what I know Pros are using in the industry and what the dealers are selling to them. Now having said all that I'm excusing myself for awhile from this forum as it's very tiring to hear what you do as a industry standard than what it actually is. Also I'm hours away from being a grandpa so this means **** to me. I apologize to other members but when I see bad info as gospel it makes me furious as that's not the type of info that you need to hear. You need to know what can be done, know your options and make informed decisions. I'm sorry Godfrey your comments are not doing that and that's what this forum is about. With that I'm done. This not about my opinion but facts you can't seem to accept.Indeed it is ... Few of these hotly debated technology discussions have any significant impact on the making of photographs.
It's the same thing I read in the high-end audiophile literature: Most of the hot debates circle around technology issues that one person in ten thousand would ever be concerned about; very few of them have anything to do with creating or listening to ...enjoying!... music.
G
+1I've been using a 15inch retina display macbookpro or whatever they are called - because it is very easy on the eye and does make stuff look very nice. For prints which need calibration to a bunch of profiles I use for stuff that requires as good as you can get - I use an NEC monitor which sits plugged into the book as a dual screen..
This is hardly rocket science -just makes it easier to get prints done as accurately to profiles as possible - which saves time mucking around with test prints etc. yes it is a hassle to profie your total workflow - and yes nothing is ever perfect - but l like to invest time into making things easier for me...and people who have to print some of my larger work for exhibitions.
This new Imac looks very interesting - larger retina screen even easier on the eyes - makes photos shine too. Pete will definitely get one - but the NEC will stay next to it.
Congratulations on your grandfatherdom Guy - all the best to your daughter.