NEW iMac 2017 21 with graphic card for MF processing ?

[MrSmith]

And the monitor on it's own is basically as good as anything on the market, include the fabled Eizos

No, they are not even close to an Eizo CG class monitor, too much contrast and lack of control over brightness, the shadow definition/gradation is way better on an Eizo. They (iMac) are not as uniform either.

The IMac screens (and the new MBP screens) are good but not that good.

(Based on user experience not reading specs off the web)

 

[RandB]

I can't see why anyone would buy an iMac then use it with an external monitor. Are you going to use the iMac monitor for anything ?[/QUOTE]

Use the Eizo for archiving an accurate master, for proofing, and for print; use the iMac monitor for punchier images and for uploading to the internet.

 

[Godfrey]

Interesting question on the 1 vs 2 screen usage. In general, I prefer to do my photography on a single screen (with Lightroom) dedicated to the task. I use macOS 'workspaces' to be able to quickly switch to other things at breaks in my workflow.

This is likely because I generally spend less than a minute or so rendering any individual photo. I try to get everything right to the greatest extent possible in-camera and have built up a nice library of processing presets that speed the work along such that I spend very little time doing just finish tweaks. I've forgotten how to use Photoshop at this point ... other supplementary editors are simpler and faster.

The situations when I need more screen space are when I'm assembling a book or a movie. Then I have the need to look at a lot of different things simultaneously and I'll add a second screen to my system for that, if one is available. It makes the best work environment for me if both screens are identical and calibrated to display identically in those situations, so the notion of mixing a high-end screen with one characteristic and 'standard' grade screen is less optimal.

My hardware is arranged such that I can plug in displays, cpus, external drives and devices at will. Just which CPU I'm using is mostly irrelevant in absolute terms, as long as it has the memory and performance I need. When it becomes significant is when I plug in the laptop because I've been doing some tethered shooting vs using my mini (the normal case) or Pro (mostly for editing motion work).

Given that 99% of what I work on is 24Mpixel FF format images, my mid-2012 mini with the top line processor, 16G RAM, and a 1T SSD is still fast enough to satisfy my needs for still photography. If I were working with 100Mpixel images all the time, it would be strained a bit to give me the responsive editing workflow I like and I'd upgrade it. If the upgrade today happened to be an iMac Pro, well, so be it... then I'd have my second monitor solution at hand a little more readily.

G

 

[Wayne Fox]

I often use the second display in grid mode while the second shows the selected image, especially when first culling a shoot.

When I'm working on an individual image that I'm spending some time on I usually turn that off, but I still like the second display to show some of my other apps, such as chat and email so I can easily see and choose whether to respond without having to switch out of the main applications (Lr, C1 or PS).

In photoshop, all of my palettes are on the second display so the only thing on my main display is the image itself.

When preparing images to upload to my website, I also switch my second display so it is in sRGB at 6500k and considerably brighter, just to double check that the rendered jpegs will look ok on a more typical consumer display.

Just a few ways I use 2 displays.

 

[Speedgraphic]

No, they are not even close to an Eizo CG class monitor, too much contrast and lack of control over brightness, the shadow definition/gradation is way better on an Eizo. They (iMac) are not as uniform either.

The IMac screens (and the new MBP screens) are good but not that good.

(Based on user experience not reading specs off the web)

And yet my prints still match my iMac display just fine. Maybe the 17 people who work at places like Stiedl are very happy about that shadow definition...but everyone else should be happy to have an iMac display. The only thing it's not so good for is a sense of smugness. Eizo is GREAT for that.

 

[archivue]

so it looks like that i'm the only one watching films, series, youtube... on a second screen while processing images ,-)

 

[Godfrey]

so it looks like that i'm the only one watching films, series, youtube... on a second screen while processing images ,-)

I use my iPad for that stuff. ;-)

 

[MILESF]

I also have a Mac cylinder. I don't use the internal SSD anymore, instead I have 4 1TB SSDs setup as a raid 0 running in a TB2 connected case. I get about 60% more speed than the internal SSD. No issue with my IQ3 100 files either.

Wayne,

Please could you elaborate. Also happy with my Mac Pro. Don't see anything else on the horizon right now but could use more fast storage. Thunderbolt 2 connected case?

Thanks

 

[dchew]

Wayne,

Please could you elaborate. Also happy with my Mac Pro. Don't see anything else on the horizon right now but could use more fast storage. Thunderbolt 2 connected case?

Thanks

Miles,
I suspect Wayne has the same enclosure I do:
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/External-Drive/OWC/ThunderBay-4-mini

It works well for me, same SSD 4TB/RAID 0 setup Wayne mentioned. I've had the enclosure for 2-1/2 years now without issue, but increased the capacity a little over a year ago to 4TB.

Dave

 

[MrSmith]

And yet my prints still match my iMac display just fine. Maybe the 17 people who work at places like Stiedl are very happy about that shadow definition...but everyone else should be happy to have an iMac display. The only thing it's not so good for is a sense of smugness. Eizo is GREAT for that.

It's not about being smug, it's about adding 1-2% cc filter on something and being able to see the change as you switch it on and off, plus having a reliable 120 l/m2 brightness which is neither fatiguing and a good working standard for print. That plus being able to respond to clients who say "it's too red" with I'm adjusting the colour on my eizo screen you are looking at it on an uncalibrated pc (8bit dithering) laptop. It stops those arguments straight away.

Owning a decent screen isn't licence to have a pissing contest, but the fact is an iMac screen is not as controllable, stable or accurate. Images look great on it but that's not what you require when producing work for print (not prints)

 

[archivue]

Owning a decent screen isn't licence to have a pissing contest, but the fact is an iMac screen is not as controllable, stable or accurate. Images look great on it but that's not what you require when producing work for print (not prints)

sometimes i spend a lot of time on an image, and i save 2 different (close) versions... on my friend iMac, i can't see the difference... while on my Eizo...

 

[Wayne Fox]

And yet my prints still match my iMac display just fine. Maybe the 17 people who work at places like Stiedl are very happy about that shadow definition...but everyone else should be happy to have an iMac display. The only thing it's not so good for is a sense of smugness. Eizo is GREAT for that.

maybe they "match" to you, but the one thing you cannot control on the iMac is the contrast/black level. That doesn't mean prints won't "match", but they won't match as closely as a NEC or Eizo set up properly, especially if you are trying to print to matt papers.

Of course we've printed for years on screens that didn't "match", yet results were fine. In the process of printing you cannot ignore the human ability to "interpret" what is being seen and understand what needs to be done from viewing one device to get another device to look similar.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Miles,
I suspect Wayne has the same enclosure I do:
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/External-Drive/OWC/ThunderBay-4-mini

It works well for me, same SSD 4TB/RAID 0 setup Wayne mentioned. I've had the enclosure for 2-1/2 years now without issue, but increased the capacity a little over a year ago to 4TB.

Dave

my exact setup. thx Dave

 

[Godfrey]

maybe they "match" to you, but the one thing you cannot control on the iMac is the contrast/black level. That doesn't mean prints won't "match", but they won't match as closely as a NEC or Eizo set up properly, especially if you are trying to print to matt papers.

Of course we've printed for years on screens that didn't "match", yet results were fine. In the process of printing you cannot ignore the human ability to "interpret" what is being seen and understand what needs to be done from viewing one device to get another device to look similar.

Hmm. I don't seem to have any difficulty getting a perfect match between my prints and my Apple display, with either B&W or color work, and I print almost exclusively to matt surface papers. Maybe a measurement device can see the difference, but my eyes cannot. At what point, it doesn't matter if there's any difference or not...

Anyway, what you're saying above sounds counter to how I use a display in printing. I don't print on a screen... I print on paper. (yeah yeah, nitpicky English language usage barb... forgive me! )

I calibrate and profile my display to standardized target settings, then I do my image processing to make the image look how I want it to appear ... The display image is, therefore my reference standard. I then print with a color managed workflow using a paper profile; the goal is to match the display. I proof what I print, after a 24 hour dry-down time, using a light box illuminating the print and shielding its light from what the display is putting out, with the two side-by-side. I'm done when the print matches the display to the best my eyes can detect... That's as close a match as I need.

G

 

[Speedgraphic]

maybe they "match" to you, but the one thing you cannot control on the iMac is the contrast/black level. That doesn't mean prints won't "match", but they won't match as closely as a NEC or Eizo set up properly, especially if you are trying to print to matt papers.

Of course we've printed for years on screens that didn't "match", yet results were fine. In the process of printing you cannot ignore the human ability to "interpret" what is being seen and understand what needs to be done from viewing one device to get another device to look similar.

Again, maybe if I was doing prepress for actual art books any of that would matter to me, but I'm not. As are 99.9999999% of photographers. I'm not saying the technology isn't real, or good. I'm saying it's about as useful to me as a Bentley would be to get to work. Meaning, not useful in any real way.

I've been making prints for a long time. First on Bessler 23C's, then on Omega 45 Dichroic heads, Zone IV cold head split filter enlargers, Apple CRT Studio Displays and old crappy Epson printers... Using all of the above I've been able to utilize the equipment that I had at hand to make an excellent final print (tho the early Epson's were really bad...). My iMac is giving me the P3 color space, 5k resolution, and my R3000 is giving me better color prints than I could make with RA4 materials. But you're telling me that I should spend thousands more for a slightly better screen for proofing? If Gerhard Steidl calls me up some day, you got it. Until then, it's a waste of $ I'd rather spend on lenses, film, cameras, shooting opportunties etc etc etc. If my prints are good, it's a needless "upgrade".

 

[Wayne Fox]

Whatever works. The challenge is there isn't an ability to modify the printing pipeline to "match" what the screen displays. This means it's difficult to begin by setting up the display, then trying to get the output to match it.

It also depends on your tolerance and definition of a "match". Those working with reproduction have a much different standard and the process is much more challenging.

If you print a known standard print, and the display doesn't match, then the only thing you can do is modify the display behavior. So things like brightness, contrast, and white balance are adjusted as you calibrate, then profile to a point that you get an approximate visual match. I worked with Apple displays for a long time, and certainly was able to get acceptable results. Then I had an apple display next to a NEC display, and it seems getting a "match" was a little easier. Side by side, the NEC was specifically calibrated with a lower contrast point which was more similar to printed paper. So yeah, it maybe matched a little closer visually. Not that the Apple was bad.

to me the variable is the ability of a human to interpret the data they see and understand the nuances of what will happen to the print based on slight adjustments. Some people find soft proofing extremely effective and work with it to get great results. despite trying, there are many that just don't "see" it that way when they try to soft proof.

Whatever, sort of off the topic here.

 

[MrSmith]

But you're telling me that I should spend thousands more for a slightly better screen for proofing?

I don't think anyone is being told they have to spend on anything, that's down to the individual and their budget/business (or hobby)/workflow needs.

I don't even print (apart from the odd bound portfolio print which eventually gets reprinted due to damage by clumsy art director/art buyer hands) but choose to use an Eizo as it's better for my needs than an Apple screen. Over its 5 year working life it's also cheap considering how much time I spend in front of it.