Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: PatrickRayDunn on February 01, 2010, 04:56:53 pm

Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: PatrickRayDunn on February 01, 2010, 04:56:53 pm
How does this machine do for color correcting & photo editing? I understand the 27" monitor is IPS like the NEC 3090. Is the Imac monitor comparable to NEC IPS? I do know of the glossy screen limitations, and do wish Mac would offer it as matte. Also, what is a good color calibration system for the monitor?

Patrick Ray Dunn
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: terrywyse on February 01, 2010, 06:34:03 pm
Personally, I think the new iMacs would make great photo editing systems. They've certainly got the horsepower, storage and memory expansion and the display sounds like it's decent enough for all by the most high-end photo editing needs. As a workstation, probably only major hindrance would be expansion of storage...you'd have to resort to external storage via the FW800/400 and USB interfaces. While FW800 has very good performance, nothing beats adding hard drives to the internal bus in my opinion.

Back to the display...probably only major limitation here would be the lack of "high-bit" internal LUTs such external displays like EIZO, et al. Everything else about it sounds good though.

Calibration for the display? My default recommendation is always the EyeOne Pro spectro and either ColorEyes Display Pro or basICColor Display. While the EyeOne Pro is a bit pricey compared to your standard colorimeters, unlike a colorimeter it has the advantage of not requiring special tuning for the display's chromaticities. Only drawback of a spectro is a tendency to introduce slight shadow banding/posterization when used with 8-bit video LUts compared to high-bit internal LUTs. I suppose you could accidentally come across a colorimeter that may work fine with the iMac display but it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Regards,
Terry Wyse
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on February 01, 2010, 06:42:26 pm
Quote from: PatrickRayDunn
How does this machine do for color correcting & photo editing? I understand the 27" monitor is IPS like the NEC 3090. Is the Imac monitor comparable to NEC IPS? I do know of the glossy screen limitations, and do wish Mac would offer it as matte. Also, what is a good color calibration system for the monitor?

Patrick Ray Dunn

27" iMac is 8-bit LUT H-IPS panel with pseudo-white LED backlight. 3090WQXi is 12bit programmable LUT H-IPS panel, with wide gamut CCFL backlight and electronic uniformity compensation. You can calibrate NEC with inexpansive custom colorimeter and automatic hardware calibration and profiling software. The only calibrator for iMac I'd really trust is ColorMunki or i1pro spectrophotometer.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: tokengirl on February 01, 2010, 08:30:28 pm
I have a 24" iMac (with the glossy screen) that works just fine for photo editing once profiled.  Colormunki works great, very easy to use.  The Colormunki will get rid of the blinding brightness the iMac comes with out of the box.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Ken Bennett on February 01, 2010, 08:41:20 pm
I am writing this post on my new 27-inch iMac. It's just the base model with the dual core 3.06 gHz processor, 1TB drive, and 4 GB RAM. I chose this model because it was a refurb that cost $1450 ($250 less than list price.) I added 4 GB more RAM from Other World Computing for about $100. Of course there are issues with expandability, etc., but it's a very nice machine and much faster than either my 2-year old Macbook Pro or my five year old G-5 Dual. The glossy screen takes a little getting used to -- it's different from the 30-inch Apple Cinema Display that I use at work, but a little attention paid to the room lighting makes it very usable.

As for profiling, well so far I have just turned the brightness down to 50% and made some prints on my 3800 that matched as well as any print can match a monitor. Very happy overall.

Like a lot of staff photographers, I don't have much in the way of cameras or computer gear of my own. (Well, not anything recent, anyway. Lots of old stuff in the garage.) Given the current state of the industry, that's probably not a good position to be in. For me, the 27-inch iMac is an inexpensive way of starting to change that.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: PatrickRayDunn on February 02, 2010, 02:50:05 pm
Hi Ken,

    Good to hear from you. I pulled the trigger this morning by buying a refurb 21.5", 500gB and 4 ram for $999. That was $150 less than brand new, and it's the current incarnation. You must make more at your university than I do at this one since you can buy a 27"....yeah right! I have a CRT monitor that I will add as a second  monitor, and possibly buy the NEC 3090 sometime in the near future.

Thanks everyone!

Patrick Ray Dunn
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Dansk on February 02, 2010, 04:05:04 pm

 I almost bought one the other day but.... there have been massive issues with the 27" models and screen flickering. So much so they halted production until sorting it out so I too am waiting until they sort it out

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02...lt_surface.html (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/01/27_in_imac_delays_continue_as_rumors_of_production_halt_surface.html)

Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Ken Bennett on February 02, 2010, 05:47:50 pm
Well, that's nice to see two weeks after I bought the thing. Thanks, Dansk. I'll keep an eye on it.

Patrick, you know we make the big bucks here at Wake Forest <snicker>. Nah, I waited and watched the refurb list until I found what I wanted. Hope you enjoy your new computer.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: John S C on February 03, 2010, 07:46:17 am
I've had an 27' iMac now for about 6 weeks. I didn't know about the yellow banding until I read a post about it a couple of weeks ago . Do I have it? Not sure, sometimes I see sometimes I don't. If it is there it's only a small area on the bottom area of the screen. I suspect it's worse on some screens than others.

Calibrate using ColourEyes Display Pro using a GM eye-one display 2, without any problems.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: hsmeets on February 03, 2010, 08:31:58 am
Hi,

one thing that was not mentioned in previous posts about the 27"panel:

The gamut of the panel itself is sRGB only.

Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Jeremy Payne on February 03, 2010, 08:59:35 am
Quote from: hsmeets
The gamut of the panel itself is sRGB only.
Are you sure?  I would find that hard to believe given the hardware specs.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on February 03, 2010, 09:48:34 am
Quote
Are you sure?  I would find that hard to believe given the hardware specs.

The iMac has pseudo-white LED backlight, so it is normal gamut panel. The wider gamut may only be achived with RGB LED or WGCCFL backlight.

here's an iMac profile taken with i1pro spectro:

(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/imac_gamut.jpg)
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: hsmeets on February 03, 2010, 09:59:47 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Are you sure?  I would find that hard to believe given the hardware specs.

Yup, compared sRGB and the monitor profile I created in colorsync. Similar result as previous poster.

Apple did upgrade from TN to IPS, but it seems they choose to not go flat out for widest gamut. I suspect a calculated product management descision: only a small base of the customer would value this.

See this:

Anandtech review of Dell screen, with reference to Apple screen:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3725 (http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3725)

The latest offering in the U-series is the U2711, a 27" beauty sporting extremely impressive features. For starters, it has an IPS panel, but this isn't your granddad's IPS panel. The U2711 has an extremely high resolution 2560x1440 panel - similar to the panel that's used in the Apple 27" iMac. Notice that we highlighted the word similar? That's because the two panels aren't identical; the glass might be the same, but there are definitely differences.

For one, Apple uses LED backlighting whereas the U2711 sticks with CCFL technology. But isn't CCFL worse? That depends on what you're after; the iMac 27 offers a 72% color gamut while the U2711 has a 102% color gamut (based on the CIE 1931 standard). Using RGB LEDs, it would be possible to get a similarly high color gamut, but our experience with RGB LEDs to date is that they cost more and consume more power than regular LEDs, so we can understand Dell's interest in sticking with the "older" technology. (We've only seen RGB LEDs in a few laptops so far, and as one example it's a $175 upgrade on the Dell Studio XPS 16 compared to a regular white LED display.)
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Jeremy Payne on February 03, 2010, 10:03:34 am
Quote from: Czornyj
The iMac has pseudo-white LED backlight, so it is normal gamut panel. The wider gamut may only be achived with RGB LED or WGCCFL backlight.

Interesting ... I had thought it could still achieve the "low-end" of the "wide" range ... ie like 92% of NTSC ...

Thanks!  I don't want one as much anymore ...  
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: hsmeets on February 03, 2010, 10:20:01 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Interesting ... I had thought it could still achieve the "low-end" of the "wide" range ... ie like 92% of NTSC ...

Thanks!  I don't want one as much anymore ...  

I haven't yet encountered any real world problems with the 'limited' gamut for my use: photography (landscape, outdoors).

And when I compared the iMac screen profile/gamut (or AdobeRGB or sRGB for that matter) with the profile/gamut of my printer (canon ipf5100).......one scratches his head.......how disjunct the gamut's are
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on February 03, 2010, 10:57:12 am
Quote from: hsmeets
I haven't yet encountered any real world problems with the 'limited' gamut for my use: photography (landscape, outdoors).

And when I compared the iMac screen profile/gamut (or AdobeRGB or sRGB for that matter) with the profile/gamut of my printer (canon ipf5100).......one scratches his head.......how disjunct the gamut's are

It's not a big deal, but on normal gamut panel you may encounter some problems with simulation of saturated greens and cyans, that are within printers color space, and out of iMac gamut. There's an example here:
http://www.colormanagement.org/de/monitortest.html#Gamut (http://www.colormanagement.org/de/monitortest.html#Gamut)
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Dansk on February 03, 2010, 11:44:24 am
I wonder if Apple will go full tilt for the seemingly never to arrive new cinema displays?

All that said about the new Imac display while there certainly are better options available there certainly is no perfect solution as of yet. All displays have their set backs but in this case you get a damn fine performing computer thrown in for FREE when you look at other displays that have similar performance vs price. Also when I look at what we used to edit on in comparison say 6 years ago or so these new versions are light years ahead so keep that in mind as well.

As mentioned above I would already own one but the flickering and other QC issues are not acceptable to me. Once they sort it out I'm in for a couple at least
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on February 03, 2010, 12:13:45 pm
Quote from: Dansk
I wonder if Apple will go full tilt for the seemingly never to arrive new cinema displays?

All that said about the new Imac display while there certainly are better options available there certainly is no perfect solution as of yet. All displays have their set backs but in this case you get a damn fine performing computer thrown in for FREE when you look at other displays that have similar performance vs price. Also when I look at what we used to edit on in comparison say 6 years ago or so these new versions are light years ahead so keep that in mind as well.

As mentioned above I would already own one but the flickering and other QC issues are not acceptable to me. Once they sort it out I'm in for a couple at least

There's a new 24" ACD, and it's also nothing spectacular. High-bit LUT displays with uniformity compensation from NEC, Eizo, Quato or LaCie are better suited for photographic applications.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Wayne Fox on February 03, 2010, 02:16:55 pm
Quote from: tokengirl
I have a 24" iMac (with the glossy screen) that works just fine for photo editing once profiled.  Colormunki works great, very easy to use.  The Colormunki will get rid of the blinding brightness the iMac comes with out of the box.


You don't need the colurmunki to get an appropriate brightness with the newer iMacs. You can dim the display as far as you want, which is the preferable approach.  this was an issue with some previous generation iMacs, but the 27" one I worked with for a while calibrated and profiled very nicely.  Brightness level was about 45%.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: mrazster on February 03, 2010, 06:15:43 pm
Iīve had mine for a couple of weeks now..itīs the basic one with C2D, 4gb, ati 4650 e.t.c
Iīve calibrated it with i1 Display2 hardware and ColorEyes DisplayPro software.
My work is mostly done i B&W.

I have had oppurtunity to compare it to some midrange and highmidrange Eizo and NEC monitors....even thou itīs 8bit and not full adobergb my guess is youīll find it absolutely more than enough to work with. Iīve had problems with "banding" when I was working with my images earlier, with monitors from other brands that was supposed to be "very good monitors"...they are gone now!!! The color it reproduces is wonderful once cailbrated. The sizie of that 27" monitor and with that crazy resolution makes it absolutely lovely to to do photographic work when int comes to details and sharpening.

About the bugs recently reported...mine has no problem with the "intermittent flickering"..there is an firmware update avalibale wich is suposed to fix it, even thou it goes away for most, some users still has it, having that said it is just a small amount of all iMac sold, having that problem. The slight yelleowis tint that some users report is present in mine but itīs very weak and itīs almost not noticeable....down in the right corner area... I feel it got even harder to detect after calibrating the monitor.

Wich ever way you want to spin it...itīs a damn good platform to work with. Donīt hesitate...go treat your self with one.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Desmond on February 07, 2010, 12:40:01 pm
Low bit  LUT, sRGB gamut, pseudo white LEd... sounds not quite impressive. But for the price of 27" iMac, what else can be expected? A 24" 96% ARGB 12bit LUT Eizo is more expensive than the 27" iMac.
The current lineup of iMac shall be good enough for all amateur photographers. Even the full ARGB gamut cannot match fully with modern inkjet printers. Images look better on high bit LUT monitor, but one doesn't need that for image editing, so long as the monitor could properly calibrated/ profiled to consistent soft proofing the system is fine to go.
Of course using high end monitor is a pleasure if you can afford it.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Dansk on February 07, 2010, 01:53:25 pm

 A little update on the flickering. Apple still will not officially "admit" theres anything wrong with the 27" versions... but they are offering a $300.00 rebate to anyone whos purchased one and has had issues so check it out if you have one at least you can get some dough back. Squeaky wheel gets the oil

http://gizmodo.com/5464288/apple-paying-ou...n-27+inch-imacs (http://gizmodo.com/5464288/apple-paying-out-15-on-broken-27+inch-imacs)


Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: jjlphoto on February 10, 2010, 05:46:14 pm
Quote from: hsmeets
Hi,

one thing that was not mentioned in previous posts about the 27"panel:

The gamut of the panel itself is sRGB only.

Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB. My Eizo ColorEdge CG21, same thing. Unless you are buying a monitor specifically labeled as Wide Gamut or its specs list a percentage of the AdobeRGB gamut it covers, the monitor will produce a gamut quite similar in size to sRGB.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Scott Martin on February 11, 2010, 12:25:55 pm
Quote from: jjlphoto
Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB.
I agree. I think we could improve the direction of this conversation, at least as far as gamut comparisons go. Simple working space comparisons can be silly since the outer shell of the printer's gamut sometimes exceeds and sometimes recedes the shell of working space gamuts. Instead of asking if the gamut of this display is closer to sRGB or AdobeRGB we should be asking "what are the characteristics of this displays gamut and how useful are they?" One way we can do this is by comparing this display gamut to a  common printing gamut; like Canon's Baryta on an Epson 9900. Another way of doing this would be by comparing it to the previous generation 23"/30" Apple Cinema Display that so many of us know well. Better yet - let's talk about all three at the same time. I've just done just that and here's some observations:

1) The overall gamut volume of the 27"iMac is about 12% larger than the 23"/30" Cinema display.

2) The areas of improved gamut are significant because they allow us to see portions of the printing gamut that the previous generation did not. Gamut improvements relative to this printing space can be seen in the light yellows, reds, dark magentas and dark blues.  There are also some subtle improvements to the greens that's aren't significant realtive to this printing gamut.

3) The green and cyans of this printing gamut are the only significant areas where a larger gamut display might offer greater improvements. One might focus on these colors when comparing the 27" iMac display to more expensive large gamut displays.

4) You might have a different printing gamut that might be more important to your own workflow. This display's improvements aren't significant relative to the SWOP CMYK specification for example, but show minor improvements in the yellows and magentas relative to GRACoL specification. This is certainly an excellent display for those working in prepress.

I've worked on more than a dozen of these 27" iMacs and I've found them all to be impressively consistent across the screen and wonderful to work on as long as the room lighting doesn't allow for glare. When calibrated with excellent software like Color Eyes Display Pro or BasICColor Display, issues like banding that are commonly associated with 8 bit LUT displays are virtually eliminated. These applications also allow the user to raise the black luminance value if it is lower than your printing DMax value (which it can be on this display).

We could spend a lot more money for a different/better system with relatively minor improvements.  In my opinion, the overall value of this iMac to the digital imaging community is quite significant.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Wayne Fox on February 11, 2010, 11:45:06 pm
Quote from: jjlphoto
Nothing to be alarmed about. Even the acclaimed Sony Artisan had a gamut similar to sRGB. My Eizo ColorEdge CG21, same thing. Unless you are buying a monitor specifically labeled as Wide Gamut or its specs list a percentage of the AdobeRGB gamut it covers, the monitor will produce a gamut quite similar in size to sRGB.

If you profile the new monitor you find it exceeds sRGB.  Not significantly and no where near other displays that approach AdobeRGB and not significantly in any colors, so this is more of a trivia comment.

But as mentioned a limited monitor gamut doesn't mean it can't be used successfully.  The 27" iMac is really a nice machine to work on.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Desmond on February 13, 2010, 12:56:17 am
Quote from: Czornyj
27" iMac is 8-bit LUT H-IPS panel ......

Really? I couldn't find from the spec. But from the performance I feel the panel of iMacs look more like  10 bits LUT than 8 bits. Anyone have the answer with certainty?
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 25, 2010, 06:36:08 pm
I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on July 26, 2010, 05:35:13 am
Quote from: LeroyBrown
I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.

Get Mac mini and the magnificient NEC PA271W...
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 26, 2010, 10:00:18 am
Quote from: Czornyj
Get Mac mini and the magnificient NEC PA271W...

Good recommendation on the 27" monitor http://www.directdial.com/PA271W-BK.html) (http://www.directdial.com/PA271W-BK.html)). Great reviews. Saves me $40 CAD (JOY) by not getting the 26" 2690 SpectraView version. Although, I'd save a further $800 CAD buying the Dell U2711 27". Very similar monitors. Except the NEC can do portrait mode and doesn't have HDMI input. And a reviewer said the NEC puts out slightly more saturated colors. Or "deeper" was the word. Not sure if it's worth twice as much though.

Mac Mini? Possible. It would work (allowing me to keep my copy of CS4...was going to sell it...because I was thinking of buying a Dell). It's CPU is vaguely faster than my MacBook Pro (2.55 GHz vs the Mini's 2.66 GHz). Which would save me $1000.00 CAD over buying a well outfitted Dell XPS 9000 desktop (twice as fast as a Quad-core Mac Pro running CS4 using only 4GB of RAM...and an i5 CPU? forget...any how I think Anandtech tested this).

Will see when the time comes. Early next year.

UPDATE (27 July 2010): Apple just debuted their QUAD i5 and i7 based iMacs. Apple must have red the review done by Anandtech.  I'm glad I didn't already ordered my 27" iMac. Now there's not much reason to go buy a Window's based desktop. Looks like I'm learning towards getting a 27" iMac again. LOL!
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Wayne Fox on July 26, 2010, 02:40:15 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
I was so hoping that the 27" iMac would be able to be calibrated to match the output of a calibrated photo printer like either the Epson R1900 or R2880. But being that I'm shooting in Adobe RGB then it looks like I'm going to have to buy a desktop computer and a wide gamut monitor like the Dell U2711 or a NEC SpectraView (26" or 30".

I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems. I realize you could buy an Apple Mac Pro and a wide gamut monitor. I was thinking of going this route till I did the math.

"but being that I'm shooting in AdobeRGB" ... you are shooting AdobeRGB jpegs then?  Not RAW?

Amazing, we've been using non wide gamut displays for years with great results, now suddenly great results can't be obtained without one?  Bull.

If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Ken Bennett on July 26, 2010, 09:27:08 pm
Quote from: Wayne Fox
If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

Wow, Wayne I totally agree with you. <grin> I get a perfectly decent match between my 3800 and my iMac 27 inch. Anyone who expects an exact match between a transmissive and a reflective image is bound to be disappointed, I suspect. (Kinda like slides versus prints, back in the day.)

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=LeroyBrown)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (LeroyBrown)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]I thought Apple computers were THE computers of choice for graphic design houses still. Or are matching monitors to printers more taxing on Apple computers systems.[/quote]

They still are. Remember that graphic design houses are outputting to 4-color offset presses using custom profiles. I don't need to see 99.99% of Adobe RGB on my monitor to accurately predict what my photos will look like on press. (Old school color correction was often done with the monitors set to b&w, or intentionally skewed. I can still happily color correct an image "by the numbers" for 4-color offset work. Luckily I don't need to any more, but I can.)[/size]
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 26, 2010, 11:10:49 pm
Quote from: Wayne Fox
"but being that I'm shooting in AdobeRGB" ... you are shooting AdobeRGB jpegs then?  Not RAW?

Amazing, we've been using non wide gamut displays for years with great results, now suddenly great results can't be obtained without one?  Bull.

If you can't get a decent match between a 27" iMac and output from those two printers, you need to take a look at your viewing conditions and your display profile. How did you calibrate it?  What type of lights are in your viewing station?  The iMac should work fine.  (unless you expect a 100% perfect match.  You aren't literally holding the print up next to the display to compare them are you?)

What made you think I was not shooting in RAW + Adobe RGB but JPG + Adobe RGB? Which I'm not. But if I was then....?

And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Czornyj on July 27, 2010, 03:35:57 am
Quote from: k bennett
They still are. Remember that graphic design houses are outputting to 4-color offset presses using custom profiles. I don't need to see 99.99% of Adobe RGB on my monitor to accurately predict what my photos will look like on press. (Old school color correction was often done with the monitors set to b&w, or intentionally skewed. I can still happily color correct an image "by the numbers" for 4-color offset work. Luckily I don't need to any more, but I can.)

For the record - AdobeRGB was introduced to cover all colors of SWOP CMYK. We used to edit the images "by the numbers" in medieval times, but now we have open CM systems, softproofing, wide gamut displays, and it's no longer necessary nor right to do it that way.

Quote from: LeroyBrown
And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?
In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 27, 2010, 09:26:55 am
Quote from: Czornyj
In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.

I guess you're a working graphic artist. You sound like you've had some experience in the field.

So, if "...it only matters when....contains saturated greens....blues." then is it fair to say you cannot get a "decent match" all the time? I mean as an amateur photographer I'd still like to get a reasonable match between my monitor and print all the time. No matter what kind of photo. Whether it has a lot of saturated green and blue or not. I suppose this is where a wide gamut monitor comes in? Giving us a closer match all the time?

Also, if you have a "limited gamut" monitor like the ones in the iMacs (rated at 70 odd % sRGB), would you not still end up with a print that matched the colors in the original photo (printer calibrated)? Assuming no color post-processing was done. Would you just not see as close a match on your iMac?
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 27, 2010, 09:30:12 pm
Quote from: Czornyj
For the record - AdobeRGB was introduced to cover all colors of SWOP CMYK. We used to edit the images "by the numbers" in medieval times, but now we have open CM systems, softproofing, wide gamut displays, and it's no longer necessary nor right to do it that way.


In many cases you can get a "decent match" on a "limited gamut" display, colors of the images are not exceeding sRGB gamut that often (not to mention B&W images). It only matters when we have a picture that contains saturated greens, aquamarines, cyans, azures, and blues.

Actually I find most of the differences bewtween sRGB and AdobeRGB to be in various yellow-oranges, magentas, deep purples, deep pinks, reds, etc. for all the talk about greens,cyans,azures I find I have a lot less images where that makes a difference. Many flower photos and almost every sunset/sunrise/intense evening lighting shots shows difference sRGB vs. AdobeRGB though. People just think it's the greens/cyans because of the standard slice shown, but AdobeRGB also adds tons of sunset and flower shades.

Often the really intense cloud linings during sunsets disappear into a blandness on sRGB monitors.


And in general, not everything has to end up as a print! Monitors are for viewing too!
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Wayne Fox on July 27, 2010, 10:30:49 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
What made you think I was not shooting in RAW + Adobe RGB but JPG + Adobe RGB? Which I'm not. But if I was then....?
Because you said you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  If you are shooting in RAW, you are not shooting in a color space at all.  The adobeRGB setting on the camera only affects Jpegs. Just because you choose to have the camera render an 8bit AdobeRGB jpg along with storing the raw data while you shoot doesn't mean you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  And if you were then ...  you're pretty much stuck with what the camera firmware decided to do with your raw data, since most of the data no longer exists. meaning post processing will be a crap shoot at best.

Quote
And if the iMac is a "limited gamut" monitor how is it you're able to get a "decent match" with your printer? Also if it IS possible to get a "decent match" then what is the point of buying a wide gamut monitor (e.g. one that can do "97% of the Adobe RGB color space, 100+ % of the sRGB color space...etc.")? Why make them? Why not just make monitors that can't do 100% sRGB like the ones in the iMacs? Why shoot in Adobe RGB/RAW then if they monitor can't even display full sRGB (unless all you plan to do is post photos on the web and share with friends via email)?

All monitors, even the high end ones are gamut limited.  Your 7900 printer exceeds adobeRGB in many colors. If you don't want to limit the colors to your output device, you would need to work in 16bit/ProPhotoRGB (or just use lightroom which is it's built workflow).  But then what do you do? Even a monitor that approaches AdobeRGB can't show you all the colors your printer can print.

You don't need to "see" a color on the screen to be able to judge how it will "look" once printed. You don't see an image in AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB for that matter.  You see the color in the monitors color space.  Those colors have been modified by the color management system to simulate the visual relationships that we expect to see.  When you print the image, they will be modified to that devices color space, and in fact take advantage of the gamut of that space.  Making the mistake that AdobeRGB is a magical space that you capture, see, and print is a wrong understanding of color management.

I have a 27" iMac and numerous printers, including a 3800, 3880, 7900, 11880.  The screen match is no problem.  I also have setup a couple of Eizo's, Apple's 24" LED, and various other monitors. All work fine if profiled correctly.  The 27" iMac exceeds sRGB in every color.  No, it isn't as wide gamut as others, but the results on paper should not be hampered.

Here's a couple of graphs showing the 7900 against AdobeRGB.  Considering that monitors can't show theses colors either, does that mean you just want to clip them with your workflow? Color management just doesn't work that way - in fact this is the very problem it has been engineered to overcome.
[attachment=23357:aRGB_7900EEF_2.jpg][attachment=23358:aRGB_7900EEF.jpg]
(wireframe adobeRGB, solid Epson 7900 on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper)
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 28, 2010, 12:36:56 am
Quote from: Wayne Fox
Because you said you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  If you are shooting in RAW, you are not shooting in a color space at all.  The adobeRGB setting on the camera only affects Jpegs. Just because you choose to have the camera render an 8bit AdobeRGB jpg along with storing the raw data while you shoot doesn't mean you are shooting in AdobeRGB.  And if you were then ...  you're pretty much stuck with what the camera firmware decided to do with your raw data, since most of the data no longer exists. meaning post processing will be a crap shoot at best.

Didn't know that. So when shooting in RAW then I should leave the camera in the sRGB color space. I've been shooting in Adobe RGB because I read in Joe McNally's "Hot Shoe Diaries" that he prefers to shoot in Adobe RGB and in RAW. I assumed at the same time.

Quote from: Wayne Fox
You don't need to "see" a color on the screen to be able to judge how it will "look" once printed. You don't see an image in AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB for that matter.  You see the color in the monitors color space.  Those colors have been modified by the color management system to simulate the visual relationships that we expect to see.  When you print the image, they will be modified to that devices color space, and in fact take advantage of the gamut of that space.  Making the mistake that AdobeRGB is a magical space that you capture, see, and print is a wrong understanding of color management.

News to me. And this why I'm here.

But one question remains. At least for me. Which is...if the 27" iMac is sufficient for a good match then why would we need wide gamut monitors? Which I realize are just less gamut limited. Why bother?

In any case the 27" iMac is back on my short list of paths to take (vs. going with a Windows based desktop & wide gamut monitor). Thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 28, 2010, 01:31:48 am
Quote from: LeroyBrown
Didn't know that. So when shooting in RAW then I should leave the camera in the sRGB color space. I've been shooting in Adobe RGB because I read in Joe McNally's "Hot Shoe Diaries" that he prefers to shoot in Adobe RGB and in RAW. I assumed at the same time.



News to me. And this why I'm here.

But one question remains. At least for me. Which is...if the 27" iMac is sufficient for a good match then why would we need wide gamut monitors? Which I realize are just less gamut limited. Why bother?

In any case the 27" iMac is back on my short list of paths to take (vs. going with a Windows based desktop). Thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.


1. you can shoot the jpgs as either sRGB or AdobeRGB. If you plan to use them or more than quick, instant preview then it matters more. If you shoot sunsets, sunrises, intense blue-green water, neon colors, really brilliant flowes, really intensely saturated deep pink/purple flowers, in super golden evening lighting and along those lines it's better to have the jpgs in AdobeRGB so you don't miss out on important shades. For everything else it's a little bit better to just use sRGB since there is no point using a larger gamut in a small 8bit per channel format when you won't use the extra colors.

2. We might still want to have wide gamut monitors because:
a. they do cover more of the printer gamut than sRGB, sometimes even all, although sometimes lacking certain big chunks (while also allowing many shades that can't be printed to be displayed too, even sRGB has shades that can't be printed on some printers) and it never hurts to see more of what you are printing even if it's not crucial by any means

b. it can make editing certain images easier, someimages simply won't show correctly on sRGB and you can go crazy trying to make the deep purple petunia look as it did or the bright glowing highlights to the clouds during sunset or the bright and light but deeply saturated golden tone on ice or a rock look as it did and you'll never get there and maybe think you exposed it wrong or something and maybe you will go crazy with contrast of saturation trying to bring the look back and damage other parts of the photo; i mean obvious many people edit in sRGB though so it is not the end of the world, but it was interesting to see what I hadn't been seeing and realizing before.

c. displays have deeper blacks and better contrast ratio and can do things print's can't, it's cheap to and quick to view on screen compared to a print; so lots of people also like to view images on screen and a print is not always the only thing that counts
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 28, 2010, 10:38:21 am
Thanks Larry for your comment.

WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

If you are using a wide gamut monitor I'm assuming you have to in Adobe RGB mode?  Then calibrated with some colorimeter like a Colormunki Photo?
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: alainbriot on July 28, 2010, 01:49:21 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

Hi Leroy,

Raw is color space independent so it doesn't matter which color space you set your camera to. You select the color space you want when you convert your photograph. I personally prefer to use a wide color space such as ProPhoto.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 28, 2010, 02:58:21 pm
Quote from: alainbriot
Hi Leroy,

Raw is color space independent so it doesn't matter which color space you set your camera to. You select the color space you want when you convert your photograph. I personally prefer to use a wide color space such as ProPhoto.

What editor do you use? iPhoto doesn't have ProPhoto RGB setting. And I don't know what color space it uses automatically if it does when it converts RAW files. I know Adobe's LR automatically uses ProPhoto RGB color space to work in (I do have a copy of LR...not using it at the moment).

Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: alainbriot on July 29, 2010, 03:57:02 am
Quote from: LeroyBrown
What editor do you use? iPhoto doesn't have ProPhoto RGB setting. And I don't know what color space it uses automatically if it does when it converts RAW files. I know Adobe's LR automatically uses ProPhoto RGB color space to work in (I do have a copy of LR...not using it at the moment).

You can select the color space of your choice in any raw converter, regardless of what the automatic settings might be.  I personally use several raw converters but not iPhoto because it lacks many important features.  Aperture is Apple pro-level raw converter.  iPhoto is more souvenir/snapshot oriented.  Since you have LR, use it.  It's light years ahead of iPhoto!
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 29, 2010, 08:55:08 am
Quote from: alainbriot
You can select the color space of your choice in any raw converter, regardless of what the automatic settings might be.  I personally use several raw converters but not iPhoto because it lacks many important features.  Aperture is Apple pro-level raw converter.  iPhoto is more souvenir/snapshot oriented.  Since you have LR, use it.  It's light years ahead of iPhoto!

I have Aperture 2 as well as LR. Only reason I don't have either loaded on my MacBook Pro is I'm running low on HD space.  Will install LR on my new desktop compute when I get it early next year (or very late this year...about to sell my home..so no new toys till next yr..less to pack/ship). I'm just using iPhoto because it came with my MBP. I use it mainly as a browser.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 29, 2010, 04:46:39 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
Thanks Larry for your comment.

WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

If you are using a wide gamut monitor I'm assuming you have to in Adobe RGB mode?  Then calibrated with some colorimeter like a Colormunki Photo?

I had always just left it on sRGB.
Now that I see what I'm missing in some photos, especially sunsets, I often have it on aRGB although I try to turn it back to sRGB for stuff that doesn't involve anything intense (which is actually more stuff than not).

Actually though I usually don't bother to pay too much attention unless for some reason I am shooting JPG only or for some reason care about the JPG quality even when I am shooting RAW.

I used to use jpg+RAW a lot since it was nice to have instant previews you could zoom into at 100% for super quick review right away and the old ACR profiles were poor and I didn't have the charts and stuff to make my own. Now the RAW has a large jpg embedded and do more custom profiles I'm starting to not bothering adding in the JPG as often.


I actually leave my monitor in native gamut and don't use the AdobeRGB preset (of course you must use an .ICC profile and color-managed apps then). The monitor doesn't quite cover all of AdobeRGB and yet at the same time it's gamut it noticeably larger than AdobeRGB so for color-managed editing it really makes no sense to use the AdobeRGB preset. I calibrated it with the SV II + calibrated NEC i1D2 (also tested with an i1Pro that gave extremely similar results). A non-Eizo, non-NEC wide gamut like the lower and mid-priced Dell and HP ones you'd need something like the colormunki or i1pro or hope to get a well calibrated Spyder3. I have photoshop set to 16bit per-channel ProPhotoRGB (it's a bit of a shame PPRGB uses gamma 1.8 since almost nobody sets their screens that way andit just adds another step for the CMS to have to convert across).

Yeah you should absolutely use Aperture or LR instead of iPhoto.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 29, 2010, 08:13:02 pm
Quote from: LarryBaum
I had always just left it on sRGB.
Now that I see what I'm missing in some photos, especially sunsets, I often have it on aRGB although I try to turn it back to sRGB for stuff that doesn't involve anything intense (which is actually more stuff than not).

Actually though I usually don't bother to pay too much attention unless for some reason I am shooting JPG only or for some reason care about the JPG quality even when I am shooting RAW.

I actually leave my monitor in native gamut and don't use the AdobeRGB preset (of course you must use an .ICC profile and color-managed apps then). The monitor doesn't quite cover all of AdobeRGB and yet at the same time it's gamut it noticeably larger than AdobeRGB so for color-managed editing it really makes no sense to use the AdobeRGB preset. I calibrated it with the SV II + calibrated NEC i1D2 (also tested with an i1Pro that gave extremely similar results). A non-Eizo, non-NEC wide gamut like the lower and mid-priced Dell and HP ones you'd need something like the colormunki or i1pro or hope to get a well calibrated Spyder3. I have photoshop set to 16bit per-channel ProPhotoRGB (it's a bit of a shame PPRGB uses gamma 1.8 since almost nobody sets their screens that way andit just adds another step for the CMS to have to convert across).

I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now. That and I read that there really isn't much difference in image quality between JPG and RAW. Difference is RAW contains a lot more data (depending on the compression mode used) so if you like to do a lot of color post processing...

All wide gamut monitors have a "native gamut mode"? I assumed people would choose to use the aRGB preset. Why have it if people aren't using it? Or for that matter...why sRGB?

As for colorimeters...I'll likely pickup a Colormunki Photo ($540.00 CAD). Was looking at the Spyder 3 but read some reviews. Said the results were negligibly better. i1 Extreme ($1800.00 CAD...calibrates multiple devices like the Colormunki Photo)  is terrific but overkill for any one not running a processing lab or some graphic arts business.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 30, 2010, 12:25:25 am
Quote from: LeroyBrown
I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now. That and I read that there really isn't much difference in image quality between JPG and RAW. Difference is RAW contains a lot more data (depending on the compression mode used) so if you like to do a lot of color post processing...

All wide gamut monitors have a "native gamut mode"? I assumed people would choose to use the aRGB preset. Why have it if people aren't using it? Or for that matter...why sRGB?

As for colorimeters...I'll likely pickup a Colormunki Photo ($540.00 CAD). Was looking at the Spyder 3 but read some reviews. Said the results were negligibly better. i1 Extreme ($1800.00 CAD...calibrates multiple devices like the Colormunki Photo)  is terrific but overkill for any one not running a processing lab or some graphic arts business.

Every monitor has to have a native gamut by definition, that's what the monitors lighting plus filters/phosphors/etc. put out, it does what it does.

There is no sense in using anything other than native gamut in a color-managed program since that gives you all it can do and nothing more (not possible) and nothing less (not desirable). Many people do change the native white point and native gamma but the gamut should certainly be used native.

Some people have no calibration tool and don't want to buy anything more so if they put it in AdobeRGB mode then it's already pre-calibrated to that (to better or worser degrees depending upon the monitor) and then any program will work fine. Without a calibration tool and software even color-managed stuff will fail.

sRGB emulation modes are very important for those who ever want to do anything beyond photo editing and viewing. Games, blu-ray and DVD player software, tv tuner card software, the pc desktop, none of that stuff is color-managed and it will all look nasty on a wide gamut monitor unless it has a good sRGB emulation mode. If for some reason you MUST use IE and not something nice and color-managed like Firefox, then you need sRGB emulation mode for that too.

yeah the i1Pro is expensive at around $800ish (i1 extreme at $1800 sounds like some fancier package, for a monitor all you'd need is the i1Basic which includes the i1Pro but even still it's $800, not cheap as I said)

Before you rush into a colormunki though, first see what monitor you get, if it turns out to be an Eizo or NEC you might actually get results as good or better using their custom calibrated i1D2 or DTP94b pucks than with the colormunki for only $199.

RAW is nice since if you mess up the white balance you can change it later, although Nikons have in camera chromatic aberration removal, Canon cameras do not yet and shooting RAW you can remove that later and with some lenses it can radically improve image quality, you can also do a LOT more with the exposure and bringing out detail in shadows and taming highlights that might look blown on JPG. etc.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: LeroyBrown on July 30, 2010, 01:24:09 am
Quote from: LarryBaum
Every monitor has to have a native gamut by definition, that's what the monitors lighting plus filters/phosphors/etc. put out, it does what it does.

There is no sense in using anything other than native gamut in a color-managed program since that gives you all it can do and nothing more (not possible) and nothing less (not desirable). Many people do change the native white point and native gamma but the gamut should certainly be used native.

Some people have no calibration tool and don't want to buy anything more so if they put it in AdobeRGB mode then it's already pre-calibrated to that (to better or worser degrees depending upon the monitor) and then any program will work fine. Without a calibration tool and software even color-managed stuff will fail.

sRGB emulation modes are very important for those who ever want to do anything beyond photo editing and viewing. Games, blu-ray and DVD player software, tv tuner card software, the pc desktop, none of that stuff is color-managed and it will all look nasty on a wide gamut monitor unless it has a good sRGB emulation mode. If for some reason you MUST use IE and not something nice and color-managed like Firefox, then you need sRGB emulation mode for that too.

yeah the i1Pro is expensive at around $800ish (i1 extreme at $1800 sounds like some fancier package, for a monitor all you'd need is the i1Basic which includes the i1Pro but even still it's $800, not cheap as I said)

Before you rush into a colormunki though, first see what monitor you get, if it turns out to be an Eizo or NEC you might actually get results as good or better using their custom calibrated i1D2 or DTP94b pucks than with the colormunki for only $199.

RAW is nice since if you mess up the white balance you can change it later, although Nikons have in camera chromatic aberration removal, Canon cameras do not yet and shooting RAW you can remove that later and with some lenses it can radically improve image quality, you can also do a LOT more with the exposure and bringing out detail in shadows and taming highlights that might look blown on JPG. etc.

Ok. Good to know about native mode and sRGB mode.

As for colorimeters...I would want one that could not only calibrate my new monitor but also my printer. As that has to be calibrated too.  So while the i1D2 might be good or better than the Colormunki Photo for less it might be only good for one use. The i1 Extreme calibrates your digital camera, wide gamut monitor, photo printer, projector...etc. But as I said...for $1800.00 CAD?? I don't think so. Not for me. Till (if) I make my living as a photographer or own a developing business could I justify the cost.
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 30, 2010, 04:04:16 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
Ok. Good to know about native mode and sRGB mode.

As for colorimeters...I would want one that could not only calibrate my new monitor but also my printer. As that has to be calibrated too.  So while the i1D2 might be good or better than the Colormunki Photo for less it might be only good for one use. The i1 Extreme calibrates your digital camera, wide gamut monitor, photo printer, projector...etc. But as I said...for $1800.00 CAD?? I don't think so. Not for me. Till (if) I make my living as a photographer or own a developing business could I justify the cost.

well i think you can get the printer module for $100 or something but yeah it's still like around $1000 total, quite a lot

the colormunki is a lot less!
Title: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: WombatHorror on July 30, 2010, 04:06:52 pm
Quote from: LeroyBrown
I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now.

Although strictly speaking, for regular scenes without sunset/flowery/tropical ocean/etc. colors, which probably accounts for more photos than not, sRGB works a tiny bit better since it doesn't waste so much of the limited 8bit per channel jpg format on colors not even used anyway but it's probably fine to just leave it on AdobeRGB though instead of bothering to switch back and forth.
Title: Re: IMAC 27" for Photo Editing
Post by: Ginny23 on September 08, 2012, 06:51:18 am
That was so helpful - thank you - I've always been concerned about the screen's brightness and now you've given me two tips - to use Colormonki and turn the brightness down by 50%. I do a lot of wedding photography editing and the imac sounds like a good and affordable(ish!) workstation for it.