In a workshop the trainer sad.
The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.
but:
The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.
I start my work in digital photography and I'm an absolute greenhorn.
OK I know that both monitors are not the best for digital work.
My question:
Is the trainers statement right and what can be the reason ?
The next lesson is in one month so I cannot ask the trainer.
I think both screens are LED and both adjustable in settings > Monitor > Color > Calibration.
Can someone help me.
Jochen
Hi,OK.
I presume the trainer has Mac Book Pro... And I think he is mistaken!
A good screen would be angle independent and have at least full 8bit olor. Portables in general have TN-screens that fail both criteria.My MBP has
Some iMacs have IPS (In Plan Switching) screens that are quite OK.I don't know what you mean. My English isn't good ;-(
Some have Used to have TN (Twisted Neumatics?) screens. Avoid TN!OK in future, see below
Older iMacs had limited brightness adjustment, the newer ones are rumpred to be better.I don't found the translation for rumpred.
A MacMini and a hardware calibrated Monitor may be a nice alternative.At the moment I use a MBP buyed in 2009 and a iMac buyed in 2011
The iMac screen is better than the MBP screen for photo editing.
I've edited close to 1000 Raws on a 2004 20" G5 iMac and get good screen to print matches with all of them.
Use the iMac.
Thanks for answer
OK.
My MBP has
Farb-LCD:
Auflösung: 1920 x 1200
Pixeltiefe: 32-Bit Farbe (ARGB8888)
Is that OK ?
I don't know what you mean. My English isn't good ;-(
OK in future, see below
I don't found the translation for rumpred.
Do you mean like changing ?
At the moment I use a MBP buyed in 2009 and a iMac buyed in 2011
Jochen (.de)
In a workshop the trainer sad.
The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.
but:
The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.
In a workshop the trainer sad.
The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.
Can someone help me.
Jochen
I am a MacBook Air (Intel i7 based) user and I work also with the iMac 27" (Intel i5).I agree. And that is what you are paying for. A 27" Eizo CG275W is around US $3200-3300.00. The NEC PA271W is around $1200.00, so yes I'd hope they are better displays than the iMac.
I am happy with the iMac 27" screen but I need to say that recent Eizos and Nec are better.
The problem of the iMac 27" is not only a gamut problem but is mainly a problem with homogeneity (the screen is noticeably less uniform than other monitor that I regularly use)
... and with the "double glass" in front of the monitor (this is how a guy working in the Apple store called it) that makes it not very easy to calibrate and create profile for this monitor
and this also means that the monitor is not anti-glare (this could be a serious issue in many working environments).
There are many parameter that ColorThink can't tell you.
Many printers exceed in some areas the gamut of the best monitors available today.
I think that, for many "amateur photographers", a good solution could be the Mac Mini with a Nec PA271W or PA241W. This are just my 2 cents.
I agree. And that is what you are paying for. A 27" Eizo CG275W is around US $3200-3300.00. The NEC PA271W is around $1200.00, so yes I'd hope they are better displays than the iMac.
The problem of the iMac 27" is not only a gamut problem but is mainly a problem with homogeneity (the screen is noticeably less uniform than other monitor that I regularly use)
I have validated my profiles and yes there is a difference between the corners of the 27" iMac display and the center.
Disagree strongly with that. I've profiled ours with Spyder 3, i1 Photo Pro (current), ColorMunki Display and i1 Display Pro. It profiles very easily and accurately.
glare can be an issue but if you are doing critical color work you should also be taking care with your working environment as well: ambient lighting levels and the area surrounding the display have a large phsyiological effect on the way we perceive color and subtle tonal value separations. . This holds true for any and every display.
Please elaborate.
Agreed! One thing Joseph Holmes (http://www.josephhomes.com ) suggested to me recently was to make a soft proofing preset of your display profile so you can see which if any colors in a shot are outside of your display's gamut.
The Mac Mini is an interesting option and one I have seriously considered but it is an option that has limitations the current iMacs do not.
1) Currently there are only i7 dual core options available. The current iMacs are quad core-- and faster processor speed.
2) Mac mini is limited to 8GB RAM, the 27" iMacs will support at least 16GB. However OWC ( http://eshop.macsales.com) has 16GB kits for the Mac Mini (US $580) and up to 32GB for the most recent iMacs (US $ 1130.00)
Disagree strongly with that. I've profiled ours with Spyder 3, i1 Photo Pro (current), ColorMunki Display and i1 Display Pro. It profiles very easily and accurately.
glare can be an issue but if you are doing critical color work you should also be taking care with your working environment as well: ambient lighting levels and the area surrounding the display have a large phsyiological effect on the way we perceive color and subtle tonal value separations. . This holds true for any and every display.
Please elaborate.
Agreed! One thing Joseph Holmes (http://www.josephhomes.com ) suggested to me recently was to make a soft proofing preset of your display profile so you can see which if any colors in a shot are outside of your display's gamut.
The Mac Mini is an interesting option and one I have seriously considered but it is an option that has limitations the current iMacs do not.
1) Currently there are only i7 dual core options available. The current iMacs are quad core-- and faster processor speed.
2) Mac mini is limited to 8GB RAM, the 27" iMacs will support at least 16GB. However OWC ( http://eshop.macsales.com) has 16GB kits for the Mac Mini (US $580) and up to 32GB for the most recent iMacs (US $ 1130.00)
With ColorThink you can’t see if your display is uniform, if it has a good angle of view, if the gradients are “homogeneous”.
Yeah, I don't think Apple's hurting in the sales department. I also think that they hardly give a rat's ass about what professional users want, as evidenced by the way the Mac Pro still doesn't have Thunderbolt, the demise of the X-Serve and the new simplified Final Cut X. Apple has become a decidedly consumer focused company and the fact that their machines are still the best option for professional graphics use is happenstance. I'm not convinced that it will always be the case.The mac pro goes out of business soon.
You can pretty much forget about a matte iMac screen and either go with an (out of date) Mac Pro and third-party monitors or buy some black out curtains and be careful with your placement of lights.
In a workshop the trainer sad.
The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.
but:
The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.
I start my work in digital photography and I'm an absolute greenhorn.
OK I know that both monitors are not the best for digital work.
The mac pro goes out of business soon.That may not be true. I know there where some rumors, based on some Apple's announcements,