iMac Retina 5k and making prints

[tonysiciliano1]

I currently use a 30 inch NEC (not 4k, 99% Adobe RGB) with my Mac Pro 2013 and print using an Epson 3880. I am considering upgrading to the 5k 27 inch iMac and am interested in hearing from those who printed on a decent monitor and then made the switch to the 5K retina display. What has your experience been using it for printing? Did you have to change your printing process/workflow? Is there much of a learning curve switching to the 5k? I've calibrated my NEC at 85 cd/m2 to get prints that match in brightness. Is calibrating the brighness that low a problem on the 5K? Any regrets in using the 5k for printing? Are you satisfied with your prints? Thanks!!

[David Eichler]

I currently use a 30 inch NEC (not 4k, 99% Adobe RGB) with my Mac Pro 2013 and print using an Epson 3880. I am considering upgrading to the 5k 27 inch iMac and am interested in hearing from those who printed on a decent monitor and then made the switch to the 5K retina display. What has your experience been using it for printing? Did you have to change your printing process/workflow? Is there much of a learning curve switching to the 5k? I've calibrated my NEC at 85 cd/m2 to get prints that match in brightness. Is calibrating the brighness that low a problem on the 5K? Any regrets in using the 5k for printing? Are you satisfied with your prints? Thanks!!

 What is stopping you from continuing to use your NEC monitor for printing?

[elliot_n]

I'm interested in this question too. Similar to the OP, I currently use a 27" Eizo CG275 (not 4K) and print to an Epson 3880. In terms of detail, does a 5K monitor give a better preview of the final print (let's say a 16"x20" print), when the image is displayed in Photoshop as 'fit to screen'? If I had a 5K monitor, would I spend less time zooming in and out of the image to get a sense of what details are going to be printed?

[tonysiciliano1]

David wrote: What is stopping you from continuing to use your NEC monitor for printing?

Not enough room on my desk for two monitors!

[digitaldog]

In terms of WYSIWYG (color and tone), a good reference display, properly calibrated and profiled is going to be a lot more useful than higher resolution on-screen IMHO. I'd take a lower resolution SpectraView over anything Apple offers at a higher resolution.

[faberryman]

In terms of WYSIWYG (color and tone), a good reference display, properly calibrated and profiled is going to be a lot more useful than higher resolution on-screen IMHO. I'd take a lower resolution SpectraView over anything Apple offers at a higher resolution.

Can you not calibrate an Apple monitor?

[digitaldog]

Can you not calibrate an Apple monitor?

You can but not to the degree you can with a SpectraView or similar color reference display system.



1.Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's and most other's are not (sRGB like gamut)
with the exception of the newer DCI P3 displays. But SpectraView can emulate sRGB with a push of a button. The new P3 iMac
cannot. Best of both worlds!
2.SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, many other's do not. These
high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of
displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.
3. Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run
far longer than CCFL.
4. SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty.
5. SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter).
6. SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using
individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compension for operating time and
temperature.
7. SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing
various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this.
8. SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target
calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other
products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: “SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using
Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter
and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor
settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all
of the necessary settings are made by the software“. Apple and other's has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you
have to pay for extra do this. This is an attribute built from the ground up in SpectraView to serve as a 'reference display
system' ala Barco, PressView, Sony Artisan of the past.
9. SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration. The price you pay for software and
colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly less than buying the hardware and
software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.
10. SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each
panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the
calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration.
11. SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly, so it can simulate a non wide gamut display
(sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)
12. SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, few others can provide this control over black. Real
useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers).
13. SpectraView has Network support (Windows only).
14. SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake.
15. SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90
degrees for Portrait.
16. Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).




More differences in the two (PA vs. EA):
On the USB side, the PA272W has a 2 port KVM switch while the EA Series do not.
The PA272W has a backlight sensor to keep the brightness and white point stable; the EA Series do not.
The Picture Modes on the PA272W are infinitely customizable (with or without MultiProfiler), the EA Series are limited
The uniformity control on the PA272W is 5 levels (4 + off), the EA is on or off.
ColorComp = Uniformity control (on/off on EA, more advanced control on P/PA)
No 3D LUT on any EA model (only P and PA).
GammComp I'm told is outdated terminology.
Now a big difference; EA or other displays that doesn’t have a “SpectraView Engine” (color processor). What's that? In short it does:
1. Uniformity correction
2. Aging compensation
3. Temperature compensation
4. Orientation compensation
5. 3x 1D LUTs
6. 3D LUTs
7. Color gamut mapping
8. Gamma correction
9. Black level correction
10. Ambient light measurement and compensation
11. Backlight luminance measurement and stabilization
12. Picture-in-Picture / Picture-by-Picture
13. Color blindness simulation
14. Metamerism correction
15. Hue/Saturation/Offset adjustment

[faberryman]

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

[tonysiciliano1]

Thank you for your detailed response. I am a hobbyist photographer who makes prints for myself and friends and occasionally for showing at local galleries. I do have a good eye for matching prints to the monitor, and even with a monitor calibrated with the SpectraView system, usually have to make 5-10 test prints to get it right. I am sure the points you bring up would be important to a professional photographer or graphic artist who is sending photos to various venues for publication or printing, but do they really matter in my situation? I would love to keep my NEC monitor, but  I probably will need to upgrade my system at some point soon. My Mac Pro 2013 will hopefully be able to upgrade to the next Mac OS, but probably not the one after that, and it is slowing down considerably since I have started using luminosity masks on most of my photo edits on 31 megapixel photos. The iMac is the only Mac product that makes sense for me and I really don't want to switch to a PC. I don't have room on my desk for two large monitors. So, the real world question is what do the differences you mention translate to? Will my first test print be more "off" with a Retina Display than with my NEC? Will I have to do more test prints to get it right? Will making a print with accurate color, brightness, and contrast be a lot more difficult? A little bit more difficult? Not more difficult, just different? Etc, etc. Thanks again!

[David Eichler]

Thank you for your detailed response. I am a hobbyist photographer who makes prints for myself and friends and occasionally for showing at local galleries. I do have a good eye for matching prints to the monitor, and even with a monitor calibrated with the SpectraView system, usually have to make 5-10 test prints to get it right. I am sure the points you bring up would be important to a professional photographer or graphic artist who is sending photos to various venues for publication or printing, but do they really matter in my situation? I would love to keep my NEC monitor, but  I probably will need to upgrade my system at some point soon. My Mac Pro 2013 will hopefully be able to upgrade to the next Mac OS, but probably not the one after that, and it is slowing down considerably since I have started using luminosity masks on most of my photo edits on 31 megapixel photos. The iMac is the only Mac product that makes sense for me and I really don't want to switch to a PC. I don't have room on my desk for two large monitors. So, the real world question is what do the differences you mention translate to? Will my first test print be more "off" with a Retina Display than with my NEC? Will I have to do more test prints to get it right? Will making a print with accurate color, brightness, and contrast be a lot more difficult? A little bit more difficult? Not more difficult, just different? Etc, etc. Thanks again!

Really depends upon how critical and how good a printer you are, I suppose. With the Apple monitor, I would guess that most people would need to do more test prints than with a properly calibrated and profiled graphic arts monitor.

[Dan Wells]

I use an EIZO ColorEdge (the entry-level 27" one around $1300) for print reference, and it's a lot better than any "standard" display. Interestingly, my MacBook Pro's internal screen (2017, 15") is considerably closer to the Eizo than a five or six year old 27" "Adobe RGB" Dell monitor I have around, and this is just as true right after I've calibrated everything. I keep the Dell around for tool palettes and thumbnails because two 27" monitors (running the MBP closed) is much more comfortable than 15" plus 27". When Eizo releases a 4K or better monitor in the entry level of their ColorEdge series (the current 4K Eizos are $6000), I'll get one of those and go to an all-Eizo setup, using the current monitor as I now use the Dell.

The fact that the MBP is closer to a really good monitor than the Dell suggests that a 27" iMac should be closer still. One thing to remember is that Mac internal displays aren't Adobe RGB - they're DCI-P3, a filmmakers' standard that is about the same gamut size, but not the same shape. Of course, the "Adobe RGB" Dell suggests that not all monitors sold as Adobe RGB really are, either (I think Macs calibrate to DCI-P3 pretty reliably). Many good monitors cover both DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB.

[digitaldog]

The colorimetric difference between Adobe RGB and DCI-P3 are rather insignificant.

[rdonson]

The 27" iMac is only 5K if you choose to use that resolution.  There are 5 resolutions you can choose from in "Settings".

The default resolution is 2560x1440 which for me, is a very good resolution for Lr and PS.  Both apps zoom nicely so I don't feel the need to use a higher resolution.  I'm not a professional photographer although I do show some of my prints at a local art center.  I have no qualms printing with my Epson SC P800 having calibrated my iMac with an X-Rite i1Display Pro.  I don't feel the need to make very many test prints.  Things work well enough for me. 

For 4K video in FCP X I will take a critical look using the 5K resolution, 5120x2880, to make sure things look as they should before exporting.  If you're using 4K resolution video I do find that Vimeo is a better place to show that video than YouTube. 

Hope this helps,