Glossy : I want someone to explain to me.

[Digital Skunk]

I won't disagree - I get more consistent and pleasant results out of my ACD than my MBP, so that's where I usually print from.

I actually have a friend that takes off the glass front on his iMac and calibrates right to the glossy LCD. He seems to have good luck with that, but what a pain in the ass.

Just wish Apple would, at least in the pro offerings, give us a choice.

If they go all glossy on their ACD's, which looks like the case, I'll have to get my displays elsewhere, or buy used ones online, which is saying a lot considering my blind Apple allegiance.

Anywhoo...

True, I have accepted the limitations on MBP/laptop panels mainly because the printing/post has always been off by a bit whenever I do tone on the lappy. It's really just my opinion backed up by popular reads though.

But, I do know that the 24" iMac has given me spot on color, right up there with my very un-calibrated 30" at the paper. No gray walls, not too much calibration, just the ICC profiles and numbers that the print house gave us poor neglected toners.

Which reminds me. Ever since desktop printing and ICC profiles in digital have taken off, toning and proofing has gotten SICK EASY. For someone to tell me that they have a current DSLR/P&S, printer, and computer and can't get accurate color in their workflow leads me to believe they are just doing something wrong.

And yes, still sitting on the fence about spending $1200 for a NEC, or 2x 23" ACDs. I know Apple won't come through with matte ACDs with FW.

 

[StealthRider]

I actually have a friend that takes off the glass front on his iMac and calibrates right to the glossy LCD. He seems to have good luck with that, but what a pain in the ass.

Got that right. And ugly, too...I'm surprised no one's come up with an aftermarket solution yet.

 

[okrelayer]

you know, what i want to know is what photo editors are laying on a lawn chair in the middle of summer at a florida beach trying to edit in Photoshop with all that darn glare!

 

[riker1384]

Everybody talks about print, like that's the ultimate measure of a monitor. (It may be, to a graphics professional.) But surely paper has its own limitations. What about real life? Does anyone ever try to figure out which kinds of monitors have colors that are closest to what we see in reality? If I look at a photgraph on my computer, I'd rather have it look like the actual scene, instead of looking like that photo would like if it was printed.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Everybody talks about print, like that's the ultimate measure of a monitor. (It may be, to a graphics professional.) But surely paper has its own limitations. What about real life? Does anyone ever try to figure out which kinds of monitors have colors that are closest to what we see in reality? If I look at a photgraph on my computer, I'd rather have it look like the actual scene, instead of looking like that photo would like if it was printed.

To a true color professional, they are one in the same. That is the ultimate goal of a photo technician or anyone that is a color professional.

True that some put together works that aren't true to life, but a good deal of pros (journalism for example) have to work and tone true to life.

 

[riker1384]

To a true color professional, they are one in the same. That is the ultimate goal of a photo technician or anyone that is a color professional.

True that some put together works that aren't true to life, but a good deal of pros (journalism for example) have to work and tone true to life.

Yeah, but paper or photo-paper has physical limitations. For instance, it's limited by the ambient brightneess of the room, whereas a display can get brighter in some spots if need be. If I'm looking at a picture with the Sun or a streetlamp on it, it will shine brighter on a screen. Both mediums have their limitations, but if you're judging a display entirely by how close it is to print, you're adding paper's limitations to that of the display.

I'm not a professional, I'm a consumer, and I'm wondering if there's any data on how displays compare to reality. I would think that the television industry would be interested in that, at least, as opposed to the print medium which seems to always come up in discussions about monitors.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Yeah, but paper or photo-paper has physical limitations. For instance, it's limited by the ambient brightneess of the room, whereas a display can get brighter in some spots if need be. If I'm looking at a picture with the Sun or a streetlamp on it, it will shine brighter on a screen. Both mediums have their limitations, but if you're judging a display entirely by how close it is to print, you're adding paper's limitations to that of the display.

I'm not a professional, I'm a consumer, and I'm wondering if there's any data on how displays compare to reality. I would think that the television industry would be interested in that, at least, as opposed to the print medium which seems to always come up in discussions about monitors.

Very true indeed brother. You understand something that many so called pros on this site don't. Though, the paper isn't the limiting factor, the gamut of the printer will be. Or should I say, the limited amount of color the printer can produce compared to our eyes.

But, at the same time our eyes can lead us wrong as well. Our eyes change due to temperature, amount of other colors, amount of light, shadow, etc. Our eyes actually adjust 1000's of times more than an LCD, not to say that the LCD is accurate, just that reproducing "life-like" colors based on reality would vary depending on whose eye/what environment we would compare to.

My old-fart professors and my own mantra is: tone by the numbers. In the RGB color space Red will always and forever be R=255, B=0, G=0 even if your screen is turned negative or black and white.