Can I work remotely on a laptop and not have to rework in "mothership"

<p>I may soon have a contract (not photographic) which involves being away from homebase during the week for a couple of years. I would like to think I could use the evenings to do my (huge backlog) of photo editing on a laptop. However, I just cannot see any way of doing this where I could then just print them off when I got home without starting all over again - the images are not going to look the same on the ACD . I have a set up which satisfies me currently with an Apple ACD 23" monitor, Huey Pro and Epson 3800, using the generic profiles for my printer from the paper manufacturers.</p>

<p>Even if I got a new laptop with a better screen, calibrated it and plugged it straight into the Epson, it would give a sort of solution, but would presumably less accurate because no laptop screen can be as accurate as the ACD (even though that is far from being the best). Can anyone think of a solution? </p>

<p>Alternatively, I can spend the time editing and scanning slides!</p>

<p>Are you going to be in the same place when away from homebase? If so, get a second, decent, screen, then calibrate it and run it from your laptop.</p>

<p>Peter - it would still be different to my calibrated home system - also even hi-spec windows laptops seem only to have analogue outputs for external monitor. I was wondering about the possibility of building a set of edits that could be applied as an adjustment layer when images uploaded to home desktop I guess they would have to be kept in phase with succesive recalibartions of both desktop monitor and laptop.</p>

<p>Nigel, I thought that one of the reasons for doing the whole calibrate your monitor dance was to enable consistency between monitors as well as between monitors and printers. Am I wrong about that? I had hoped that when you and I (or my print lab and I) look at the same file with our calibrated monitors we see the same colours and tones, not different interpretations of what each system thinks they should be. And is it not possible to get a decent monitor with analogue input anymore? Any way, have you tried a test to see just how different two prints are - one edited on the laptop using a calibrated monitor, the other using the Apple screen, but both printed from the main home system on the 3800?</p>

<p>Peter - I thought what calibration gave you was consistencey between what you saw on the screen and what comes out of the printer, not consistency between different set-ups. You are right I should try compare the output from same printer with input from a) cailbrated laptop and b) calibrated desktop. However the laptop screen has some shortcomings in trying to optimise image adjustment. I'm still going to try my idea of an adjustment layer.</p>

<p>Calibration for a monitor is only good if the monitor is good. But assuming that you have good monitors, calibration, and embedding profiles, is all about making a file that will be consistent across any good properly calibrated system--and any output device-yours or anothers. They may not look perfectly alike, but they should be close enough that unless the two monitors were side by side, you would not know the difference.</p>

<p>I recently completed a 30 day trip around the US and posted photos on my blog as I traveled. I used my "calibrated" MacBookPro and knew that the images would not be perfect, but acceptable. The images, upon returning home, looked a bit dark and muddy. I didn't save the processed files, quick edits, but had no expectation that they would be worth saving. Depending on what type of work you do in post, you might find that your files will only need a consistent "tweak" when you get to your main computer. My images, had I kept them, probably could have been corrected with a fairly consistent curves layer. The problem for me is that I do a lot more to my files than what I did on the road--generally I have 10-20 layers by the time I am done--and tweaking at the end might not be so practical--maybe?</p>

<p>Anyway, the best solution is a good monitor hooked up to the laptop or if you are going to be gone that long, maybe another tower system--In fact, I might take my tower with me. When you go to print at home, the laptop could handle that as your embedded profiles are all that matters to the printer not what or how your monitor looks on the laptop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>even hi-spec windows laptops seem only to have analogue outputs for external monitor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, you're wrong here. Both the MacBook Pros and many, many Windows laptops are available with DVI outputs (full digital). My Dell laptop at home uses DVI, and it's 3 years old. If you're really worried about the quality of your laptop monitor, just bring along your fancy monitor from home. Personally, I think the quality of a MacBook Pro monitor is adequate if calibrated.</p>

<p>Ive been using a Laptop exclusively for four years, without problems.<br>

Switching from laptop to laptop has not created any problems. My current laptop has a 2 inch screen, not huge, certainly sufficient for use in a Motorhome traveling around the country. Just calibrate the laptop screen. Do have a separate screen that I bought to use, but this has served so well that have never used it.</p>

<p>wow, a 2 inch screen??? that is kinda small for editing...lol<br>

I have used a 17" laptop monitor for the past couple of years and I have no problems with editing..granted I don't do any hardcore editing, just touch up, little contrast here, little saturation there type of thing</p>

<p>I don't know if anyone gets the irony here? Mid gray is mid gray is mid gray. The only reason I believe that the numbers come up different is if you are working in one environment (1.8 vs 2.2 gamma) and "assign" the other. Otherwise, in a color managed environment they will be the same. For instance, I work in a 1.8 gamma profile, on a screen calibrated at 2.2 gamma and print in both environments. Doesn't matter, that is what the profiles are for. But before the Lambda printers could read color profiles and with the Costco/quick print machines that still can't, if I don't convert to a 2.2 gamma space like sRGB, then my prints will be dark--otherwise they are fine.</p>

<p>If mid gray were different on different machines, each would create a different photo density for output and then we would be in deep doo-doo!</p>

<p>PLEASE DISREGARD MY LAST POST, IT WAS MEANT FOR ANOTHER THREAD.</p>