squareframe Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 <p>I guess I am thinking that this obsessive nature with colour accuracy is something difficult for me to relate to. after decades of Windows torment, I opted to buy a 27' I7 iMac and haven't looked back. I have never had so much fun with a computer! now, to be fair ... I print mostly all B&W. I love the iMac monitor and have never given any thought about colour management, because after I bought my Epson 4900, connected it via Ethernet and pressed 'Print' in Lightroom, the colours on my colour prints appear to match exactly what I see on the monitor. dare I say, 'it just works', and indeed it does. and this is great news, so that I may concentrate on other aspects of my photography. look at the numbers and make your decision. for me, it's been a beautiful marriage of technology and art. -daniel</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricklavoie Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 <p>with years, i learn that many people cant afford or cant justify the cost of a 1000$ + monitor.. so i start suggesting lower cost monitor that work ie; that i have see with my own 2 eyes.</p> <p>This is why i will suggest the dell u2410 over many highend monitor, and also why i sure that a Imac is more than enough for most if not any kind of user. Of course, all that Andrew says is true; but honestly, how many user are pro user here? how many can justify the cost of such a (amazing) monitor... and how many will see the difference with there image... from there, even if the NEC is the big daddy of them all, that i will never work without one.. i understand that not everybody do this for a living and for that reason the Imac27 and the dell are 2 excellent choice ; )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldog Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Of course, all that Andrew says is true; but honestly, how many user are pro user here? how many can justify the cost of such a (amazing) monitor.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you can produce a soft proof and a single print, or if you KNOW the RGB document you open today and in a year will appear identical, that’s worth something. Is it worth it to you? I can’t make that judgement. I can say that its interesting how people will spend money on a slightly faster processor, or more RAM, or even a larger yet inferior display and feel that’s a good investment. Again, its not my money. But its an interesting trend. I believe that the idea that you have to be a pro to buy quality components may not be sound. And when we are sure we want something, we can easily justify the cost to ourselves, amateur, prosumer or Pro. </p> Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I dont know Andrew i get get good prints from my printer usually first time. I don t often check my RGB nimbers on a yearly basis but i wouldn't be afraid to calibrate and print. As said before if you need that then pay the price and get that. Most photographers, amature and pro don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>"I believe that the idea that you have to be a pro to buy quality components may not be sound. And when we are sure we want something, we can easily justify the cost to ourselves, amateur, prosumer or Pro."</p> <p>I don't agree with this.</p> <p>I'm not a Pro and so there is no way in Hades that I would justify a Nikon D3, but as an amateur , I could justify a Nikon D7000. It is MUCH easier to justify what you actually make money with, as apposed to a big hit to the check book with no return. The same goes with monitors. Get as good as you can afford, that has the features you want. Use it as long as you can. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkstudios Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 <p>The new Thunderbolt 27" is not backwards compatible, i.e., there is no 'old' display port interface for 'old' Macs. That's ridiculous. Just beware of that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricklavoie Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 <p>i think if i remembr correctly that the new thunderbolt monitor is backward compatible with anything that have a mini display port?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkstudios Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 <p>Nope! That would be too easy. To make sure they really pull you in, if u buy a Thunderbolt display, u have to upgrade your Mac.</p> <p><a href="http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914">http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkstudios Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 <p>Sorry, I should have shown this. Oh, and yes, I did buy one, and yes, it does not work with my MacBook Pro (but does with my new MacBook Air).</p> <p> </p> <h4>Thunderbolt Display compatibility.</h4> <p>Thunderbolt-enabled Macs, including the current generations of MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and iMac are fully compatible with the Apple Thunderbolt Display. Customers with Macs that only support Mini DisplayPort output, such as the Mac Pro and MacBook, as well as previous generations of MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac mini, and iMac can use the <a href="http://store.apple.com/go/product/APPLE_LED_CD-101978">27-inch LED Cinema Display</a>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now