alan_cox3

<p>Hi Andrew,</p> <p>I appreciate your comments, (and am aware of your expertise and have read and followed many of your past discussions).</p> <p>The only further comment that I would have is that in my experience, a single print will be ACCEPTABLE if the two display conditions are somewhat close together (ie. normal room lighting) However, I've found that the "print boxes" used in photographic competitions are VERY bright and require darker prints. On the other hand some galleries don't even have what I would consider normal room lighting. (They are trying to protect the longevity of the prints.) So to get OPTIMAL prints, I've found that I have to match them to the expected illumination levels. I don't make "print after print". I just try to make one slightly lighter, (a normal one), and one slightly darker. That way my final decision is made based on real prints, and I'm confirming that the final print cannot be improved upon. Regards.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew,<br /> Yes, my monitor is in fact calibrated. And it will match a print set up in an appropriate viewing station very well. But I don't want to keep fiddling with the calibration on my monitor just to compensate for the widely varying conditions that I expect to display my prints. (The illumination used in contests and venues can vary by orders of magnitude!)</p> <p>I also don't need to print 20 images a day, and I'm just fussy enough that I want the final prints look EXACTLY the way I want when they're printed, sprayed and displayed. So after an image looks the way I want (on my calibrated monitor), I make test prints at 3-4 small variations of gamma settings using a Levels layer. Sometimes I repeat this on more than one paper.</p> <p>Then I judge the sprayed test prints by adjusting the lighting in the viewing station to the expected conditions. (Or I actually take the test prints to the venue.) Then I make the full-sized print.</p> <p>But then if I still don't think it's the best I can do, I'm not too proud to go back and make another one lighter/darker if I don't think it's delivering the impact that I want. (I've even gone back after my prints have won significant contests, and redone them because I still felt they were not the best I could do.)</p> <p>Bottom line -- they need to please ME and not some mathematically calculated result for monitor, graphics card, ink, paper, printer, spray coating, and viewing conditions. In my opinion, the calibration stuff is just a starting point.</p> <p>This is just what works for me.</p>

<p>David, the paper type is what your printer driver uses to know how much ink is needed to get the blackest blacks and the most intense colors. Your color profile is for a particular paper type, (or the paper type and driver settings used when you created the profile).</p> <p>Prints that are "too dark" is a common complaint, and are the result of the difference between "reflected" light from your print and "transmitted" light from that bright monitor of yours. Print density generally needs to be adjusted for the illumination where it will be displayed. I ususally adjust the final gamma of my images (using an extra Levels layer in Photoshop), to match the expected conditions. Good luck. </p>

<p>I'm also a computer geek. Been developing software for 45+ years. The two platforms are based on the same components and hardware standards. They are so close that it doesn't come down to a technical decision. I would suggest that it's just a matter of how much your time is worth switching vs the slightly higher cost of the MAC, whether you would like the challenge and experience of learning a new OS, and whether you have close friends and family that can help you with either.</p> <p>If you just view the computer as a tool, I'd stick with the MAC, and spend your energy and time with friends on something else. </p>

<p>BTW, I'm sure you know this, but I'll just state it for any others that read this thread. The final printing will no doubt be limited to matte paper. This won't give you a good black which I think is key to making images the most realistic. But it helps with the reflections which are unavoidable for such large prints.</p>

<p>I'm going to guess that one of your challenges is going to be illumination compensation. Take a look at a room with white walls and you'll see that you can easily see the corner due to variations. I suggest you fully map the illumination of all the two walls by sticking up white sheets of paper, begin careful to fully cover the areas close to the corner/bend. The refections and variations there are likely to be the greatest. Then you'll need to measure and compensate for the variations using a mask in PS, so that a uniform sky/scene will appear seamless. (Good Luck!) </p>