Recommend me a good PC & monitor, ideal for photography

Zephyr said:
OK so let's refine this ...

I want to know, what solutions would be the best if i were to go

24" is a good size imo :)

the pc route
I get the impression from the other thread that the Dell UltraSharp U2413 monitor is good, and whatever i get the X-Rite i1Display Pro is exactly what I'm going to need - is it possible to calibrate any monitor with it, and would i need this if i bought a mac ? or do they come out of the box preconfigured?
can someone suggest a PC? or anyone know of any other monitors they would recommend? I note the threads are 2013 so there is probably newer kit out now
Is as Gary suggests an all in one solution for PC? and are either the Dell XPS 2710 or 2720 decent?

&

the mac route

So, for the Mac, I'd rather not have something portable after my laptop died, i'd definitely prefer something static so a desktop / the like, as i feel they're more built to last (though i imagine being apple they probably are, anyway)
I'd probably be wanting (going by your post) a 27" all-in-one iMac - are there any features which i should specifically look at upgrading asides from the default options you can buy it as? I must admit I AM tempted.


Suggest something otherwise then? :p
Thanks all :)
Click to expand...

Guys you have to remember that most graphics cards do not support adobe RGB. A 99% adobeRGB IPS panel requires a NVidia Quadro or equivalent graphics card to get the most from the monitor..

A Dell U2412 is 100% sRGB and 80% adobeRGB and a bit cheaper at around the £200 mark.

Hope this helps a bit..

Looksy here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3355739
 
Last edited:
DavePotter said:
Guys you have to remember that most graphics cards do not support adobe RGB. A 99% adobeRGB IPS panel requires a NVidia Quadro or equivalent graphics card to get the most from the monitor..

A Dell U2412 is 100% sRGB and 80% adobeRGB and a bit cheaper at around the £200 mark.

Hope this helps a bit..

Looksy here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3355739
Click to expand...

every single mac supports wide gamut colour. Shame about poor low-end PCs though - it is holding up the whole market. Wide gamut really helps to get perfect files, and particularly when printing on high end colour managed printers. sRGB for example can't display proper red colour, only some brownish-orangy washed out brick red. So if you like shooting red cars or dresses it is a big consideration.
4K standard is closer to aRGB so it is well and truly time to burry the 20 years out of date sRGB.

U2412 is 6bit by the way, so that is really an office monitor. You get what you pay for
 
DavePotter said:
Guys you have to remember that most graphics cards do not support adobe RGB. A 99% adobeRGB IPS panel requires a NVidia Quadro or equivalent graphics card to get the most from the monitor..

A Dell U2412 is 100% sRGB and 80% adobeRGB and a bit cheaper at around the £200 mark.

Hope this helps a bit..

Looksy here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3355739
Click to expand...
Is an Nvidia Quadro expensive / is it hard to get a machine with one preinstalled? That really does throw a spanner in the works as i would have had no idea, so thanks so much for pointing that out to me.

daugirdas said:
every single mac supports wide gamut colour. Shame about poor low-end PCs though - it is holding up the whole market. Wide gamut really helps to get perfect files, and particularly when printing on high end colour managed printers. sRGB for example can't display proper red colour, only some brownish-orangy washed out brick red. So if you like shooting red cars or dresses it is a big consideration.
4K standard is closer to aRGB so it is well and truly time to burry the 20 years out of date sRGB.

U2412 is 6bit by the way, so that is really an office monitor. You get what you pay for
Click to expand...
Hmm, is the 6 bit - 8 bit difference hugely noticeable then? If say the missing 20% that the monitor physically can't display a massive loss? I very rarely print big, but i do want accurate colour rendition.

Man who would have thought choosing a pc & monitor would be so difficult ... :confused:
 
6 bits = 63 discrete levels
8 bits = 255
10 bits = 1023

So, I'd say there is a difference, but I'm no expert in monitors, plus my colour vision is impaired (classic red-green colour deficient, not colour blind). So I have to recruit my other half if I'm tweaking colours... :)
 
daugirdas said:
every single mac supports wide gamut colour. Shame about poor low-end PCs though - it is holding up the whole market. Wide gamut really helps to get perfect files, and particularly when printing on high end colour managed printers. sRGB for example can't display proper red colour, only some brownish-orangy washed out brick red. So if you like shooting red cars or dresses it is a big consideration.
4K standard is closer to aRGB so it is well and truly time to burry the 20 years out of date sRGB.

U2412 is 6bit by the way, so that is really an office monitor. You get what you pay for
Click to expand...

It is 6bit +2

Im not conviced that macs support 10bit either

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3538545

Dave
 
DavePotter said:
It is 6bit +2

Im not conviced that macs support 10bit either

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3538545

Dave
Click to expand...

They happily support 8bit; but the question was really about wide colour gamut which is a completely different property.

Zephyr said:
Hmm, is the 6 bit - 8 bit difference hugely noticeable then? If say the missing 20% that the monitor physically can't display a massive loss? I very rarely print big, but i do want accurate colour rendition.

Man who would have thought choosing a pc & monitor would be so difficult ... :confused:
Click to expand...

With Word and Excel you wouldn't tell a difference. The problem is you are one those 1% really "problematic" users that need high end hardware. Is FF really any better than 4/3 sensor? Certainly, but most people would fail to make the full use of higher end gear due to poor vision and / or lack of creativity and skill.
 
daugirdas said:
They happily support 8bit; but the question was really about wide colour gamut which is a completely different property.
With Word and Excel you wouldn't tell a difference. The problem is you are one those 1% really "problematic" users that need high end hardware. Is FF really any better than 4/3 sensor? Certainly, but most people would fail to make the full use of higher end gear due to poor vision and / or lack of creativity and skill.
Click to expand...
That's true. So macs are superior as they support a wider colour gamut so you can see more of the AdobeRGB spectrum? And they also support 8 bit happily? (which I take it means you see more levels and all the tones in between, e.g. black and white? whereas the gamut refers to the spectrum of colours the monitor can display.
With this in mind an all in one solution (minus monitor) makes the mac mini look very tempting - what would i need to go for in terms of add-on options / which would you recommend out of the current builds you can buy? would it support the dell monitors recommended? (I'd need a keyboard, mouse too, hmm, what else?)
 
Zephyr said:
That's true. So macs are superior as they support a wider colour gamut so you can see more of the AdobeRGB spectrum? And they also support 8 bit happily? (which I take it means you see more levels and all the tones in between, e.g. black and white? whereas the gamut refers to the spectrum of colours the monitor can display.
With this in mind an all in one solution (minus monitor) makes the mac mini look very tempting - what would i need to go for in terms of add-on options / which would you recommend out of the current builds you can buy? would it support the dell monitors recommended? (I'd need a keyboard, mouse too, hmm, what else?)
Click to expand...

I am running 2x dells on that. Not a problem. It has HDMI (for up to 24" 1080p) and Thunderbolt which is more or less same as mini-display port and can support higher resolutions. i7 quad core with 16GB RAM from Crucial is nice. SSD option makes them a bit expensive but may be worth it? The only trouble is they are a little old models now and should be updated some time in the very near future (hopefully).

8 bit support has been around for years if not decades and so is aRGB support with pretty much any decent device. That probably doesn't apply to some crappy windows laptops apparently... some are still with VGA ports :wacky:
 
daugirdas said:
I am running 2x dells on that. Not a problem. It has HDMI (for up to 24" 1080p) and Thunderbolt which is more or less same as mini-display port and can support higher resolutions. i7 quad core with 16GB RAM from Crucial is nice. SSD option makes them a bit expensive but may be worth it? The only trouble is they are a little old models now and should be updated some time in the very near future (hopefully).

8 bit support has been around for years if not decades and so is aRGB support with pretty much any decent device. That probably doesn't apply to some crappy windows laptops apparently... some are still with VGA ports :wacky:
Click to expand...
Seems pretty good... I mean I hardly think with those specs it's exactly going to become obsolete anytime soon, surely a newer model would command a higher price as well ?

You say up to 24", so it will support the U2413, but what about U2713H ?

I know I will need X-Rite i1Display Pro too, won't I? Since both support hardware calibration as well as software.

So with the mac mini my best bet would be the £649.00 model with applecare and upgrade it personally with memory from crucial memory ? :) Are they easy enough to upgrade in the same way you would a PC? Take it a part, remove the stick, insert new one, etc.

Anyone else have any suggestions btw?
 
Zephyr said:
Seems pretty good... I mean I hardly think with those specs it's exactly going to become obsolete anytime soon, surely a newer model would command a higher price as well ?

You say up to 24", so it will support the U2413, but what about U2713H ?

I know I will need X-Rite i1Display Pro too, won't I? Since both support hardware calibration as well as software.

So with the mac mini my best bet would be the £649.00 model with applecare and upgrade it personally with memory from crucial memory ? :) Are they easy enough to upgrade in the same way you would a PC? Take it a part, remove the stick, insert new one, etc.

Anyone else have any suggestions btw?
Click to expand...

1. No. Price stays the same as they never discount it. They do have refurb section on the website - may be worth checking as long as you can get applecare for them.
2. so you connect it to thunderbolt then.
3. Probably that is a sensible plan. Lesser models will still do regular software calibration
4. It is pretty easy and takes around 1-2 min max. HDD is really not very accessible unfortunately.
 
Oh Lord... so much disinformation here, it's difficult to know where to start... ICBA to justify these points, long day at work...

  • Macs are not superior, they use the same hardware as Windows (or Linux) based PCs.
  • Calibration is a good idea - the i1 is a good calibrator (although more expensive than Spyder etc..., it is better)
  • All graphics cards will support wide gamut, it just depends how many shades you have
  • No commercial graphics cards support 10 bit - you need a pro graphics card for that (Quadro/FirePro)
  • Even if your monitor supports 10+ bits AND your graphics card supports it, you still need software that supports it. Lightroom, for example, is 8 bit RGB only
  • Unless you process for prints and are hyper critical, then 10 bit and Adobe RGB are pointless. The web, most print shops and 99% of the population work on sRGB, whether it is calibrated or not (and 99% of the 99% are not calibrated).

Personally, I'd get a decent IPS monitor (and yes, you tend to get what you pay for) and just process in sRGB unless you are doing lots and lots of prints.

Just IMHO of course ;)
 
arad85 said:
Oh Lord... so much disinformation here, it's difficult to know where to start... ICBA to justify these points, long day at work...

  • Macs are not superior, they use the same hardware as Windows (or Linux) based PCs.
  • Calibration is a good idea - the i1 is a good calibrator (although more expensive than Spyder etc..., it is better)
  • All graphics cards will support wide gamut, it just depends how many shades you have
  • No commercial graphics cards support 10 bit - you need a pro graphics card for that (Quadro/FirePro)
  • Even if your monitor supports 10+ bits AND your graphics card supports it, you still need software that supports it. Lightroom, for example, is 8 bit RGB only
  • Unless you process for prints and are hyper critical, then 10 bit and Adobe RGB are pointless. The web, most print shops and 99% of the population work on sRGB, whether it is calibrated or not (and 99% of the 99% are not calibrated).

Personally, I'd get a decent IPS monitor (and yes, you tend to get what you pay for) and just process in sRGB unless you are doing lots and lots of prints.

Just IMHO of course ;)
Click to expand...
What would you personally recommend then? PC & Monitor-wise? are you saying any graphics card will support the full colour gamut for both types, and it just depends on the monitor?
Just as a side note, a lot of competitions ask for adobe rgb
 
Yes, any graphics card will support the full colour gamut as the graphics card just deals in numbers (0..255 for 8 bit, 0..1024 for 10 bit - for each of R, G & B). How those colours are represented is up to the screen. I use Dell U-series monitors. They have an sRGB setting and an Adobe RGB setting. What that does is ghange the colour gamut the monitor produces for a full input signal. That is, 0, 255, 0 (full green, no red/blue) will be displayed as a different colour in sRGB than Adobe RGB. If the monitor is set up correctly, then displaying full green in 10 bit mode will give exactly the same colour - that is (0, 1024, 0) in Adobe RGB in 10 bit mode will be exactly the same colour as (0, 255, 0) in Adobe RGB in 8 bit mode. You don't get more colour by going to 10 bits, you get more gradations...

Gamut = range.
Gradations = smoothness within that range.

What would I do? If you want to go for competitions and they need Adobe RGB, your priority should be on a monitor that does Adobe RGB well - which means "wide gamut" and 8bit+FRC at least. That pushes you towards the U2413 IMHO - although a visit to tftcentral will give you all the competition details for comparison. I'd want 24" 16:10 minimum, looking to potentially go 2x 24" in the future. As to PC, you need an i5-4xxx (NOT i5-4xxxU as they are for Ultrabooks and lower performance) based machine with 8-16G of memory. With a single or 2x 24" monitor(s), onboard graphics will be fine (assuming 2x digital connectors), but I'd want 16GB memory if I were driving 2 monitors. Also factor in a calibration device (I know you are doing this). If you went U2413/i1 Display Pro, that's half of your budget gone there. Whilst you can get a decent machine for £500, you may be pushing it to get one with nice-to-haves like an SSD boot drive.
 
arad85 said:
Adobe RGB are pointless ;)
Click to expand...

This bit is certainly complete rubbish outside the world of typical clerical desktops and the sooner people like you stop advocating 25-year old standard the sooner we'll move forward. 4K is already here and it uses more or less full ProphotoRGB colour space. Most (non-apple) better tablets happily support wider gamut too. Welcome to the modern world of digital colour representation.

Likewise it would be silly to edit in sRGB mode (particularly if 16bit TIFF files are involved), only finish them up for web export as sRGB. This is called future proofing and simple good sense.

P.S. You may say widows hardware is equivalent, and it usually is, but they somehow throw in one or two nasty components in the build just to kill off the user experience (i.e. to make you want to upgrade sooner rather than later). I can't think of rMBP equivalent that is as user friendly hardware - wise.
 
daugirdas said:
This bit is certainly complete rubbish outside the world of typical clerical desktops and the sooner people like you stop advocating 25-year old standard the sooner we'll move forward.
Click to expand...
Nope. The world works on lowest common denominator. 99.9% of people wouldn't know a calibrated screen from an uncalibrated one. Same for TVs. By all means process and view your prints on your wide gamut screen, but always remember that if you want to show it to anyone on any monitor that isn't under your complete control (or print it) sRGB is your best bet.
 
arad85 said:
Nope. The world works on lowest common denominator. 99.9% of people wouldn't know a calibrated screen from an uncalibrated one. Same for TVs. By all means process and view your prints on your wide gamut screen, but always remember that if you want to show it to anyone on any monitor that isn't under your complete control (or print it) sRGB is your best bet.
Click to expand...

I did say process for export as sRGB (for now)... But thing is we need to move on to better technology and now is the time with the imminent move to 4K (say in the next 4 years 50% TVs will be compliant, where we start to see first TV shows in 4K, and internet makes the move). So editing in sRGB from a start is kind of crazy just like shooting JPEG is in most cases. This is even more important for printing; and you have to print decently if you mean business. I am not talking about shooting cats or homeless people and sharing of facebook, flickr or TP, I mean proper fine art business.
 
daugirdas said:
Yes. The OP and myself are in that 0.1% though
Click to expand...
You are.


Whether the OP is (or has been for more than a few days - or will remain there when he has had a chance to think it through) is open to question.
 
arad85 said:
Yes, any graphics card will support the full colour gamut as the graphics card just deals in numbers (0..255 for 8 bit, 0..1024 for 10 bit - for each of R, G & B). How those colours are represented is up to the screen. I use Dell U-series monitors. They have an sRGB setting and an Adobe RGB setting. What that does is ghange the colour gamut the monitor produces for a full input signal. That is, 0, 255, 0 (full green, no red/blue) will be displayed as a different colour in sRGB than Adobe RGB. If the monitor is set up correctly, then displaying full green in 10 bit mode will give exactly the same colour - that is (0, 1024, 0) in Adobe RGB in 10 bit mode will be exactly the same colour as (0, 255, 0) in Adobe RGB in 8 bit mode. You don't get more colour by going to 10 bits, you get more gradations...

Gamut = range.
Gradations = smoothness within that range.

What would I do? If you want to go for competitions and they need Adobe RGB, your priority should be on a monitor that does Adobe RGB well - which means "wide gamut" and 8bit+FRC at least. That pushes you towards the U2413 IMHO - although a visit to tftcentral will give you all the competition details for comparison. I'd want 24" 16:10 minimum, looking to potentially go 2x 24" in the future. As to PC, you need an i5-4xxx (NOT i5-4xxxU as they are for Ultrabooks and lower performance) based machine with 8-16G of memory. With a single or 2x 24" monitor(s), onboard graphics will be fine (assuming 2x digital connectors), but I'd want 16GB memory if I were driving 2 monitors. Also factor in a calibration device (I know you are doing this). If you went U2413/i1 Display Pro, that's half of your budget gone there. Whilst you can get a decent machine for £500, you may be pushing it to get one with nice-to-haves like an SSD boot drive.
Click to expand...
So graphics card means absolutely jack here, correct? Why on earth were people pushing me towards an nvidia quadro if it's totally unnecessary? :confused:
Thanks for clearing those points up nicely and concisely!
A quick look on ebuyer brought up this - thoughts?
http://www.ebuyer.com/634830-zoostorm-desktop-pc-7260-3003
Could always get more memory from crucial. U2413 unless someone can think of something better, is probably the sort of monitor i'd go for - though you saying about most people using sRGB makes me reconsider. I did, always, shoot sRGB until recently - I have had many images published where the colourspace I used was sRGB and shot in JPEG. I only shoot RAW for landscapes / more colour intensive work. Which is where this upgrade has lead me, as you really need to be 100% on colour for your landscapes - wildlife is relatively easy as you seldom tweak the colour to give a completely natural representation. It only really struck me when the British Wildlife photography awards asked for my shortlisted image to be supplied in Adobe RGB 1998.

daugirdas said:
This bit is certainly complete rubbish outside the world of typical clerical desktops and the sooner people like you stop advocating 25-year old standard the sooner we'll move forward. 4K is already here and it uses more or less full ProphotoRGB colour space. Most (non-apple) better tablets happily support wider gamut too. Welcome to the modern world of digital colour representation.

Likewise it would be silly to edit in sRGB mode (particularly if 16bit TIFF files are involved), only finish them up for web export as sRGB. This is called future proofing and simple good sense.

P.S. You may say widows hardware is equivalent, and it usually is, but they somehow throw in one or two nasty components in the build just to kill off the user experience (i.e. to make you want to upgrade sooner rather than later). I can't think of rMBP equivalent that is as user friendly hardware - wise.
Click to expand...
For my landscape shots I shoot in RAW and aRGB as utmost image quality and colour representation is probably the most important thing of landscape photography, and you can tell the differences, screen by screen.

arad85 said:
Nope. The world works on lowest common denominator. 99.9% of people wouldn't know a calibrated screen from an uncalibrated one. Same for TVs. By all means process and view your prints on your wide gamut screen, but always remember that if you want to show it to anyone on any monitor that isn't under your complete control (or print it) sRGB is your best bet.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting to shoot in sRGB and just get something like the U2412? Or is there something else you would consider? A lot of decisions here ...

daugirdas said:
I did say process for export as sRGB (for now)... But thing is we need to move on to better technology and now is the time with the imminent move to 4K (say in the next 4 years 50% TVs will be compliant, where we start to see first TV shows in 4K, and internet makes the move). So editing in sRGB from a start is kind of crazy just like shooting JPEG is in most cases. This is even more important for printing; and you have to print decently if you mean business. I am not talking about shooting cats or homeless people and sharing of facebook, flickr or TP, I mean proper fine art business.
Click to expand...
So you advocate the use of sRGB for the meantime? I thought you processed yours as aRGB ? I agree with not shooting JPEG for landscapes, but for my wildlife stuff I shoot JPEG for the most part, saves space and having done side-by-side comparisons of both, I don't notice any real world differences at least for wildlife shots. JPEG engines are pretty much as good as any raw converter these days- I know for the WB adjustments alone RAW has benefits, i just have to make sure I get it spot on which has never been an issue as yet, and I know you lose 10% each time you make adjustments and re-save, but i do adjustments ONCE and that's it. Done. Landscapes are a whole different ballgame IMHO, especially where colour is concerned, it's a colour lottery working on an uncalibrated screen, each and every small tweak makes a huge difference. Not so much on wildlife since, adding a bit of vibrance, slightly tweaking the levels, sharpening, and that's pretty much it.
What benefits do macs have over typical PCs then? It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot apart from compactness, UI and a few other things.

So much to decide!! I hope you guys give further input here, I feel I am learning a lot and it's actually very interesting to read. :)
 
Last edited:
As has already been said by myself and others. You need a pro grade graphics card to output a wide gamut 10bit signal to a wide gamut monitor.
Mac OSX does not support 10bit colour. Windows 7 and 8 do.

Adobe Photoshop can output 10bit colour if you enable it in preferences. But if you shoot in JPEG then they are only 8bit files anyway.

Dave.
 
DavePotter said:
As has already been said by myself and others. You need a pro grade graphics card to output a wide gamut 10bit signal to a wide gamut monitor.
Mac OSX does not support 10bit colour. Windows 7 and 8 do.

Adobe Photoshop can output 10bit colour if you enable it in preferences. But if you shoot in JPEG then they are only 8bit files anyway.

Dave.
Click to expand...
So the question is: does anyone actually shoot in 10bit and the most important part: can make the most out of it? Or is it just expensive right now since the monitors to support it cost so much? If so, might as well just wait until the price drops in a few years and get an 8bit monitor now, right?
MAC vs Windows just sounds like preference to me either way you look at it. The most important things in a photography based machine then are RAM and processor - the rest doesn't matter. A calibrated screen and a monitor that supports 8bit seems the way to go - anyone disagree?
 
RAW is 14bit.

IMHO An 8bit Calibrated screen is fine for most users. I include myself in that.


Dave
 
DavePotter said:
RAW is 14bit.

IMHO An 8bit Calibrated screen is fine for most users. I include myself in that.


Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks, I know that RAW is 14bit but my point was if no one can actually make use of it now and most people own 6/8 bit screens then you aren't going to see those benefits elsewhere anyway.
This is part of the reason I shoot RAW for Landscapes 8bit vs 14. :) But equally I shoot in JPEG for Wildlife shots as sometimes I can take thousands of images on trips and fill up multiple 32 gb cards - if those were RAW files I dread to think the amount of space they would take up, and as i say, since the tones are never really extreme in comparison to some sunsets where you have the blues, yellows, oranges, reds, etc, I have never really noticed much difference, not in comparison to the trade-offs of speed and storage space saved by doing that.
 
Last edited:
Zephyr said:
So you advocate the use of sRGB for the meantime? I thought you processed yours as aRGB ? I agree with not shooting JPEG for landscapes, but for my wildlife stuff I shoot JPEG for the most part, saves space and having done side-by-side comparisons of both, I don't notice any real world differences at least for wildlife shots. JPEG engines are pretty much as good as any raw converter these days- I know for the WB adjustments alone RAW has benefits, i just have to make sure I get it spot on which has never been an issue as yet, and I know you lose 10% each time you make adjustments and re-save, but i do adjustments ONCE and that's it. Done. Landscapes are a whole different ballgame IMHO, especially where colour is concerned, it's a colour lottery working on an uncalibrated screen, each and every small tweak makes a huge difference. Not so much on wildlife since, adding a bit of vibrance, slightly tweaking the levels, sharpening, and that's pretty much it.
What benefits do macs have over typical PCs then? It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot apart from compactness, UI and a few other things.

So much to decide!! I hope you guys give further input here, I feel I am learning a lot and it's actually very interesting to read. :)
Click to expand...

Not much to decide at all between 2-3 monitors - one of them expensive high end and the other is cheap and designed for office use :LOL: If you can't afford you can't afford it. That isn't the worst case scenario, where even £10 wellies for shooting in the swamp is too much to add to D800 setup. If you get the cheaper one you may upgrade a bit sooner, but you may get to pick newer model at that time... Oh sorry, more decisions here!

All RAW files are in ProPhotoRGB space regardless (it is a lot wider than aRGB). You can do a lot of damage as you start editing in photoshop and start to throw away data. However if your final website output isn't 8bit sRGB jpeg, then the Uncle Alan or Aunt Dorris will see weird colours on his 5 year old PC and will not buy the image or complain afterwards. You obviously keep your processed 16bit prophotoRGB RAW and TIFF files safe on the hard drive.

Zephyr said:
Thanks, I know that RAW is 14bit but my point was if no one can actually make use of it now and most people own 6/8 bit screens then you aren't going to see those benefits elsewhere anyway.
Click to expand...

Back to the basics now. The hypothetical perfect 8 bit jpeg will print just fine. The trouble is the jpeg is never perfect with varying degrees of success. Landscapes is where the jpeg tends to be on the awful side and you need the full 14bit and usually a lot more to put together the final image.
 
Zephyr said:
Are you suggesting to shoot in sRGB and just get something like the U2412? Or is there something else you would consider? A lot of decisions here ...
Click to expand...
I do, but then I'm not hyper critical of my work and I show most of my images digitally through social media where sRGB is king. But you are shooting raw, so colour space doesn't matter (it only matters when you develop the raw and that is whatever your processing software is set to).

Personally, I would go for a good 8bit monitor that can be hardware calibrated (I think that's the 2413 from memory - I've just flown 5000 miles and my brain is frazzled) and calibrate in your chosen colour space. As Dave has said, that is good enough for most people. You can always revisit 10 bit at a later date if you find it really holding you back.
 
daugirdas said:
Not much to decide at all between 2-3 monitors - one of them expensive high end and the other is cheap and designed for office use :LOL: If you can't afford you can't afford it. That isn't the worst case scenario, where even £10 wellies for shooting in the swamp is too much to add to D800 setup. If you get the cheaper one you may upgrade a bit sooner, but you may get to pick newer model at that time... Oh sorry, more decisions here!
All RAW files are in ProPhotoRGB space regardless (it is a lot wider than aRGB). You can do a lot of damage as you start editing in photoshop and start to throw away data. However if your final website output isn't 8bit sRGB jpeg, then the Uncle Alan or Aunt Dorris will see weird colours on his 5 year old PC and will not buy the image or complain afterwards. You obviously keep your processed 16bit prophotoRGB RAW and TIFF files safe on the hard drive.
Back to the basics now. The hypothetical perfect 8 bit jpeg will print just fine. The trouble is the jpeg is never perfect with varying degrees of success. Landscapes is where the jpeg tends to be on the awful side and you need the full 14bit and usually a lot more to put together the final image.
Click to expand...
JPEG is fine for most forms of photography, landscape is one particular exception to this rule imo which you seem to agree with.
And I know, it just seemed a lot to take in on this thread so there was quite a number of decisions to be fair :rolleyes: but the last few replies have pretty much sold it for me now, i know what i want in terms of display, especially after doing my own research and reading on the topic. The desktop is a different story, i still want to know the real world advantages of an out of the box mac, vs a decent spec PC. I know you have sold your story, and vice versa with the others but it still leaves me in a bit of a predicament as I'm wondering if there truly is a difference or not or whether it comes down to personal preference - i like the compactness of the mac mini for one, but they seem a bit overpriced in comparison to similar grade PCs. I just want to know if truly you get what you pay for (i realise this truly is the case for monitors, much like photography gear) or you're just paying a premium for the apple logo on the box.

arad85 said:
I do, but then I'm not hyper critical of my work and I show most of my images digitally through social media where sRGB is king. But you are shooting raw, so colour space doesn't matter (it only matters when you develop the raw and that is whatever your processing software is set to).

Personally, I would go for a good 8bit monitor that can be hardware calibrated (I think that's the 2413 from memory - I've just flown 5000 miles and my brain is frazzled) and calibrate in your chosen colour space. As Dave has said, that is good enough for most people. You can always revisit 10 bit at a later date if you find it really holding you back.
Click to expand...
yeah I completely agree, at this stage it seems unnecessary to get anything higher than an 8bit screen since noddy and his friends are still using 6bit monitors, 8 bit will serve me well for many years i imagine, at least until prices drop on the higher end models and they become widely available, so 2413 it is for me :). 5000 miles? Enjoy your travels! And thanks for taking a moment out of your day to get back to me :)
 
Zephyr said:
JPEG is fine for most forms of photography, landscape is one particular exception to this rule imo which you seem to agree with.

The desktop is a different story, i still want to know the real world advantages of an out of the box mac, vs a decent spec PC. I know you have sold your story, and vice versa with the others but it still leaves me in a bit of a predicament as I'm wondering if there truly is a difference or not or whether it comes down to personal preference - i like the compactness of the mac mini for one, but they seem a bit overpriced in comparison to similar grade PCs. I just want to know if truly you get what you pay for (i realise this truly is the case for monitors, much like photography gear) or you're just paying a premium for the apple logo on the box.
Click to expand...

You will get out more of RAWs even if you do a batch 20s adjusment in LR and just export, plus you may want to re-visit individual images at a later date. In weddings and portraits I also strongly feel about utility of RAW, particularly when photoshop is called for.

As you've done all the reading the last step is to go to apple store and PC World (in that order) and compare the devices in practice. The bottom line is the mini served me extremely well over nearly 2 years for around £700 including everything, but I wouldn't be happy paying same money for the same model today until the new version is out. HDMI v2.0 for 4K monitors is one important feature I would expect in the next gen. Bigger / cheaper SSDs is another.
 
I use a PC i7 16gb ssd and 4gb graphics windows 7 pro. When it dies I may get a Mac mini just for something different :). The Mac mini is 3rd gen and not current 4th generation processors. Rumors are there is new one on the way. Maybe later this year. ( Intel are set to release 5th gen in q4)

Just remember if you do go 10bit in the future. OSX is only capable of 8bit


Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top