>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
>> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
>
> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or two.

You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met 
in my life then. :-P

> Plus, it's the kind of monitor you'd have hooked up to your printing
> press, not the kind you'd have hooked up to your desktop machine. You
> don't think places like Time Magazine or Cosmopolitan wants to know
> exactly what the cover is going to look like when they ship it off to
> the printer to print ten million copies? That's what color calibration
> is *for* - so everyone sees it the way you do.

I think you'd have to be doing some pretty high-end print work for this 
level of precision to actually matter. Time Magazine probably does it, 
but I doubt my local newspaper does. Given that, it seems that there's 
only going to be 10, maybe 20 customers on the face of the Earth who'd 
want to buy this product. WTF?

> Altho I must admit I never figured out how you could calibrate an
> emissive display with subtractive ink set.

Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how 
close the match would actually look...

> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?

I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a 


  Better not look at the prices of professional cameras.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 4:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or
>> two.
>
> You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met
> in my life then. :-P
>
>  Given that, it seems that there's
> only going to be 10, maybe 20 customers on the face of the Earth who'd
> want to buy this product. WTF?

You really need to get out more and expand your reading.
Maybe if you had taken Andrel up on his job offer you would be a person 
who could easily afford something in this price bracket.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:25:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?
>>
>> I take it you didn't actually read the description, then.
> 
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better
> photos.

Well, consider that when I was working on my first book, I spent about 
$12,000 on computer equipment, and that included an (at the time) $700 
monitor.

I know people who are professional photographers who would think nothing 
of spending that kind of money on kit for their work - be it cameras, 
lenses, or monitors.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I think you'd have to be doing some pretty high-end print work for this 
> level of precision to actually matter. 

Every advertising firm out there thinks this matters. Every person running 
any sort of printing press thinks this matters.  Anyone designing product 
packaging thinks this is important.

And, again, it isn't that expensive.  I've seen color laser printers that 
cost 20x as much as this sitting in the offices of a 10-person ad firm.

>> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?
> I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.

It already exists. It's not actually on the consumer market quite yet, but 
demo models are floating around.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
>>> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a mon
itor.
>>
>> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or 

>> two.
> 
> You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met
 
> in my life then. :-P

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001ENOZY4/ref=dp_olp_new_map?ie
=UTF8&qid=1297361890&sr=1-2&condition=new

I guess nobody actually buys a D90, in spite of being one of the most 
popular DSLR cameras for hobbyists out there.


I'm not rich. I'm a DINK.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 10-2-2011 11:22, Invisible wrote:
> On 10/02/2011 09:47 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that
>>> probably reduces panel yield.
>>
>> Also things like the general uniformity of the display - display a black
>> image on your PC monitor and turn out all the lights, it's probably not
>> very even.
>
> Presumably it's very awkward to make an emissive display really even.
>
> (I thought medical diagnosis is always done with film prints anyway...)

well, you though wrong ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 06:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
>>>> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
>>>
>>> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or
>>> two.
>>
>> You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever
>> met in my life then. :-P
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001ENOZY4/ref=dp_olp_new_map?ie=UTF8&qid=1297361890&sr=1-2&condition=new
>
>
> I guess nobody actually buys a D90, in spite of being one of the most
> popular DSLR cameras for hobbyists out there.

Well, apparently $850 works out to about £500. That I could just about 
afford. Maybe. (At the end of a long list of other stuff I still want to 
buy...)

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or
>> two.
>
> You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met
> in my life then. :-P

What, you don't know anyone who has spent $1000 on a hobby?  I find that 
extremely hard to believe.

> I think you'd have to be doing some pretty high-end print work for this
> level of precision to actually matter. Time Magazine probably does it,
> but I doubt my local newspaper does.

If your local paper has any colour pages then surely they will, the 
advertisers will demand it to ensure their company colours are correct.

 > Given that, it seems that there's
> only going to be 10, maybe 20 customers on the face of the Earth who'd
> want to buy this product. WTF?

Did you ever actually look in a newsagent, there are hundreds of 
full-colour magazines just displayed to the public in a shop, there are 
orders of magnitudes more that are not sold in shops.  They all will use 
colour calibrated displays to ensure they print exactly what they think 
they are printing.

You really do seem to have a problem with estimating things like this, 
you just need to think for a bit before guessing.

>> Altho I must admit I never figured out how you could calibrate an
>> emissive display with subtractive ink set.
>
> Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how
> close the match would actually look...

You calibrate subtractive ink sets (and every other reflective product) 
under specifically calibrated light, designed to match the expected 
viewing conditions.  Shops use very specific lighting with an exactly 
specified emission spectrum, products are designed and checked according 
to the lighting in the shop.  That's why often when you pick up an item 
of clothing it looks a slightly different colour outside compared to in 
the shop.

>> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?
>
> I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.

I wonder how long it would take to google "color eink"?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 05:27 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a

>
>    Better not look at the prices of professional cameras.

Presumably such things wouldn't even be listed on a consumer website in 
the first place. You would have to contact a photography specialist.

Post a reply to this message