 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
plausible that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 08:59 AM, scott 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
>
> What, you don't know anyone who has spent $1000 on a hobby? I find that
> extremely hard to believe.
I know a few people who have probably ended up spending something like
that over the course of the ten or twenty years they've been doing a
hobby, sure. But to spend that amount of money on a single purchase... I
don't know too many people who could afford that without taking out a
loan or something.
>> 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.
Surely you don't actually need an expensive specially calibrated monitor
just to ensure that IBM Blue comes out as IBM Blue. Presumably there are
standardised ways of describing specific print colours, and the
advertisers will just tell you what colour they want according to some
such standard.
>> 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.
I can believe that the likes of the billion-selling top magazines would
go to these lengths. But Linux Format? I rather doubt it. Generally if
an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect", I
can't see anybody blowing such a huge amount of money just on a monitor.
> You really do seem to have a problem with estimating things like this,
> you just need to think for a bit before guessing.
Well, I suppose I don't work in professional printing, so I can only
guess. But it does seem rather far-fetched to me.
> 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.
Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
colour probably isn't critical. But how about those huge colour
photographs that shops sometimes have on their walls? I guess you
*might* conceivably want precise colour matching for that.
>>> 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"?
I presumed this wouldn't produce any remotely useful information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 09:05 AM, scott wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
> that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
met them. (Unless you count the CEO of our company, who I happen to have
met. But very few people are the CEO of a large company.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
I knew that was coming next :-)
> Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
> met them.
Obviously there's only about 10 companies in the world who are large
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
>> met them.
>
> Obviously there's only about 10 companies in the world who are large
Well, there are a lot of people in the world. What I meant was that only
a very small percentage of them are CEOs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I can believe that the likes of the billion-selling top magazines would
> go to these lengths. But Linux Format? I rather doubt it. Generally if
> an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
> print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect", I
> can't see anybody blowing such a huge amount of money just on a monitor.
It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
of your company like an outsourced third world project. It looks like
your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.
Thirty five years ago I was given a budget of about £80,000 to outfit a
new electronic test lab. (That would be worth between £500,000 and
£786,000 at today's values). The management of the company (Burroughs
Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
workforce in producing quality goods.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 9:20 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
>
> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>
It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with
your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.
> Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
> met them. (Unless you count the CEO of our company, who I happen to have
> met. But very few people are the CEO of a large company.)
I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with
at least three people in that bracket.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>
> It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with
> your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.
Well, yeah, I'm under-paid considering the job I do. But I'm sure
there's lots of other people who also don't earn much money. What we're
debating is how many people earn such an insane amount of money that
thousands of pounds is nothing to them.
> I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with
> at least three people in that bracket.
Really? How do you compute that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I know a few people who have probably ended up spending something like
> that over the course of the ten or twenty years they've been doing a
> hobby, sure.
Didn't you used to hang out with some gamers, surely they'd all spent in
excess of $1000 on their PCs? Also nobody at your work who is
interesting in cars and has spend more than $1000 on a car in one go? I
find it hard to believe nobody at your work owns a dSLR, which surely
cost around $1000 to spend in one go. Spending that sort of money on a
hobby is more common than you think.
> Surely you don't actually need an expensive specially calibrated monitor
> just to ensure that IBM Blue comes out as IBM Blue. Presumably there are
> standardised ways of describing specific print colours, and the
> advertisers will just tell you what colour they want according to some
> such standard.
Sure, but then how to mix that with the rest of your page layout? They
certainly don't just guess what the final outcome will be and hope it
comes out looking ok.
> I can believe that the likes of the billion-selling top magazines would
> go to these lengths. But Linux Format? I rather doubt it. Generally if
> an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
> print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect",
Did you ever try actually comparing printed colours to your monitor
using cheap consumer equipment? I don't think anyone would call that a
"reasonable" match. Besides, the artists and designers who choose
colours get very annoyed when the final product looks a totally
different shade to what they designed.
> Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
> colour probably isn't critical.
I think you'd be surprised what level of work goes into making even a
low circulation full-colour magazine. If you've designed a nice bright
orange and green colour scheme to give a certain impact, you're going to
be pretty annoyed when the orange comes out brown and doesn't match any
more, which could have been avoided by buying a $1000 calibrated
monitor. Of course for one-offs there are ways around it (eg the
printer sending you a sample, you tweaking it, repeat a few times) but
for anyone regularly making such a magazine you *will* have calibrated
monitors.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:19 AM, scott wrote:
>> I know a few people who have probably ended up spending something like
>> that over the course of the ten or twenty years they've been doing a
>> hobby, sure.
>
> Didn't you used to hang out with some gamers, surely they'd all spent in
> excess of $1000 on their PCs?
Hmm, plausibly yes. (Especially Wev. Then again, he somehow drives a
BWM, and he makes it his mission in life to have a better PC than anyone
else in the group...)
> Also nobody at your work who is
> interesting in cars and has spend more than $1000 on a car in one go?
Cars and houses are probably the only things I can think of that most
people have and cost significantly more than that, yes.
> I
> find it hard to believe nobody at your work owns a dSLR, which surely
> cost around $1000 to spend in one go. Spending that sort of money on a
> hobby is more common than you think.
No, I'm fairly sure none of the 26 people who work here own a DSLR.
(Obviously I haven't gone and *asked* them all individually, but nobody
seems that interested in photography.)
>> Generally if
>> an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
>> print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect",
>
> Did you ever try actually comparing printed colours to your monitor
> using cheap consumer equipment? I don't think anyone would call that a
> "reasonable" match.
When I print photos out, it usually looks approximately as poor as it
did on screen, yes.
> I think you'd be surprised what level of work goes into making even a
> low circulation full-colour magazine.
OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just
surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for
something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
