No wonder! Mac users are seeing things all wrong!

11/02/2004 03:44:03 PM · #51

Don't second guess Apple; imagine how primitive personal computers would be today if Apple had never existed :P

animes2k

11/02/2004 04:19:59 PM · #52

Originally posted by Chaszmyr:

Don't second guess Apple; imagine how primitive personal computers would be today if Apple had never existed :P

And imagine where OSX would be had NeXT never existed.
It's all Steve Jobs. Crazy man.

11/02/2004 04:30:46 PM · #53

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

I wonder why the PC people are "RIGHT," then...based on this..
Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft propose the addition of support for a standard color space, sRGB, within the Microsoft operating systems, HP products, the Internet, and all other interested vendors.

Sorta, but not sorta topic. So what is everyones thoughts on Adobe DNG at this time? Are you using it?

sRGB does not have a wide enough gamut to support the needs of a photographer. It would be nice to have sRGB and gamma 2.2 (yes I'm a mac user and I'm saying 2.2 here) as browser standards, but lets not limit the color space we can use on the desktop.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/02/2004 04:41:06 PM · #54

Originally posted by Britannica:

Originally posted by ijerry:
... 1.8 is the standard for print because the clarity of the pictures that much better, 2.2 is the standard for the web because IE became a standard, not for any quality or logical reasons. ...

Some information.

David

Thanks for posting. I think it helps to realize that gamma is not a PC vs MAC debate. Macs started at 1.8 because it was a good match for paper and macs were very focused on desktop publishing. The gamma of 2.2 became more popular with increased focus on electronic media, such as TV sets. It's more of a media debate, print vs electronic, than a PC vs mac debate.

Arcanist

Nikon D810

11/02/2004 04:48:56 PM · #55

Okies, so I use the Adobe Color Space and I know I'm at such a serious disadvantage using a Flat panel LCD with PC (hehehe) but do I need to go into the color correction of my video card and slide the gamma from 1.0 to 2.0 or do I need to adjust the screens controls or is the color profile all set the way it is out of the box?

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/03/2004 02:04:57 AM · #56

For those who survived the last bit of information (sorry Laurie), here is a link to Gary Ballard's Website; on which are many interesting articles. But of particular interest to this thread are these two aimed at the Mac users (of which he is one) who use the internet for displaying images:

'WWW Target ColorSpace: sRGB 2.2 Gamma -- The PROOF!'
and
'Color Shifts on the World Wide Web: PhotoShopÂ® "Save for Web" ImageReadyÂ®'.

David
/edit: formatting

Message edited by author 2004-11-03 02:07:29.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

11/03/2004 04:12:50 AM · #57

As a contract graphic designer, I have used Macs all my life - but they are shit. Most high end programs crash without warning all the time - all he time - all the bloody time!

And this happens on every Mac I have to work on.

Oh, and the reason people think they are for graphic designers and photographers is because of their superiority something like five million years ago when only hippy geeks used a computer to do artwork - and they have held on to that for so long.

There is a big trend in the London Design Community to switch to PC purely because you get more bang for your buck.

And those companies that are rife with Macs, only do so because they look good, they give the company a nice stylish modern image - business is all about image - so they use Macs. Looks good for the clients.

Macs look better, but that's the number one reason why they cost 3 gazillion times more.

I wish I was a Mac user, I have tried turning my allegiance so many times, just so I can be a Mac geek and have a 'cool computer' but they just won't stop f'ing crashing.

11/03/2004 09:55:19 AM · #58

WARNING: Impending Mac vs. PC rant...

TOTAL nonsense, Jon. I use Macs every day with just about every graphics app you can think of and I can't even remember the last time I saw a crash (I don't think it was this year). I've been troubleshooting Macs since 1987, and I can tell you from experience that crashes are almost always the result of user error or inproper configuration. I've had a single application crash on occasion, but I can't blame the Mac for that. For example, placing an image on a DP Mac in Illustrator 10, then canceling it will crash Illustrator, but that's Adobe's problem, not Apple's.

Appearance isn't the reason designers use Macs (PowerMacs usually hide under a desk). If that were true, Apple would have sold a ton of PowerMac Cubes. Designers use Macs because they have historically been better suited to graphics work, with generally superior monitors and calibration tools.

Macs aren't "a gazillion times more expensive," either (a laughable myth). The cheapest high-end Supercomputer in the world (by far) is Mac-based. Price out a Dell with their best processor, 20" flat screen, wireless networking, bluetooth, DVD-R, and software equivalent to the entire iLife suite (if there is such a thing) and compare that to a 20" G5 iMac. PCs became popular because of their base price alone, not overall cost or long-term value. I have a stock Rev B iMac at home from 1999 that runs Panther just fine- how many 1999 PCs can run the latest version of Windows? If you have to buy another computer just to run Windows, how can that possibly be cheaper?

Most PC users I know have been seriously affected by a virus or worm at some point, or frustrated by peripherals that aren't as plug and play as they should be. Designers have tight deadlines, and can't afford that kind of downtime. It has always amazed me how much configuration and usability nonsense PC users are willing to endure. A few years ago, our cable company wan't sure what kind of software, drivers, etc. they needed to hook up my Mac and estimated a hour of labor (answer: just plug it in). I asked two long-time PC users last month how to copy a file from one drive to another without opening it and using Save (on a Mac, you simply drag it from point A to point B). Neither one knew the answer! How perfectly appropriate.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/03/2004 10:01:52 AM · #59

Originally posted by scalvert:

I asked two long-time PC users last month how to copy a file from one drive to another without opening it and using Save (on a Mac, you simply drag it from point A to point B).

It's been the same answer on a PC for oh, about 10 years too.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 10:11:35 AM · #60

Originally posted by Gordon:

It's been the same answer on a PC for oh, about 10 years too.

I figured as much, but I just thought it was funny that two people using a PC for many years had never copied a file to another drive. It's pretty much a "games and Microsoft Office" world.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

11/03/2004 10:12:11 AM · #61

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by scalvert:
I asked two long-time PC users last month how to copy a file from one drive to another without opening it and using Save (on a Mac, you simply drag it from point A to point B).

It's been the same answer on a PC for oh, about 10 years too.

If they were long-time PC users then I'm concerned about their ability to use a computer.

11/03/2004 10:12:47 AM · #62

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

If they were long-time PC users then I'm concerned about their ability to use a computer.

'Nuff said.

11/03/2004 10:15:59 AM · #63

This thread started out as a discussion about how color management and gamma affect PCs and MACs. We could have some very valuable conversation about making images consistent regardless of platform, but another mac vs pc debate is a waste of time. I could go on for days about the differences between the platforms, but I would prefer focus on how to make my photography, including post production color management, better.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 10:31:04 AM · #64

You're absolutely right, Nusbaum, and the links Britannica provided below look promising in that regard.

MrAkamai

Canon EOS-50D

11/03/2004 10:36:13 AM · #65

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Actually, micknewton chose to bash the Mac and Mac users from the start.

Originally posted by micknewton:

This makes me wonder how many times my photos have been voted down just because you Mac wienies can't see straight. 8-)

Yes, there's a smile at the end but if he's going to say something like that, he's got to expect some sort of response from Mac users defending their OS of choice. The PC users are no better.

I agree that this thread should be about USEFUL information on calibration and/or monitor choice but it seems that most people care about the Mac/PC debate vs why we visit this site in the first place: photography. Shouldn't digital photography be OS independent? Think about it. When you go through the photos in a challenge, do you sit and ask yourself which were processed on a Mac, PC or linux box? It's not all that important. What is important is the quality of the image and color calibration is part of that.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/03/2004 10:40:39 AM · #66

For anyone interested, a very good book on the whole colour managed workflow is 'Color Confidence' by Tim Grey

He starts at square one with a brief introduction to colour theory and moves on to monitor selection, calibration etc. It's well worth it.

Message edited by author 2004-11-03 10:41:02.

cghubbell

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/03/2004 10:52:36 AM · #67

Just for the record, some people who chime in on Mac vs PC do it out of humor - not serious debate. I actually think it's hilarious to debate these things. If I thought OS was important to photography I'd stop using Linux :) Somehow I still manage to take decent pics despite being less popular than Ralph Nader and I definitely don't have OS integrated profiles, nor could I purchase a colorimeter.
If you don't like the side threads on goofy debates then ignore 'em and drown them out with rational conversation about color profiling standards.

Speaking of rational topics... For those of you using PCs or Macs with dual displays, do you profile your monitors independantly, then somehow apply unique profiles to each screen? On my Linux workstation I have two very different 21" displays, and can only profile for one at a time, so I display images on one screen and toolboxes on the other. Is this handled differentl on other platforms, or does everyone just buy two identicle screens and hope for the best?

MrAkamai

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 02:00:45 PM · #68

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Somehow I still manage to take decent pics despite being less popular than Ralph Nader and I definitely don't have OS integrated profiles, nor could I purchase a colorimeter.
If you don't like the side threads on goofy debates then ignore 'em and drown them out with rational conversation about color profiling standards.

I'm nowhere near as popular as Ralph Nader and I'd say I'm on par with his dog's fleas (assuming he has a dog). I'd say my pics are decent as well, but who am I to judge since I have no ribbons, and I haven't calibrated in a while either and really should.

As far as side threads on goofy debates, this type of "goofy debate" happens a lot here and the same things are said by both sides. Yes they are distracting and I usually ignore most of these useless debates. But just like the people involved in them have the right to speak their mind, so do I. So from now on I will try harder not to waste my time with these sideshows and save my sanity. :)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/03/2004 02:22:19 PM · #69

You are right, but I have to confess that I cannot resist the PC vs MAC and usually feel the need to dive in head first. Next thing you know I am pounding the keyboard and grinding my teeth trying to get my "opinion" into the forum fast enough. There was no chance of me ignoring the thread, so I tried to save myself by adjusting the topic of conversation....

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

11/03/2004 02:48:20 PM · #70

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

You are absolutely right about my intent when I created this thread. My silly anti-Mac comments, as well as the thread subject line, were intended as humor and to capture attention. As you said, I had hoped to generate a little discussion on the subject of color management and gamma settings. I did not intend for this to become a debate over the relative merits of the two platforms. In retrospect, I see that I should have left my poor attempts at humor out of my post. My apologies to anybody that felt offended by my comments.

--Mick

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

11/03/2004 03:03:12 PM · #71

PCs lack the necessary chip to process thread humor. It keeps the cost down. ;-)

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

11/03/2004 03:36:14 PM · #72

I can't understand this debate? Mac v PC, gamma correction?

Stop bitching, build your own PC and it can be whatever you desire.

Spend your money wisely and you get the machine to do the job, buy off the shelf and you only have yourself to blame!