Ripe Apples
 

On Nov 21, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 11/21/2017 4:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 November 2017 17:05:14 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/20/2017 5:44 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip


I did that too, I didn't need to take the computer apart either.
For me technology is still moving fast enoguh for me to to want to leave
it 8 years before upgrading, you prefer upgrading individual components,
I prefer for the most part getting a new computer.


You must have more money than I:

Perhaps or I just spend more wisely, I wouldn't spend 400 on a graphics
card unless I was well into gaming which I'm not.
And just where did that come from.

my earlier quote from Cato is applicable he

"Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse
carum est."

Me : When you can't think for yourself, quote someone else. Stardate 95491.5
When somebody says things well, why reinvent the wheel.

Choke on these:

Life is not a spectacle, or feast; it is a predicament.

George Santayana

Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It’s the transition that’s
Troublesome.

Isaac Azimov

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them
misunderstood.

H. L. Mencken

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

H. L. Mencken

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Ripe Apples
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

If one is preparing images that will be not be viewed on a
Retina monitor, why would they need to be prepared on one.

by that reasoning, all you need is a cheap display because that's what
most people have.

also, since a 1080p display only has 2 megapixels, there's no need for
anything beyond a 20 year old 2 megapixel nikon coolpix 950.

the reason to get a retina display is so that the results are better no
matter what output device the user chooses, as well as providing for a
much better user experience regardless of the intent of the photos.

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/21/2017 10:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

If one is preparing images that will be not be viewed on a
Retina monitor, why would they need to be prepared on one.

by that reasoning, all you need is a cheap display because that's what
most people have.

yup!


also, since a 1080p display only has 2 megapixels, there's no need for
anything beyond a 20 year old 2 megapixel nikon coolpix 950.
Nope


the reason to get a retina display is so that the results are better no
matter what output device the user chooses, as well as providing for a
much better user experience regardless of the intent of the photos.


If you want one, by all means get one. I stated my reasons for getting
my monitor. I thought long and hard about an NEC, but decided I didn't
really need one. I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one, for my needs. At this time I am very happy with my
monitor, it works well, and despite your derisive comments about my
eyesight, the images I produce with it have been doing very well in
competitions. I am very satisfied with the standing of my images, when
there are hundreds of entries from competent photographers. When I get
exhibition acceptances from PSA exhibitions, I figure others must like
what I produce. BTW Tell us when * got my monitor, and when the 28"
Retina came on the market.
When I see decent images from you, I will consider your advice about
production tools.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/21/2017 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.


Your snip is duly noted.
Answer my question, before you make a statement about what I did and did
not do.
When did I purchase my monitor, and when did this Retina come on the
market.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:42:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

Ripe Apples
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

Your snip is duly noted.
Answer my question, before you make a statement about what I did and did
not do.
When did I purchase my monitor, and when did this Retina come on the
market.

those questions have been answered.

Ripe Apples
 

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:36:32 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 November 2017 12:50:51 UTC, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

You must have more money than I:

Perhaps or I just spend more wisely, I wouldn't spend 400 on a
graphics
card
unless I was well into gaming which I'm not.

Didn't yo state that you are a janitor changing batteries on the
lecturers wireless mice???

No I've never said any such thing. Amongst the £10K stock I keep I do keep
standard batteries and cells.

Then it was this post, third from the top of yours that I was thinking
of!

Where is the link?

I'll repost:

https://www.diy-forums.com/threads/i...uitable-for-wi
ring-a-front-door-bell.53022/

http://tinyurl.com/yarvumhu
--
teleportation kills

late reply Was( Ripe Apples
 

On 11/21/2017 10:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Nov 21, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 11/21/2017 4:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 November 2017 17:05:14 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/20/2017 5:44 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip


I did that too, I didn't need to take the computer apart either.
For me technology is still moving fast enoguh for me to to want to leave
it 8 years before upgrading, you prefer upgrading individual components,
I prefer for the most part getting a new computer.


You must have more money than I:

Perhaps or I just spend more wisely, I wouldn't spend 400 on a graphics
card unless I was well into gaming which I'm not.
And just where did that come from.

my earlier quote from Cato is applicable he

"Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse
carum est."

Me : When you can't think for yourself, quote someone else. Stardate 95491.5
When somebody says things well, why reinvent the wheel.

Choke on these:

Life is not a spectacle, or feast; it is a predicament.

George Santayana

Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It’s the transition that’s
Troublesome.

Isaac Azimov

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them
misunderstood.

H. L. Mencken

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

H. L. Mencken

All animals are equal. All pigs are animals. Some pigs are more equal
than others.

A derivation from Orwell, the pending tax reduction legislation.



--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 5:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 02:48:23 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/21/2017 4:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 November 2017 17:05:14 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/20/2017 5:44 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip


I did that too, I didn't need to take the computer apart either.
For me technology is still moving fast enoguh for me to to want to leave it 8 years before upgrading, you prefer upgrading individual components, I prefer for the most part getting a new computer.





You must have more money than I:

Perhaps or I just spend more wisely, I wouldn't spend 400 on a graphics card unless I was well into gaming which I'm not.

And just where did that come from.

From a PC users that spent 400 on a gamers graphics card in the hope it's be better when editing using photoshop. The basic idea that throwing money at a particualer thing will make any computer so much better than a new computer.

I could ask where this came from
"You must have more money than I:"

What has that got to do with anything.


Figure it out for yourself.




my earlier quote from Cato is applicable he

"Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse
carum est."

Me : When you can't think for yourself, quote someone else. Stardate 95491.5

When somebody says things well, why reinvent the wheel.

Why have differnt types and sizes of wheel ?

Buying a wheel from an F1 won't make yuo're car and F1 and won't make your commute time much shorter unless yuo;re in a F1 and have a wheel missing.


Your comment implies that I said that. If you are talking about me, say
so, and then apologize. The only game I ever really liked was flight
Simulator. I was on the verge of setting up three monitors with a
simulator seat. Shortly after 9/11, I uninstalled the game and haven't
touched it since.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:


As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:45:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

That's interesting. I've always thought that there was an ideal size
at which to display a particular image but I have never thought of
fiddling with the image to make it better suit a different size. I
would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the
experience.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:08:10 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:


As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

You are stuck in a rut.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

You are stuck in a rut.

not at all.

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:08:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.


Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.

in other words, you're ok with numerous compromises and therefore must
make excuses for settling for a lower quality display and having
blindly dismissed a display which was never objectively evaluated and
most likely never even viewed at all (and a brief glance in a poorly
lit store does not count).

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?

it has absolutely nothing to do with what i want or what anyone else
wants.

as i said, you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a
lower quality display.

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 18:44:33 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.

in other words, you're ok with numerous compromises and therefore must
make excuses for settling for a lower quality display and having
blindly dismissed a display which was never objectively evaluated and
most likely never even viewed at all (and a brief glance in a poorly
lit store does not count).

The dismissal was quite justified unless Apple makes a stand-alone
matte-finished screen I haven't heard of.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?

it has absolutely nothing to do with what i want or what anyone else
wants.

as i said, you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a
lower quality display.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?


He is all knowing, about all needs. That's why he knows that.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 4:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Ah!! The old one size fits all argument.





Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.


And you never answered my question, re timing of my purchase, and
introduction of the Retina.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 5:30 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:08:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.


Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?

I thought you knew that.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 6:44 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


in other words, you're ok with numerous compromises and therefore must
make excuses for settling for a lower quality display and having
blindly dismissed a display which was never objectively evaluated and
most likely never even viewed at all (and a brief glance in a poorly
lit store does not count).


I don't know about your experiences, but I have been to four different
Apple stores, and not one of them was poorly lit.



--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/21/2017 11:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

Your snip is duly noted.
Answer my question, before you make a statement about what I did and did
not do.
When did I purchase my monitor, and when did this Retina come on the
market.

those questions have been answered.


Pants on fire.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 5:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:45:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

That's interesting. I've always thought that there was an ideal size
at which to display a particular image but I have never thought of
fiddling with the image to make it better suit a different size. I
would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the
experience.


It's really the same principle as creating a manual profile so that the
image looks its best on the media it's intended for. If we didn't have
pre-made profiles, we would have to do an approximation adjustment. I
know that in my camera club prints are viewed under certain lighting
conditions. For CC competitions, I print on glossy paper, and reduce the
exposure by about 1/3 stop, and adjust the gray point to compensate
for the color of the light. If the same print is going to be viewed on a
wall, I print in on a matte paper, and depending on the subject matter,
increase exposure and shift the gray point in a different direction, so
that the print looks as close as possible to my intended image on the
screen.


--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/23/2017 11:13 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 11/22/2017 5:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:45:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Â*Â* I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

That's interesting. I've always thought that there was an ideal size
at which to display a particular image but I have never thought of
fiddling with the image to make it better suit a different size. I
would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the
experience.


It's really the same principle as creating a manual profile so that the
image looks its best on the media it's intended for. If we didn't have
pre-made profiles, we would have to do an approximation adjustment. I
know that in my camera club prints are viewed under certain lighting
conditions. For CC competitions, I print on glossy paper, and reduce the
Â*exposure by about 1/3 stop, and adjust the gray point to compensate
for the color of the light. If the same print is going to be viewed on a
wall, I print in on a matte paper, and depending on the subject matter,
increase exposure and shift the gray point in a different direction, so
that the print looks as close as possible to my intended image on the
screen.



Correction. I should have used the term "luminosity," instead of "exposure."


--
PeterN