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