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