A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ripe Apples



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old November 14th 17, 05:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default Ripe Apples

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And when using a gloss monitor, although the highlights and mid range
colors are great, it is very difficult to see gradations of color in the
shadow to dark areas.


complete nonsense.

Most people may not care, but I do. I know the
gloss on Apple branded monitors is not as high as it used to be, but I
prefer to work on a matte surfaced monitor.


only because you've used ****ty glossy displays.

Similarly, if I am submitting a print for a print competition, because
of the configuration of the light boxes they are usually viewed under, I
will print on a glossy surface, and underexpose by about a half stop.
OTOH if the print is going to be hanging on a wall, I will usually use a
matte paper. IOW I print for the conditions under which the image will
be viewed.


that has absolutely nothing to do with choice of display.
  #62  
Old November 14th 17, 05:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,056
Default Ripe Apples

On 11/14/2017 11:18 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Second you can't replace the screen with another of
different spec while retaining your existing hardware.

so what? the screen doesn't normally fail and the retina display is
*much* better than what you have.

Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?

yes.


Why. What is the benefit, except for the user liking it.


image quality.


For you to look at. Fine. But, not for me when I produce images for
others to view. I you produced an image using a Retina screen, then
produced the same image using my screen, and both were viewed on an sRGB
96 pixel screen, nobody could tell which screen was used in production.
Well maybe there would be more tonality in the shadow areas in the image
produced using my monitor.



what is the benefit of your 36mp camera, versus a more affordable 24 mp?


Not a valid comparison. I get my cameras for what I expect to use then
for. my D500 has less and smaller pixels than the D800. yet I use them
both, as well as my 8800, P&S.



--
PeterN
  #63  
Old November 14th 17, 06:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,056
Default Ripe Apples

On 11/14/2017 11:33 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

And when using a gloss monitor, although the highlights and mid range
colors are great, it is very difficult to see gradations of color in the
shadow to dark areas.


complete nonsense.

Most people may not care, but I do. I know the
gloss on Apple branded monitors is not as high as it used to be, but I
prefer to work on a matte surfaced monitor.


only because you've used ****ty glossy displays.


Gee, they were all Apple branded products.



Similarly, if I am submitting a print for a print competition, because
of the configuration of the light boxes they are usually viewed under, I
will print on a glossy surface, and underexpose by about a half stop.
OTOH if the print is going to be hanging on a wall, I will usually use a
matte paper. IOW I print for the conditions under which the image will
be viewed.


that has absolutely nothing to do with choice of display.


Only if you are a knee jerk Appleseed.


--
PeterN
  #64  
Old November 14th 17, 06:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default Ripe Apples

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Second you can't replace the screen with another of
different spec while retaining your existing hardware.

so what? the screen doesn't normally fail and the retina display is
*much* better than what you have.

Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?

yes.

Why. What is the benefit, except for the user liking it.


image quality.


For you to look at. Fine. But, not for me when I produce images for
others to view. I you produced an image using a Retina screen, then
produced the same image using my screen, and both were viewed on an sRGB
96 pixel screen, nobody could tell which screen was used in production.


nobody could tell which camera was used either.

did you have a point? no.

and if you're going to be looking at the images on a ****ty srgb
display, then you might as well get a ****ty srgb display to begin
with, along with a ****ty compact digicam, as you'll never be able to
see the difference.

Well maybe there would be more tonality in the shadow areas in the image
produced using my monitor.


complete nonsense.

what is the benefit of your 36mp camera, versus a more affordable 24 mp?


Not a valid comparison.


it's a very valid comparison.

you asked:
Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?


you don't 'need' a 36 mp camera when your images are displayed on
smaller displays or printed smaller than 20x24 or so (which from what
you've said is the case).

a typical non-retina 27" display has 2560x1440 pixels, or just under 4
mp. perhaps you should be using your daughter's 6 mp nikon d70.

I get my cameras for what I expect to use then
for. my D500 has less and smaller pixels than the D800. yet I use them
both, as well as my 8800, P&S.


completely missing the point.
  #65  
Old November 14th 17, 06:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default Ripe Apples

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And when using a gloss monitor, although the highlights and mid range
colors are great, it is very difficult to see gradations of color in the
shadow to dark areas.


complete nonsense.

Most people may not care, but I do. I know the
gloss on Apple branded monitors is not as high as it used to be, but I
prefer to work on a matte surfaced monitor.


only because you've used ****ty glossy displays.


Gee, they were all Apple branded products.


so what?

nobody said everything apple makes is perfect.

Similarly, if I am submitting a print for a print competition, because
of the configuration of the light boxes they are usually viewed under, I
will print on a glossy surface, and underexpose by about a half stop.
OTOH if the print is going to be hanging on a wall, I will usually use a
matte paper. IOW I print for the conditions under which the image will
be viewed.


that has absolutely nothing to do with choice of display.


Only if you are a knee jerk Appleseed.


resorting to insults, as usual.

you're not interested in a discussion.

i should have known.
  #66  
Old November 14th 17, 07:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,056
Default Ripe Apples

On 11/14/2017 12:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Second you can't replace the screen with another of
different spec while retaining your existing hardware.

so what? the screen doesn't normally fail and the retina display is
*much* better than what you have.

Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?

yes.

Why. What is the benefit, except for the user liking it.

image quality.


For you to look at. Fine. But, not for me when I produce images for
others to view. I you produced an image using a Retina screen, then
produced the same image using my screen, and both were viewed on an sRGB
96 pixel screen, nobody could tell which screen was used in production.


nobody could tell which camera was used either.


irrelevant
did you have a point? no.




and if you're going to be looking at the images on a ****ty srgb
display, then you might as well get a ****ty srgb display to begin
with, along with a ****ty compact digicam, as you'll never be able to
see the difference.

Well maybe there would be more tonality in the shadow areas in the image
produced using my monitor.


complete nonsense.


If you actually produced images you would know it 8is not. The good
people at Apple agree. Indeed when I asked them, they were specific
about the issue with the darker areas.

what is the benefit of your 36mp camera, versus a more affordable 24 mp?


Not a valid comparison.


it's a very valid comparison.

you asked:
Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?


you don't 'need' a 36 mp camera when your images are displayed on
smaller displays or printed smaller than 20x24 or so (which from what
you've said is the case).


If all my images were full frame, and only displayed on monitors, you
would be correct. Your assumption is wrong.


a typical non-retina 27" display has 2560x1440 pixels, or just under 4
mp. perhaps you should be using your daughter's 6 mp nikon d70.

I get my cameras for what I expect to use then
for. my D500 has less and smaller pixels than the D800. yet I use them
both, as well as my 8800, P&S.


completely missing the point.

At least you admit that you did.

--
PeterN
  #67  
Old November 14th 17, 07:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default Ripe Apples

In article , PeterN
wrote:


and if you're going to be looking at the images on a ****ty srgb
display, then you might as well get a ****ty srgb display to begin
with, along with a ****ty compact digicam, as you'll never be able to
see the difference.

Well maybe there would be more tonality in the shadow areas in the image
produced using my monitor.


complete nonsense.


If you actually produced images


back to your insults, again.

you would know it 8is not.


i know that it's nonsense.

The good
people at Apple agree. Indeed when I asked them, they were specific
about the issue with the darker areas.


either you're lying or they were very mistaken.

if it was actually an issue (which it isn't), it would be widely
discussed on the various photo sites. it's not.

it's complete fabrication.

the reality is that the retina display is considered to be the best in
the biz, which shatters your absurd claim that the shadow tonality is
poor.

you've never even used it, have you?

what is the benefit of your 36mp camera, versus a more affordable 24 mp?

Not a valid comparison.


it's a very valid comparison.

you asked:
Do you really need a screen of that density, when your images are going
to be seen on screens with much lower density?


you don't 'need' a 36 mp camera when your images are displayed on
smaller displays or printed smaller than 20x24 or so (which from what
you've said is the case).


If all my images were full frame, and only displayed on monitors, you
would be correct. Your assumption is wrong.


nope.

a typical non-retina 27" display has 2560x1440 pixels, or just under 4
mp. perhaps you should be using your daughter's 6 mp nikon d70.

I get my cameras for what I expect to use then
for. my D500 has less and smaller pixels than the D800. yet I use them
both, as well as my 8800, P&S.


completely missing the point.

At least you admit that you did.


nope.
  #68  
Old November 15th 17, 01:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default Ripe Apples

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:26:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And when using a gloss monitor, although the highlights and mid range
colors are great, it is very difficult to see gradations of color in the
shadow to dark areas.

complete nonsense.

Most people may not care, but I do. I know the
gloss on Apple branded monitors is not as high as it used to be, but I
prefer to work on a matte surfaced monitor.

only because you've used ****ty glossy displays.


Gee, they were all Apple branded products.


so what?

nobody said everything apple makes is perfect.


All they do is deny that the Apple product under discussion has any
faults. 'They' being you.

Similarly, if I am submitting a print for a print competition, because
of the configuration of the light boxes they are usually viewed under, I
will print on a glossy surface, and underexpose by about a half stop.
OTOH if the print is going to be hanging on a wall, I will usually use a
matte paper. IOW I print for the conditions under which the image will
be viewed.

that has absolutely nothing to do with choice of display.


Only if you are a knee jerk Appleseed.


resorting to insults, as usual.

you're not interested in a discussion.

i should have known.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #69  
Old November 15th 17, 01:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,467
Default Ripe Apples

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:24:05 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

Second you can't replace the screen with another of
different spec while retaining your existing hardware.


You can with a mac, just connect up the second monitor, I thought you could so that with PCs too, but maybe you can't.
But then again I've no reason to want to change my displat as I got the one I wanted with the computer.

Adding a second monitor is not the same as replacing the first one.


Why would we bother with those when we can buy sperate boxes where one can go on the floor on on the desk top.
You see desk tops were getting in the way they couldn't fit on the desk top !
so like you need space on the floor where they got kicked and of course one thing that you;ve ignored is that being at that level they suck in much more dust than they woukld on the desk.


I'm not working in a zoo and I have never had problems with dust.


So the advantage of my iMac is that I don't need extra space on the desk or on the floor or anywhere else. This is one of the reasons all in ones are popular and why iMacs sell.
You do know that the popularity of labtops is because they are all in one and portable, but again people make their own choices don't they.

I would be tempted too if I was in that situation. But I'm not.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #70  
Old November 15th 17, 01:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,085
Default Ripe Apples

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And when using a gloss monitor, although the highlights and mid range
colors are great, it is very difficult to see gradations of color in the
shadow to dark areas.

complete nonsense.

Most people may not care, but I do. I know the
gloss on Apple branded monitors is not as high as it used to be, but I
prefer to work on a matte surfaced monitor.

only because you've used ****ty glossy displays.

Gee, they were all Apple branded products.


so what?

nobody said everything apple makes is perfect.


All they do is deny that the Apple product under discussion has any
faults. 'They' being you.


bull****. i never said anything remotely close to that.

peter made the ludicrous and unfounded claim that retina displays have
issues with the shadows. that's complete nonsense, entirely fabricated
by him solely to argue.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ripe Apples Davoud Digital Photography 3 November 9th 17 06:29 AM
Apples, oranges, new crop of P&S's [email protected] Digital Photography 1 December 16th 07 08:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.