Poll; How many use Macs, how many use PC here?

Do you use a Mac for photo editing or a PC?

  • I use a PC computer and monitor to edit and display photos

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    67
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Just curious because I posted some images and they appear much different on my Mac than they do on my PC. Even from mac notebook to Mac LCD monitor there is a significant difference. I'm not looking for the LCD vs CRT here this might be interesting also but I just want to compare Mac vs; PC.

I am quite curious how many use Macs here in this artistic gathering.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
195
Location
New York City
For your comparisons, are you comparing well-calbrated (to same standard) computer+display configurations? Do you also account for the effect of lighting environment around your computer setup, etc?

Just checking since you say they appear "much different".

Also, doesn't the Mac use gamma 1.8 while Wintel platforms mainly use gamma 2.2? So you might need to account for that if you're using the same kinds of display for both Mac and PC.

Also, your Mac is probably set up to be colorspace aware while your PC (and/or whatever software you used for viewing images) may not be. In that case, if you view images that use AdobeRGB colorspace or something other than sRGB, it won't look right w/ most software on the PC -- as most typically assume sRGB.

With all this stuff going on, I wonder when computer video (and digital imaging in general) will also end up being dubbed w/ a similar rep ("Never The Same Color" twice :D) as NTSC video by the mainstream populace here in the USA. :wink:

_Man_
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
First let me say... this is not a Mac vs PC competition thread. Please don't turn this into mine is better than yours thread. I am just curious to see what if any the predominant computer format is here. It seems like a legitimate question. Many are considering switching and it seems to make a difference in the way photos are displayed.

I have set my Mac to a 2.2 gamma setting and use Monaco equipment and software to calibrate. Calibrated monitors should see a similar image to one another and will yield a print closer to what you see on your screen given that print is CMYK and monitors use RGB. However there are more color spaces than you can count and every computer is somewhat different. You can see this in the TV section of your local department store. Each TV is a monitor of sorts and is calibrated to the manufacturers specs, hence a bit different image will be seen on each.

The majority of computer users know very little about calibration as it is very confusing and can be very very expensive to do it right. I do not claim to be an expert or even close but have done a bit of research in order to get a consistant result in my printing. It really can make a tremendous difference.

Apple sets all their monitors at a 1.8 gamma and most if not all PC's are set at 2.2. Most medium to high end monitors and computers allow the user to set their own white balance. Most users, especially among amatuer ranks tend to use their computer at it's native setting. As you correctly noted there are many factors to consider. LCD vs CRT, room light and the color of the ambient light, even the color on the walls can make a difference, etc. I keep my editing room semi dark when ever editing and have replaced my lightbulbs with special daylight simulating bulbs to get a whiter ambient light.

to answer your question, I am really more interested in which computer format most people here at the Cafe have invested in. I switched to Apple from PC about a year and half ago and have never regreted it for personal reasons. Not because Mac is better. I am not convinced it is. Nor is it worse for that matter.

The question of PC or Mac pops up about once a month and I thought it might be interesting to those on the fence or who like me have switched one way or the other. It is funny, as a casual and personal observation, I know of very few who switch from Mac to PC unless their work demands it or supplies a free computer.

Again, please no mine is better than yours comments. DPR has plenty of those already if you want to have that discussion. Thank you.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
609
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
I use PC, but my Mac-using mate has his gamma set to 2.0 as a sort of compromise solution. His images don't seem to display any differently on my monitor than they do on his and vice versa. I should add, "At least since I got a good monitor and discovered my old cheap POS was the reason why I thought all my images looked soft (now only some of 'em look soft :) ).

Neil
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
122
Location
San Francisco
Are you comparing images on the web between mac & pc, or the same image locally on each computer hard drive?

If your viewing via the web, there are many reasons why the look different.

The most important will be color profile. IE & Windows computers assume sRGB and ignore the imbedded image info. With Mac, and most Mac browsers, it will display the color profile of the image. If the profile is missing, it will revert to the default display profile & not sRGB.

This is important when viewing images from online hosting companies such as smugmug. They strip the profile out of the image when it is resized to save on bandwidth. I've had long discussions about this with the smugmug owners, and have been pulling my hair out. An out of the box mac install & safari will display washed out images when there is no embedded profile. To resolve this, I have designed my own site, and I'm moving all my galleries there.

I have done way too much research on this, so if you have any questions, let me know.

Dave
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
You eat Mac's at that Burger Place which was 50 years old yesterday.

PC's are what you do computing on..... :wink:
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
195
Location
New York City
One of the problems w/ LCD is black level (and consequently DR). LCD just cannot have as good DR as CRT although I heard you can get one reasonably close to a good CRT from Apple(?) for a pretty penny. The problem is LCD panels use a bulb to light the entire thing, and the light usually leaks too much to allow decent black level. And if they try to tone down the blacks, they will make the whites dimmer than what most people want. Most people tend to just assume brighter is better and don't think much about blacks (and the overall grayscale) or that maybe it's good to watch TV w/ a dimmer lighting instead (so that blacks are more pronounced and super brightness is not needed).

And that's part of the reason why TVs (and monitors) are typically set to overly blue WB for that extra push in perceived brightness on top of the over-the-edge super bright "torch mode" default settings needed to combat brightly lit showroom floors (and other competing TVs). And depending on how blue the WB is, the maker will also apply some red push to compensate, which is why you often see burning/glowing red faces/skin tones on people who have a reddish skin tone and plenty of blooming/bleeding reds as well -- that's besides whatever mess the settings arrived at after being played around by some shoppers of course.

Hmmm... Actually, I wonder if that's also roughly what's going on w/ the D70's default color balance. There's a touch of blue/green bias in the WB, and maybe they compensate w/ the red push, which tends to blowout reds.

_Man_
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
I'm no expert just an OG with more gadgets than good sense. I have a Viewsonic professional editing 23" CRT (the best they made about a year and a half ago) in my closet and a 23" Apple LCD on my desk hooked up to my computer. I will never go back to the Viewsonic. My Apple monitor is a thing of beauty. I can watch high def movies with tremendous detail and very black blacks or edit an image to almost exactly what it will look like when it prints. I only say almost because the screen is backlit and the printed image is reflected light.

The one catch is, it aint cheap... I paid twice as much for the Apple LCD as for the professional Viewsonic CRT.

One thing I am seeing and liking on PC's is these new glossy screens. Until recently every monitor I have seen has had an anti glare matt screen. Apple has not done that yet to my knowledge.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,187
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
It's a small sample, but Macs appear to constitute a quarter of the machines used. The sales of Macintosh computers is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of all the computers sold, so they seem to be 3 or 4 times more popular here (amoung digital photographers) than in the general public.

Thanks Scott for running the poll. Too bad few software developers will see this result, but those who do will have an advantage in peddling digital photography software.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Escondido, California
I do all my photo work on a G5 Dual 2.5GHz Machine with the new Apple 23" LCD screen. At first I was leery about leaving my Apple Studio CRT which I used to use...but this new Apple Cinema Display is beautiful.

As far as the difference between Mac and PC, thoughts have been given...the main variation for those PC screens that are not calibrated is mostly gamma. For that reason I've calibrated my screen to be a little bit of a compromise so my online photos will show up nicely on PCs.

Regards,

Paul
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
172
Location
North Dakota
i use pc...but if i won the lottery...i would be a mac...the mac system seems more practical/efficient with graphics...although the cost of all the software and availbility of mac sucks...

maybe all the hype got me caughtup?
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom