PDA

View Full Version : Better (and worse) pictures in minutes


Roger Hicks
05-17-2009, 13:59
A new monitor on my internet computer -- nothing special, just a flat-screen Asus -- has enabled me to see how much better so many pictures now look on the internet. And how bad some of the others look...

It replaced an old HP monitor that I was given. I hate spending money on new computers, monitors, etc., but never seem to mind buying lenses or cameras. Who else feels the same way?

Tashi delek,

R.

David William White
05-17-2009, 14:05
Similar attitude & similar challenging experience: Switched to Mac from Windows a couple of years ago and wonderfully surprised how much better everything looked. I use a PC at work, pretty state-of-the-art, but can no longer stand to surf photo sites with it.

Thardy
05-17-2009, 14:19
Similar attitude & similar challenging experience: Switched to Mac from Windows a couple of years ago and wonderfully surprised how much better everything looked. I use a PC at work, pretty state-of-the-art, but can no longer stand to surf photo sites with it.

Shhhh ... not so loudly. There are people who actually LIKE PCs and will be virtually frothing at the mouth arguing with you about that statement.

Rui Morais de Sousa
05-17-2009, 14:41
Hi Roger,

Computers are, generally speaking, rather boring.
Cameras and lenses can be a whole lot of fun.

Besides, you can't really judge the quality, or the lack of it, of a photograph on a monitor screen.
You could have the best screen in the world, you still would be missing something important: the texture, the touch and the smell that only a FB B&W print can give.
But that you know better than me...

I agree with you: I also prefer to buy photo gear.

Greetings,
Rui

AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY

(http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

feenej
05-17-2009, 15:12
Photos look a heck of a lot better on my Mac at home than on my PC at work. (not a real fair comparison though, just a cheapie monitor at work. Any PC could run a nice monitor)

Brian Sweeney
05-17-2009, 15:53
At home, I use an old Dell Inspiron Laptop 8000 Pentium III with a terrific monitor. 1600x1200 resolution, great color. I hate the thought of replacing it.

D.O'K.
05-18-2009, 13:08
Well to me computers and digital cameras, for all their cleverness and versatility, have no soul. But film cameras and lenses have, somehow, so it's hard to regard money spent on them as every really wasted.

Can't really explain this phenomenon, unless perhaps it means God only likes film...

Regards,
D.

dazedgonebye
05-18-2009, 13:14
Well to me computers and digital cameras, for all their cleverness and versatility, have no soul. But film cameras and lenses have, somehow, so it's hard to regard money spent on them as every really wasted.

Can't really explain this phenomenon, unless perhaps it means God only likes film...

Regards,
D.

Since only people have souls all the rest have only what you impart to them.
Of course, your feelings toward film could mean that God hates digital and only allows ones and zeros to exist as single bit devils to temp us from the true path of analog salvation.

varjag
05-18-2009, 13:31
Saving money on a display is not worth it: you spend too much in front of it. It has nothing to do with Mac vs. PC either, since there are really like 3-4 OEM manufacturers worldwide, and every computer company buys from same suppliers - just the models at different price points.

D.O'K.
05-18-2009, 13:33
"Of course, your feelings toward film could mean that God hates digital and only allows ones and zeros to exist as single bit devils to temp us from the true path of analog salvation".

Brilliant--this is amongst the most convincing theology I've ever heard...

Regards,
D.

dof
05-18-2009, 13:38
Regarding computer monitors, there is a threshold of quality that necessary to accurately judge photos, either for viewing or doing image adjustments. Beyond that the only key is that it be accurately calibrated and consistent.

With camera lenses we have the opportunity to find different ways of drawing that include differences in micro and macro contrast, different degrees of sharpness, differences in out-of-focus rendering. It's little wonder that with so many creative options available that it would be more exciting and pleasureable to add to our lens collections.

By the way, I feel similarly about enlarging lenses as I do about monitors. The choice of lens is not a creative element when printing. I want that to be as high-quality and consistent as possible. There are already many variables available when printing. The lens is one I'd rather not have account for.

Robin P
05-18-2009, 13:45
I've yet to be convinced by one of those flat screen jobbies, got myself a big CRT monitor really cheap in an end of line sale.
Roger, you (and maybe many here) are now in a privileged minority as you still regularly look at prints - most people now see their photographs on screens.

Cheers, Robin

johannielscom
05-18-2009, 13:47
The next piece of glass I buy will be attached to a 24 inch Apple Cinema screen.

There's no way to judge shots posted on the internet at all without a good monitor. Or, post-process digitally with a crappy screen.

I've been using a rather expensive Acer flat screen for over a year now but it's developing ghost images, looks like shadows on the right side of every vertical line. Since I'm also scanning and post-processing digital, I need something I can trust.

Good thing you tossed the old HP out, congrats on a better looking window to the world!

dazedgonebye
05-18-2009, 13:49
"Of course, your feelings toward film could mean that God hates digital and only allows ones and zeros to exist as single bit devils to temp us from the true path of analog salvation".

Brilliant--this is amongst the most convincing theology I've ever heard...

Regards,
D.

I'm thinking of reorganizing under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

amateriat
05-18-2009, 15:15
The trouble with too much computer stuff is the Upgrade Initiative: as soon as you think you've got the right CPU/monitor/etc., along comes something that won't run on your current setup, even though you've maxed out the RAM and stuffed the thing with big, fast hard drives. Unlike most camera gear, this stuff doesn't seem to hang around longer than four to five years at most.

In my case, I stay deliberately behind the curve (Power Mac G4 "FW800" with dual 1.25GHz processors, 2GB RAM, and the above-mentioned big, fast hard drives, soon to be replaced with bigger, fast hard drives). For monitors, I've got the last of the smaller CRT Apple Studio Displays, and a late-model 22" LaCie Electron Blue CRT display: way cheaper than their LCD counterparts, and about as accurate (the smaller one is for my Photoshop palettes, leaving the LaCie for just the image I'm working on). By the time these monitors wear out, I'll likely find suitable LCDs for non-crazy prices. (I did blow silly money on my Minolta DS 5400 film scanner five years back, and I'm still glad I did.)

But never mind this...I've got to buy a quartet of 500/750GB hard drives soon. Do you know how much space a roll's worth of high-res scans takes up? ;)


- Barrett

Roger Hicks
05-18-2009, 22:44
My image processing monitor is an Iiyama CRT, but it's a useful trick to use a very modest monitor for the internet to remind yourself how most people will see most of your pictures. The old HP was however excessively modest...

Tashi delek,

R.

kully
05-19-2009, 04:37
I've been using a rather expensive Acer flat screen for over a year now but it's developing ghost images, looks like shadows on the right side of every vertical line. Since I'm also scanning and post-processing digital, I need something I can trust.


That looks a lot like a loose cable or a bad cable.

Are you using VGA, DVI or HDMI to connect your source to the monitor?

dmr
05-19-2009, 04:48
I still have a tube type Viewsonic monitor at home. It's fairly new, the Ultra-Brite (isn't that a toothpaste?) game version, although the only game I play on it is Minesweeper. :)

At work we have all flat screens. They swapped those out a few years back to save energy.

In my not so humble opinion, the tube type at home gives more of a closer image to what you see in a print. The ones at work have kind of an "artificial" look to them, if you know what I mean.

Peter_Jones
05-19-2009, 05:02
The CRT monitors I use at work are worse than my old HP LCD flat screen jobbie. In fact they were hardly usable until I went inside and turned the A1 brightness up (not recommended unless you've worked on CRTs before - potentially lethal voltages) now they are reasonably usable.

Dave Wilkinson
05-19-2009, 05:21
I wonder if the time has come to change my black and white TV?.....the wife keeps complaining!:confused:

Florian1234
05-19-2009, 13:12
Last week my 5 years old notebook/laptop PC died or at least it does not work anymore longer as five minutes in the safe mode of xp.
So I was able to only secure the most valuable data (my master thesis' text in the making and another folder with university stuff) put on my usb memory stick.
I was forced by this to spend some hundreds of bucks for a new laptop/notebook PC, also from Asus. Has a very nice screen, too.

And, yes, I also hate to spend money on that stuff. It mostly is connected with "Murphy's law". :bang::D