This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
p.30 #1Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
Honestly even though these Retina screens look nice and punchy for images they are actually the worst to work with. Real raw processing by Professionals is done on wide gamut monitors by Eizo and NEC. There maybe a few others . But these monitors see almost the whole gamut of Adobe RGB. Everything else is just SRGB monitors that basically compress your files to fit in a SRGB color gamut which is far smaller than Adobe RGB. They may look cool but there far from accurate to your file. Retina is nice for viewing as it makes your file nice...Show more →
+1 on that! "Retina" of course is just an Apple marketing term and there are now wide gamut, higher resolution editing monitors such as the NEC PA322UHD. So higher resolution displays are here to stay and imaging professionals should be aware of the effect that working on a higher pixel density monitor makes.
Honestly even though these Retina screens look nice and punchy for images they are actually the worst to work with. Real raw processing by Professionals is done on wide gamut monitors by Eizo and NEC. There maybe a few others . But these monitors see almost the whole gamut of Adobe RGB. Everything else is just SRGB monitors that basically compress your files to fit in a SRGB color gamut which is far smaller than Adobe RGB. They may look cool but there far from accurate to your file. Retina is nice for viewing as it makes your file nice...Show more →
+1 on that! "Retina" of course is just an Apple marketing term and there are now wide gamut, higher resolution editing monitors such as the NEC PA322UHD. So higher resolution displays are here to stay and imaging professionals should be aware of the effect that working on a higher pixel density monitor makes.
May 31, 2015 at 06:14 AM
p.30 #2Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
Honestly even though these Retina screens look nice and punchy for images they are actually the worst to work with. Real raw processing by Professionals is done on wide gamut monitors by Eizo and NEC. There maybe a few others . But these monitors see almost the whole gamut of Adobe RGB. Everything else is just SRGB monitors that basically compress your files to fit in a SRGB color gamut which is far smaller than Adobe RGB. They may look cool but there far from accurate to your file. Retina is nice for viewing as it makes your file nice...Show more →
I also had an Enzo for a while (friend was moving house and forced me to play with it). Found that it didn't make much of a difference in my prints, he strongly disagreed. But since most of my clients use FB as a way to share images. It's best to edit with what they are using. Also his monitor wasn't large, n I find I can get more into the mood on a big screen.
May 31, 2015 at 06:23 AM
p.30 #3Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Not surprising as a "Retina" resolution screen hides detail at 100% view as compared to a traditional resolution screen at that same % view. In essence, what you see at 100% on the Retina screen is like viewing at 50% on a traditional screen. This works out perfect when printing (as 50% view at 240ppi is about what you see in a print*) but when critically editing an image, viewing between 150%-200% is required to simulate what non Retina users see at 100%. Yes, confusing but one aspect of using higher resolution screens...
*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and...Show more →
Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
Tariq Gibran wrote
Chad Wadsworth wrote
As far as the 100% vs 200% goes, I think something odd is happening, maybe with wordpress. There is no stair stepping or edge artifacts visible in Light Room 1:1 view on my Retina screen.*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and...Show more →
Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
May 31, 2015 at 06:37 AM
p.30 #4Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system. Most hobbyist do not get into this area as they just want to shoot and enjoy photography. I totally get that and agree there stuff is not going to offset printers , art directors and for more critical applications. This also puts a damper on folks that are doing reviews and such since they are really not seeing what a sensor truly outputs.
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
May 31, 2015 at 06:44 AM
p.30 #5Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
NEC makes some rally nice wid gamut me monitors with built in calibration software and pucks that work really nice . They come in both 27 and 30 inch size.
May 31, 2015 at 06:50 AM
p.30 #6Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
If interested here is what your looking for
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1006644-REG/nec_pa272w_bk_sv_multisync_27_gb_r_lcd_display_spectraview.html
The PA272W-BK-SV LED Backlit Wide Gamut LCD Desktop Monitor with SpectraViewII (Black) from NEC comes equipped with the NEC SpectraViewII color calibration tool and features enhanced color accuracy covering 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color space, 94.8% of the NTSC color space, and 146.4% of the sRGB color space. With a variety of input connectors including DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI-D Dual-Link, you can plug this monitor into a variety of computers. You can also connect USB-compatible peripheral devices to either of the two upstream or three do
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1006644-REG/nec_pa272w_bk_sv_multisync_27_gb_r_lcd_display_spectraview.html
The PA272W-BK-SV LED Backlit Wide Gamut LCD Desktop Monitor with SpectraViewII (Black) from NEC comes equipped with the NEC SpectraViewII color calibration tool and features enhanced color accuracy covering 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color space, 94.8% of the NTSC color space, and 146.4% of the sRGB color space. With a variety of input connectors including DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI-D Dual-Link, you can plug this monitor into a variety of computers. You can also connect USB-compatible peripheral devices to either of the two upstream or three do
May 31, 2015 at 06:55 AM
p.30 #7Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
If interested here is what your looking for
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1006644-REG/nec_pa272w_bk_sv_multisync_27_gb_r_lcd_display_spectraview.html
The PA272W-BK-SV LED Backlit Wide Gamut LCD Desktop Monitor with SpectraViewII (Black) from NEC comes equipped with the NEC SpectraViewII color calibration tool and features enhanced color accuracy covering 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color space, 94.8% of the NTSC color space, and 146.4% of the sRGB color space. With a variety of input connectors including DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI-D Dual-Link, you can plug this monitor into a variety of computers. You can also connect USB-compatible peripheral devices to either of the two upstream or three do
...or if you want to go crazy and have the hardware to drive it, the 4K NEC I referenced is probably the new top dog (I use a display with the NEC guts you referenced above myself):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089985-REG/nec_pa322uhd_bk_32_led_igzo_tech.html
If interested here is what your looking for
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1006644-REG/nec_pa272w_bk_sv_multisync_27_gb_r_lcd_display_spectraview.html
The PA272W-BK-SV LED Backlit Wide Gamut LCD Desktop Monitor with SpectraViewII (Black) from NEC comes equipped with the NEC SpectraViewII color calibration tool and features enhanced color accuracy covering 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color space, 94.8% of the NTSC color space, and 146.4% of the sRGB color space. With a variety of input connectors including DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI-D Dual-Link, you can plug this monitor into a variety of computers. You can also connect USB-compatible peripheral devices to either of the two upstream or three do
...or if you want to go crazy and have the hardware to drive it, the 4K NEC I referenced is probably the new top dog (I use a display with the NEC guts you referenced above myself):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089985-REG/nec_pa322uhd_bk_32_led_igzo_tech.html
May 31, 2015 at 07:02 AM
p.30 #8Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
GMPhotography wrote:
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system....Show more →
May 31, 2015 at 07:04 AM
p.30 #9Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Yea sometimes reality is not what people like. Folks like to SEE nice images but if you have to match something exactly it's a diffrent story.
This is why people are gaga over Retina. Looks cool and I agree but it's not the real file
This is why people are gaga over Retina. Looks cool and I agree but it's not the real file
May 31, 2015 at 07:08 AM
p.30 #10Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
TheEmrys wrote:
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
Part of the big issue is not all clients are color managed either so when looking at your perfect image it looks like shit on there crappy displays. I know been down that road too.
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
GMPhotography wrote
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system. Most hobbyist do not get into this area as they just want to shoot and enjoy photography. I totally get that and agree there stuff is not going to offset printers , art directors and for more critical applications. This also puts a damper on folks that are doing reviews and such since they are really not seeing what a sensor truly outputs.This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
Part of the big issue is not all clients are color managed either so when looking at your perfect image it looks like shit on there crappy displays. I know been down that road too.
May 31, 2015 at 07:10 AM
p.30 #11Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Does anyone know if Windows 10 will support 4k natively (no font problems)
May 31, 2015 at 07:14 AM
p.30 #12Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
TheEmrys wrote:
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
I find probably 50% or more of a photographers job is actually educating their client. Yes, sometimes this means I actually end up calibrating their displays with a puck! or suggesting new equipment but, in the end, they all appreciate it.
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
GMPhotography wrote
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system. Most hobbyist do not get into this area as they just want to shoot and enjoy photography. I totally get that and agree there stuff is not going to offset printers , art directors and for more critical applications. This also puts a damper on folks that are doing reviews and such since they are really not seeing what a sensor truly outputs.This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
I find probably 50% or more of a photographers job is actually educating their client. Yes, sometimes this means I actually end up calibrating their displays with a puck! or suggesting new equipment but, in the end, they all appreciate it.
May 31, 2015 at 07:16 AM
p.30 #13Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.I find probably 50% or more of a photographers job is actually educating their client. Yes, sometimes this means I actually end up calibrating their displays with a puck! or suggesting new equipment but, in the end, they all appreciate it.
Yup been there done that too. It is about educating your clients.well said Tariq
TheEmrys wrote
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....GMPhotography wrote
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system. Most hobbyist do not get into this area as they just want to shoot and enjoy photography. I totally get that and agree there stuff is not going to offset printers , art directors and for more critical applications. This also puts a damper on folks that are doing reviews and such since they are really not seeing what a sensor truly outputs.This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
Yup been there done that too. It is about educating your clients.well said Tariq
May 31, 2015 at 07:25 AM
p.30 #14Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
I think I am taking my puck to one client. If I have to hear how bad the images look on her and her husbands computer again, I may just open a photobooth at the dog park (which I hear pays awfully well for how little is needed and with no PP).
Just kidding. Mostly.
Just kidding. Mostly.
May 31, 2015 at 07:28 AM
p.30 #15Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
it's frustrating as heck for sure. I'm like on the phone are you kidding, I'm on my way over. May 31, 2015 at 07:32 AM
p.30 #16Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not surprising as a "Retina" resolution screen hides detail at 100% view as compared to a traditional resolution screen at that same % view. In essence, what you see at 100% on the Retina screen is like viewing at 50% on a traditional screen. This works out perfect when printing (as 50% view at 240ppi is about what you see in a print*) but when critically editing an image, viewing between 150%-200% is required to simulate what non Retina users see at 100%. Yes, confusing but one aspect of using higher resolution screens...
*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native...Show more →
Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
Chad Wadsworth wrote
As far as the 100% vs 200% goes, I think something odd is happening, maybe with wordpress. There is no stair stepping or edge artifacts visible in Light Room 1:1 view on my Retina screen.*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?
Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.
May 31, 2015 at 08:47 AM
p.30 #17Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system....Show more →
Glad I'm not shooting for corporate clients in the states.. Clients here aren't as demanding when it comes to colors, and even if they were, most of the offset printers here aren't going to accommodate them.
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system....Show more →
Glad I'm not shooting for corporate clients in the states.. Clients here aren't as demanding when it comes to colors, and even if they were, most of the offset printers here aren't going to accommodate them.
May 31, 2015 at 09:01 AM
p.30 #18Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
NEC makes some rally nice wid gamut me monitors with built in calibration software and pucks that work really nice . They come in both 27 and 30 inch size.
I do need a desktop setup for my Los Angeles home. I'll look into it, since I'm shopping for that kind of stuff anyway starting next fall.
NEC makes some rally nice wid gamut me monitors with built in calibration software and pucks that work really nice . They come in both 27 and 30 inch size.
I do need a desktop setup for my Los Angeles home. I'll look into it, since I'm shopping for that kind of stuff anyway starting next fall.
May 31, 2015 at 09:02 AM
p.30 #19Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Not surprising as a "Retina" resolution screen hides detail at 100% view as compared to a traditional resolution screen at that same % view. In essence, what you see at 100% on the Retina screen is like viewing at 50% on a traditional screen. This works out perfect when printing (as 50% view at 240ppi is about what you see in a print*) but when critically editing an image, viewing between 150%-200% is required to simulate what non Retina users see at 100%. Yes, confusing but one aspect of using higher resolution screens...
*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.OT (sorry) I don't know what you're talking about... I'd love for you to explain it in a way I can understand.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?Preview will scale the image based on the setting in your display preferences. So, if you have set that display setting to make things appear larger on your screen (i.e. "Larger Text"), that could be the issue you are running into as it will basically magnify everything. If you use a "Retina" aware Adobe app (or other imaging app), open the same image in Preview and compare it to how the image looks in the Adobe app at 100%. It likely looks a lot smaller in the Adobe app since the "Retina" aware apps display images at the native resolution of the Retina mac. You can do the same test with a web browser as well (same image, side by side. One opened in web browser and the other in say Photoshop/ Lightroom at 100%).
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.Adobe LR and Photo shop are the only programs that work fine, but annoying to use when editing on the Retina.. The web and preview and other apps don't work right. I don't have any of my settings away from default. No enlarged text, etc.
If you view the same image in Photoshop at 200% (on the Retina Mac), does it appear the exact same size as it does in Preview and in a web browser (pixilated or with issues) on the Retina Mac? When using a Retina display at the default settings, this is exactly the point I was making. At 200% in Photoshop on the Retina, that image would also roughly be the same magnification as when viewing at 100% on a non retina monitor. This is entirely due to the higher pixel density/ resolution of the Retina display.
Edited on May 31, 2015 at 09:06 AM · View previous versions
Tariq Gibran wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
Chad Wadsworth wrote
As far as the 100% vs 200% goes, I think something odd is happening, maybe with wordpress. There is no stair stepping or edge artifacts visible in Light Room 1:1 view on my Retina screen.*50% view at around 240ppi on a traditional resolution screen (which is about half the resolution of a Retina screen) is roughly equivalent to 100% view on say a Retina Macbook Pro 15" since it's screen has a native resolution of 220ppi.
Here's my problem with my Retina display. When I open a photo in Preview on my Mac Retina, it looks pixelated at 100% view (command+0). When I open the same file on my older Macbook Pro non-Retina, it looks fine, and is exactly the same size as it is on my Retina display.
I find that I have to view everything on my Retina one step below 100% as in, I press command and 0 then command and - (minus button next to 0 button). This gives me a slightly zoomed out view, and that's the only time images look sharp.
This pixelation also happens on a lot of websites, where someone uploads a say 800x1200 image and I'm viewing it at 800x1200. No matter the DPI, quality etc. The second I go onto my old MBP it's fine.
So I don't know if it's a flaw in the programming of the OS, but I hate my Retina display. All my works ends up being done on my Thunderbolt display, which is just the HD display, and doesn't have this problem.
Do I have something set wrong? Or is this the normal behaviour you're talking about?
By default, a 15" Retina Macbook is set to scale images to mimic a 1440 x 900 display. That is actually half the resolution of the Retina display and will be in effect for most general apps (but not "Retina" aware imaging apps like Adobe Photoshop/ Lightroom which will still use the native 2880 x 1800 when displaying images). That is why the above exercise works.
If you view the same image in Photoshop at 200% (on the Retina Mac), does it appear the exact same size as it does in Preview and in a web browser (pixilated or with issues) on the Retina Mac? When using a Retina display at the default settings, this is exactly the point I was making. At 200% in Photoshop on the Retina, that image would also roughly be the same magnification as when viewing at 100% on a non retina monitor. This is entirely due to the higher pixel density/ resolution of the Retina display.
Edited on May 31, 2015 at 09:06 AM · View previous versions
May 31, 2015 at 09:04 AM
p.30 #20Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
TheEmrys wrote:
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
Yeah that's what happens to me with wedding and personal clients. If I use even a color calibration tool on my monitors I get complaints. So now I've gone back to standard Mac color profile. And everyone is quiet.
I had the opposite problem. Shooting fine art, I would process on a calibrated wide-gamut display with the artist present. When I gave them the images, all they would do is complain that the colors were too cool on their display and the subtlety was gone. I now process images on my RGB-gamut laptop screen. The artists are happier. But I still have the calibration conversation. Every shoot.....
GMPhotography wrote
There is a big difference when you put these side by side. Basically on a wide gamut your seeing the full gamut of the file which includes the DR which basically your images look flatter since you seeing it lets say Unclipped. SRGB monitors they clip the gamut to fit the color space which is much smaller. Most times for me I actually add black because I may want a little more punch. Now this is off topic and talks about a area that very few folks actually abide by or understand. This is part of a managed color system. Most hobbyist do not get into this area as they just want to shoot and enjoy photography. I totally get that and agree there stuff is not going to offset printers , art directors and for more critical applications. This also puts a damper on folks that are doing reviews and such since they are really not seeing what a sensor truly outputs.This is all very important to Pros like myself because we are shooting for money and dealing with clients that work in offset and such. Catalog houses for instance would want clothing color to be exactly what it looks like. Coca Cola comes to my mind. Red is not Coke red, it's a very specific color of red, so as a product shooter you need to nail that color exactly. Only way to do that from shooting to the printed piece is to be totally color managed. Monitors are a part of that process. For instance shooting tethered in programs like Capture One and you have a certain color you need to match exactly. You would shoot test shots apply exactly the color you need with color editor, copy that setting after everyone blesses what it should look like than shoot everything in that color style. Pretty involved stuff. But having a color managed system is imperative to these kinds of photography. Also when the printer screws it all up you can't get blamed in the first place. Trust me we are the first guys that get blamed.
Yeah that's what happens to me with wedding and personal clients. If I use even a color calibration tool on my monitors I get complaints. So now I've gone back to standard Mac color profile. And everyone is quiet.
May 31, 2015 at 09:05 AM