Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Re: Photoshop's use of monitor profile

Author

Re: Photoshop's use of monitor profile

Bill Hilton

2005-06-18, 11:14 pm

>Paul N writes ...
>
>My assumptions are the following:
- Since picture color space and PS working space are identical, image
>RGB values need no recalculation when image is opened in PS

No, there's an on-the-fly modification for display purposes only using
the monitor ICC file so you see the on-screen image colors as
accurately as possible, based on what was measured by your Spyder
during characterization.

>When I open an image in a *non color managed* app such as Irfanview,
>essentially the same takes place: RGB values are sent to the video card
>unchanged and the color correction is done via the LUT
> Conclusion: colors should look identical on screen in PS and Irfanview

No, the non-color managed apps don't use the monitor ICC file so the
colors are different, as expected.

When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points
and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs
take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known
values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC
profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the
known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually
a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color
managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs
don't.

You can see what your file *should* look like in a non-color managed
program by temporarily ignoring the monitor profile, which is done with
View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB. Typically if there is a very large
difference between views it often means the profile is not very
accurate, I've found. You should see saturated colors changing if you
toggle this on/off (cntrl-y) but nothing earth-shaking for most colors,
at least on my monitors.

Bill

Paul N

2005-06-19, 7:15 pm

Thanks Bill, the 'Monitor RGB proof' setting indeed results in the same
colors as I see in IrfanView.

Your answer raises new questions, see below.

Paul

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119139635.248388.70070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points
> and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs
> take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known
> values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC
> profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the
> known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually
> a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color
> managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs
> don't.

The way you explain it, the cal step would not be recorded in the ICC file
and would be a manual step (tweaking the monitor's controls). Yet, the LUT
downloader *does* use the ICC file.

On my Dell 510m laptop, the LUT step makes a huge difference, accounts for
about 95% of the correction; The main effect is removal of strong blue cast
probably due to a very high color temp (9000K?). The Intel control panel
provides no manual control over this. Maybe the Colorvision startup app does
change the white point? Is this a software controllable parameter in video
cards?

Is it correct to regard the calibration as a 'coarse tuning' and the
characterization as 'fine tuning', in other words is this 2-step process a
technical issue (video LUT not able to implement the fine tuning) or is it
more fundamental than this?

Tags contained in the ICM file generated by Spider:
- desc, cprt
- wtpt
- xyz values of rgb colorants
- gamma curves for rgb, all 2.199
- vcgt private tag
- tcpt private tag

Any web pointer or other reference greatly appreciated!
______________________________________________________

yesnno@att.net

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> - Since picture color space and PS working space are identical, image
>
> No, there's an on-the-fly modification for display purposes only using
> the monitor ICC file so you see the on-screen image colors as
> accurately as possible, based on what was measured by your Spyder
> during characterization.
>
>
> No, the non-color managed apps don't use the monitor ICC file so the
> colors are different, as expected.
>
> When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points
> and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs
> take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known
> values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC
> profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the
> known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually
> a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color
> managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs
> don't.
>
> You can see what your file *should* look like in a non-color managed
> program by temporarily ignoring the monitor profile, which is done with
> View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB. Typically if there is a very large
> difference between views it often means the profile is not very
> accurate, I've found. You should see saturated colors changing if you
> toggle this on/off (cntrl-y) but nothing earth-shaking for most colors,
> at least on my monitors.

The OS and the video card must play some role in using a monitor's ICC
profiles. What are they? I know how to select a monitor profile as
default in WinXP, but that's about it. What else is involved in OS?

Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC
profiles? For example, using the same profile, will the displays look
the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality)
video cards?

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

Paul N <paul2n.replace-2-by-1@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> The way you explain it, the cal step would not be recorded in the ICC file
> and would be a manual step (tweaking the monitor's controls). Yet, the LUT
> downloader *does* use the ICC file.

No, it uses a Color LookUp Table (CLUT). That is not the same as an icc
profile. You could set the monitor to another ICC profile manually, but
that does not change anything you see happening on startup.

> On my Dell 510m laptop, the LUT step makes a huge difference, accounts for
> about 95% of the correction; The main effect is removal of strong blue cast
> probably due to a very high color temp (9000K?). The Intel control panel
> provides no manual control over this. Maybe the Colorvision startup app does
> change the white point? Is this a software controllable parameter in video
> cards?
>
> Is it correct to regard the calibration as a 'coarse tuning' and the
> characterization as 'fine tuning', in other words is this 2-step process a
> technical issue (video LUT not able to implement the fine tuning) or is it
> more fundamental than this?

No, that is not correct. It's two entirely different things. Calibration
is setting the monitor to the best possible settings. Using a profile is
trying to compensate for physical differences that exist between
different devices (different monitors, monitor and printer), to make the
colors look as similar as possible on those devices (of course within
the limits of those devices).

Let me illustrate it with a practical example. Suppose your monitor
isn't too good at displaying very saturated yellow colors, but your
printer can print them very well because it uses pure yellow ink.
Without using profiles, your prints will have much more yellow
saturation than you thought they would have when you previewed them on
screen. Using your monitor profile, your computer can compensate for
this by increasing the yellow saturation when the image is sent to the
monitor, so it looks more like the print (within the limits of the
monitor. Colors that cannot be displayed, still cannot be displayed).
Likewise, it can desaturate the yellows a bit when sending the image to
the printer. As a result, the print and the preview on screen will match
much better. That is what profiles are for.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Jim

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

<yesnno@att.net> wrote in message news:42B5667F.A39D79DF@att.net...
>
>
> Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC
> profiles? For example, using the same profile, will the displays look
> the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality)
> video cards?
Not necessarily or even usually. The profile is specific to that particular
monitor and that particular card. The CRT monitors wear out hence even if
the factory profile is "close enough" when you first install the monitor, it
isn't "close enough" after some time has passed.
Jim

Bill Hilton

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

>The OS and the video card must play some role in using a monitor's
>ICC profiles. What are they?

The OS has to support ICC profiles and the ICC workflow or it can't
happen ... earlier versions of Windows didn't offer ICC support for
example, which was a real plus for Apple in the digital market. I
*think* Windows 95 offered ICM 1.0 support and maybe with 98 they came
out with ICM 2.0 support, which was not too far behind what Apple is
doing. In typical Windows fashion they declared this 'good enough' and
haven't improved it much if any since. I remember that an OS like NT
didn't support this because you couldn't write to the video card (or
something like that), for example.

In Photoshop you can choose to use either the Adobe(ACE) conversion
engine or the Windows ICM option, which you can access in the Color
Settings (advanced - Conversion options) window.

As for the video card, you would have to use a very old or very cheap
one with few programmable registers to miss out on the ICC stuff. Any
decent newer card should be fine.

>Is choosing a video card important for color management and using
>ICC profiles?

I don't think so (I'm no expert on video cards though), so long as it's
fairly recent.

>using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor
>for different (but comparable quality) video cards?

You wouldn't use the same profile for different video cards but if you
generate one specific for that card then I'd expect the monitor to look
the same.

A good source of info on color management is "Real World Color
Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting.

Bill

Paul N

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:W4gte.26$Lj2.5@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <yesnno@att.net> wrote in message news:42B5667F.A39D79DF@att.net...
> Not necessarily or even usually. The profile is specific to that
> particular
> monitor and that particular card. The CRT monitors wear out hence even if
> the factory profile is "close enough" when you first install the monitor,
> it
> isn't "close enough" after some time has passed.
> Jim
>
I was asking myself the same questions as yesnno and I'm still puzzled about
the answers.

The video card clearly plays a role, since the role of the the LUT
downloader (Adobe Gamma loader, ColorVision startup) is precisely to set up
the video card to perform *some* corrections.

But: I suspect that you can swap video cards (not monitors!) without seeing
any difference: these LUT downloaders seem to work with all but very old
cards. So there must be a standard API in Windows that these programs can
speak to, regardless of the video card model.

As far as I know, Windows itself plays no active role in color mgmt, it
just allows you to specify a default profile. This profile is then used by
the LUT downloader, and apparently by color managing apps too (see next
paragraph).

From my experiments with ICM files created using the Spyder cal tool it
appears that the monitor ICM file is used by:

- the LUT downloader. Proof: use a tool such as Colorvision ProfileChooser,
change profile and see the *whole screen* change color.
- Photoshop & other color managing apps. Proof: Just bring up the same sRGB
file in both a managing and nonmanaging app and you see that the color
managed app shows different colors (although not by much).

I's not clear to me where to draw the line between calibration and
characterization, it looks somewhat arbitrary.

It's also not clear if Adobe Gamma loader and other LUT loaders 'misuse' the
ICM file to store their proprietary tables, in other words: is this LUT info
fundamentally part of the profile or is it just used by LUT loaders because
it's a convenient place? Is the ICM file more than a profile?

It would be interesting to know what the minimum spec is that all video
cards are supposed to implement (regarding color mgmt). It looks like it's
just 3 tables (one for r/g/b) with 256 entries that convert an incoming
intensity value to a 'corrected' value that is sent to the monitor.

But: 3 one-dimensional tables are not enough to allow mapping any RGB triple
to another triple. To solve this correctly you need a big 3-dimensional
table (256^3 or millions of entries). Yet an ICC file is small.
Interpolation?

Many questions and no clear image of how all these pieces of the puzzle fit
together.........
___________________________________________________________

Bill Hilton

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

>Paul N writes ...
>
>I's not clear to me where to draw the line between calibration
>and characterization, it looks somewhat arbitrary.

No, it's not arbitrary. When you run the Spyder software you first
adjust the brightness and contrast controls to get the right black
point and luminance, then you adjust the separate RGB guns to get the
right custom white point. At this stage the monitor is "calibrated",
meaning it is in a known good state and will remain there so long as
these controls aren't changed (or until the monitor drifts, which could
be as soon as two weeks).

In this context "characterization" means the software displays colors
of known values on the screen and the puck measures them to see if
there are differences between what the color *should* look like (per
the numbers) vs what the colors actually look like as recorded by the
puck. Once all these colors are measured the software takes all the
differences into account and creates the ICC monitor profile, which
tries to translate the color RGB values on the fly so what you see on
screen (taking into account the unique properties of your monitor) look
as close as possible to what is represented by the RGB triplets.

>Any web pointer or other reference greatly appreciated!

This is a good intro to what's going on with the 'translations' (but
not to the LUT level) ...
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html ... the same guy is
co-author of "Real World Color Management", which is highly
recommended.

For background on the ICC flow the main site is www.color.org which is
the official site of the ICC (International Color Consortium), but it's
hard to read.

>Many questions and no clear image of how all these pieces of the puzzle
>fit together.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's going on at the register level
of the video card ... what's important is understanding that color
managed apps 'translate' colors between different devices. After a
while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out
there (especially printer profiles) and what's important is generating
or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

Bill

Paul N

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119204665.299838.166190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> I wouldn't worry too much about what's going on at the register level
> of the video card ... what's important is understanding that color
> managed apps 'translate' colors between different devices. After a
> while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out
> there (especially printer profiles) and what's important is generating
> or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

Actually the 'register level' is not my concern. What *does* concern me is
that -apparently- part of the color correction for display is done in
hardware and part in software.

Which means that non color managed apps show 'partly corrected' images. A
good thing in itself. But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable? Note: let's
suppose the images are sRGB; using large color spaces with non color managed
apps is hopeless.

You may argue that one shouldn't use non color managed apps in a color
managed workflow. But for many amateur photographers like me, there are lots
of useful apps out there that are not color managed. So we have to live with
'partially corrected' color; knowing what 'partially' means would IMHO be a
big help.

I admit, in an ideal world where all apps would be color managed, I woudn't
care how it's done. But unfortunately this ideal seems a long way off...

Bill Hilton

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

>Paul N writes ...
>
>Which means that non color managed apps show 'partly corrected' images.
>A good thing in itself. But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable?

Think about it like this ... your monitor is probably set up to deliver
9300 Kelvin color temp with all 3 color guns at or near full strength.
You are probably set up for say 6500K instead, which means you have to
back off the blue and green guns a bit when you set the custom white
point with the Sypder software. For example, on a monitor I just
checked for 6500K R=100, G=85, B=80 ... this gives you the correct
white point for this monitor (and I think this is the info that gets
loaded into the LUT when the loader runs at start-up, though I'm not
sure of that). This is for white ... as you display other colors you
drive the guns with less strength (lower voltage) but they are not
linear now, ie, red is on a 0-100 scale, blue 0-80 scale etc, plus any
other non-linearities built in due to changes in phosophors, etc over
time.

So part of what the ICC profile does is correct for the non-linearities
(probably not the right word but you get the drift). In other words,
once you've set the white and black points with the calibration then in
an ideal world with perfect 'linearity' on all three guns and phosphors
you wouldn't see much if any difference between colors displayed in a
color managed app vs a non-color managed app, but in the real world the
differences are measured by the puck and (hopefully) compensated for
with the monitor's ICC profile.

So to your question "But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable?" I would
say it depends on how much your particular monitor varies from linear
(and the accuracy of your profile). You can check the variation with a
test target like this one http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/colors.jpg
(feel free to download it or make your own) ... toggling 'monitor
profile' (ie, ignore the ICC profile) on/off (ctrl-y) on my monitor
shows that the bottom 3 rows are largely unchanged and the top two rows
with saturated colors change mostly in the reds, yellows and oranges,
with blues and greens less affected. Your monitor may show something
different, but at least you'll know which colors are most susceptible
to color shifts as you move between apps.

>You may argue that one shouldn't use non color managed apps in a
>color managed workflow.

I would just say that you shouldn't make color edits in a non-color
managed app if you have a good color managed app like Photoshop,
regardless of what else you use the non-color managed programs for.
You should expect surprises in the colors that show changes in a
pattern like the one I linked to.

Bill

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-19, 7:16 pm

Paul N <paul2n.replace-2-by-1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You may argue that one shouldn't use non color managed apps in a color
> managed workflow. But for many amateur photographers like me, there are lots
> of useful apps out there that are not color managed. So we have to live with
> 'partially corrected' color; knowing what 'partially' means would IMHO be a
> big help.

You'd need to have a program that can graphically display color
profiles. Then you can compare the color space (i.e. the profile) of
your monitor to sRGB color space. The difference between the two is the
difference you'll get with non-color managed applications.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Mike Russell

2005-06-20, 4:14 am

"Paul N" <paul2n.replace-2-by-1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3Ljte.285914
>
> Actually the 'register level' is not my concern. What *does* concern me is
> that -apparently- part of the color correction for display is done in
> hardware and part in software.

The "other part is indeed software dependent, and it consists of recognizing
an image's embedded profile, and using that profile, together with the
display profile, to display the image colors correctly.

If an application honors embedded profiles, it is called "color aware". For
example, a web browser could recognize an embedded profile in a downloaded
jpeg, and display those colors correctly. If this were done universally, the
old phenomenon of PC images looking darker on a Mac - or Mac images looking
to light on a PC - would be solved.

The vast majority of browsers don't do this, and for very good reasons that
might be an interesting topic for another thread.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

yesnno@att.net

2005-06-20, 7:15 pm

Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>
> The OS has to support ICC profiles and the ICC workflow or it can't
> happen ... earlier versions of Windows didn't offer ICC support for
> example, which was a real plus for Apple in the digital market. I
> *think* Windows 95 offered ICM 1.0 support and maybe with 98 they came
> out with ICM 2.0 support, which was not too far behind what Apple is
> doing. In typical Windows fashion they declared this 'good enough' and
> haven't improved it much if any since. I remember that an OS like NT
> didn't support this because you couldn't write to the video card (or
> something like that), for example.
>
> In Photoshop you can choose to use either the Adobe(ACE) conversion
> engine or the Windows ICM option, which you can access in the Color
> Settings (advanced - Conversion options) window.

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for
"serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with
Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are
handled?

> As for the video card, you would have to use a very old or very cheap
> one with few programmable registers to miss out on the ICC stuff. Any
> decent newer card should be fine.
>
>
> I don't think so (I'm no expert on video cards though), so long as it's
> fairly recent.
>
>
> You wouldn't use the same profile for different video cards but if you
> generate one specific for that card then I'd expect the monitor to look
> the same.

I should have stated that on the same monitor after switch a video card
and generating a new profile, will the displays look the same. I think
your answer is yes.

> A good source of info on color management is "Real World Color
> Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting.
>
> Bill

yesnno@att.net

2005-06-20, 7:16 pm

Bill Hilton wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about what's going on at the register level
> of the video card ... what's important is understanding that color
> managed apps 'translate' colors between different devices.

I agree completely. Given the choice, most of us would prefer spending
our time shooting and printing over looking under the hood. But color
management at this stage is neither push button simple, nor is the ROI
from a set of good hw/sw in line with that from a good DSLR or a good
monitor.

After a
> while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out
> there (especially printer profiles) and what's important is generating
> or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

How true. The sad part is that many vendors can charge for bad profiles
and get away with it. Profile vendors will talk about their equipment,
etc. but will not educate their customers on how to evaluate their
profiles and why theirs are better. Even the good vendors won't do it,
leading me to believe that evaluating profiles is not as simple as it
sounds. The customer can evaluate a profile by looking at the prints,
AFTER spending the money. If he finds the prints unsatisfactory, there
is no way for him to challenge the vendor. What we need is an education
and tools on how to evaluate profiles, followed by a ranking of the
profile vendors.

You won't happen to know of a good profile vendor, would you?

Bill Hilton

2005-06-20, 7:16 pm

>Johan W. Elzenga writes ...
>
>You'd need to have a program that can graphically display
>color profiles.

I have two programs to do this, including Chromix Color Think ...

>Then you can compare the color space (i.e. the profile) of your
>monitor to sRGB color space. The difference between the two is the
>difference you'll get with non-color managed applications.

It's not practical to do this though ... first the programs I've used
do the 3D graphs in LAB instead of RGB and it's very tough to do the
translation between color modes in your head. Second, even if the
contours of the spheres of the graphed profiles were an exact match it
still wouldn't mean the colors inside the spheres map directly
one-to-one for several reasons, the most obvious being that an abstract
non-device specific 'working space' like sRGB is by definition
perfectly gray balanced while a device specific profile for something
like a monitor is almost never gray balanced (there are other reasons
but this is the most obvious).

Bill

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-20, 7:16 pm

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>
> I have two programs to do this, including Chromix Color Think ...
>
>
> It's not practical to do this though ... first the programs I've used
> do the 3D graphs in LAB instead of RGB and it's very tough to do the
> translation between color modes in your head. Second, even if the
> contours of the spheres of the graphed profiles were an exact match it
> still wouldn't mean the colors inside the spheres map directly
> one-to-one for several reasons, the most obvious being that an abstract
> non-device specific 'working space' like sRGB is by definition
> perfectly gray balanced while a device specific profile for something
> like a monitor is almost never gray balanced (there are other reasons
> but this is the most obvious).

Of course. But the graphs will tell you where the biggest differences
are. I use a Macintosh, so I have ColorSync Utility for this (which does
a 2D graph in RGB) and it certainly gives you an idea. But I agree; it's
not much more than an idea.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-20, 7:16 pm

<yesnno@att.net> wrote:

> There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for
> "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with
> Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are
> handled?

The major difference is that color management is done by the system (via
ColorSync) on a Mac. That means that ANY application will use the
monitor profile, because ColorSync will take care that. I don't see any
reason why that would change on an Intel based Mac.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Paul N

2005-06-20, 7:16 pm

I would like to thank Bill and all other contributors for sharing your
insights on this complex issue. The principle is not so difficult to grasp
in theory but the implementation on Windows seems to be a mess of bolted-on
bits & pieces, resulting in all kinds of behaviors that are not well
documented. A show stopper for those who make their first steps into color
management.

Maybe that's a reason why graphical art people stick to their Macs? On the
Mac it seems to be implemented like it should. What's holding Bill G to do
the same?

Paul

Hecate

2005-06-20, 11:14 pm

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, yesnno@att.net wrote:

>There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for
>"serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with
>Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are
>handled?

Yes. No, it'll just work more slowly ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

2005-06-20, 11:14 pm

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:51:42 +0200, "Paul N"
<paul2n.replace-2-by-1@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I would like to thank Bill and all other contributors for sharing your
>insights on this complex issue. The principle is not so difficult to grasp
>in theory but the implementation on Windows seems to be a mess of bolted-on
>bits & pieces, resulting in all kinds of behaviors that are not well
>documented. A show stopper for those who make their first steps into color
>management.

I have never had any problem with it. I prefer that Windows doesn't
stick it's nose into my colour management system.

>Maybe that's a reason why graphical art people stick to their Macs? On the
>Mac it seems to be implemented like it should. What's holding Bill G to do
>the same?
>
Maybe ten years ago. Nowadays I come across far more graphics PCs than
graphics Macs.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

johnboy

2005-06-20, 11:14 pm

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9dmeb1pfcq4iavjnpjfj5c0obud8o2cer5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, yesnno@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. No, it'll just work more slowly ;-)

Hec, you are so cloistered! It does not become you. I have both and the Mac
is not significantly faster, and definitely not cost-effectively faster.

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-21, 7:14 pm

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, yesnno@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. No, it'll just work more slowly ;-)

Sigh. Here we go again...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Andrew Morton

2005-06-21, 7:14 pm

"Paul N" wrote
> But: I suspect that you can swap video cards (not monitors!) without
> seeing any difference...

Not necessarily: there will be slight differences in the hardware, even
between two cards consecutively off the production line, due to
manufacturing tolerances.

Andrew

Hecate

2005-06-21, 7:15 pm

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:14:41 -0500, "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no>
wrote:

>"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:9dmeb1pfcq4iavjnpjfj5c0obud8o2cer5@4ax.com...
>
>Hec, you are so cloistered! It does not become you. I have both and the Mac
>is not significantly faster, and definitely not cost-effectively faster.
>
I've used Macs, and found them faster then Intel based systems.
However, I now use AMD based systems and they are definitely
cost-effectively faster. If it wasn't for the system price, the Mac
would be too. If I had to place them in order, then I'd go AMD, Mac,
Intel. (unless I was buying a laptop in which case I'd want a Pentium
M Centrino system or a PowerBook G5).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

2005-06-21, 7:15 pm

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:12:22 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sigh. Here we go again...

If someone asks the question...

You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more
efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-22, 7:14 am

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> If someone asks the question...
>
> You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more
> efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop.

I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can
hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future
desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don't believe you
can predict that future either.

Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost
effective. The question was twofold:

1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work?
Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don't have to agree, though.

2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?
Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync)
so it doesn't depend on the chip. It's no different in a Mac G4
or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers).

So your 'funny' answer was the typical 'PC vs Mac' or 'Canon vs Nikon'
reaction that is only meant to annoy 'the other camp'. I wish you
wouldn't do that. There are enough flame wars as it is.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate

2005-06-22, 7:14 pm

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:21:39 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>
>I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can
>hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future
>desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don't believe you
>can predict that future either.

>Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost
>effective. The question was twofold:
>
>1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work?
> Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don't have to agree, though.
>
>2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?
> Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync)
> so it doesn't depend on the chip. It's no different in a Mac G4
> or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers).
>
>So your 'funny' answer was the typical 'PC vs Mac' or 'Canon vs Nikon'
>reaction that is only meant to annoy 'the other camp'. I wish you
>wouldn't do that. There are enough flame wars as it is.

As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is
DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I
think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as
they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

John McWilliams

2005-06-22, 7:14 pm

Hecate wrote:
>
> As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is
> DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I
> think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as
> they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware.

Suspect all you want. If you have faith in your suspicions, shorting
Intel stock and going long on AMD would be a smart move.

Good luck.

--
John McWilliams

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-23, 7:14 am

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

> As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is
> DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I
> think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as
> they don't include DRM spy(hard)ware.

It's interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives. First
Nikon, then Adobe and now Apple. Well, I have no desire to let the
discussion go that way, in fact I have no desire for an 'Apple vs
anything else' discussion at all. Just stop with the 'funny' remarks
each time Apple is mentioned, and let's go back using this forum for
PHOTOSHOP related issues, PLEASE.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate

2005-06-23, 7:14 pm

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:18:34 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>It's interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives.

That's because I don't trust any major company as a matter of
principle. That way I'm never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a
blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these
companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the
benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and
it's board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the
way. That's the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living
in the real world.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

John McWilliams

2005-06-23, 7:14 pm

Hecate wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:18:34 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
> Elzenga) wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's because I don't trust any major company as a matter of
> principle. That way I'm never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a
> blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these
> companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the
> benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and
> it's board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the
> way.

Welcome to the 17th-21st Centuries! [YMMV; certainly there are third
world exceptions abounding....]

Steamrollered is a colorful selection, but steamrollers tend to move
slowly and in a straight line, so it's easy to avoid them with only a
modest bit of thought or planning.

That's the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
> company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living
> in the real world.
>

That's your conclusion based on your experience, but don't tell us what
the real world is or is not.

--
John McWilliams

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-06-24, 7:15 pm

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> That's because I don't trust any major company as a matter of
> principle. That way I'm never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a
> blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these
> companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the
> benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and
> it's board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the
> way. That's the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
> company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living
> in the real world.

There is quite a distance between altruism and alterior motives. Most
companies simply want satisfied customers, because those are the only
ones who come back for more business. And more business = more money =
happy shareholders. You do not get that by steamrolling over your
customers (who then cease to be your customers).

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate

2005-06-24, 11:14 pm

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:10:03 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>Welcome to the 17th-21st Centuries! [YMMV; certainly there are third
>world exceptions abounding....]
>
>Steamrollered is a colorful selection, but steamrollers tend to move
>slowly and in a straight line, so it's easy to avoid them with only a
>modest bit of thought or planning.
>
> That's the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
>
>That's your conclusion based on your experience, but don't tell us what
>the real world is or is not.

If you think companies operate for your benefit that you're living in
a dream world.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Hecate

2005-06-24, 11:14 pm

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:36:06 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>
>There is quite a distance between altruism and alterior motives. Most
>companies simply want satisfied customers, because those are the only
>ones who come back for more business. And more business = more money =
>happy shareholders. You do not get that by steamrolling over your
>customers (who then cease to be your customers).

Yes, they want repeat customers. I wouldn't describe what they are
doing as "ulterior" motives however. If you understand capitalism -
make money at all costs regardless of any collateral damage, then
suspecting any company of doing the worst it can get away with comes
naturally. And that's what they will do - if they can get away with it
they will. If the even think they can get away with it, they'll try
and see if the can. Remember, there's a "Sucker Born Every Minute."

The same conditions apply in any field you care to name. The days of
Adam Smith and his fair market are long gone - when your supplier is a
multinational who will base itself wherever the government is most
compliant, consumers have hardly any leverage at all - to the extent
that corporations can, literally, get away with murder (See Bhopal for
example).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

John McWilliams

2005-06-24, 11:14 pm

Hecate wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:10:03 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you think companies operate for your benefit that you're living in
> a dream world.
>
You carry the art of deduction to new lows. Can't imagine anyone but you
deducing the above from what I said.

--
John McWilliams