On Friday 03 Apr 2015 02:57:07 waben...@gmail.com wrote: > Frank Steinmetzger <war...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > A wide gamut monitor is a great thing even if you don't need it for > > > softproofing. I shot a lot of colorful photos (e.g. from bugs, > > > blossoms and live concerts with colored limelights). They look > > > great on an AdobeRGB monitor but much more "boring" on a standard > > > monitor. > > > > If the monitor is the only means of looking at the photos and the > > photos are the only reason for the monitor, then it’s not enough for > > me (right now anyway). And as far as I read, watching movies on a > > wide gamut will not be a very good experience, as those are tuned to > > look good on “normal” displays, resulting in much oversaturated > > colours. > > That's true as long as you cannot switch the color space of the monitor > to sRGB. But there are some models which can be used in sRGB as well as > in AdobeRGB color space. The Samsung that I bought even has some > additional modes for NTSC, PAL and HD-TV. When I watch videos, the colors > are much better than on my PlasmaTV. > > > > I also thought about buying an Eizo. But they are very pricy. An > > > Eizo without wide gamut, without factory calibration and without > > > 16bit LUT hardware calibration costs more as my Samsung with all > > > these features. Maybe the Eizo is more reliable over the years, but > > > who knows. > > > > I used to buy Samsung, but I don't like how they treat their > > customers in recent times, so they are on my no-buy list (same as > > Sony). And I do have a knack for buying more pricey stuff if it’s > > worth the quality. It gives me a feeling of “mine’s better than > > yours”. :o) Sure, I don’t quite like the lack of connections and > > features on the Eizo (such as picture-in-picture or HDMI), but I do > > like their appearance (no gloss, no touch buttons, no wobbly stand). > > I'm sure that Eizo produces great monitors but the only one that fits > my meets (>=30",UHD, AdobeRGB + sRGB, Hardware Calibration) is the > CG318-4K. But it costs about 7500€ and I was not willing to pay this > price. :-) > I'm really willing to pay for high quality products, but if I can get > about the same quality for _much_ less money then the choice is easy > for me. And meanwhile I'm realistic enough to realize that my personal > purchase decisions are not affecting the market-price of such a big and > successful company like Samsung is. > > > > Try out an Spider4. You can buy it as a new device for about 75€. > > > Test the results on your monitors and when you are not satisfied, > > > just send it back. No risk at all. > > > > I’m also not a big fan of that (buying and sending back). Especially > > if you buy it for a purpose and only then find out it’s not adequate > > or downright broken. While it’s convenient, it produces a climate of > > I think sending a product back is ok as long as one don't do this > intentional only to try out this product. > But I think that when one buy for example a colorimeter that is > according to its manufacturer able to handle monitors with LED backlight > monitors but then it fails to do so, it is absolutely ok to send it back. > > Also when I buy an expensive so called "high quality" product but in fact > it has a lousy quality (like the two Dell U3011, the LG 31MU97-B or the > first Samsung U32D970Q that I bought) I really don't have any qualms of > conscience when I send it back. > > > “it’s normal that what you buy may be crap and you’ll have to try > > again”. It gives manufacturers the freedom to cut even more corners > > without anyone complaints from the consumers. And it’s ecological > > absurdity on all ends, considering how toxic electronic manufacturing > > is. > > I'm working as a photographer and like most of them I own a bunch of > lenses. I only bought (and will buy) high quality professional lenses > from well known manufactures, no cheap consumer glasses. These lenses > are the best you can get and are really expensive. And for the lot of > money that I have to pay for it, I expect a perfect quality. But more > than once I had to send back a lens, because it was faulty (for example > bad centering, big inclusions or one time even scratches in the glass, > unusable AF etc.). > > When I buy cheap, I don't expect much. But when sometimes even expensive > professional products from well known vendors are crappy because of bad > quality control, what else can I do than sending the crap back to the > vendor? I don't believe that the manufacturer will produce better stuff > when I would stay with the crap. > > > This is also why I put a lot of time and energy into research before I > > purchase something pricey. For instance, I read in hardware forums and > > through reviews for many weeks before I finally decided on all > > components of my PC that I assembled last year. I didn’t want to get > > into a situation that would force me to return something, b/c there > > is also risk involved - the extra expense, parts break during > > shipping, or problems with the retailer. I can’t be bothered with the > > hassle. > > I also do much research before I buy something. My wife often calls me > crazy because I sometimes need weeks before I make a decision, even when > I just wanna buy some LED bulbs for our kitchen. :-) > > But when I wanna buy something that is rarely bought before by others > (because its a new product or because its very expensive or special) then > I sometimes can't find many information about it and therefore I have > to try it out by myself. > > And even when I find a test report about a product, I can't rely on it. > For example I read a test report at Prad that attested a great quality > for the LG 31MU97-B. But in reality its color and luminosity evenness > doesn't meet my requirements and it also had a faulty firmware. > > > OK I noticed this has become more of a political manifesto. So I’m > > gonna stop here. :) > > Many years ago I was much more idealistic than nowadays. For example I > said, that I never would buy a product from MS. But now a Windows PC > stands beside me, because I need it for RAW conversion and image editing. > Yes I know that there are RawTherapee, Darktable, Gimp etc. but I have > to live from my work and I often have to edit hundreds of photos within > a short time and I can't do this (yet) with OpenSource. > > But of course there are still some principles to which I (hopefully) ever > will stick to. But I don't wanna explain them here because our discussion > is already way off topic. :-) > > -- > Regards > wabe
Since this is off topic anyway, what did you conclude with your research on LED lighting? Is it really worth the cost, or are we talking of yet one more marketing lifecycle? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
