Actually, I learned about something better than VPN. There is something called "Air Display" that allows you to treat the ipad as a second monitor. Obviously its over wifi, so latency might be an issue. You get an app for the ipad, and an application/plugin for the mac.

airdisplay is adding HiDPI support for the Retina Display. I think this requires Lion, though.

Depending on how much latency you can tolerate, there are apps that will let you VPN to your computer. I haven't tried it at my new iPad's native resolution, but I got it to work in the past. It would never work for video editing, but if you just wanted to view photos, it should work OK.

I have to say that my snaps look much better on the iPad 3 than they do on my computer (or even the old iPad). It really is shocking... makes me wish I printed more of my work.

I look forward to loading up the Mrs. gallery shots and seeing what the work of a "Real" photographer looks like.

bummer. i dont have the new one, i had hoped there was a converter cable, but you're right, thats video out only. oh well.

mirtos said:
Here's an interesting thought. With the new retina display on the "New iPad", I wonder if it could somehow be setup to be one of the monitors.

None of the iPads have a video-in socket, so you would need some extra hardware to use it as a monitor. There's a thing called The Cube which will do it, but at a cost of around $2,000.

Here's an interesting thought. With the new retina display on the "New iPad", I wonder if it could somehow be setup to be one of the monitors.

(this would work only if you had a dual display option on your mac/pc), but if it would, it would beat the resolution on even the cinema displays.

I think I will use my Huey Pro on the Macbook Pro, see what this gets me when I use a fixed light source for a color swatch next to the monitor, and then if it is not adequate for what I want. off to the Apple store for the Thunderbolt.....

the new spyder4 puck looks quite good. I am looking into the studio kit.

I've just got a Spyder4Pro calibration thingy. Am amazed by the change to the background image on my MacBook Pro 13.

Yes the glossy screens (from any brand) do hide problems. Attaching a cheap (sub $200) TN matte screen wont help either, since they use crazy dynamic contrast enhancing crap (fake 1:2000+ ratios). You can get a matte cover for your Macs screen (to cut the glare), which helps somewhat. Personally I just work when there is no backlight on the monitor to cause problems.

msmoto said:
OK, I have a "Late 2011" MacbookPro with 17" screen. Glossy to give the highest dynamic range. Glare not a problem. This is the iteration post 11.01.11 with the 2.5Ghz Intel i7 processor. 8 Gb of memory

What is a 10bit video card and how do I know if I have it? If I do not have ti, how do I get one installed?

Yes but it is fake dynamic range. Thinking of that - you asked for comments on your photo in another thread and posted a couple of changes that didn't look much different (really subtle - pixel peeping to see) but that may have some effect. I remember reading the earlier mac "glossy" screens drove some photogs batty because the "glossy" covered changes they needed to make. You may try hooking to a mat screen to see if there is any difference in what you thought you wanted a photo to look like.

Just a thought.

Looking at photos on an HDTV??? What a waste of pixels, might as well shoot low res jpegs.

I find that even though I have the apple cinema displays, I find myself hooking directly up to my new samsung LED TV. The big screen really lets me look at the pictures.

This is when im doing some wedding stuff.

Speaking of which, I think people still do both. They look primarily online, share online, but they like having nice printouts of them still.

@MsMoto. If the glossy Apple monitors don't bother you, and your MBP has the Thunderbolt port, you have the options of the the 27 inch Thunderbolt display, or the 30 inch Apple cinema screen. The monitors should all be "plug and play" since you have the latest and greatest MBP.

Too bad they don't license Nikon's N Coating for Monitors, I'd love a glossy, but Nano-coated display so it doesn't reflect.

Gareth said:
alot of people really don't like the matt screen of the NEC. the Dell is anti-glare. having seen it I can tell you it is far better than a Mac. a hood is not a big deal for me. if it turns out I need one I guess I'll just buy one.

you will need a 10bit video card with displayport to maximise either.

OK, I have a "Late 2011" MacbookPro with 17" screen. Glossy to give the highest dynamic range. Glare not a problem. This is the iteration post 11.01.11 with the 2.5Ghz Intel i7 processor. 8 Gb of memory

What is a 10bit video card and how do I know if I have it? If I do not have ti, how do I get one installed?

alot of people really don't like the matt screen of the NEC. the Dell is anti-glare. having seen it I can tell you it is far better than a Mac. a hood is not a big deal for me. if it turns out I need one I guess I'll just buy one.

you will need a 10bit video card with displayport to maximise either.

@Gareth. Doesn't BH ship overseas? I have also been looking at the NEC monitors, as well as others like the Dell. Besides the matte screen, the NEC monitors can be adjusted height wise/vertically, and they have an optional shade that fits on the monitor. I noticed BH is including the shade with a purchase of the monitor for a limited time.

Although I love my iMac, the glossy screen drives me crazy and my eye balls ache after hours of staring at the screen, even after lowering the brightness. I find the matte screen on my mac pro much more pleasant, and easy on my eyes. I can't wait to be rid of my glossy Apple display. I'm hoping a new Mac Pro will be out soon.

The NEC system does look nice as they have spectraview. But can't get them here in New Zealand.

One frustrating reality you have to learn to face is that a great deal of the work you might be hired to do (particularly if you shoot Weddings \ Events) is that the vast majority of your customers may never actually look at printed photos. Instead, they are uploading them to Flickr, emailing them around, or putting them on social networks.

Think about it, when was the last time you actually sat down and looked at your friends Wedding album, or had a prospective employee include a printed headshot along w/ their resume? Chances are they share this stuff via Facebook & LinkedIn.

I can't tell you how many times I've had what looked like a perfectly good shot on my properly calibrated macbook look terrible on the client's computer. Worse still, if they share it digitally w/ their friends, who knows how it's going to look on those displays.

I find the Apple Cinema displays give me consistent results (once calibrated... mac displays tend to be a little bit blueish pre-calibration) w/ what I get from Costco as a printed photo. The gloss isn't a problem for me. If you are going to be serious about your photography and do your own printing or use a professional printer (good luck finding one) then you really need to shell out for a proper professional monitor. Just don't be surprised if it costs you a grand or two.

If you aren't going to be very serious about it, just get a good monitor and have it calibrated. That will get you most of the way there. Avoid the garbage they sell in Best Buy & Wall - Mart. I find the quality gets pretty serviceable at around the $500 price point (avoid gaming monitors that are optimized for speed and quick refresh rates, you don't need that).

EDIT: If you don't mind spending around $1200, the NEC PA271 gets excellent reviews.

with displays there is a big deal in the bits. just like cameras, monitors are able to display smoother gradients if they have more bits.

I have decided on a dell u2711. it is 12bit, displays 99% of aRGB, has great reviews, is factory tuned, and doesn't cost the earth.

the u3011 also looks great and is cheap for what you get (2560 x 1600)

I've been investigating printing, and the first step to printing (from my very early perspective) is an improved monitor. Being a computer nerd from way back, I think I want a 2560 x 1600 resolution display.

I've always like a bit of extra height in my display, and I find the 16:9 aspect ratio tends to be a bit short. Apple monitors like the new Thunderbolt display and its predecessor have a 2560 x 1440 (16:9) display. I'm a PC guy so I am not sold on Apple for the sake of Apple, but the monitors look really good and at $999 here in Canada (and refurbished models for $849) they become a contender. Jumping to 2560 x 1600 is possible but the price gap to a higher end display is HUGE.

After my research I'm thinking I should get a Spyder calibration unit for my current Samsung and patiently wait for the next gen of displays to hit the market.

Come onnnnnnnn 4k displays... ;)

I use a Samsung 22" calibrated with a spider device. I'm using a PC rather than a Mac as well. One thing I have noticed is the difference in loading to the web of files Adobe RGB vs sRGB and using a PC vs. MAC. Printing I have been using Adobe RGB but am moving to ProPhoto RGB due to a wider color gamut. Web I always export files sRGB. Choosing a gamma also makes a difference as well.

All of it can move colors. I primarily focus on printing rather than worrying about web posts for any color movement.

The biggest thing is to pick one direction, stick with it and allow the rest to slide (within reason.) If you try to get it to be the same across everything - it just becomes a major headache and I find it unproductive especially for posts on flickr or here.

SkintBrit said:
The one I like msmoto (as I still haven't got round to buying a calibration tool) is this free little test at
http://xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq
Although I think getting a perfect test result has as much to do with the quality of your eyes, as that of your screen :-)

I got a 4...pretty good I guess.

msmoto,

i use Eizo CG223WBK 22 which is about 1400usd at Adorama. 270 cd/m2 brightness and covers 95% of the Adobe RGB color space. And most of all, it is hardware calibrated which means that it is stand alone device that doesn't count your computers video card or profiles at all. Same file looks allways same, no matter what computer is running it. For calibration i use spyder 3 and Eizos own software.

msmoto said:
, which monitor, and in what size, seems, in the experience of those on the forum, works best?

I use a 30" Dell, no longer available, and calibrate it with a spider 3

I bought the Spider after I got a photo book back from Blurb were the color balance was off

I do my own printing and the colors on my prints are sufficiently close to those on my monitor for my purposes,

At the end of the day, there are only two judges, you and your client(s)

But beware, clients sometimes dont complain, they just go elsewhere