scaudill Loc: Rock Hill, SC

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

Granddad Loc: UK

27", end of.
Dave.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I have my Mid 2010 iMac as the second display and my Mid 2017 iMac as the controlling computer. 2010 or 2009 machines are at the age limit for having the necessary port. This link will tell you how to set up the Target Display Mode:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204592

Tdark

I used to have the old Mac Pro with the 32" screen.... snif snif I still miss her!!!
Not always the case but in this particular instance bigger IS better. You'll make better decisions because you'll see your edit(s) effects better. If the argument is "My pics wont be that big so the quality I may edit won't really be seen". Simply put, ney ney, you are wrong. I'm not going to engage the subject further, but believe me, it makes a difference. Not only will you enjoy the bigger pi,c easier on your eyes, your product will show marked improvements. Jus sayin', can't go wrong with the biggest if editing and printing is ur thing.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

When I first saw the 27” screen in 2009, I switched from the Windows world to the OSX world.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Well it depends on how and what you do with your computer. For general use a 24" monitor or about that size is perfect for me. Moving the mouse from on side of the screen to the other is easy. I also have a 27" monitor on my photo editing computer and enjoy the extra space but it consumes a lot of space (but so does the tower running it). Also there are three types of monitors and one is much better than the others: IPS panels, VA panels, and TFT panels. The cheaper monitors use TFT panels and performance is mediocre but these are fine for web surfing. If you want the best get the IPS panel as it can replicate colors the best and is the better photo editing monitor. Beyond this there are the input connections the monitor supports: Display Port, DVI, HDMI, VGA. So first came VGA, then DVI, HDMI and lastly Display Port. Any will work but the HDMI will show movies well but the most modern is the Display Port which supports higher resolutions. Most good monitors will have many connections that work fine. There is also hz rates where 60 hz is good but 144 is much better. There are response times too. A response time at or under 4ms is good but the better monitors operate at 1ms (gaming monitors). As for me the only great monitor is on my editing computer where color replication is vital and it's a 27" monitor. There are bigger ones out there but the cost will really jump going larger (a good editing monitor will run around $550). But for the internet a cheap 24" monitor for $120 is just fine.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

One other note: you can mix and match two monitors. When I used to work in printing we often had a cheap monitor and a expensive one extended together so the images were on the large monitor and all the adjustment panels were on the smaller one where color wasn't important. Now the big 27" only had the image and your 17" to 23" monitor handled all those adjustment windows.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

The bigger consideration when color matching is the monitor's color gamut. The three most used standards in ascending order of quality are sRGB, Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB. sRGB is an old standard and compared to Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB does not have as as wide a gamut as one wants for modern color printers. The Apple computers with Retina displays are capable of producing the Adobe RGB gamut, which is the standard for most work today. On the high price end are the monitors that attempt to produce the ProPhoto RGB color gamut. That is desirable for top of the line work and are used today by many people involved in high quality publishing. As the price of those monitors come down, they will become more attractive to more users. For now, the vast majority of photographers use monitors with an Adobe RGB gamut, so I suggest that anyone considering a new monitor or computer use that as a minimum specification.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Can you list any monitors with ProPhoto RGB gamut coverage? I’m curious.

Wstrue

I completely agree with the others. I bought my first 27 inch iMac computer about seven years ago, and upgraded with a second 27 inch iMac about a year ago. I use both monitors, the old one simply as a second screen. I am 67 years old, and I have gotten to the point where I don’t like small print anymore. The big screen makes editing pictures much easier, reading text, typing, etc.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Hi Bill,

I don't know any specific models. All I know about ProPhoto is that they are way out of my price range and what I have read about the ProPhoto gamut. I know you can add to my knowledge. Please do.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Not sure I can add much.

I do know that ProPhoto contains many “potential” colors — way outside the spectrum of human visual sensitivity — so that makes it a good “working” color space. It can contain most or all of what digital sensors and raw processors can record.

That said, wide color gamuts’ main strength is the latitude they offer those who adjust color of images in critical applications.

Most printers can’t reproduce all of Adobe RGB, but with a 100% Adobe RGB capable monitor, at least you can see it during adjustment and soft proof with a printer profile (or sRGB, P3, etc.) to see the changes the printer or a standard monitor will apply.

That’s huge! It allows you to tweak for the most pleasing result, given the limits of the process.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Thanks!

imagerybox Loc: Elgin, IL

So I have a question, as far as I know when I have prints made they always want sRGB profile, so what is the advantage of using any other profile, unless all you do is share online? Thanks.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The Adobe RGB Profile can send a wider color gamut to high-end inkjet printers — those using 8 to 12 pigment inks. Such printers can reproduce a much wider color gamut than traditional silver halide-based “type C” prints.

The ProPhoto RGB space is used to preserve all the color subtlety captured by the camera until it needs to be converted to an output profile for screen or print.

Editors and designers often request 16-bit TIFF files in Adobe RGB so they can make adjustments to them for accurate color reproduction on their paper, ink, and press.

Photo labs using cheap silver halide paper can’t reproduce all of sRGB, and sRGB can’t contain quite all the colors silver halide printers can print, but that’s the most workable combination.

At least a photographer can use a simulation or proofing profile to see a good representation of what his/her prints will look like. That allows the photographer to make the best compromises, rather than rely on the lab to do it.