«

Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
the other BS above. Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
card?

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:38:40 -0800, Mike Russell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:
>
>> "nsbm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:hhatlr$q00$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
>>> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
>>> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
>>> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
>>> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
>>> machines are for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
>> a desktop LCD.
>
>The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
>notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
>angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
>effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
>compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...
>
>I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
>such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
>I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
>notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.
>
>I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
>(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
>for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
>work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.
>
>Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
>One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
>calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
>group.
>
>Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
>is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
>by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
>"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.
>
>So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
>value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
>RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
>RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
>tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
>can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.
>
>It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
>to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
>landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
>central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
>critical work.
>
>Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
>blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
>learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.
>
>Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
>that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
>the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
>is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
>Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
>the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
>display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
>monitor for more critical work while you are at home.
>
>Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
>particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
>critical work - this includes printing.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)>
scribbled:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
>They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

If you're going to make ludicrous bullshit claims could you at least
pull some ludicrous bullshit facts out of your ass for everyone to laugh
at? Thanks.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:25:54 -0500, (E-Mail Removed)d scribbled:

>I myself have 5 fans running continuously on my desktop, And I don't have
>nearly the horsepower I'd like to have..

That's because you're an idiot and have bought into the group-mind
stupidity about cooling that's been foisted off on the computer
community by other idiots just like you. You're Amway for fans.

"Fruit2O" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
> necessarily current models).

if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
get a mac...

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:14:21 -0500, "S. Fishpaste"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "S. Fishpaste" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
>>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>>> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> > "S. Fishpaste" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>>> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>>> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>>> >
>>> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>>>
>>> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
>>> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
>>> powerful as the any workstation.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
>> true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>
>Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>
>Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>powered laptop.

If you're still following this thread, perhaps you could tell me a little
more about your W700 Thinkpad. I want to purchase a high end notebook
such as this one. One thing I noticed in the options is that the drives
only go to 320GB. I was hoping for 500GB. Also, the type of RAID is not
mentioned. Do you know if they are RAID 1 or RAID 0 - or is there an
option? Another thing that's not clear is: does this model have two or
three hard drives? Are there any disappointments or wishes you have? How
do I find out what will change in the W700's successor? Thanks.......