Digital BW, The Print

Thanks to Scott Graham for settling this dual-display question.

It seems to me that a dual-display Mac system is either superior or 
appreciably less expensive as a result; again, especially for anyone 
who needs/wants a notebook, as I do, partly as a traveling companion 
for a digital camera.
--
Sam


>At 11:04 AM -0700 8/16/04, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>>[snip]
>>... two monitors can also be a plus. However, be aware that Windows
>>can't do independent color management on two different monitors,
>
>But a Mac can?

At 4:07 PM +0000 8/18/04, Scott Graham wrote:
>Yes, Macs can use two independent profiles for two different monitors.


>  >so if you go that [Windows] route, either reserve one monitor for displaying
>>pictures, or get two identical monitors.
>>[snip]
>
>Are identical monitors _that_ identical? I wouldn't have thought so.
>And in any case, couldn't the palette display be enough smaller than
>the image display to make identical displays appreciably more
>expensive?
>
>My impression is that a palette display needn't be larger than a
>notebook's screen, and that someone who needs a notebook anyway might
>get a very economical - of space as well as money - workstation by
>using a desktop-replacement notebook together with a second, usually
>larger and probably better, display for images. But I agree that it
>would be nice to see the same colors on the notebook's screen as on
>the image display, especially if the notebook is a traveling
>companion for a digital camera.
>--
>Sam, who thinks that, for a photographer, system design should
>_start_ with the displays