Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photog Rob Galbraith Rates MacBook Pro Display "Not Acceptable"

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the pulling-no-punches dept.

Displays 504

An anonymous reader writes "Professional digital photographer and website publisher Rob Galbraith has performed both objective and subjective tests on laptop displays, finding that the late-2008 Macbook Pro glossy displays are 'deep into the not acceptable category' when used in ambient light environments. The Apple notebook came in dead last for color accuracy, and second to last in viewing angles (besting only the Dell Mini 9). He concludes: 'Macs are no longer at the top of the laptop display heap in our minds.'"

cancel ×

504 comments

Macbook pro 17" (4, Insightful)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648569)

I wonder if they will test the macbook pro 17" which has a $50 matte option?

Re:Macbook pro 17" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648637)

That doesn't make sense to me. Why charge to get rid of a faulty device that comes with it?

Cause... (5, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648693)

Why make it a feature when it can be a "special bonus" or an "extra"?

Plus... haven't you heard of "downgrading to XP" costs for Vista laptops and desktops?
"Downgrading" is the new "works out of the box".

Re:Macbook pro 17" (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649051)

I wonder if they will test the macbook pro 17" which has a $50 matte option?

Not really available at the moment, still 2-3 weeks delivery for the 17" matte MBP.

And better screen (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649065)

The 17" also has a different screen, with a wider gamut.

Re:Macbook pro 17" (5, Interesting)

ijitjuice (666161) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649071)

Did anyone RTFA? Per the author, "...but as with the previous generation of this Apple laptop, display quality is absolutely acceptable and usable for image assessment and simple Photoshop edits in the field, as long as you're aware of the display's particular blend of strengths and weaknesses." So clearly, the OP made the egregious decision to create this post just for the sake of flame bait.

Okay, fanboys... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648573)

1.. 2.. 3...

FREAK OUT!

Re:Okay, fanboys... (5, Interesting)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648889)

Hi. I am an Apple apologist and I despise the glossy screens.

They're fine on low-end laptops and 20" iMacs. If you're a pro photographer or a serious graphic artist you should probably stay away from such consumer-level hardware. These glossy abominations have no business being on MacBook Pros or LED Cinema Displays. Some of us have invested lots of money into color calibration devices and don't want this trendy bullshit ruining the color correction workflow that has worked for so long.

Right now I'm in a market for a 15" MBP to replace a PPC Powerbook but the glossy screen is preventing me from purchasing it. For starters, glossy screens are unusable in a properly illuminated room with unequal multiple light sources. Its even worse outside on a sunny day.

I wonder if Apple had realized they fucked up and offered the 17" model with an optional matte display? If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?

Re:Okay, fanboys... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648907)

Maybe because Apple listens to whiners like you?

Photog? (5, Insightful)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648587)

Is this one of those words that has surreptitiously entered our language like "blog" or was the title just cut-off?

Re:Photog? (1, Offtopic)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648611)

You decide. [thefreedictionary.com]

Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (5, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648757)

"Photog" is as much of a real word describing "A person who takes photographs" as "sandw" is a word used to describe "Two or more slices of bread with a filling such as meat or cheese placed between them".

Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (2, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648815)

Made up words that make their way into common usage wind up being real words. Otherwise, we'd all still be saying "ugh."

Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (5, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648841)

I would like to point out that even "ugh" sounds more intelligent than things like photog, blog, sexting, and much of the English 2.0 bullshit the Web 2.0 has brought us.

English 3.0 (5, Funny)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648881)

I think you mean English 3.0, American is English 2.0.

Re:English 3.0 (5, Funny)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649009)

If that's English 3.0, then I loathe to think what English 3.11 For WorkGroups will bring us.

Re:English 3.0 (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649033)

English Bob?

Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (1)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648871)

Permission to use your comment as my new sig!

Too bad my karma is so at the bottom of the ocean that i don't get any modpoints anymore...

Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649025)

Gurch, v. is a made up word.
Pelight, n. is a made up word.
Clunes, n. pl. is a made up word.
Froond v. is a made up word.

 
Photog is just someone being too lazy to type Photographer and too stupid to think up something like PhotR.
Or SnpR (pronounced Snap-aR - from "snapping a photo").

Neither would be any more needed or valid than photog though.
There is a reason we don't have and use just 4-5 letter words for everything.
Not only is the information in those extra letters important - it is often far more beautiful.

The word "photography" comes from the Greek (phos) "light" + (graphis) "stylus", "paintbrush" or (graphê) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light." Traditionally, the products of photography have been called negatives and photographs, commonly shortened to photos.

The One Who Draws With Light or an ugly "snub-nosed" bitten off newspeak like photog?

Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26649019)

"Assho" is a word describing you, "bud". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocope [wikipedia.org]

And ignoramus rhymes with anonymous... (1, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649181)

There are these things called syllables [wikipedia.org] .
They are the reason why we say "a photo" instead of "a photogr" or "a phot".

Also, note that (for all means and purposes) photo-G is actually a case of ADDING a letter to an existing short word (photo) - not shortening a complex one (Photo-grapher).

 

 

While you are pondering on that, take this one home with you as well.

Aeroplanes, from aeras and plane are called planes for short - not aerops or airops.
Humans generally don't like words crashing in the middle of the syllable, you know?

In other words... (4, Informative)

Sierran (155611) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648589)

Apple has now offered us a pay-to-play 'option' which fixes the display they broke in the first place (you can get matte as an option on the new 17" Macbook Pro for I think $50 but I'm not sure).

Re:In other words... (3, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648617)

Are you calling the matte option "pay-to-play?" You know, all Mac users aren't photographers or graphics professionals.

Re:In other words... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648631)

Then why are they using a Mac?

Re:In other words... (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648887)

Woooosh!

Re:In other words... (3, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648655)

I'm not a photographer or a graphic professional, and I think the glossy sucks...

I'm on my 3rd mac laptop as my primary computer, and because of the glossy, I seriously doubt i will ever buy another one. Too bad, because I love them..

Re:In other words... (-1, Troll)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648723)

Suuuuuuuuure we believe you Mr. Sociopathic liar.

Re:In other words... (2, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648801)

Do you have a specific beef with the GP? I've taken a look through Moridineas' comment history, and I can't find anything to substantiate your claim.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648823)

None whatsoever, I've just seen many people who claim this is their xth Mac/Linux computer and will swear up and down they will never buy another one because of some minor issue.

Kinda like those "Obama Supporters" who are sorely dissapointed in him, 2 weeks before he even takes office. Suuuuuure they were Obama Supporters from the Beginning.

Re:In other words... (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649167)

The glossy is a make or break issue for me...I really can't stand it. Did you read the article and see the reflections? Awful, imho...

Then again, I'm not a die hard zealot. I like OSX a lot, and I like my MBP a lot. Ultimately though, it's a tool, not a religion.

Re:In other words... (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649147)

I have no idea what other guy is talking about either... ~shrug~ I linked some old posts of mine, so will be interesting to see if he issues a retraction. Doubt it!

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26649227)

I run Linux/Windows on my main comp, I've also been running Macs for almost 10 years now.

The idea that a $50 matte option is going to make or break your next laptop decision is ridiculous. Especially when you claim to have been using OS X as your main OS for the past 3 computers. Yes it's only an option on the 17", but I'm sure they will add it as an option for the 15" too. If they don't, then I will eat my own words.

Re:In other words... (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649129)

What the other guy sad...if you REALLY want to google through my post history, you're more than welcome..

Here are a couple posts I found within about 30 seconds of searching:

2004 (shortly after I got my first powerbook as primary system) - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113394&cid=9603787 [slashdot.org]
2006 - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=15078720 [slashdot.org]

Re:In other words... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648773)

So you're going to ditch your primary computing platform and switch to something entirely different (spoken: sans Mac OS X) over a $50 pricing difference? Considering the total cost of the system, that seems a bit foolish. It seems you'd be better off buying a "gently used" system that has the features you want if you're really that concerned about the price. Frankly, I don't know why more people don't buy lightly used Mac laptops. They're a great deal in most cases.

Re:In other words... (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648937)

Uh.. it's only a $50 pricing difference if you were already going to buy a $2800 laptop.

If you only need a regular macbook, it's a $1550 option.

(and the more expensive laptop is only 30% faster, so really it doesn't seem like that great of a deal to me.)

Re:In other words... (1, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649099)

No... the only model that you can get matte on still is the 17" macbook pro.

Re:In other words... (2, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649093)

No, the difference is that I travel a lot, and a 17" laptop is bigger than I want. The 17" is also the only model that now has the matte option.

I do like OSX as my primary computing platform, but I have no trouble switching to Linux/BSD.

I also do frequently order refurbed equipment too, though the savings are generally not huge.

Re:In other words... (1)

generica1 (193760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649131)

I can't count how many laptops I've bought from the Apple Refurb web store (either for myself or for friends). Great deals always to be had there. Came in handy recently when my friend wanted a new MacBook Pro but she also wanted to be able to replace the battery. Got a nice deal on a 2.6 (late 2008 unfortunately... but it had the matte display option when it arrived!)

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26649121)

.....crank the brightness?..... I never have a problem with ambient lighting, even when other people are whining about glare. Seriously, this thing is fully capable of lighting my bedroom bright enough to be unsleepably bright, even with my eyes closed and a blanket over my head. and the wide range of viewing angles are better than any laptop I've ever had.

Re:In other words... (2)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648711)

You know, all Mac users aren't photographers or graphics professionals.

I think at least some of them are.

Matte display readily available (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648621)

Sounds to me like they deliberately choose an option with hope of failure. The matte display has been an option since the previous macbook introduction.

Re:Matte display readily available (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648879)

Sounds to me like they deliberately choose an option with hope of failure. The matte display has been an option since the previous macbook introduction.

Yes, because someone who concluded 18 months ago that "Apple was making one of the finest laptop screens we'd seen for use in a pro digital photography workflow." is bound to be setting Apple up for failure.

Thank you for reaffirming my belief in self-delusional fanboi nature.

Re:Matte display readily available (4, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648913)

I'm posting from a MacBook Pro with a matte display, bought last November.

I compared the glossy and the matte laptops side by side in an Apple store. (They were the same price I believe, but obviously if buying a MacBook Pro price isn't my biggest concern.) With the matte laptop, I saw a crisp screen with vibrant colors. With the glossy laptop, I saw my dad and the sales guy reflected in the glass.

As I said, I'm posting on a matte display version.

Re:Matte display readily available (5, Funny)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649097)

How can you be sure it's really you? you can't see your own reflection.

Re:Matte display readily available (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648965)

Sounds to me like they tested a collection of currently available and slightly older hardware, with an emphasis on stuff they hadn't tested previously. Shockingly, these criteria excluded the older matte macbooks, and the so-new-they-probably-don't-have-one-yet matte option macbook pros.

NOT flamebait (5, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648633)

For f' sake, whoever modded this flamebait needs their head read. Read the summary. A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER has done extensive testing and both SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE (quantitative) tests. He use to like Mac notebooks, but the latest crop doesn't suit a pro photographer. What do the fanbois want before they'll consider an opinion they don't like? A goddamn scientific study?

For the last time Flamebait does not simply mean someone's said something that you disagree with or find inconvenient. Grow up people!

Re:NOT flamebait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648679)

He use to like Mac notebooks, but the latest crop doesn't suit a pro photographer. What do the fanbois want before they'll consider an opinion they don't like? A goddamn scientific study?

Well, yes. Reputable magazines and websites do actual scientific tests.

This guy is a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean he knows how to use a computer. For all I know he didn't go to System Prefs and calibrate the thing.

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648715)

This guy is a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean he knows how to use a computer. For all I know he didn't go to System Prefs and calibrate the thing.

idiot.

first of all, rob knows photo AND processing.

second, its not 'system prefs' but always a custom calibrator (colorimeter puck) AND its driver/UI software. its never at the windows 'prefs' level.

Re:NOT flamebait (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649085)

Actually IIRC windows has some fairly extensive color profile support built in, which probably could handle everything everybody but the most picky professional would want.

(That is not to say that a colorimeter would not be needed, but that in theory at least, one could be used to create a color profile for the display, and hand that to Windows for use. Attempting to create a color profile by hand without such a tool would be a long and arduous task, and would require special color samples, AIUI.)

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Informative)

gomoX (618462) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648735)

Please read the 2nd web page where he showcases the four different calibration devices he uses. You don't just "go to system prefs and calibrate". It's a complicated process.

Rob Galbraith is a very reputable source for nerd-friendly information on photography (unlike many other artsy types that can't tell a bit from a byte).

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Informative)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648777)

Rob is not just any pro photographer. He is one of the leading lights in developing comprehensive digital workflows. He absolutely didn't just go to sys prefs. He has tools that are far more precise and comprehensive than that, involving sensors that tack on to the monitor and the like, and he knows how to use them. If Rob says that the increased chromatic pollution from ambient light unacceptably outweighs the improved shadow density in the glossy display, his word on the matter can be trusted.

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648795)

This guy is a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean he knows how to use a computer. For all I know he didn't go to System Prefs and calibrate the thing.

Did you RTFA? Did you look at the website it was on? The guy is clearly into digital photography and clearly knows a thing or two about graphic design and web design. Just look at the layout and photos for TFA! Galbraith obviously knows his stuff.

BTW-- do you know how many professional digital photographers I know? Quite a few. Most of them are, out of necessity, expert users of computer technology. Several even know how to code.

Who do you think writes all those open source photo manipulation tools like The GIMP and Krita? Geeks living in their parents' basements?

Get a grip.

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649201)

Regarding the usability of GIMP, I would say that yes, they are geeks living in their parent's basements.

The biggest problem with GIMP is that its developers aren't the intended users. I don't think they "get it."

Re:NOT flamebait (0)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649185)

"For all I know he didn't go to System Prefs and calibrate the thing."

Then you don't know jack. If you had RTFA you'd know differently.

Re:NOT flamebait (5, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648789)

His conclusion, though, isn't exactly supported by the actual article:

It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.

The summary picked out the worst of the comments and highlighted them, obviously to cast Apple laptops in a bad light.

Re:NOT flamebait (2, Funny)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648923)

and again the shy, sleek and simply "ugly" black box beats the shit of the others.

Re:NOT flamebait (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648983)

When your screen is practically a mirror, any light is bad light.

Re:NOT flamebait (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649003)

obviously to cast Apple laptops in a bad light.

No pun intended?

IS flamebait because (2, Funny)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648827)

The word "unacceptable" was used to describe an Apple product.

Re:IS flamebait because (4, Insightful)

gabebear (251933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648927)

I'm just wondering where the "unacceptable" and "not acceptable" from the blurb came from. The article repeatedly says the Macbook's display is acceptable. I think 'timothy' needs to read articles before accepting stories.

Re:IS flamebait because (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648955)

"unacceptable" is anything and everything in a design or photo proccessing environment that does not go up to 11. When you're looking for anal retentive applied to IT look in a (serious) design shop. I was thinking in buying some used ibook as a back up system, after this, I'm not saying I would not buy it, but I'll get medieval with the screen tests.

Re:NOT flamebait (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648853)

Why would that even work? Pretty much by definition fanbois take their love of something beyond reasonable limits. When you love something that much (and very little actually deserves that much love) you are too far gone for anything to make you see the light. You also tend to do all kinds of strange things, like see any negative comment on that thing as if it was a personal attack against you, and you feel a need to respond with an unreasonable level of force. I say, just ignore them, it is at the level of religion and no amount of reasonable argument will sway them. Just realize most people are not at that level of fanaticism and can still be swayed, and focus on those people. You'll be much happier that way.

Have you read Rob before? (0, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648963)

Sorry, but Rob is perfectly capable of flamebait. He had an opinion and he made sure he found data to support it.

Plenty of OTHER professional photographers disagree with him, and lots think ALL laptop screens suck.

Just because someone is an expert does not mean you should automatically assume impartiality.

Hello Captain Obvious (5, Interesting)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648647)

Par for the course on Slashdot, but basically the entire basis of his gripe is the glossy screen, hence the complaint about viewing angles.

Then there's this gem:

It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.

From earlier:

Sum it up, and what you have is a very good 15.4 inch (diagonal), 1440 x 900 pixel screen. Good, that is, for a laptop. Its characteristics are very similar to the MacBook Pro 15 inch we wrote about in July 2007, and others we've set up since. The display has some colour quirks that put it one or two steps below a good desktop display, and it's important to maintain a consistent, front-and-centre viewing angle, but as with the previous generation of this Apple laptop, display quality is absolutely acceptable and usable for image assessment and simple Photoshop edits in the field, as long as you're aware of the display's particular blend of strengths and weaknesses.

Basically, if you hate glossy screens, and it would appear these individuals do, the glossy can be a deal-breaker. Which anyone with half a brain could have told you without the trollish tone

FWIW, the 17-inch MBP comes with a matte-screen option. Time will tell if such an option trickles back down to the 15".

Re:Hello Captain Obvious (2, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648697)

Something to add is that the old glossy screens were less glossy than the new ones. They had a stronger optical multicoating that allowed a smooth surface not reflect as much as it would have without the coating.

Re:Hello Captain Obvious (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648725)

To make it worse... Captain Obvious is a Canadian :)

"Our job, as journalists, is to inform the uninformed and become a bridge to the truth; a real accounting. It is not a vehicle to get your name or face in the news."

Re:Hello Captain Obvious (3, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648865)

"FWIW, the 17-inch MBP comes with a matte-screen option. Time will tell if such an option trickles back down to the 15"."

A popular apology being offered here and elsewhere but not true. The display option is described by Apple as an "optional antiglare display". It is not matte but a glossy screen with a coating applied and the bezel replaced with the older style aluminum one.

Re:Hello Captain Obvious (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648931)

I read that review and came away with some objective insight. Of course by the headline here on Slashdot, you get the impression that the guy is literally dropping trou, and taking a steamy dump on the Macbook Pro. Of course that is not the case. Since I'm not a photographer, I don't count his criticisms as dealbreakers, but having said that... it is taking me a bit longer to fall in love with the beautiful, yet glossy, HP mini screen. :) But that's me... Im sure I'll warm up to it.

In the meantime, the trolls can put their pitchforks away, because this isn't the incendiary topic the headline makes it out to be. :) Is it truly ever, though? Heh.

CRT (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648667)

I was under the impression that anyone who cared this much used a CRT

Re:CRT (2, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648703)

no, I know of no one in the photo world (I'm including myself) who uses crt's anymore.

GOOD lcd's (sips and often pmva) are very good and when calibrated, they are fully functional for photo work. pro photo work.

5 yrs ago it was true. now, no one cares about crt anymore. they are ready to die. let them.

Re:CRT (5, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648837)

Even if they did prefer CRTs, it's mighty hard to find a laptop that offers a CRT option these days.

Re:CRT (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648993)

Whatever happened to those flat-panel CRTs we used to see on slashdot all the time?

Re:CRT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648767)

they do. the article was written by a moron, for morons.

and by "they" i mean me. a professional photographer.

FWIW anyone as anal about color as this chap (who apparently doesn't know that Apple includes a wonderful color calibration app within os x) uses CRT displays. i personally adore my aging sony trinitron 21" but this new viewsonic is working out well on my new machine.

again, the point is moot as os x can handle color correction beautifully. know your gear. not just cameras and photoshop, but laptop hardware and the finer points of your OS of choice as well. (or at least ask google how to use color correction.)

Re:CRT (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648999)

You missed the entire page about him color calibrating, didn't you?

Re:CRT (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649213)

If I posted a comment this stupid I'd do it as an AC as well.

Photog Rob Galbraith Rates Sex Boring & Pedan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648669)

Does anyone expect color accuracy from an lcd anymore? Even the name brands have issues.
Isn't that why people justified shelling out the $3500 for a CRT with a hood?

Re: Photog Rob Galbraith Rates Sex Boring & Pe (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648883)

Yes. They make high-end color-accurate tuned LCDs specifically for digital photo editing.

BTW--geeks on a budget should look for S-IPS panels like my Dell 2007WFP. These are the most color accurate TFTs on the market, currently.

You can pick them up refurbished for about $150-200

So true... (5, Insightful)

isaac (2852) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648677)

Apple is running away from the niche markets (like imaging) that sustained them through their dark days as fast as they can. The new unibody Macbooks (and the 24" ADC^H^H^HMini-DisplayPort external LCD) are slightly faster but in many ways less functional than the models they replaced. Glossy is a bug, not a feature.

Meanwhile, HP and Dell are shipping laptops with RGB LED-backlit displays with 105% NTSC color gamut. Apple is slipping, badly, from this user's perspective.

-Isaac

Re:So true... (1)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648829)

Hopefully someone (maybe even "The Steve") will take note of the growing frustration with their display issues and actually do something about it. I wouldn't mind upgrading my MPB at some point, but I certainly don't want to do it now. Not that I'd jump on the early adopter curve anyway, but at this point I'm not considering the June '09 release either.

Re:So true... (3, Insightful)

SuperQ (431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649035)

Or this is a direct attempt to go after what non-aware end users think "looks great!" and not what really is great. Think BOSE. Their speakers are not accurate at all, but they "sound great" to the people who think that the speaker built into their TV sounds good.

Personally I did some research and with with an IPS based 24" screen (HP LP2475w) to replace my crappy old 17" TN panel.

The funny thing was I had been using the crappy old screen for so long that the new screen weirded me out at first.

Re:So true... (5, Interesting)

drmerope (771119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649017)

Glossy is a bug, not a feature.

Actually glossy is a superior technology for imaging hobbled by having only 8bits per color channel. Similar problems have arisen with wide-gamut displays. 8bit precision means fairly coarse steps between shades as the range of reproducible colors (gamut) increases. Glossy screens have better color gamut because environmental light contributes less "white pollution" because most sources are reflected away, not toward the viewer. Using a matte screen is more like looking through a layer of milk. Your mind's eye sees around the matte effect because of its uniformity across the screen, whereas residual reflections are distinctly localized in the glossy case.

Now people doing press work actually cannot use the expanded gamut of the glossy screen--because paper is a limited medium. Therefore, given the bit-depths available, they prefer the more limited reproduction of a matte screen.

To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.

Re:So true... (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649231)

Well done completely changing the subject regarding glossy's sensitivity to ambient light. No one is complaining about the contrast, the blacks and the saturation of glossy. It's the glare...

You know that notebooks almost universally are 6 bit, right?

Darn Straight (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648687)

Oh, who could have predicted such a thing?

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=995409&cid=25373917 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=995409&cid=25375879 [slashdot.org]

Glossy is annoying unless you've got perfect control over the lighting in your work environment. If you're using a laptop, chances are you don't some significant portion of the time.

And that's before you even consider the actual color reproduction issues.

Re:Darn Straight (2, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648721)

What's annoying is that the typical "matte" option is also crappy...

I think the sort of "dully glossy" surface that seemed to be the default in the days before the stupid glossy/matte split, was much nicer than either.

Re:Darn Straight (1)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649011)

Agreed, they both suck. I think what you are referring to is the anti-reflective film that was often used on CRTs. This provides the advantages of both glossy and matte, with none of the disadvantages. It is strange how people seem to have forgotten all about it.

As a reminder, examine the anti-reflective coating on a good pair of glasses; it is extremely effective. If Apple would simply apply such a coating to their displays, this whole matter could be put to rest. Matte/glossy does not need to be a choice...

Am I mistaken... (1)

imikedaman (1268650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648689)

...or did the glossy screen option used to cost more? How did they end up making matte cost more now? Are they just making up prices for their hardware instead of correlating it with the actual cost?

Re:Am I mistaken... (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648781)

Macs never meant bang for buck, I hope you know that already.

Re:Am I mistaken... (2, Informative)

magsol (1406749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648821)

Nope, you're absolutely right: matte used to be the default, with an optional $50 "upgrade" for glossy. My 5-year old Powerbook (RIP) was of the default matte variety from its time.

Re:Am I mistaken... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648925)

Hmmm. Assuming both are equal cost to actually manufacture, that's probably a smart change on Apple's part. Nobody _needs_ a glossy screen, but lots of people _need_ a matte screen. Makes more sense to make matte the expensive upgrade.

Bitch Bitch Bitch Whine Whine Whine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648797)

I bought a polycarbonate Macbook with a glossy display because I got a great deal. The glossy display was not my first choice but I grew to like it and glare was not a problem for me. I upgraded to the new aluminum model with the glass display and glare still has not been a problem. I actually would not buy a laptop with a matte display again and consider them to be inferior as they are not as bright or vivid as a glossy display. I even have a wall of floor to ceiling windows right behind me. Being a "professional photographer" one would think that he would understand that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Just with your hot flash on someone's glasses move the subject or the lights and your problem goes away. Would you bitch out your photo subject for wearing glasses?

For most consumers glossy displays are a great upgrade that cost very little to the manufacturer. The consumer benefits by a much better looking display. Most consumers don't deal with printing technology and have to match colors on a display. Why should Apple go out of their way to cater to a small niche market of whining idiots? Most flat panel TV's are glossy as well as well as the displays on many 35mm SLR cameras. Do you bitch and moan to them too? Or is it just because its an Apple product?

I personally think that the new Macbook display is the best display I have ever seen on a notebook ever.

TN panels (5, Interesting)

postmortem (906676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648803)

Have bad angles and limited colors. They all suck, some more or less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#TN [wikipedia.org]

And they are used in virtually all laptops.

Re:TN panels (5, Insightful)

rezonat0r (409674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648893)

Mod parent up (and the article down...)

ALL laptop displays are "unacceptable" for serious graphics work, because they are all TN-type (TN is the thinnest).

TFA even admits that the only recent laptop that had an IPS-type panel, a Lenovo, is discontinued.

Rob should know by now that laptops are not for color critical work. This has been blindingly obvious for years.

Apple LED displays have an awful gamut... (5, Insightful)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648809)

Just when wide gamut LCDs are approaching the range of colors once possible on CRTs, Apple has taken yet another step backwards with their new LED backlight displays.

My LED MacBook has a spectacularly bad display, so I went to visit the local Apple store to see if this was typical. Sadly it is, and what's more, it looks like all of Apple's LED displays are vastly inferior to that of my old iMac G5. (which has an S-IPS panel and conventional fluorescent backlight)

Color wise, the LED MacBook Pro and Cinema Display are better than the MacBook, but they are all shamefully bad, and definitely worthy of a "worst in the industry" rating. (at least color-wise)

Re:Apple LED displays have an awful gamut... (1)

QAPete (717838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649155)

My 17" Macbook Pro LED-backlit matte screen is simply excellent at 1920 x 1200. It powers on to full brightness immediately, is plenty bright in every ambient light situation I've had it in, the blacks are "black enough", and it's easy on the eyes to the point where I don't have an issue working on it all day.

That being said, I would *never* buy a laptop with a glossy display, for all the reasons Rob mentions in the article. Just go to any Apple store and be honest with yourself when you look at the displays. In most homes and offices, the reflectiveness of the screen is a MAJOR annoyance. When you're spending $2-3 thousand on a laptop, the words "major annoyance" shouldn't even come into your mind.

I hate the glossy displays (2, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26648959)

This is what I've found. The casual user that buys a MacBook* for general computer use love the glossy screen. They think it looks sharper, brighter, and clearer. And they maybe right. But anyone that is using a MacBook* for professional use, programming or photo/video, hates glossy screens myself included. It's the secondary reason I keep holding onto this 12.1 PowerBook. (Primary reason being it's 12.1" and fits perfectly on an airplane tray table, even on Southwest's economy class).

Maybe MacMall has a left over 15" from the previous model that still has a matte screen.

Re:I hate the glossy displays (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649189)

Pretty much. When it comes to color and image, I'm as close to an average joe as it gets, and I love the glossy screens =P Of course, if I had to do any actual work, or cared about correctness of the display, it would be totally awful.

its a bit like the Digital Vibrance setting you can tweak on the videocard panel... it makes thing stand out more, brighter, and for an average joe, its great. Probably makes even an amateur designer or photograph cry though.

A photographer is a photographer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26648977)

when they can tell me the base development time for Tri-X in D-76 or HC-110 without going to frickin' google.

Some of us like glossy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26649041)

I have a glossy Macbook, use it for hours at a time doing dev work and I love it. It was my first Mac ever btw.

laptops with accurate colors (3, Informative)

fbhua (782392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649059)

If any of you are looking for laptops for serious color accurate work then you might be interested in this article:

http://www.markzware.com/blogs/top-5-laptops-for-displaying-color-gamut/2008/10/14/ [markzware.com]

As someone said before, it's a niche market. Color accurate work is usually done in a S-IPS / S-PVA panel based display which has been professionally calibrated using a hardware colormeter. If money is no concern, check it the top of the line products by Eizo or the HP Dreamcolor series. At the bottom end (but still quite decent) is the HP LP2475w. However, you'll have to add a hardware colormeter to your budget.

My pathological hatred of glossy screens (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26649083)

Supposedly mac users claim glossy monitors have a sharper image? Perhaps if you've only seen half-arse anti-glare. Most LCD monitors, particularly desktop monitors have very good anti-glare coatings these days, and don't really harm clarity at all. I really don't understand why laptop makers can't get this right, particularly Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...