Photog Rob Galbraith Rates MacBook Pro Display "Not Acceptable" 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.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather sad commentary on the state of things isn't it? But quite a few people wont bat an eye at it, and for some people that's what they're stuck with.
Need this particular piece of hardware, and it's more convenient to get it with this software and then go through the trouble of "downgrading" than it is to find another place offering the hardware without the New and Improved Software(assuming such a place exists).
The article seemed pretty good, I like his writing style and he seems to be very knowledgeabl
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Insightful)
Except matte was the DEFAULT for laptop LCDs until someone had the stupid idea of making the fucking thing shiny and glossy.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
But glossy screens look so pretty on the shelves...!
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Insightful)
No the grandparent is right. If you put both a screens in a display room, the shiny screen looks nicer. It therefore makes sense to put glossy screens on laptops. When someone else sees your screen, it looks good and they think 'that's a nice laptop, maybe I'll get one like that'. It's only when you try to actually use the machine that the glossy screen is inferior, and by that time you've already given your money to the manufacturer.
I'm glad I got my MBP before Apple's hardware team went crazy. The latest models are so far from being a compelling upgrade that I'd rather ditch OS X than buy a new Mac at the moment.
re: new MBPs (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone's entitled to their own personal opinion, and I understand people have different needs and wants.
But every time I read a post like yours, I just find myself at a loss.
I owned one of the first aluminum MB Pros (the 2.0Ghz Core Duo model, before they moved to Core 2). It had the matte screen and the "pre chicklet style" backlit keyboard, etc. etc.
I recently sold it and bought a new 2.8Ghz MBP to replace it, and I couldn't be happier with the decision.
The hard drive is finally swappable without tearing the whole machine apart to get to it. The battery life is FAR better than what I had before (and the LED power level indicator on the side is a nice touch too). The video performance is better, and I can put 4GB of RAM in it now, instead of the 2GB limit I had previously. I don't have any real issues with its glossy screen either. Sure, you get some reflections with it, but it's GLASS. That's normal. Especially being a PORTABLE computer, I have no problem picking it up and MOVING it a little bit, if there's some particularly bright and annoying light-source shining directly onto the screen from behind me.
Now granted, I'm not a "pro photographer" or anything ... but I think I'm like most notebook computer users. I do a lot of web surfing on mine, some web design, a little gaming and entertainment stuff (especially if I take it on a trip with me), and keep a collection of photos on it that I have incorporated or may incorporate onto said web sites I work with. I might want to watch an occasional movie on it too. It's been great for all of that.
To hear the people focused on ONE specific need scream that it's no longer a "compelling upgrade", and the whole design team must be "crazy" .... it really does a disservice to everyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Informative)
On the order of a couple of pennies per display.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an industry insider as a former laptop repair instructor.
The actual price WE, the repair depot, paid for matte panels was about 5 cents more expensive than the glossy panels.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that's an absurdly high margin, Apple isn't a charity - nor is any other computer manufacturer, for that matter. Regardless of what it costs, you're either willing or not willing to pay the premium that they're asking (welcome to the free market, enjoy your stay).
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
Dell, HP, Lenovo(IBM) they all do it.
If you have an enterprise agreement, you get all the flexibility in configuration you want, but if you are an end user, you're kind of screwed. You buy a Dell Latitude C620 with 2GB of RAM and want to put in another 2GB, and find out you have two 1GB DIMMS installed, and so can only go to 3GB. Shit like this happens all the time with laptops. Apple's doing nothing new or different.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Informative)
It's shit no matter what.
But so are all TN panels, which is what almost everyone use, laptop TN panels more so.
Though then again it's not impossible that Apples isn't among the top of the TN ones.
Benq has a 24" MVA-one which isn't that expensive nowadays, and Dell got a couple of 27" ones, it seems impossible to get a decent 20" nowadays, and IPS is hard to find no matter what.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely love my S-PVA Dell 2408WFP [dell.com]. A touch expensive for a 24", but they go on sale often. I got it for $599 CDN.. I've since seen it for $549 CDN, very reasonable considering after you see one, you will never want to look at TN display again.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the second page..?
"In ambient light environments which induce screen reflections, the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch's glossy screen moves deep into the not acceptable category."
That's where the summary and headline come from.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Funny)
Photog? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
English 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:English 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:English 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
English Bob?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, you'll be speaking Spanish or Mandarin by the time English Vista comes out.
Re:English 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Ingroup bellyfeel doubleplusgood
language changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Human languages, living ones at any rate, are constantly changing and acquiring new vocabulary. It's a fact.
Bitching about it is about as effective as you waving your fist at those kids who won't get the hell off your lawn.
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, circa 1986 I worked as a photographer for a newspaper and we commonly used "photog" to refer to ourselves. What do I do at the paper, "I'm a photog." Who is covering the big game, "You're the photog, now get to the stadium." Why does Joe smell funny, "That is stop bath, he's a photog."
Detractors in this thread are reading way to much into it, this is not an assault on the language.
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes, you do. Compared to other European languages, English has extremely low tolerance for polysyllabic words. It considers two syllables a long word, and revels in monosyllabic grunts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can get away with it because it has a larger repertoire of sounds than many languages (compare Italian, for example). With more phonemes to work with, the number of distinct monosyllabic combinations is greater. We also use strings of consonants in English that many languages would not permit. Consider a word like "sprints": it's one syllable, but has seven phonemes. In other words, yes we have monosyllables, but they are not "grunts," they are systematically distinct words.
Oh, come on⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
It's industry jargon.
Photographers use the term and understand it.
That would make it a real word, wouldn't it?
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Informative)
The word photog is over a century old. These citations are from the Oxford English Dictionary:
So if your definition of "real word" is "word I use," sure, maybe not. But if it's "word that's in the dictionary," or, as I prefer, "word that is/has been used by a reasonably large number of people for a non-trivial length of time," this is a word.
In other words... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Funny)
Then why are they using a Mac?
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I think at least some of them are.
NOT flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060923202508AAKhUd3 [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod Parent up.
This "story" is a pretty egregious example of the slashdot submitter posting something that's utterly out of sync with the linked article (who I otherwise tend to assume is actually the blog author himself trawling for traffic).
Now, I've been around here long enough not to get all worked up and grumpy: "Jeez, slashdot editors, how about RTFA before you post these things?" Because I know it has always been this way and always Shall Be.
But nowadays, the difference is, there are other places I c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While at the same time, the slashdot headline says simply:
IS flamebait because (Score:2, Funny)
Re:IS flamebait because (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
windows can, in fact, *select* from pre-made or locally made profiles.
big fat note, though! I once installed the MS windows dual-head (dual LUT) color 'power toy' and that damned thing phoned home each time I booted! I deinstalled it and stopped recommending it.
anyway, you don't *create* profiles in that control panel tab and you don't even need it to select profiles on single display (head) cards.
as to the comment about 'only the fussiest' - that's simply not true anymore. when the pucks came down to th
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also if he's so smart why is he trying to do his colour correction in ANY ambient light, instead of under a hood like the real professional photographers do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's a laptop screen, and not a regular monitor? When was the last time you've seen someone use a hood on a laptop? (yes, I know they exist, but they aren't common)
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
I introduced my wife to The GIMP for Windows after she realized her ancient copy of Photoshop was falling short of her needs (yet didn't justify the price tag of an updated version). I really expected a lot of grumbling about The GIMP's interface. I like it. But with all the grumbling the interface gets when someone just mentions "gimp" on /., I expected I'd be hearing it at home too. I was wrong.
Her initial reaction WAS a "woah" of surprise. Lots of windows opening up were a bit daunting at first. But it didn't take her long to get a hang of what's going on. I asked her just now how she's getting along. She's doing fine. "What about the crazy interface?" I ask. "It's more or less like Photoshop - everythings kind of where it would be if it was in a single window. No big deal."
So meh. To each their own. I understand there's folks who just don't like it (witness GimpShop). You get used to a tool you know and its a pain to be handed something alien to what you're used to. But that doesn't mean said tool is without merit.
Of course - this is all old hat. It's been said before. It'll come up again.
Re:Galbraith is known being a flamer and ignorant (Score:5, Informative)
The auto-focus on the Canon 1Ds Mk III was, indeed, "useless" for those that needed high speed multliple shots, such as sports photographers. People were up in arms about it and Canon eventually did something about it in firmware.
I can see how your $30 solution will be ideal for photographers out in the field or at a wedding. Photographers love adding to the things they have to carry around with them especially when they could have bought a laptop that didn't need a hood attachment.
You are "splitting" your understanding of who photographers are. A photographer at a sports venue may well send everything but a photographer doing a model shoot will almost certainly do a little bit of image manipulation before showing the images to the client. Model clients like to see the images immediately these days you know and laptops make that possible. In any case are you saying that only the needs of "the big boys" are relevant?
Rob Galbraith is pretty good at what he does.
Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's this gem:
From earlier:
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Except... that's all matte displays have ever been. That's why glossy displays have more accurate colour reproduction (while you can see them), and are brighter â"Âthey don't have a filter sat in front of them absorbing and scattering some of the light.
CRT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Even if they did prefer CRTs, it's mighty hard to find a laptop that offers a CRT option these days.
Nope, CRTs are dead (Score:5, Informative)
Even if one wanted to use a CRT, it is very hard. You basically have to already own one. NEC, Sony, etc all have discontinued their high end CRT lines. To the extent you can buy a CRT anymore, it is a budget display. So the people using CRTs are those that haven't upgraded, not users buying new high end gear.
Also LCDs have progressed to the point they can offer better color than even high end CRTs. The sRGB color gamut, often called "72% NTSC) is specified as it is because it matches the best most CRTs could do. That's why it became the "normal" gamut. It was what most CRTs were capable of. There were a few exceptions, NEC did have a 94% NTSC screen in the early 2000s, but it was over $4000. Not so popular.
Well LCDs are easily exceeding that gamut these days. 92% NTSC LCDs are fairly common, and you can find higher than that.
Now of course in addition to gamut, there's accuracy to worry about. True, typical TN panels are pretty bad. Goes double since all (or at least very nearly all) only have 6-bits per color channel. That means they've got to use some kind of dithering to do some of the finer color transitions. However those are just the cheap panels. There are better technologies out there. IPS, or rather it's later variants like H-IPS, would be what you want. It gives extremely accurate color, and a good viewing angle so color doesn't shift based on angle.
So an LCD can easily do as good or better than even a high end CRT in terms of color. In terms of pretty much everything else, they blow it away. One big problem with CRTs was geometry. It took a lot of fiddling to get the display squared, and it would drift over time. So you ran in to problems of "Is this line that looks curved really straight?" Kind of a bitch for design work. No problems on LCDs. Even cheap ones have perfect geometry that needs no adjustment when you use DVI.
Thus even the design world is LCDs now. They just use better ones. If you are interested, check out NEC's MultiSync 90 series. They are high quality IPS displays used by professionals. I've got one for my computer, though I'm not a graphics pro, because I like the quality of image. Only downside is you have to pay more for them. Quality isn't cheap. However it was the same in the CRT says. $150 might buy you a cheap monitor for office work, but you'd easily spend over $600 for a good pro screen.
Same deal here. Acer will be pleased to sell you a 26" widescreen LCD for about $400. However, it'll be a cheap TN panel that doesn't have particularly good color. NEC wants more like $1100 for their 26" monitor, but it is a top notch image. Planar will actually sell you a monitor with a similar image (uses the same LCD panel, just different supporting hardware) for $800. Not quite as good as the NEC since it doesn't have as advanced hardware backing it up, but much better than the Acer.
As with most things, you get what you pay for. If you've never got a high quality LCD, you've probalby not been willing to pay enough.
So true... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
All but one of the CRTs that I own (I have about a dozen now) has a screen that's *significantly* less glossy than most (all?) of these glossy laptop screens. The rather reflective CRT is in storage, for when *all* of the other ones fail. (I don't want to see *ME* in the screen, I want to see the video behind my reflection!)
Re:So true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Specious. Uniformity across the screen is more important to me than "white pollution" - not a term of art I've ever heard, but I know what you mean.
The detailed reflections on a glossy screen are distracting and really slow me down when working with images in the field (i.e. real world laptop use.) In practice, even in a room with controlled lighting, I can still see my reflected face in the dark areas of images where I'd rather be seeing the image I'm working with.
Gamut doesn't really enter into the glossy vs. matte debate. I only brought up the expanded gamut of the new LG laptop panels with RGB LED backlighting being shipped by Dell and HP as an example of how Apple is failing to deliver a truly premium product for the dollar ask of their latest line of so-called "pro" laptops.
-Isaac
Re:So true... (Score:4, Interesting)
To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
*Very* historically. Then in the early 90's every CRT manufacturer started adding anti-glare coatings as standard on CRT's. Even an Eizo, Radius, et. al.
Do you remember those horrendous Kensington Glare Guards everybody had taped/velcro'ed to their CRT's in the 80's so they could work under fluorescent lighting without getting migraines? Apple apparently doesn't (or they just said 'screw it' and went for the bling factor at Best Buy to improve their short-term bottom line).
I see the secondary market is already coming up with various films to address the issue, but quality has to suffer; nothing is as good as factory-applied coatings.
Somebody clever will start offering a mail-in service for people to get eyeglass-quality anti-glare coatings applied to their Macbooks. It's not going to be cheap as a retrofit, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Somebody clever will start offering a mail-in service for people to get eyeglass-quality anti-glare coatings applied to their Macbooks. It's not going to be cheap as a retrofit, though.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/techrestore-offering-matte-conversion-for-15-macbook-pro.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other big determinate in gamut is the center frequencies and Q of the red, green, and blue filters. This allows the W700 to have a wider gamut despite its matte screen. Why not use similar filters for other panels? The W700 has an 8b per-color panel rather than the 6b per-color used in the others. For the same reasons I gave above, more-bits per color allows for better shade gradation. You can't calibration software will fail on a screen when the steps between shades are too large.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Glossy is a bug, not a feature.
It's not quite that simple, but it's really more of a trade-off. Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much. And don't think that just because matte is scattering light that it's not reflecting light, or that ambient light can't mess with your colors on a matte screen. In some environments, a glossy screen can actually help to reduce the amount of ambient light reflected from the screen to your eyes.
Re:So true... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Darn Straight (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
TN panels (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:TN panels (Score:5, Insightful)
Rob should know by now that laptops are not for color critical work. This has been blindingly obvious for years.
That's not really the point.
The point is a digital photographer has to take something with him/her on the road. So what do you take with you?
Just throwing up your hands and saying "all these panels suck! don't accept any of them!" is not really helpful. Because that's equivalent to saying "you can't work outside the office". And clearly that is not at all true - you can work outside the office, with any laptop. The question is just which laptop works best for this kind of thing?
Ever since I first started reading this site several years ago, there is always a certain group of people that take an absolute all or nothing kind of attitude, which just ends up being defeatist. Because it's not realistic. Nothing is perfect, and if you're going to expect it to be, then you're just not going to be able to work. That's reality.
But people do work, including photographers, and they work just fine even with imperfect equipment. That doesn't mean they don't want the best equipment available, but it does mean most people in the real world are (surprise) realists, and they will use whatever they have to to get their work done.
So yes, we should all be pressing manufacturers for better laptop displays. That doesn't mean displays that currently exist are "unacceptable" for photographic use. The vast majority of digital photos you've ever seen in any professional capacity, be it in a magazine, a newspaper, a book or a web site, were taken by a photographer walking around with both a camera and a laptop. Some of these were probably even viewed on laptops with (gasp) glossy screens. Most of them were no doubt viewed on laptops with TN screens.
So to make this blanket statement that laptops are "not for color critical work" is just not a statement you can make. They may not be ideal, but then nothing ever is. Hell, the cameras photographers use aren't perfect either, they're always a series of compromises. Does that mean every camera in the world is "unacceptable" for taking photographs?
Apple LED displays have an awful gamut... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
I hate the glossy displays (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
laptops with accurate colors (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Perspective. (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever anyone complains about the state of the art for either audio or photography applications, my eyes glaze over. I would ask Rob if he would like to return to his Beseler, dialing in filters, or even, sandwiching filters. But then, I doubt he is old enough to remember the bad old days of sheet filters, and the good old days of Beseler heads. On the other hand I honestly believe I miss Kodachrome. Put in the proper perspective, matte display, glossy display, 16 bit audio, 24 bit audio, get real. It's a tempest in a teapot.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Matte display readily available (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
How can you be sure it's really you? you can't see your own reflection.
He's a vampire (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains BOTH sights (on matte and glossy screen)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Matte displays were on ALL laptops until a few years ago when someone stupidly decided "Hey! Let's make this look cooler by making the screen look like it had a fresh coat of wax applied to it!"
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why don't you buy the Lenovo recommended in the story & install (a retail copy of) OS X on it? That way you'll have the best of both worlds. Decent hardware & a unixy OS that runs your workflow tools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Apple has decided to escape their niche-market image and go for the big money? Somebody at Apple must have decided they'd sell more Macs this way. And somewhere in the decision process somebody mentioned their cadre of graphic artists would be pissed off, but they said, "eh, fuck em" anyway.
Either that or their "green" initiative took precedence, but that's just a guess. I've never understood glossy screens and I'm not even an artist.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indoors, on a desktop panel, for graphics purposes, sure. You'd ideally like the panel to be consistently washed out even if it is slightly washed out. In terms of general usability of a laptop, and particularly for use outdoors, though, I couldn't disagree more. I've used Macs for many years, and recently got a MacBook. I tried both screens and concluded that the glossy screen worked much, much better for me than the matte display when used outdoors, so long as the sun is not directly behind me (at which point it is blinding, of course).
With matte displays, any significant source of light behind me resulted in poor contrast across the entire panel because of the diffuse reflection off the mate screen, to such a degree that I found the matte displays to be very difficult to use outdoors (without a sun hood) except on the darkest, cloudiest days. With the glossy display, by contrast, light and dark areas behind me remain in sharp focus, so I can more easily ignore them; I can always move around to see the portions of the screen I need to see if some part is obscured by a light source. WIth a matte screen, no amount f moving will make the glare go away. I still sometimes use a sun hood, but at least now it is about making me more comfortable rather than being a necessity to be able to make out anything at all. :-)
I'm not going to disagree with complaints about the color reproduction, though. I've never seen an LCD panel in my life from any manufacturer where certain gradients didn't look like absolute excrement, and that's almost bordering on cruelty to the excrement. I'm sure there are some panels that are good, but I certainly haven't seen them. At this point, I'm convinced that the panel manufacturers aren't even trying anymore. Color accuracy hasn't improved significantly in five or six years, and in most cases, has actually gotten worse over that time period.
I blame the panel manufacturers for focusing so heavily on the mass market by constantly trying to make screens brighter. Every time the screens get brighter and increase in contrast ratio, they seem to consistently do so at a cost to the accuracy of their color reproduction. Most consumers, however, seem to care more about brightness than accuracy, and outside of the graphics world, I can see how that would be more useful in many cases. That said, IMHO we've reached a point where the brightness of most modern panels is basically sufficient for most purposes, so I think it's time for the panel manufacturers to take a step back and start working to fix the color accuracy of modern panels.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
It figures that the rare time that I actually have mod points intersects with the need to say something. I am a graphics professional who just purchased the late-model MacBook Pro when it first came out, so I fit the theoretical profile pretty well. Although I do retouch as part of daily workflow and occasional freelance, I'm not a high-end retoucher; my meat-and-potatoes comes from InDesign/Illustrator/Office (shudder).
No graphic artist in their right mind who uses a screen all day long would get a glossy one voluntarily, and that plus the previously discussed Firewire rationing gave me some headaches in decision-making. I remember struggling with glossy CRTs very well (custom films and covers, anyone?) and knew exactly what I was getting. In some ways, the result has been exactly what you'd think it would be: tilting the damn thing forward and back, turning off lights, looking for seats in cafes at 90 degrees to windows, wiping off the more-obvious keyboard artifacts of my (apparently very oily) fingers with the provided rag, etc.
On the other hand, I love it. Once the concessions are made and it's set up in the right environment, it's the sharpest, brightest laptop screen I've ever used. (This is my third Mac laptop). I pulled two 12+ hour days over the weekend making the fussiest kind of pixel and point tweaking, with _no_ significant eye strain. Everything is razor-sharp compared to my previous Powerbook, which is a real boon to older eyes.
I understand Mr. Galbraith's concerns as a photographer, but as a "regular" graphics person, even though I find the screen somewhat annoying I am usually am working in environments where the glare can be minimized and its other qualities (brightness, sharpness) outweigh the problem. The model's other features (rigidity, magnetic clasp, trackpad scroll options and gestures) make it my favorite laptop ever (knock on... glass).