iMac: Glossy or Matte - Which Would You Prefer? - Page 2

There are people who depend on things they do not own? If they imac isn't right for you, don't buy it. Buy something else that suits your needs.


That's the spirit. Turn lemon into lemonade! The beauty part: your burka doubles as a cocktail garment for after hours fun that never goes out of style. No more need to change into your hotpants after a full day of photoshopping in your darkened basement.

None so salty as those who are covered in salt. Except, I suppose, those who are made of salt. And of course, it would also depend on the kind of salt. But I digress. Anyway, I have noticed that most labradors are very accomodating of screen glare. While not always been the case historically, over the past two centuries, breeders have successfully minimized the trait of inability to cope with screen glare problems and subsequently very few labradors are so bothered. Perhaps Apple is participating in a similar experiment and in several hundred years your own progeny will have none of these problems that have worked you up into such a tizz.

Have you considered buying a computer with a matte screen?

And conversely, anyone with a criticism is on a crusade against anyone who does not agree with their position, dismissing (as you are dismissing) any reasonable disagreement as the spasms of mindless fanboyism. Such fun! Both sides can so easilly dismiss the other.

Since you asked, in my opinon, I think Apple is hell bent on making a greater distinction between "prosumer" and "professional," driving users like you who require matte screens to the MacPros and cinema displays. Increasing iMac prowess threatens to canabalize higher margin professional sales, and Apple is trying to delicately balance both.


I'm sure a clever lad like you can figure out a solution that lets you keep your burka and get the mac and screen of your dreams.

Bending over and picking up the soap has become an ingrained habit for what is left of Apple's Pro Graphics users. In this case they actually got their backs up only to be swamped by the clueless amateurs who now make up a majority of Apple users.

This volunteer Home Guard's only authority is that "Apple knows best". Clearly that isn't so. The glare is so patently obvious on these screens the Monty Pythonesque argument "Oh no it's not!" is just an out and out lie.

I have never seen so many Apple store employees so on the defensive, and yet privately agreeing.

In the closed market of Mac computing the only choice is to hang on in the hope that Apple will blow in a different direction next time, or opt out and pay to replace all your software and equipment.

Is it that you are young and not yet part of the crowd to which you aspire, old and jealous of a new breed that does not sure your antiquated views, or somehow and oddly enough an active graphics pro who simply cannot find the extra money to buy the proper professional solution widely used in the industry?

Are you a short order cook, gastroboy, who has been saving your wages to buy an iMac and break into the field of your dreams, only to have Apple's new model, the object of your speculative desire for over 12 months, not meet your expectations? If that is the case, I am not disparaging it. Indeed, if so, good luck to you and I hope you get what you want! I am just trying to understand what seems like a position that is both knowledgeable and clueless at the same time.


Such fun! So easy to dismiss any criticism of any critic as mindless chanting from a volunteer Home Guard. Is it possible - or let me say it this way - have you ever stopped to consider that you might be wrong about something ever in your life? Are you ever wrong? Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you dismissing their view as a mindless response from a sycophantic automaton?

Again, since you asked (I'll pretend that you asked), I will give you my initial opinion of the iMac based on actual use. Yes, it is reflective! Kind of like slick Sony TV reflective. I notice the reflection most when I'm looking at the computer and thinking about the computer as a computer. When I'm using the computer, however, I am delighted at the candy quality of the image, reminiscent of SJ's assertion that OSX is so beautiful he wanted to "lick it." The iMac screen makes you want to lick it. After I use the computer a bit, I am no longer aware of its reflection. Frankly, I am more bothered (not that bothered, but more bothered) by the ostentatious logo. I would have preferred something that blended more into the silver below the screen, rather than a black apple that asks to be looked at from time to time. But the reflections, so obvious when you look at the computer as a computer, evaporate for me in actual use. In use, I am simply drawn into its glowy gummybear world. By full disclosure, I am not a graphics professional and don't care about this stuff as much as someone like, well, perhaps you. I suppose if I were a graphics professional, and wanted a matte screen, I would go out and buy one. I'm not sure why that hasn't occurred to you as well. Also, by way of full disclosure, I am a cat, and therefore my perspective is admittedly different from yours.


Are you suggesting that you are tapped into all things Apple? Are you a card carrying member of the Home Guard and thus feel personally betrayed? How many employees did you survey? Or does this boil down to you know a guy who works in an Apple store and you and him get together and grumble as you wax poetic about the awesome new album cover you are designing for your awesome new band?


Are you aware that Apple sells products other than the iMac? Why don't you buy one of those? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

I do my own books, so I know where the money has disappeared to. I no longer want to buy the equivalent of the hole in the water into which you pour money.

My PC competitors haven't had to shell out for all for the Apple crossgrades that I have, most of which have done absolutely nothing for my productivity.


I believe so, but now that you have sown doubt in my mind, perhaps I am wrong about THAT, and I really am infallible. Just that I forgot to mention it.


Sorry did you say something there? I nodded off in the middle.


3 out of 5 freely agreed about the gloss, the other 2 clammed up so rapidly it was obvious they had covered this repeatedly with other shoppers. Why 5 you may ask? Because I DID try it in multiple settings hoping it was just a matter of a better set up to avoid the sheen.

Haven't tried frosting my eyeballs yet, I can see you are leading up to that. Nothing wrong with the iMac, must be me. Mind if it had been a Dell, it would have been a heap of shit, no argument.


See above. The other Macs don't even make financial sense, the iMac does...

...or at least it did.

You don't like the iMac. OK.
You don't like the Mac Pro. OK.
You don't like Apple. OK.
You pined and saved for a new Apple computer for a year, and hop around from Apple store to Apple store so you quite like Apple. OK.
Yet...
You don't like Apple. OK.
And you definately don't like people who like Apple. OK.
Yet...
You like Apple. OK.

Have I missed something?

I am concerned about your health. Are you still on that crazy diet?


These are all store settings - not really in a working environment where you can stop obsessing. Not that it matters, I accept your point - the iMac isn't for you. You are making the point that you are not going to buy a computer that does not meet your needs... And you are upset because you cannot buy a product that does not exist...

I too am looking forward to products that don't yet exist, and am frustrated that they don't yet exist. In this, we are interchangeable.


"Financial sense"? That means you either don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro, can't pay the price of a Mac Pro, or have some abstract standard against which the Mac Pro doesn't stack up. Fortunately, gastro, the world is your oyster and you are free to eat the oyster or be kind of grossed out by the oyster and order the salmon.

I have always loved the Mac and even, long long ago, once liked Apple but then I spent too much quality time with them as a VAR.

I fully appreciate your role as self appointed official apologist for Apple means you must defend even the indefensible.

I also appreciate your highly technical analytical skills, that lead you to the conclusion it is only under certain freaky conditions that the new iMac reveals itself as excessively reflective.

It is unfortunate that Apple has managed to reproduce these rare and easily avoidable conditions in its own stores and that several other stores with wildly different lighting have managed to hit on the only other freaky instances where a problem is revealed.

I suggest you offer your expert services in telling them how to make the problem go away.

For my business I could go radically upmarket, as you suggest, but it wouldn't get more pizzas to more doors, and hence more money, so why would I?

Apple has taken a killer product which really hit the sweet spot for many designers and made it unusable. Seems it couldn't bear to see its customers actually getting value for once. Well it won't be the first time designers switched away from Apple or went on a buyer's strike.

One thing you seem to have got right, is that if you close your eyes to the problem it almost goes away.

Unusable? Ridiculous. I'll never pretend to be a graphics guru but I do use my new iMac to make money as a graphic designer. It's a great piece of machinery. I love the glossy screen and voted that way in the poll (among the majority since the thread began.) In the few jobs I have done since receiving the machine, I have not had one client say "um, the color seems to be off....Are you using a new iMac?" Nor after hours in front of it am I squinting or getting headaches like some people say who spent five minutes looking at it from an angle while someone else used the machine in the Apple store.

I can respect those whose opinion is that the glossy screen is no good. But to call the machine 'unusable' is just ridiculous.

I submit to your greater knowledge, as you are self professed omniscient and omnipresent.

What puzzles me is not seeing you "looking at it from an angle", amongst the many other reflections, whilst I used the iMacs extensively in the normal sitting position.

I don't even remember seeing you reflected in the darker screens such as in Aperture, just myself and the store behind me.

There, you finally have proof positive that I just can't see what is staring me in the face!

Can someone tell me why we are still arguing about the glossy screen? It's a done deal. Get over it. The fact is that some of us want something that doesn't exist. Okay. Wait until the next iteration. Maybe it will feature a matte screen too. Two AI pages of arguing and flaming s not going to change anything.

Oh look, there's that bar of soap!

Are you some variation of disgruntled employee?


No, it is you who are appointing me that. I fear you may be seeing reflections everywhere now. Whatever it is that buggered you so with the iMac may be emblematic of a larger problem.


Not saying that. Only that when I look at it, I see the glare. When I use it, not so much.

I will offer to you first as a trial run:

It isn't a problem if it isn't a problem.

It is a problem if it is a problem.

Take your pick.


If you are not motivated by other metrics than how many pizzas get delivered to how many doors, and this doesn't change that, then you wouldn't. However, where you seem to stumble is in front of a clear decision: buy the iMac, buy the Mac Pro (buy the Mac Mini) or don't. But you are stuck in a continuous howl that the iMac is not something it is not as if howling will either change it into that, or everyone else will join you in mass howl. And those who don't: mindless apologists for the mothership.

Join the howl! There you are, you're recruiting!

Well, good luck to you, gastro. But I don't think you'll reach critical mass here.

Your rants are simply tiresome. On a black screen (not gray mind you) I do see my reflection the closer I am to the screen. I don't use Aperture nor do I work with the computer off. So for me, the iMac works great as it produces vivid bright colors where I do not catch any reflections.

But here you are saying that the computer is 'unusable' because in Aperture you catch a reflection of your own face. I don't know whether this is a slight to Aperture or your own face that it would make a computer completely 'unusable.'

I respect your opinion and the opinion of others that the glossy screen is too reflective. But reflections or not it is VERY usuable and in my opinion a joy to use.

I respectfully disagree.

I find his rants rather amusing, and am forlorn that he has not stopped by to give us this day, our daily rant, amen.

Duddits, I find that a 'catty' remark. His rants are like 'hair balls'. You cats are a persnickety breed.
BTW, I tried to teach my Russian Blue to use the computer, but he complains that the keys are too small for his paws. Should we start a thread threatening Apple because of the key size. After all, the US gov't passed a law regarding providing special ramps, doorways, and such for the disadvantaged. My cat is disadvantaged because of the small keys. Of course, he can't spell very well anyway. You must have voice activation or did Apple provide you with a special keyboard? You must know "someone".

Russian Blues are among the most computer-savvy cats around. Not a coincidence that IBM is known as Big Blue...

"My paws are too big" is a common ploy in the cat world to throw off humans, and I am probably saying more than I should as it is, but I bet as soon as you step out he's friending away on his myspace.

I think Apple's lawyers are busy enough these days dealing with humans who did not understand that iPhone batteries will not outlive the solar system, and think that just because a phone is described as a "candy bar form factor" means you can eat it.


I think you mean "disabled." I'm not sure the US gov't has passed many laws for the "disadvantaged" in quite some time...

Duddits,

What kind of relationship do you have with the mouse? Any compatibility problems? A symbiosis, maybe?
Or are you just biding your time when you will.... Oh no, that's too horrible to think about. Oh, the humanity!

If I had to give it a name, I would call it a "truce."

But there are those times when I do get tempted...

"Oh, the humanity!" -

Oh, the felinity!

I went to Apple store yesterday to buy the 24"iMac with 3.06 processor.
On paper it sounds great. But I freaked out at the glossy screen.
I'm a filmmaker and do my own editing on Final Cut Pro.
The glossy screen is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
I've got mirrors in my house if I want to see myself.
On my edit screen I want to see JUST THE WORK. JUST THE IMAGES.
How could Apple make this HORRENDOUS MISTAKE????
I have a 3 year old iMac G5. Of course the screen was matte in those days.
That was before Apple was blinded by their own reflection!
Doesn't Apple know that people do WORK on these machines
-- work on IMAGES, like in Photoshop.
At the store, a Photoshop workshop was in progress.
Of course they were using huge wonderful MATTE Monitors.
Who could possibly work with that glossy reflection??????
Now I don't know what to buy. I really wanted that iMac.
It would have been perfect.
Sad, perplexed and angry. Nancy

"The glossy screen is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. "

Really? Hmmmmm, I don't suppose that it ever occurred to you that all those bright overhead lights at The Apple Store were responsible for the reflection problem?

I have the new 24" iMac, and I can tell you I have no such reflection problems at home. Of course I'm not stupid enough to set it up in a situation like you saw at The Apple Store. I love my glossy screen, the colors are great! There are quite a number of Pro photographers using that 24" iMac, so perhaps that answers your question about who could possibly work with it.

Mine is calibrated with a Spyder 3 Pro, and my prints match my monitor perfectly. However, the iMac is not the best model for video, that would be the Mac Pro, because of it's multiple cores. But, for still photography, one does not need a Mac Pro, the new iMac serves very well. Images open almost instantly in PS CS 3, Aperture 2, or Nikon Capture NX.

Don't let internet scare mongers, and lousy lighting setups at The Apple Store, give you the absolute wrong attitude about the 24" iMacs. You viewed them under the worst possible conditions. Ideally, the iMacs should be displayed in a different environment, but The Apple Stores aren't setup to do that. At home, it's no problem at all.

Name them.

Give links.

Get them to confirm the obvious reflections and glare don't exist.

I have asked on multiple relevant forums, including Apple's own, for any professionals who recommend the use of glossy Aluminium iMacs for color critical work. There have been hundreds of views and no-one has recommended them.

That would be supposing that "Pro photographers" are even expert in press ready workflow.

btw The Spyder doesn't register reflections as it covers and is in contact with the part of the screen it reads, and yes I have used the Al iMac in a darkened room where the glare from the screen lights your reflection, hence my suggestion of a burka.

Also there has been a fallacious suggestion that the screen needs to be all black or substantially black for the reflection to be an issue. The point is that any dark part of an image is altered and polluted by the reflections that it picks up which you may not even be aware of, just that your view of the subject matter is inaccurate.

As they say in South Mexico, "Hoarsecheet, ya'll!".

If you want to know who the photogs are, go find them yourself, or learn to ask in a polite manner.

YOU, area legend in your own mind, you should get over yourself.

Well you are the one who claims they exist, produce them.

The reflections and glare are obvious enough, what isn't is all these people you claim swear that they aren't.

So what's wrong with taking the glass out and replacing it with a non glossy one?
here's how it comes out...

Glass frosted on the outside and separated from the actual true surface would blur the image and cause rainbowing and shimmer. If the frosting was on the inside it would do nothing because the outside would still be glossy.

Better would be a treated glass surface that cuts down the reflections whilst minimising the blurring which would still happen. There would still be reflections now appearing as frosted highlights because the true flatness of the surface would hold them over the entire screen.

The older slightly barrelled surface of CRT screens tended to hold highlights to a tight line at right angles to the curvature which simple head movements would move from areas of interest.

There probably would be diffraction or rainbow patterns emerging from interference between the frosting and the inherent pattern of the screen itself. Toss in any possible polarisation used in setting the individual color pixels and there could be even more interference.

If what you want is the benefit of the non-glossy screen, you would not replace the glass at all. But as you can see in the links this exposes all the contacts, holes and securing devices to view.

Best would have been if Apple had indeed offered the option of gloss or non gloss, as with the MacBook Pros, with a neat empty frame in place of the glass.

Still this would do nothing to cut the glare and excessive contrast of this model which is a large part of the problem for designers. In fact it may even add to it. The latest Al iMacs have a much stronger rear light source to "punch up" the contrast and "shininess" of this model. Without it the problems of reflections off the glass would have been worse because the difference between the transmitted light and reflected light would have been smaller. The strong transmitted light works to hide the reflected light at the cost of high contrast.

High contrast looks good to non-professionals because it makes the image look bolder and they are not looking into the highlights and shadows for details, as a designer is.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-glare (AG) polycarbonate films, the kind used in matte displays, are just normal polycarbonate flims that have been roughed-up. The are measured in how much light they let through, as a percent (80 - 90 are typical values). In other words they are not far from frosted glass, and they definitely do cause image blurring. It's just hard to tell unless you have something to compare it to, like a non-roughed up version of the same thing. Yes, increased separation makes the blurring worse, but there's always some blurring.

The "anti-reflective" (AR) versions of the same thing undergo a special treatment that helps cut the glare. They are much more expensive than the AG models. I'm uncertain if Apple's glossy displays have the AR coatings. I know I paid extra for this on my glasses, but I expect most of the cost there is in labor and profit margin.

I have 2 white iMac 24" models so am aware of that. The films are very thin though. It is like the frosted sticky tape that when in contact with a surface becomes transparent. The slight blurring they cause evens out the lighting and also smooths the pattern of the pixels under.

The glossy displays are straight tinted glass, no coating at all. The tinting makes the colors look deeper and richer at the cost of accuracy and contrast.

The glass would have had to add to the weight and cost of the iMacs, so if Apple had deigned to let us have a choice (after all 50% of us voted for non-glossy above) they should have let us have a discount for lower freight and manufacturing costs.

This makes it very plain that Apple deliberately is not going to let us have a choice or let us continue using the iMacs in the way we had with the previous white models.

You don't have to remember too far back to when Apple was making quite a marketing point for their superior color management over Windows. I've been using Macs so long that I have learnt that when Apple makes a "feature" of anything, next step they'll be taking it away.

I will say one thing in defence of the glossy glass screen, they are much easier to keep clean than the non-glossy versions which tend to pick up a lot of grot and build up static charge that attracts dust. The non-glossy screens require regular wipe downs with a clean damp cloth and an anti-static brush. The glossy screen needs cleaning as well, but less so.

Wasn't it established that the Aluminium iMac TFT Panel under the glass was the same anti-glare coated panel as the previous generation matte-iMac?

ie. take the glass off and you have a screen that looks like the old one, but brighter because of the increased backlight they now need to get past the added glass.

I believe so, but you'd have to ask someone who actually has taken the glass off whether the finish on the screen is the same frosted finish as on the white iMacs.

If that was so then perhaps a 3rd party could give you a magnetic black frame to cover up the rough bits around the screen.

You still would not be able to bring the backlighting down low enough to be color balanced for print work according to posters on Apple's forums who have tried. They even used software to unsuccessfully further reduce the glare.

All of which sounds less than ideal to me, even if it "sort of worked".

The only acceptable solution is for Apple to sell matte versions of the iMac with backlighting that falls within the gamut of a color balanced graphics workstation.

While they are at it they could also take the shackles off the iMac's graphic card/Mini-DVI port so that we can drive a second monitor at higher than 1920x1200.

Buy a Dell...

I understand that you don't even own one of the new iMacs, yet you like to spout off about them.

None of the photogs that i know have told me that I should give out their personal info, or use their names on the internet, willy nilly. This is about ethics, but, I will give you a place to start to look for yourself.

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/

That is the tip of the iceberg.

I get to use one every day. In fact I am posting this from one right now.


Actually (looking furtively left and right and speaking sotte voce) its about security. Our regulations (no you can't look at those) require that we don't actually confirm our references.


I hope so.

I searched on iMac on this site and got very little material on the glossy models (in fact very little that was even recent and relevant). None that was based on real technical expertise.

I also noticed that if you chase down what these posters mean by printing, it is to an inkjet. No-one, that I found, actually talked about commercial printing, which is the concern of graphic designers.

As I have said previously I would not be looking to "Pro Photographers", even if these were "Pro", for advice on pre-press.

I have never seen a photographer at a press check.

If you can't find recent info about the iMac on that site, then you're just plain incompetent. I should not have gone back on what I said earlier, you're a waste of my time. Adios.

Here is the result of my search. As you can see only the first is even this year. Of that not much was real actual experience, of that I could not see any reference to any commercial printing experience.

A lot was of the "I've been thinking…", "I heard…" or "I saw…" and as I said the actual references to printing were to an Epson, unspecified model.

Now if you have any competence in this area, show the rest of the iceberg.

Nincompoop, there were several today, backing my remark that you are incompetent. You didn't read what was posted, you initiated an ill conceived search. What a maroon!

Abuse, abuse, abuse, but where are the links?

I certainly read the posts, in detail. Trying to find anyone who has any real commercial experience. Like I said this is unlikely on this site but you seem impressed by the posters' qualifications.

"Maroon"? How can you tell what color I am?

Are you trying to demonstrate your color management skills?

This image was processed on a new 24" iMac, and the prints match the display perfectly.

When we are talking about "prints" are we talking inkjet or commercial press?

All this talk of reflections upsetting colour output and so on is absolutely fantastic, i enjoy a good argument.

But, in reality, in printing......


......what matters is not how it looks on screen.....


but how it looks ON THE PRINTED SURFACE, everything else is simply argumentative....

is it not?

I am a photographer who prefers the glossy screens for my laptop (MBP). I show my work on my laptop quite frequently... and I use a lot of color and prefer the saturation and richness of a glossy screen when SHOWING anything.

My primary photo editing computer, however, is a Mac Pro with an EIZO FlexScan - and I absolutely love that monitor for its color rendition and working gamut. Of course as most of you know it is much more of a matte surface. I don't SHOW on that monitor, though - I work on it.

I think it just depends on your goals. If you mostly work toward screen presentation then glossy is probably the way to go. If you work toward print, matte is also much closer to a print surface in its appearance.

Much of my work is shown electronically (even if it eventually goes to print, an editor or client is going to see it on-screen first) so I prefer that modality. I also prefer to look at things on a glossy screen and most of my day-to-day image viewing is done on my laptop.

I wrote a blog post a while back on the matte-vs-glossy topic. At the end of the day I just think each person is going to have different needs based on their workflow - how they show their work, what environment they work in, and so on.

Precisely. I couldn't agree more. I also work with both glossy and matte screens, and my experience is the same as yours — the glossy screen (in my case, a 24" iMac) is great for showing work to clients. It's a dazzling screen. But it is also so alluring that one can be sucked into wanting to use it for print, which I have found is a terrible no-no.

Even on the lowest brightness setting and with the screen properly calibrated, the glossy iMac has nearly RUINED two print jobs. One was a $5000.00 run and the other a mere $2700.00. That sounds like small potatoes, I know, but the point still stands.

You are blessed to have the EIZO monitor for print. We still rely on old LaCie CRTs. They reveal every blemish (and nuance) that the lovely iMac screen glosses over (pun intended).

Those designers who manage to use the glossy screen for print work must have access to a form of alchemy that alludes me. In fact, many people in the industry with whom I have spoken on the matter share your view: glossy for great looking on-screen imagery and matte for prepress.