iMac: Glossy or Matte - Which Would You Prefer? - Page 3

Here's a montage of glossy vs matte and you can clearly see that there is a problem with reflections but also that in certain conditions, glossy looks more vivid:



(don't quote this image btw)

image 2, glossy is on the left
image 4, glossy is on the right
last image is glossy vs matte iMac screens I think

A few people here agree that they both have their advantages. The real problem is that Apple only gives one option. That's always the problem. It's not to do with one vs the other, they both have their strengths but Apple just gives one configuration. It's the same with the iMac vs some other configuration. It's not about one vs the other, it's just that different configurations have different strengths so don't just give us one option.

Let us decide what's best for what we use the machine for.

Heres a video showing that in some cases you can't see the reflections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAaTQ_W1134

this lighting seems like fairly average lighting. But even so, frame 2:50, you can very clearly see a reflection on a fully colored desktop so it's not just limited to heavy blacks. Solutions like turning off the lights just aren't options for everyone, I get pretty bad eye strain working with a bright screen in the dark.

Thank you Marvin for finally demonstrating what is plainly obvious when confronted with these glossy screens.

Now imagine this effect on the much, much bigger screen of the iMac 24".

The one I am working on we keep in a darkened corner of the studio but it catches even the smallest reflection from any source. The glow from around the edge of a heavy curtain covering the window, the gap in a slightly opened door and even if I wave my hand near the screen, the reflection back from its own strong backlighting.

I don't know how many times or ways we can say this, but when you are editing images on screen you must be able to see what is actually there. Not something that is mixed with reflected objects, no matter how subtly they are reflected, nor has its color tainted by those same objects or just simply by your surrounds.

There is no doubt either that the screen is just too brightly (and not evenly) backlit. The glossiness exacerbates the uneven backlighting because it pushes the contrast up higher. The previous matt screen diffused the lighting and smoothed it back down.

Can graphic designers use these iMacs? Yes but we feel handicapped. We do not use them for color critical work, that is done on older Macs. We also have gone back to relying on specified colors in our work, working on the numbers and not relying on what we see, which we know is deceptive.

Why not just upgrade all the machines to higher end Macs with matte screens?

Well we are not a particularly large studio, we have 7 Macs, but the iMacs are already more expensive than the PCs used by our competitors. To upgrade to the next level of Macs that would solve the problems (introduced by Apple with these glossy models) will put us back 10s of thousands of dollars when we are already feeling squeezed by the market. So we avoid the problem for as long as possible then work our way around this entirely unnecessary issue.

Apple has steadily moved away from its previous designer base and expanded rapidly into the home amateur market which is good for its bottom line. Those amateurs love glossiness, it looks bright despite the reflections and has all the connotations of polished newness.

When it did this it actually increased the manufacturing cost of the iMac. After all the glass, the aluminium and all its attachments did not come free and added extra steps into its assembly and weight onto its freight.

The question we designers are asking is why did Apple deliberately, not once but twice now despite protests, remove all choice from those (50% from the above survey) who for good reason want non-glossy screens?

Answer: they did the analysis and realized that any decrease in sales from this group of discontents is made up for by the decreases in price made possible by supply chain optimization, the increased sales due to the better look of the product in Apple retail stores, and the likely gamble that the discontents wouldn't actually stop buying macs. ... They'd just whine in internet forums instead of dealing with it. Put a freaking light hood on your iMac. I can make you one for like $2. Besides, the photos also show that the matte panels seem to have major color washout in the well lit environments. You should have been using light hoods with them, too. It's a case of color washout vs. reflection, both of which would seem to be problems in your line of work.

This whole discussion is rather amazing. I use my iMac 24" with glossy screen of course in all kinds of light situations and find the "disadvantages" virtually unnoticeable, while the beauty of running photos and dvds so muh better as to make the whole discussion moot-- for me. If you do not like the glossy, then I guess you have a problem, but it is hardly the critial one ecribed. For professionals, maybe you need a MacPro and monitor.

The problem isn't really extremely well lit environments though. It's most average lighting. Take a look at this review and you can see that the lighting isn't overly bright:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/review...?reviewid=2599

Matte screens perform better in all lighting up to extremely bright environments. In extremely bright environments, both displays suffer.

I found it funny how he said that gamers and people who watch videos prefer that type of display and professionals don't when typically people say that the only reason people want a different type of machine than the iMac is to play games.

Here's a question though. If the glossy model is such a viable alternative to matte that no matte model needs to be made, why are Apple's Cinema displays all matte with no glossy option?

Do you hear people complain that there is a lack of a glossy option? No, so clearly matte is the path of least resistance. In other words, if streamlining the product line is the goal then why choose the model that will knowingly cause complaints? The previous iMac model had very few complaints about the screen.

The designers I work with like the design of the new iMac but they would never buy one because we have a fairly well lit office. In this office, none of the matte screens show any discoloration or color issues but the Macbooks we have do. The solution for them was to get matte Macbook Pros and use external 20" matte displays because they have no other choice.

It seems to me that Apple removing matte options from the consumer line is like Adobe removing certain critical pro features from Photoshop Elements. Sure you can get pro work done but it's just more difficult and it means that the company makes more money by encouraging sales of the more expensive packages that do the job better.

Exactly.

It gets so tiring having to repeat the bleeding obvious.

The parallels with religious "debates" are uncanny.

1. Dismissive: It's only the choir boys being molested.

2. Triumph of common knowledge:The Sun circles the Earth, says so here.

3. Diversionary disloyalty: Only Satanists disagree.

4. Nobody else is complaining: Burn a few as witches, end of argument.

"It seems to me that Apple removing matte options from the consumer line is like Adobe removing certain critical pro features from Photoshop Elements. Sure you can get pro work done but it's just more difficult and it means that the company makes more money by encouraging sales of the more expensive packages that do the job better."

Your source for that? Do you know the margins on all of these products? Don't you think that if you're doing pro work, you should be using a pro tool like PS CS 3, instead of an entry level program like Elements? Do you think that these companies are out to get you?

zinfella

I think you are getting the argument around the wrong way. The corporations actually go out of their way to cut down functionality from existing products. How is it cheaper to start a whole new programming project ie Photoshop Elements, when you already have a working application in Photoshop? Now you have 2 applications to rewrite and support.

Apple does this all the time, taking perfectly functional products and putting the effort into making some part of them not work, or work as well as in their more costly range. Take their graphics cards which at various times have supported only one monitor or a 2nd monitor only at reduced resolution, despite the card being capable of much more.

Or populating all the RAM slots in low end models so that upgrading is more expensive and of little benefit compared with high end models.


Not us personally, but definitely our money. Unless of course you think they really are our Best'us Friend?

When setting up our office of 19 24 inch iMacs, we removed the glass from the machines of those that didn't like the glossy.

Besides the ugliness of the exposed frame, there still would be the problem of the overly strong backlighting to contend with.

btw Have you compared the finish on the screen (after removing the glass) with the matte white IMacs? Are they the same?

What line of work is this and what proportion of people decided not to go with the glossy? Did you notice any trend in who decided which type of display to go with?

What I don't understand is that the fix is so easy by taking off the glass front so surely Apple could come up with a modification to make it reflect less. I kind of like the glass for being easy to clean and protecting the display from prodders.

It might help people trying to calibrate the screens too:

http://macosx.com/forums/design-medi...-new-imac.html

What is plainly obvious to me from the pics above is that the glossy screens look bright and vivid and the "pro" matte screens look washed out. Personally, I prefer the glossy screens and the glass is so easy to clean. And yes, I am a graphic designer.

It has been almost a year and the machines recently went through the first revision without a matte screen option. Perhaps at this point you should get use to that fact.

I don't plan to "get used to that fact" nor does Marvin nor do virtually half of the respondents to the original query.

Of course the matte screens look washed out. Why? Because they are coated in such a way as to best replicate the manner that paper takes ink on the page.

Unless you are an alchemist, if you use the glossy iMacs for print, your image on the screen—even when calibrated and set on the lowest brightness output—will differ from the print output, which will generally be DARKER, MORE MUTED, and LESS CONTRASTY. In short, if you have any kind of eye at all, you may begin to tear your hair out ... OR PISS OFF A DISCERNING CLIENT.

The same holds true for web design. Work on one of the glossy screens and guess what? The images will look GREAT—RICH, FULL, SATURATED, GLOSSY ... nothing but PURE EYE CANDY. I love the look. But move over to a matte screen or a CRT (as I did yesterday when doing pages for a client) and the same images lose their sheen. A web designer has to take into account her audience and try to strike a balance between those viewers who will have glossies and those who won't.

As one of the posters above pointed out, the glossy iMacs are FANTASTIC for showing photography to clients and for displaying rich, saturated video. They definitely have their place. But—much like the mattes—they are LIMITED to what they are.

Finally, what you and a few other posters seem unable to recognize is that there is no hard and fast solution when it comes to the glossy screen OR the matte screen. The glossies are GREAT for some tasks and MEDIOCRE for others. The mattes are S—T for presentation and they LACK THE BEAUTY OF THE GLOSSY, but they tend to be FAITHFUL for printed material.

I don't know what kind of graphic design you practice, but it sure as hell must be narrow in its scope.





CODA: I apologize for being so ticked off and condescending, but the one-size-fits-all mentality for such matters drives me crazy. I, TOO, LOVE THE GLOSSY IMACS ... BUT ONLY FOR CERTAIN JOBS.

Look, this really is simple. If you eye is so discerning, if you are such a "pro" that the iMac screen does not work for you, then you don't buy or use an iMac. Apple has had a year to hear your complaints and still does not offer a matte sceen. I'm not making a pro glossy statement here. That is just the fact. I'm not sure what you do since you don't plan to get use to that...other than complain about it in forums. Maybe start a petition...Have fun.....Good luck.


I'm not a "Pro" since so many here think you can't be one and still love and use the iMacs. But I will still have to disagree with the term "FAITHFUL" as far as what you see on any screen and what is printed. There are so many factors that control what the final printout looks like. This is the reason Pantone colors exist. And there again, you have coated and uncoated of the same colors. To better tell what the color will look like on the surface you are printing on. Sorry, but the real debate if any is whether you have too much glare or not. I do not find the glare to be a problem where my iMac sits. I have seen other iMacs in places where glare could be a major problem.


It is narrow in scope. And after many years of not being narrow in scope I like it that way. But I am not a pro since I like and use the glossy iMac. Incidentally, when I did do more color critical work years ago we never relied on the (matte) displays at all for true color. We relied on using levels in Photoshop. Or we used spot colors.


So from this statement it seems you would have somewhat of a problem deciding which iMac to get even if Apple did offer the choice of displays. Maybe you would have to get two, one matte and one glossy. Perhaps that is how you should approach your petition. Apple, would love to sell you two iMacs instead of one.

Well! You should stomp your little feet, and hold your breath. THAT'LL learn 'em!

Meanwhile, I'll be using, and loving my glossy iMac for image editing.

It's interesting to see too that some of the original iMac displays are SWOP certified along with the right color tools:

http://www.idealliance.org/swop/cert...on/certmfg.asp

Apple mention this certification on their Cinema Display page:

http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html

"While Apple displays leave the factory tuned to perform out of the box, you can use calibration devices such as the ColorVision Spyder2 Suite, PANTONE Monitor Calibrator, or color calibration tools from X-Rite to create a custom ColorSync profile. This gives you the peace of mind that an Apple display will integrate perfectly into your color workflow, ensuring accurate color from capture to screen to print.

Proof Perfect
The color on apple displays is so good that you can use them in a SWOP-certified (Specification for Web Offset Publications) soft-proofing workflow. Display-based proofing system Remote Director from Integrated Color Solutions and Matchprint Virtual Proofing from Kodak are both SWOP certified. The prestigious SWOP certification means you can use a soft-proofing solution to approve jobs for press production on-screen, without the need for hard-copy proofs-providing significant time and cost savings for print professionals.

Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to the SWOP Certified Press Proof, as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001, Graphic Technology. ICS and KPG choose Apple displays because they’re capable of creating onscreen proofs with virtually the same brightness and feel as paper."

If this wasn't important, Apple wouldn't use it as a selling point. Here's what I think may have happened though. People were quite possibly buying iMacs for photography work and seeing that they already had a bundled S-IPS SWOP-certified display had no need for a separate screen. No reason then to buy any of Apple's Cinema screens.

Solution: Apple downgrades the display panels given that consumers don't need it anyway, which makes the machines cheaper and this means people who do advanced color correction have to buy an external display.

Now, in all fairness, £399 for a 20" Cinema display is a fairly minimal outlay to ensure color accurate prints but still, photographers are paying for the bundled display too.

I would actually love to see Apple rip apart one of their Cinema displays and fit the iMac components in there. Even if they sold it for £399 + £799 - £100 = £1099, I'm sure photographers would buy it for the accuracy alone as it would be shipped calibrated.

Here's a photography review going through calibration on the glossy screens:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24321625

The whole discussion of glossy vs matte actually seems to be fairly consistent across all the forums it's been raised on. The same opinions come up. Some people love the glossy and wouldn't go back and their prints seem to be ok, others hate it and can't calibrate it saying it badly affects skin-tones and greys. Some people say that because there are varying opinions then it's entirely subjective.

It can't be entirely subjective due to the technical specs of the displays and the performance in different lighting conditions. If a glossy screen isn't SWOP certified then it is clearly technically inferior for certain types of work. As I said earlier, Apple have no glossy Cinema displays and for good reason.

Lighting conditions affect both and for pre-press, an ideal room setup is described like this:

"The ambient light in the room designated to contain the color-matched computer monitor should be controllable. This
means that the room should be free of any strongly-colored walls and/or objects that may adversely affect user peripheral
vision when called upon to access color. The ambient room illumination should not vary greatly in either brightness or
color temperature (e.g. in the case of different times of the day and/or year). Ideally, the room should be painted a
neutral gray color and illuminated by D50-type illumination. In such cases, it is also advised that the room illumination be
periodically checked as to the actual color temperature of the lamps, to counteract the effects of lamp age. Both the viewing booth area and monitor proofing area should be shielded from direct incident and/or reflected lighting. Both the
viewing booth and computer monitor should be kept at least 1.00 metre (approx 3 feet) from room walls."

The note about the peripheral vision is interesting because people have commented on the black border round the iMac display affecting the color perception - it's also the worst color to choose for a reflective display. I've been in a pre-press room and I always wondered why the place was so depressing. Now I know. They also only used towers with matte displays.

Here are some more comparison images, including one between the white iMac and the new one:





I'd hate to be this guy. That machine is actually turned on:



You can see to some extent how even the visually striking appearance of the aluminium iMac affects how you see the screen. The white iMac surroundings are very easy to ignore including the grey Apple logo.

Right on. I completely agree. Like you I went to Britain's trusty Digital Photography Review and ran across the link noted above. What particularly struck me was the remark that the "20" model for "professional (pre-press, wider gamut colour space photo editing, fine art printing, video editing for reverse telecine, etc.) graphics use the 20" is clearly out [of the question] without using an external display." As to the 24" model, the verdict was a tad more favorable: "Better, but not great and clearly worse than the previous 24" model, cannot compare to the 23" ACD."

What follows is a brief compendium of remarks from around the web.

"You CANNOT retouch to a professional standard with a reflective screen. End of story."

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MGLm

"Glossy screens - started with Sony - are highly seductive. They are very contrasted, the colours are very saturated and the blacks are very deep. Unfortunately, paper is none of those things, so you will never get anything close even with glossy paper."

http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/548...ng-photos.html

"This is not just a glossy screen but a sheet of glass in front of the display. It's highly reflective and not at all suited to pro photo editing imo. My experience was it was almost impossible to work with subtle shadow detail and accurate color."

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MGLm

"Do not use the glossy screen. It reproduces over-saturated colours which are fine for every day use. But when colour reproduction is paramount, and you want to view your pictures with accuracy in terms of their colour profiling, you need a matte screen!

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=636592

"… no amount of calibration will make up the difference between a transmissive & reflective medium."

http://digital-photos.tribe.net/thre...8-c82577c3c932

"The whole point of a glossy screen is to enhance contrast and make color look more saturated. The glossy screen "tricks" the eye. This is why they are popular with people who use the computer as a consumer media player, games or office work. When a professional who is creating images uses a screen that distorts contrast and color, he may make adjustments to compensate and as a result make some dull and flat prints."

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=418533

"We have a design firm and are hiring a new designer — we were going to get a new iMac for them to use but now probably won't all due to the glossy screen."

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=338485

"I just went to a seminar on color calibration and they warned about glossy screens. I've been hearing about people being disappointed with the glossy iMac. The Apple rep at the seminar said it was in response to the consumer but admitted it was not going to play well with pros."

http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobis...7603869598666/

•

These posters seem to ignore the benefits of the glossy screen, which I mentioned in boldface earlier in the thread. There are also plenty of voices in the linked threads who disagree. But unlike the color conjurers on this thread, these posters do underscore the limitations of the lovely glossy.

By the way, cyg and zin, my firm just ordered five new 24" glossy iMacs. We love them ... for certain types of work.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And they have. You prove my point. The glossy is great for some types of work and the matte is great for others. If you can get your glossy to work for prepress and webwork, all the more power to you.

You make a good point. I don't mean to suggest that getting accurate color is easy just because a person is using a matte screen. What I am saying is that the glossy screen introduces additional complexity to an already complex process.

I really love the iMac's glossy screen. In my opinion it is much much more beautiful then matte. In fact I already bought a 24 inch iMac when it came out a couple of months ago (only to returned it after using it a few days). Unfortunately like the OP, to a lesser degree, I also get migraines from using the iMac's glossy screen after a few hours of work. I never experienced headaches working all day when I was using a matte 22 inch Samsung connected to my mini.

I'm pretty sure the majority have no problems with the iMac's super glossy screen but there are some people out who do have problems with it.

There are some people here that WILL not like the iMac glossy screen, and nobody is going to be able to make them. This is right up there with "None are so blind as those that won't see." However, there are a great many satisfied glossy screen iMac users.

Marvin, do you think that it's possible for you to show the glossy iMac displays in worse lighting? Personally, I doubt it. If you don't want to set it up properly, then you don't, but please don't try to tell me that it's a flaw when I have no such issues with mine.

You guys really are too much.

Those are some great links from Marvin and Sybaritic. And in no way am I saying that color critical work is going to be easy on an iMac. Suffice it to say that if you are spending money to buy and use colormeters then the iMac is not your computer anymore (was is really ever?)..

My grievances go way back with this thread as some matte supporters have called the machine unusable. I just want it to be known that I have been using my iMac for a year now and the world has not ended nor have I lost any business with what I am doing. Perhaps it is a shame that the display is no longer SWOP certified. But I do prefer the glossy screen, I do not get migraines from the machine. and sitting directly in front of the machine I do not have any glare issues from where I sit. To boot, the aluminum iMacs are much more little kid friendly with the glass and work great in a home environment where the computer serves several needs.

Sybaritic. I am from Knoxville so I guess I better cut you some slack. Hope you all enjoy the new iMacs at your work.

Cgyn, let me apologize again for coming off like a pedantic hothead. As you say, the glossy iMac is very much a usable and vital machineso much so that I wish I could find a way to use it for just about all that I do. I really like working on it. And as you point out, the glossy iMac cleans up much better than the typical matte screen. We're tickled that we'll have five brand new ones in our group ... along with a new Mac Pro to be hooked up to a slightly "duller" screen.

Go Vols!

I'm trying to find ones in 'good' lighting. It's actually really difficult to find images of the new iMac without reflections but I have put in the effort and I believe I found one:



However, in my travels, I also found:



Now, what's that person supposed to do? All the lights are out and the blinds are shut. Are they supposed to paint their windows black or perhaps rearrange their entire office so the screen faces away from the window? Or does he just get a matte screen where this wouldn't be a problem.

This is the point. Put a matte next to a glossy in most standard office lighting conditions and the matte is better:



Even if you manage to control your lighting, you simply can't guarantee a good result:



I've used a glossy display to watch movies before and even with the blinds down and the lights out, I was able to see the people next to me in the screen. This is very uncomfortable as it feels like you are staring at them throughout the movie.

If you're not happy with the images, by all means all the people with glossy screens are free to post pictures of their own setups. I'd ask that if you manage to take images without reflections that you are honest about whether you needed to adjust the display, the lighting etc in order to get the result you wanted. If any of you have matte displays, posting side-by-side comparisons would be helpful too.

If you don't have a camera, you can maybe hold up a mirror and take an isight snap. When uploading, reduce the size to 800x600 or as close as you can get - you can use Seashore, which is free to reduce the image size and compress to 80% JPEG quality. imageshack.us is fine for hosting the images, simply upload and copy the last link they give you. Then paste the link between img tags.

Thanks Marvin for all the pics. I would suggest that all pics submitted be straight on like this one and the second one. As if you are the person in front and using the computer. Several of the later shots are taken at such angles that the person in front would not be seeing those reflections.



Obviously this person did not take his/her iMac back and get a matte screen. Perhaps you should ask this iMac owner if they like their iMac. Wait and see if THEY bring up issues with glare. Maybe do that with all the pics you are taking. I mean if glare is so bad as you say, surely all these people would not have and enjoy the iMacs that they have and use.


All I will say is a majority (albeit slim) here voted in favor of the glossy screens. Glare or no glare, your point is an opinion.


So you have never watched a cathode ray TV and seen the same thing? I think I am starting to understand this better. We people who like the glossy screens are focusing on our work or in this case the movie. While others are getting side tracked on nuances. I'm telling you, I work on my iMac most every day and I am not freaking or even conscious of glare.

Come to think of it. You are right, we never had big (sometimes silly) arguments that we needed glossy when the whole Apple line were matte. In fact, I remember reading Mac users lament on how terrible that PC notebooks are starting to use those horrible glossy screens.

It wouldn't be entirely objective to limit the review to a straight on view though. Where I work, we work collectively on jobs and pretty much every day we look at each other's screens for collaborative work. We have to look at screens at an angle. So glossy can be used just fine in certain lighting front on. Matte can be used in a wider variety of lighting and at extreme angles. Having a greater resilience to varying lighting and viewing angles makes it a more capable display.

As always 'better' is not universally quantifiable. Is a display better if it shows nicer, deeper colors in a given controlled environment or is a display better because you don't have to put nearly as much effort into reaching these environmental conditions? It will depend on whether you have the ability to control your lighting (home users should be ok but office workers hardly at all).

From a technical standpoint, matte is superior for color critical tasks - that isn't an opinion. When the new iMacs or any glossy LCD display receive their SWOP-certification then there should be no problem but I don't see it happening.


They love the iMac performance-wise but the reason they post the pics usually is that this is the only part they dislike. Some of them say despite disliking it, they manage to phase it out over time. That part is subjective. Some people can phase out having a ticking clock in a bedroom, I can't. Either way, it doesn't change the existence of the ticking.


I'm not suggesting that everyone should dislike glossy, my opinion is that there should be a choice and that for there to be one model, logically glossy was worse to go with. Despite people possibly preferring glossy, glossy fans wouldn't complain about being stuck with matte. The converse isn't true.

Majority vote on this poll is in favor of matte:

http://forums.macnn.com/69/mac-noteb...vs-matte-poll/

I actually didn't manage to vote in this thread's poll, it was closed so there goes that lead of 1 vote.


Not to the same extent. I use a CRT display every day as well as an LCD and although I much prefer the deep blacks on the CRT, I prefer the unblemished color and sharpness of the matte LCD. Nonetheless, neither of them act like a mirror. The Mac screens are all flat and don't diffuse the reflections at all.

I actually think it's about time we got displays that are designed to have the best of both. Produce deep blacks and vivid colors without heavy dependence on surrounding conditions. Laser TVs seem to be pretty good:



bright colors but without the desaturation or reflections.


That however doesn't imply anything about me. I do have an issue with the displays and so do others. You seem to be saying that because you don't have an issue with it no one else should. That's not how the real world works. As I've said before, if manufacturers only had to satisfy one group of consumers their job would be a lot easier. You either satisfy multiple groups or ignore them, it's obvious which route Apple chose. True you can't satisfy everyone but when the numbers are so close, having two options isn't much to ask.

I was just reading a book the other day on the major revolutions in medicine back in the late 19th century. Anaesthetics was right up there but the single greatest contribution to mankind was basic hygiene.

It was interesting just how hard it was to get doctors to wash their hands and recognise the dire consequences of not doing so. There was an overwhelming majority who thought it sissy, unprofessional!, and that essentially there was "no problem". They were so used to throwing the bodies into the cemeteries out the back of the hospitals, that it was an accepted reality.

Problem? What problem? None for those who didn't face the day to day issue of major surgery, and even for those who did, but chose to "make it go away" by ignoring it.

There is no 2 ways around it, the glossy screen may be a shiny decor item, but it is "dirty" with reflections, glare and color taint when it comes down to doing accurate color for print or even video.

I can freely move from the matte white iMac 24" models to the latest glossy aluminium iMac 24" and the difference is glaringly obvious. We are forced to keep the glossy iMac in the darkest part of the studio and I have to take relatively frequent breaks when working on it and my eyes weep after using it for some time.

I never have that trouble with the matte iMacs and note how those using them happily sit at work all day with nary a break. The dulling of the matte screens is not at all apparent when you are seated in the work position and the color is far, far more realistic and accurate. No question!

I do appreciate the speed of the new iMac, the price, and how much easier it is to keep clean. If only it were matte and not so glary.

"We have listened to what you are saying, and the answer is NO!" - the eternal Apple customer response.

I have both the iMac (matte) and the Macbook (glossy) and I have no glare whatsoever with my Macbook (using it now).

Okay, Marvin. Just so long as straight on shots are included. Now the viewing angle is something I would call disappointing on the iMacs. Doesn't make the mattes look any more pleasant to look at though. And yes, that is just my opinion.


Not to defend Apple but the iMac is marketed as a consumer machine (which has been stated in this thread before). I am amazed how many companies choose to purchase and use them instead of Mac Pros. Designers (in companies) have been turning off lights and adjusting their environments for years (even when CRTs and mattes where the only option). Not sure why it is such a big deal now with the iMacs...


Not sure about that poll and if it ever closed but that thread is dated to 2006 and is talking about Mac Books and MBPs. This poll was done in 2007 (around August maybe?) and is exclusively about the iMac.


If I have come across saying everyone should prefer glossy, than my apologies. My irritation has been others who have called the glossy displays "unusable," and who seem to be saying because they have an issue with it, everyone else should too.

Nice touch. Maybe begin the story with: "It was a dark and stormy night at the glossy iMac."

Just playing with you gastroboy. Not trying to start a flame war...

I have both a Macbook and an iMac 24" and one thing that can't help escaping my notice is that a Macbook is not an iMac 24".

No offense taken.

Actually it starts " The asteroid slowly and majestically tumbled through space, alternately dimly glowing and obscuring the net of stars before his eyes damn where is that windshield wiper!"

I love my glossy iMac. I use it in a dark room most of the time, on half brightness. Wonderful machine and its my favorite second to the G4 iMac's.

Are the Apple Cinema Displays glossy?

No.

At least....not yet.

I don't have a such a big problem with the reflections caused by Apple laptops. Given the choice between glossy or matte I'd pick matte EVERY time, but I can quite happily get by with the glossy laptop displays.

The iMac however is different kettle of fish. The problem is not down to the display per se, but rather that fact that Apple choose to mount a separate panel of glass in front of it. From a purely functional point of view, there is absolutely no need for it.

So why did Apple choose to do this? Well I believe that it simply comes down to what looks good in the store. There is no doubt that the aluminium iMacs look gorgeous until you actually sit down and start using them.

Apple has chosen cosmetics over functionality in the quest for greater market share, and going by their sales figures, it's worked a treat.

I would propose one function for the glass; Keeping little kid fingers from pressing and dirtying up the display. The iMac line is one of the most common computers found in primary schools. And cleaning a glass panel is much easier than cleaning a display.

I read all the posts and I agree with both sides of the discussion...and there is my problem. I want to switch to a Mac but I can't make the decision to go iMac or a Mac Pro w/ a matte screen. Currently using an Eizo FX-C6 CRT that i still prefer over LCD displays but it is only 17" and can't last much longer. Photos look very good and text is razor sharp.
Most people are comparing photos or video. I agree that a cinema display seems to be more accurate for photos but text appears to be slightly blurred on matte screens including the cinema displays. I have been to two Apple stores and other places to compare and I get the same results. I have read that the matte finish scatters light to reduce reflections and this causes less contrast. The text appears sharper to me on the iMac and I like the deeper blacks but I have concerns about the design that force me towards the MP.

Remember this story ?

"Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Apple's patent for an LCD display that also takes photos, video

By Appleinsider Staff

Published: 12:00 PM EST"

Well, if you look in through a matte glass plate that is placed right
up to an art print or an LCD, it works beautifully.

BUT, if you try to look OUT through the same glass plate, toward the room contents, IT IS TOTALLY USELESS -- BLURRED.

So, IMHO, Apple is getting us used to gloss (trying to) so that it can implement this technology.

WHAT ELSE IS BEING FORCED ?

Here is what : we have gone from the clip-on iSight with its featured privacy iris that twists shut for POSITIVE indication of
visual privacy >>> to the built-in, tiny camera that forces us to rely on electronic switch-off (like the mute button on cell phones that nobody trusts) BUT could still be shuttered with tape, etc. >>> to the future where THE SCREEN ITSELF contains an optical phased array (the algorithms must already abound by way of radio astronomy and such ) AND YOU CAN NOT DISABLE IT WITHOUT LOSING USE OF THE SCREEN ITSELF --- cover the screen ? Duh.

It is now known that cell phones can be infected, by governments, with malware that enable the snoopers to turn on the mic with no hint to the user that they are bugged.

It is obvious that the iPhone can not have it's battery removed , on the fly, as many security-minded officials do ; Chenney comes to mind .

It is of little comfort that Google uses "only statistical data" when it listens in on us for sounds of crying babies, barking dogs, motorcycles reving, etc. to pipe ads for pampers, dog chow, and
engine additives. THE POINT IS the barn door IS open and our privacy is gone.

So, why not go VISUAL with this trend ?

Why not a real "1984 " VISI-SCREEN that cannot be turned off, with certainty ?

I hope we don't get the usual dismissive, idiot responses that abound on the "internets" or the spineless "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-why-worry-about-it" crap from the
conformist corner.

It would be nice if we got a serious response to this.

---gooddog