Originally Posted by Marvin
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency."
Replace moon and space with glossy, Kennedy with Jobs and Presidency with CEO.
You're kidding, right?
You're going to take a statement made in the heat of the Cold War with the USSR, when the space race was, even though we didn't officially put it into that context, a technological, economic, and millitary challange that the USA had to rise to in the face of the USSR moving into space first, and compare it to people and companies today trying to do things on the cheap and easy?
That really must be a joke!
I suppose you think this is a major national challenge, and that the government must pour billions of dollars into convincing Ad shops to do things the right way, or else our national standing will be seriously damaged, and we will lose the "Color Correction Race".
Why may I ask shouldn't we want easy? Doing something simply because it makes life harder is utterly pointless. Every other avenue in life is designed to make life easier: transport, fast-food, communication. Some things are bad despite being easy, using matte is not one of these things.
You seen to be getting it backwards.
What you seem to be suggesting is that while I'm on a train journey and the reflections are running over the display, I should be thankful that my screen is now unusable and it's extremely difficult to get any work done. Well, that's not the case. I buy a laptop to be productive on the move. Glossy is counter-productive.
I'm not against matte screens. I never was. But, if you're trying to do critical color work while on the train, using a laptop monitor as your standard, then your standards are low to begin with.
If that's good enough for the people you work for, you're lucky.
It's not a fault at all. We don't like glossy and it's not something that people need to apologize for because it's not a better screen design.
That's just fine. For most regular things, I prefer matte as well. But I recognize that for certain things, glossy is better.
The pro editing discussions are not the deciding factor here. The point is that it is harder to edit with glossy than matte. It's fine taking the time to setup a studio properly but this is a laptop. Making all sorts of adjustments wherever you go is work you didn't need to do with matte.
The problem here is that some of us ARE talking about high end color work, which IS very critical. High end work is still done by those who specialize in it, and have no problem adhering to tight standards, and also have no problems in buying the best systems available, and design their work areas to match.
If you don't need high standards, or work to Pantone specs, where you can just spec a spot color, then it isn't as important.
Hell, I can correct some color work in B/W, as every good professional doing this work can, because we know the numbers.
Imagine the case that you get everyone in AI round a booth with perfect lighting and a glossy is next to a matte and the glossy shows better colors, what has been proved here? That a portable glossy machine looks better in one controlled location? All you need to do is move the laptop into the cafe and glossy is worse, take it outside and it's worse. Take it anywhere except a controlled lighting area and it's worse because in all those locations you get on-screen reflections.
You are missing the point, while allowing that I may be right.
There will always be those who have little need for high quality. Anything is good for them, even laptop screens, under poor lighting conditions.
Look, I'm not saying that Apple should have discontinued matte on their pro line. In fact, I think they shouldn't have, because not all pros do color work. most likely don't.
I'm just giving reasons why it's likely Apple did, and why, under most conditions, it doesn't matter, and why glossy is better than matte under other conditions.
Also, there are cheap methods to keep this stray light from hitting the screen. Even, as I pointed out, pro monitors that are matte, often come with them, or are offered as an option. There is that understanding, that for high quality work, reflections from matte screens is BAD. It's insidious, because many reflections from matte screens are more difficult to separate out from the image, than those from glossy screens, despite someone here saying otherwise.
But this doesn't happen. Washed out pictures on one portion don't happen to real-life film so it's not an issue. The degree of washing out is exaggerated too. Matte displays simply don't wash out noticeably under a huge variety of lighting conditions. Glossy reflects in almost all but the lowest ambient light environments.
I disagree here as well. Cameras often have images that are somewhat washed out over a portion of the image from the lighting. This is sometimes missed, even in the studio with digital. Sometimes that image is the best image, despite the problems, and it's our job to fix it. I've had to do that numerous times.
Matte screens wash out almost all the time, constantly. That's why, as I pointed out above, as I have before, that "blinders" are sold with, or are an option for, almost every single graphics display sold. And for those that don't offer it, third parties do.
The cost is from $20 to $40 depending on the size, and from whom you buy them. A cheap enough solution, if you care about your work.
Look at the image in my last post. Which has better blacks, matte or glossy?
Reflections show up worst in blacks so you will be seeing details that shouldn't be there.
As I, and a few others have pointed out already, these photos posted serve no purpose. We don't use equipment the way they look in these photos, and you need to sit down in front, and move things around a bit.
If light is still a problem, fellow professional, open your wallet and spend those big bucks I showed you above, and get blinders for your computer.
Whichever it is, they show images that people don't expect. This may require a change in perception but until they sort out the reflections, people who prefer to get work done will be sticking to matte wherever they can and this perception will remain.
When a monitor is properly set up, then the differences will be less. But, the blacks will still be better, and detail in darker areas will still show up better.
You can then use PS's color control to lower monitor saturation (if still needed for CMYK) to lower the screen saturation to match your output, which you have to do anyway with a matte monitor.
You'd think that physicists would have a type of glass that eliminates all reflections from a glass plate by now. For example, absorbing all light from the outside and transmitting all light from the inside.
Canon has come up with a new antireflection coating for its lenses that is much better than anything else around.
It's expensive, so I'm not sure if it could be used for a glass monitor, though, maybe someday.
It doesn't use the standard flat coatings that are used now, in multiple layers. The coating actually has sharp cone-like bumps standing out from the surface, which bends the light gradually, depending on the wavelength. This is far better than any other coating.
Canon is using it on two new lenses, and internal optical parts, and is expected to use it on more, as they rework them over time.
Who knows what we'll see in the future?
We're not as far apart on this as you may think.