That's the real problem though. It seems obvious that Apple deliberately make their consumer-end computers consumer-grade quality. Other manufacturers allow you to upgrade consumer-level machines with professional quality parts even if it's just BTO.
Yes, dual 24" (or in Apple's case 23" + 24") is not quite as good as 1 30" IMHO. So the 24" iMac represents a limit for a pro user because they didn't put dual channel DVI in when they could/should have.
But the 24" SHOULD have been a good box for even pro's. The panel, on paper, is a good one.
Quote:
Maybe you are into music and want a professional quality sound card and other kinds of pro level audio components. But for music processing, you don't need that high end a machine. Apple don't allow for this type of buyer.
It would also depend on the availability of drivers and such. If you're designing for the Apple market you'd likely go with a USB interface if they bandwidth was acceptable.
As for the rest, I think my position on an xMac has been repeated to death on other threads.
You use the classic spurious arguments of posters here of comparing the benefits of one set-up with the prices of quite another and then throwing in "the probability" of free equipment, which is not necessarily probable at all but should be costed anyway, even if previously paid for. To top it off you casually throw in even more uncosted equipment, such as "cheapie" replacement monitors for the PC.
We're talking about your setup which you claim isn't suitable for pro work. I think it's pretty well established that the 20" is not suitable.
In any case, all components was costed in but you evidently don't read.
Quote:
Firstly the OP has a US$1199 20" iMac (going on present prices), which you turn into a US$1799 24" to make your figures sound more plausible.
The 20" iMac is clearly a consumer grade machine with a TN panel. The problem for her is that the 23" ACD doesn't calibrate.
If you simply wish to add the cost of the $899 23" ACD then it's still not triple nor is it even double.
Quote:
Then you go on to promote the benefits of the US$1999 to $2799 MBP* set-up, whilst costing a 24" iMac. You dismiss the cost of all the extras you yourself said were the solutions for the problems raised by your proposed set-up.
All costs were listed. Wireless keyboard and monitor. No other extras are required.
Quote:
In this 3 pea shuffle you have slipped the budget up your sleeve and hoped that nobody would notice.
You mean where I clearly say $2998?
Quote:
You make unsubstantiated claims about the 24" that "it's called the iMac Pro" (Really? Where?) and that it is perfectly capable of pro color work "because others have used it for that".
I said it WASN'T called the iMac pro. YOU'RE USING A CONSUMER GRADE MACHINE FOR PRO WORK.
Clear now? Is english your second language? Because if it is then I apologise. If it is your primary language you're a complete moron.
Quote:
Even if none of the lighting and color problems didn't exist, and I have seen an enormous number of units before I committed and bought with my eyes wide open, the persistent reflections rule them out.
Reflections are a valid concern. It seems worse on the 24" iMacs than on my 17" glossy.
Quote:
You claimed a 30" Apple monitor would fix that, ignoring the considerable expense and that Apple quite clearly says it requires a dual graphics card to run (no "hint, hint" about it), none of which exist or can be installed in either the MBP nor the iMac. Your claims to the contrary I find extremely puzzling, despite your constant exaggerations and twisting of facts.
Except:
a) I own a 30" ACD.
b) It's working fine on my MBP as we speak.
c) You own neither.
d) I have repeatedly said that it DOESN'T work on the iMac and that is AN INDICATION that it is not a "pro" machine.
Quote:
I am very happy with my iMac 24" and bought it for its much improved price and speed, despite its unsuitability for pro color work. I'm not "whining" about that at all.
Yes, you are whining and you are a moron for buying a machine you believe to be unsuitable for pro work in order to...do pro work. You deliberately bought a machine for nearly 2 grand despite your belief you couldn't proof your work on it?
Quote:
I also wish that posters like yourself wouldn't try to constantly fudge the facts to fit the conclusion, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
I wish posters like yourself would actually READ THE POSTS and not sound like a complete moron because they don't, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
Quote:
* The $1999 15" MBP has a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with only 256 MB.
Yes, which is superior to the X1600 with 256MB that I have in my MBP. Having only 256MB of video ram limits the use of CS3 how?
On my collegue's MB he can open 30-70MB photoshop files with nearly no delay. That's with a crappy integrated graphics. For 3D layers you'd want a MBP instead for better 3D support but what I've read from the Adobe folks pixel pipelines is more important than GPU memory. Can you show me a photo pro app that seems negatively impacted from having too little vid card memory?
It's not like you're a 3D pro user where it might be nice to have 512MB-1GB for Maya and a faster GPU than a mobility chip.
The 8600M is on the After Effects list of compatible GPUs and it's a heck of a lot faster than a lot of other supported GPUs.
I have to laugh that you have a wide area of the left side cluttered with pallettes, which Adobe has gone to considerable trouble to make zip away, just to cover up the defects of the iMac deliberately introduced by Apple to try and force you into buying a more expensive and less appropriate model, that you can't afford.
Yes, Apple deliberately choose a buggy high end S-IPS panel just to screw with you.
On the contrary I did my research. On both the iMac and the 30" monitors.
Obviously you did not. The MBP has supported the 30" ACD FROM DAY ONE. Nothing has changed, my MBP is a 1st gen one.
Quote:
I have repeatedly said I had no expectation of pro color support on the iMac, nor do we have "a taste and try" option here. Again we have this vague "some" who use them "without problems", no definition of the use or lack of problems. I have no problem either. I just don't do color critical work on it.
And I've directed you to DP Review at least twice now. There are pro's using the iMac ALU 24" for color work there.
Quote:
It doesn't really change anything because the set-up still comes up to around 3x the cost of the OP's iMac 20" which is the whole point.
The OP's iMac 20" is not suitable for pro work unless you can calibrate the second monitor.
If you CAN calibrate the second monitor then it IS suitable for pro work and you can stop whining.
In any case, we've probably scared her away thinking that all Mac folks are complete idiots. Hopefully, she's gone to DP Review to ask her question there.
Quote:
You can't simultaneously claim affordability and then spend your way into a "solution".
No one has claimed that Apple sells inexpensive solutions.
Where's the simple solution though? If people have a budget on the level of the iMac then what do they do when they acknowledge the iMac isn't good enough?
If you are a professional it means that the computer is gonna be part of your business so if you need a Pro Apple machine you go to a bank and ask for a loan. Simple.
The budget has increased 65% from $1799 for a 24" iMac to $1999 (15" MBP) + $899 (23" ACD) + $100 (wireless keyboard and mouse) = $2998. That's not triple.
This is where you switch to cost it up from an iMac 24" and I never said triple I said around 3x. And this is still for a slower machine with a short keyboard.
Quote:
I said it WASN'T called the iMac pro. YOU'RE USING A CONSUMER GRADE MACHINE FOR PRO WORK.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro.
Quote:
Clear now? Is english your second language? Because if it is then I apologise. If it is your primary language you're a complete moron.
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't read your own postings.
Quote:
Reflections are a valid concern. It seems worse on the 24" iMacs than on my 17" glossy.
At last we agree on something.
Quote:
Yes, you are whining and you are a moron for buying a machine you believe to be unsuitable for pro work in order to...do pro work. You deliberately bought a machine for nearly 2 grand despite your belief you couldn't proof your work on it?
I am not whining. I have said REPEATEDLY I am very happy with my iMac 24" 2.8Ghz, it replaces an iMac 17" G5 which Leopard screwed up, and I am using it for what I bought it for. Unlike the OP I have other machines I can turn to for proofing.
As for DP Review, I found it both painful to search and browse. I couldn't find posters who expressly did work to pre-press standard, however I did find these:
Quote:
And I still stand by my statements, the iMac is a great machine but not for the working photographer/designer.
Quote:
What I remember from that process was that I didn't want TFT and/or glossy monitors. I think all of the iMacs have both (?). Anyway, I guess I'm not convinced that the iMac monitor is good enough for what she wants and I'm still trying to find data/reviews that would help me check that assumption.
Quote:
I've been told the 24" monitor is better than the 20", but nobody has suggested that nither is recommended for "color critical work".
Quote:
Quite a quandary. Not sure how good the monitors are in the Imacs. Would assume no matter which model Imac you get (especially the 20") you would want a better monitor for color critical photo work.
Quote:
I love my iMac, except for one thing, the monitor. If you look closely at the monitor performance, you will see some flaws in the iMAc monitor performance. If you are really going to use it for photo work that is a weakness I have observed. My next Mac will be a MacPro
There was plenty more but what's the point, you read these and come up with a completely opposite interpretation.
You are saying get a much more expensive set-up and I am saying the current iMac is not suitable for pro color work. And we both agree the reflections are a problem.
The rest is all bickering. I hope that any other readers of this post don't make the same mistake as the OP and blindly buy into an iMac workstation at a price that won't do the job.
I do clearly foot the blame on Apple for screwing up a model which WAS a good studio machine to chase the consumer market AND try and force designers onto considerably more expensive machines or set-ups.
Which they aren't. They'll just put up with yet another handicap to their work.
btw If anyone else is looking for "easy solutions" the Photodon anti-glare sheet is doing the rounds. I'd put it right up there with those dumb arse "Anti-Radiation Screens" they flogged off in the 90's.
This is where you switch to cost it up from an iMac 24" and I never said triple I said around 3x. And this is still for a slower machine with a short keyboard.
Uh...what? Three times isn't triple?
OMG. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
English is a second language or remedial math is required.
Quote:
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't read your own postings.
That's known as sarcasm.
Oh and the entire quote is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro. Except it isn't. The iMac is Apple's consumer line that is usable for some, but perhaps not all, pro work.
So you are a liar as well as a whiner. Congrats on obvious selective quoting to the author of the quote.
Quote:
I am not whining. I have said REPEATEDLY I am very happy with my iMac 24" 2.8Ghz, it replaces an iMac 17" G5 which Leopard screwed up, and I am using it for what I bought it for. Unlike the OP I have other machines I can turn to for proofing.
It's still bloody stupid.
Quote:
As for DP Review, I found it both painful to search and browse. I couldn't find posters who expressly did work to pre-press standard, however I did find these:
...
There was plenty more but what's the point, you read these and come up with a completely opposite interpretation.
Nope. Not an opposite interpretation but rather that among the posts you didn't find (or choose not to read/quote correctly like you did above) you'll find some folks using their 24" ALU iMacs for Pro work including proofs. You said there were zero. This is untrue.
There's a chap with 25 of the things in his studio. He'd have to be one stupid bugger to get 25 of them and not be able to any color work on any of them.
Quote:
You are saying get a much more expensive set-up and I am saying the current iMac is not suitable for pro color work. And we both agree the reflections are a problem.
The rest is all bickering. I hope that any other readers of this post don't make the same mistake as the OP and blindly buy into an iMac workstation at a price that won't do the job.
I hope they don't buy a 20" iMac. The 24", should they get a decent one, should be suitable despite the glossy screen. Something a hood might fix, or might not.
Quote:
I do clearly foot the blame on Apple for screwing up a model which WAS a good studio machine to chase the consumer market AND try and force designers onto considerably more expensive machines or set-ups.
Or made the decision that most designers were getting larger than 20" monitors anyway and the total cost for a 24" iMac is less than the 20" + 23" ACD and put a TN panel into the 20" iMac to maintain the price point and desired margins.
Quote:
btw If anyone else is looking for "easy solutions" the Photodon anti-glare sheet is doing the rounds. I'd put it right up there with those dumb arse "Anti-Radiation Screens" they flogged off in the 90's.
Given the difference between the first shot without the sheet and subsequent shots with it I'd say it probably does work to a degree.
A real solution would be a replacement of the iMac front glass with a matte one. Perhaps someone will since you can pop the front glass off fairly easily.
Wireless keyboard and mouse: YUK, YUK, and DOUBLE YUK! Just wait until the batteries go down during a software update, what FUN you will have. LOL
Agreed. Give me the standard aluminum Apple Keyboard and mouse of my choice before I waste money on something more expensive, minus the 10-key and then costs more to run with batteries.
English is a second language or remedial math is required.
Quote:
So you are a liar as well as a whiner. Congrats on obvious selective quoting to the author of the quote.
You are a pill. I repeatedly said "around" (talk about selective quoting), he gave the low end of the specs, and whichever way you look at it is a bloody sight more expensive, without counting the other bits and pieces he keeps on throwing in to make things work.
I didn't selectively quote. I quote the entire sentence, that he then says something separate in a following sentence seems to have missed your limited ability to construct or deconstruct arguments.
Or is this one of those dumb American constructs like "Yes, because your (sic) called a genius. Except you are'nt (sic)".
Quote:
It's still bloody stupid.
No it is bloody stupid thinking I will pay vastly more than I need to get something you (the bozzo) think I should buy.
Quote:
Nope. Not an opposite interpretation but rather that among the posts you didn't find (or choose not to read/quote correctly like you did above) you'll find some folks using their 24" ALU iMacs for Pro work including proofs. You said there were zero. This is untrue.
Crikes what is it with you? Where did I say zero and where have you shown me any color Pro who thinks the current iMacs are up to the work. As we have seen in previous posters it is easy for someone to claim a level of their expertise when they don't actually do the work. Or they think what they do is it, when it isn't.
It is just a crappy site for Digital photographers, they are hardly the sharp end of the pencil, and in most cases are just passing the problem along.
Quote:
There's a chap with 25 of the things in his studio. He'd have to be one stupid bugger to get 25 of them and not be able to any color work on any of them.
"There", "some", "all", "zero", "most", "they"; you cast them around like they mean something. I have posted in several forums asking for any professional color prepress users or designers preparing work to pre-press quality to share their experiences and opinions. So far I have had a lot of viewers no takers.
What about you? You are obviously expert at "some"thing. Substantiate your claims.
Quote:
I hope they don't buy a 20" iMac. The 24", should they get a decent one, should be suitable despite the glossy screen. Something a hood might fix, or might not.
Try "might not". The hood will stop most of the cross reflections, no rear reflections, but enhance the reflection of the user in the screen. None of this solves the high illumination and contrast of these screens. Blind Freddy can see that, but you seem to have a little trouble grasping even the clearest of issues.
But hey, you can add this as yet another patch on the iMac "solution". Along with the frosty glass. Just remember you "probably" had both just lying around the studio, so they count as free.
Quote:
Given the difference between the first shot without the sheet and subsequent shots with it I'd say it probably does work to a degree.
I think you just showed how little idea you have of both the problem and the physics involved.
btw In the postings where I found this, the posters had rejected and returned the sheets as a dumb idea after testing them.
You are a pill. I repeatedly said "around" (talk about selective quoting), he gave the low end of the specs, and whichever way you look at it is a bloody sight more expensive, without counting the other bits and pieces he keeps on throwing in to make things work.
Around 3x is still around triple.
65% more is not "around" triple. Nor is $800 for a 23" ACD over the 20" iMac "around 3x" the price...
Quote:
I didn't selectively quote. I quote the entire sentence, that he then says something separate in a following sentence seems to have missed your limited ability to construct or deconstruct arguments.
Or is this one of those dumb American constructs like "Yes, because your (sic) called a genius. Except you are'nt (sic)".
Now you're speaking to me in the third person?
You deliberately left out the following sentence that clearly indicates that the preceeding one is sarcasm. There is zero ambiguity.
Quote:
Crikes what is it with you? Where did I say zero
Ah, that was Hope. My apologies. However, you seem to think there is zero but there's at least one in that thread you must have read since you quoted from it. Of course, given that you've proven your low reading comprehension, perhaps not.
Hey, you're back to using second person vs third person. Are you schizo or something?
Quote:
It is just a crappy site for Digital photographers, they are hardly the sharp end of the pencil, and in most cases are just passing the problem along.
Like you who can't read simple english, or thinks that 3x and triple mean two different things?
Quote:
What about you? You are obviously expert at "some"thing. Substantiate your claims.
My claims to what? That the 24" iMac has a H-IPS panel? That photoshop doesn't need a 512MB worth of video ram? That the 24" ALU iMacs have poor QC and many have bad panels or backlights?
Yes, they are glossy. Yes, some units are too bright or had uneven backlighting or a color gradient issue. Yes, Apple is aware of these problems and do swap the units. Yes, you shouldn't need to but even Apple builds lemons. The 24" white iMac had it's own share of suckage. Yes, the MBP and MP cost more than a consumer grade iMac but hey, they are "pro" grade machines.
These don't need substantiation beyond using google. Yes, I understand that reading is a challenge for you but each of these points is independently verifiable. Kinda like "The 30" ACD works on the MBP" which should have been pretty easy for you to determine was a true statement rather than getting it wrong repeatedly.
The iMac still doesn't do the job. Your figures don't add up, just add to the cost.
You are surrounded by shadowy experts (we never actually see any) who prove your claims.
You blame users for not squeezing all the fruit, till they find a ripe one ignoring, like those pale hard supermarket tomatoes, they never will.
Despite your inability to write clearly you ramble on about case and quote yourself "quoting" me.
iMacs are good enough, but lots are lemons, spend a packet buying something else which is still short of the goods compared with another model which is good enough/isn't good enough, lots of pros use them, see this amateur site which doesn't say anything of the sort, blah blah blah.
Round and round and round and round and round you go...
Down your own, plug, hole.
Blather on, till you actually come up with these mythical Pros, you don't seem to be one of them, this is going nowhere.
Hope, you are far more likely to get help from the Mac forum of DP review than here. The number of folks that own an EyeOne or Spyder here is few. There's got to be someone there with a Spyder, ALU 20" iMac and a 23" ACD that can tell you if it works or not.
I have both a 23" ACD and a Spyder2 Pro calibrator, and I can assure you it works like a charm. I do printwork, and colors are spot on (unthough some colors print better than others). It's a very good combination.
I'm waiting for the ACD's refresh, but there's no hurry. Even after 3 years, the 23" does it's job very well. And as already said by many posters, do not use a glossy screen.
There's also the matter of color display. There was a very intersting discussion about this on one of these forums, but I forgot wich one. The more expensive ACD's use IPS displays, who give you milions of colors ('true' 8 bit, i.e. = 3 (RGB) x 8 bit = 24 bit).
The cheaper ones (like the iMac's, except the 24", wich is IPS), use TN, MVA or PVA screens. These are 6 bit, and show millions of colors by dithering, wich isn't as color-accurate as 8 bit. The viewing angle of these screens is also poor. But they have a better refresh rate than IPS.
Most users won't notice the difference, and since the average user is better served by a faster refresh rate (gaming and video), color accuracy is somewhat sacrified for speed.
The different LCD-types are improving over time, and differences are narrowing. But with the rise of the glossy screen, things aren't improving for users who need accuarte color. Even while the 24" iMac is using an IPS screen, the clossy finish over-saturates the colors and the glare often screws the viewing angle.
I hope Apple keeps building high-quality matte panels for the creative industry. Else we are forced to shop at LaCie, Nec, Eizo and the like.
I like my brand new iMac 24" 28.GHz but despite not because of the glossy screen. The variable illumination and color mixed with the killer reflections just makes it impossible to do accurate Photoshop work on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy
No. I have a latest model iMac 24" 2.8Ghz. If you put up an even dark colored background on the screen you can see 2 lighting "candles" at the bottom 3rds marks. The overall screen looks like it is darker at the top and graduates to lighter at the bottom with a brighter corner up to the right.
I bought the new 3.06Ghz model a few weeks ago. I went with the 24" because it was obvious that the 20" had a poor display. I'd read all sorts of stories about uneven lighting on the 24", so when I received mine, it was the first thing I checked - and found. So I packed it back up, sent it back giving a detailed explanation of the problem. I received the replacement, checked it, and this one is perfect - no uneven lighting, no hot spots on a black screen etc. I even checked it with my sekonic lightmeter.
I've been in the photography and digital imaging industry for the last 10 years - i've used all kinds of monitors and calibration devices, and have finally come to the conclusion that there is little point on relying on a monitor to display colour and tone accurately - trying to make a transmissive device match a reflective output is virtually impossible. Everybody sees colour in a different way anyway, even when you get your perfect print, somebody eslse is always going to come along and say - "I can see some green in those shadows" or "the skin tone is a little warm"
I can't understand why people feel the need to moan about their displays being uneven, or having gradients, hot spots etc. It's simple - pack it up and send it back. If you don't get one that works - buy a different product.
The "dozens upon dozens of pros" are just conjured out of thin air like they always are in these arguments. In fact the Apple Forums have been full of the recalcitrant pros since last year complaining about how unworkable the iMac screens are.
"Pro" does not begin and end with photography pros. That is your failed assumption. Early in the thread I agree that the iMac may not be adequate for photo usage, but there are more sorts of pros and semi-pros than just photographers. Read apple's website. They are always highlighting "creative pros" who use macs. Then note the hardware. Guess what: there are people doing great things on budget hardware. The tool does not make the artist, or pro. If you have a talented bone in your body, you'll find a way to make it work until you can buy better tools.
In all the forums I have been in the argument for and against the new iMacs has always broken down to the amateurs who reckon it is good enough and the ever more exasperated pros who say no it isn't.
This bears repeating. I still haven't found a single professional photographer who likes the new 20" iMac. Many people do like it. That's not the point. They aren't trying to do color managed work with it.
The OP's iMac 20" is not suitable for pro work unless you can calibrate the second monitor.
If you CAN calibrate the second monitor then it IS suitable for pro work and you can stop whining.
In any case, we've probably scared her away thinking that all Mac folks are complete idiots. Hopefully, she's gone to DP Review to ask her question there.
Thank you, yes this is the heart of my problem. I couldn't get the 23" ACD to calibrate properly through the 20"iMac, which completely baffles me. I've been poking around on DPreview but haven't found anyone happily running a color managed system through a new 20" iMac and an external ACD.
I will be bailing out on the iMac. Too bad because it does have many excellent features. Its just not suitable for pro photo processing.
No, you only need to look at one 20" iMac to know that it has a TN panel so that is no good for colour accuracy. Then look at one 24" iMac, see that it is a H-IPS panel and check for an even backlight. If it hasn't then you know the iMac is not for you. As simple as that.
Who in the world can take one look at the iMac 20" in the store and know that its a TN panel?? Seriously that's ludicrous. Apple still doesn't admit that its an inferior monitor, the only way you can know that is after you get it home and try to calibrate it and finally start to do some research because you are pulling your hair out. The iMacs in the store are set to maximum brightness with busy, flashy images on their displays, completely masking the flaws. Moreover, many of us were relying on the great reputation of the older white iMacs, which were perfectly suitable for doing color managed work. Apple sure didn't provide any information letting users know that the newer models had poor quality screens.
Comments
That's the real problem though. It seems obvious that Apple deliberately make their consumer-end computers consumer-grade quality. Other manufacturers allow you to upgrade consumer-level machines with professional quality parts even if it's just BTO.
Yes, dual 24" (or in Apple's case 23" + 24") is not quite as good as 1 30" IMHO. So the 24" iMac represents a limit for a pro user because they didn't put dual channel DVI in when they could/should have.
But the 24" SHOULD have been a good box for even pro's. The panel, on paper, is a good one.
Maybe you are into music and want a professional quality sound card and other kinds of pro level audio components. But for music processing, you don't need that high end a machine. Apple don't allow for this type of buyer.
It would also depend on the availability of drivers and such. If you're designing for the Apple market you'd likely go with a USB interface if they bandwidth was acceptable.
As for the rest, I think my position on an xMac has been repeated to death on other threads.
You use the classic spurious arguments of posters here of comparing the benefits of one set-up with the prices of quite another and then throwing in "the probability" of free equipment, which is not necessarily probable at all but should be costed anyway, even if previously paid for. To top it off you casually throw in even more uncosted equipment, such as "cheapie" replacement monitors for the PC.
We're talking about your setup which you claim isn't suitable for pro work. I think it's pretty well established that the 20" is not suitable.
In any case, all components was costed in but you evidently don't read.
Firstly the OP has a US$1199 20" iMac (going on present prices), which you turn into a US$1799 24" to make your figures sound more plausible.
The 20" iMac is clearly a consumer grade machine with a TN panel. The problem for her is that the 23" ACD doesn't calibrate.
If you simply wish to add the cost of the $899 23" ACD then it's still not triple nor is it even double.
Then you go on to promote the benefits of the US$1999 to $2799 MBP* set-up, whilst costing a 24" iMac. You dismiss the cost of all the extras you yourself said were the solutions for the problems raised by your proposed set-up.
All costs were listed. Wireless keyboard and monitor. No other extras are required.
In this 3 pea shuffle you have slipped the budget up your sleeve and hoped that nobody would notice.
You mean where I clearly say $2998?
You make unsubstantiated claims about the 24" that "it's called the iMac Pro" (Really? Where?) and that it is perfectly capable of pro color work "because others have used it for that".
I said it WASN'T called the iMac pro. YOU'RE USING A CONSUMER GRADE MACHINE FOR PRO WORK.
Clear now? Is english your second language? Because if it is then I apologise. If it is your primary language you're a complete moron.
Even if none of the lighting and color problems didn't exist, and I have seen an enormous number of units before I committed and bought with my eyes wide open, the persistent reflections rule them out.
Reflections are a valid concern. It seems worse on the 24" iMacs than on my 17" glossy.
You claimed a 30" Apple monitor would fix that, ignoring the considerable expense and that Apple quite clearly says it requires a dual graphics card to run (no "hint, hint" about it), none of which exist or can be installed in either the MBP nor the iMac. Your claims to the contrary I find extremely puzzling, despite your constant exaggerations and twisting of facts.
Except:
a) I own a 30" ACD.
b) It's working fine on my MBP as we speak.
c) You own neither.
d) I have repeatedly said that it DOESN'T work on the iMac and that is AN INDICATION that it is not a "pro" machine.
I am very happy with my iMac 24" and bought it for its much improved price and speed, despite its unsuitability for pro color work. I'm not "whining" about that at all.
Yes, you are whining and you are a moron for buying a machine you believe to be unsuitable for pro work in order to...do pro work. You deliberately bought a machine for nearly 2 grand despite your belief you couldn't proof your work on it?
I also wish that posters like yourself wouldn't try to constantly fudge the facts to fit the conclusion, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
I wish posters like yourself would actually READ THE POSTS and not sound like a complete moron because they don't, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
* The $1999 15" MBP has a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with only 256 MB.
Yes, which is superior to the X1600 with 256MB that I have in my MBP. Having only 256MB of video ram limits the use of CS3 how?
On my collegue's MB he can open 30-70MB photoshop files with nearly no delay. That's with a crappy integrated graphics. For 3D layers you'd want a MBP instead for better 3D support but what I've read from the Adobe folks pixel pipelines is more important than GPU memory. Can you show me a photo pro app that seems negatively impacted from having too little vid card memory?
It's not like you're a 3D pro user where it might be nice to have 512MB-1GB for Maya and a faster GPU than a mobility chip.
The 8600M is on the After Effects list of compatible GPUs and it's a heck of a lot faster than a lot of other supported GPUs.
I have to laugh that you have a wide area of the left side cluttered with pallettes, which Adobe has gone to considerable trouble to make zip away, just to cover up the defects of the iMac deliberately introduced by Apple to try and force you into buying a more expensive and less appropriate model, that you can't afford.
Yes, Apple deliberately choose a buggy high end S-IPS panel just to screw with you.
On the contrary I did my research. On both the iMac and the 30" monitors.
Obviously you did not. The MBP has supported the 30" ACD FROM DAY ONE. Nothing has changed, my MBP is a 1st gen one.
I have repeatedly said I had no expectation of pro color support on the iMac, nor do we have "a taste and try" option here. Again we have this vague "some" who use them "without problems", no definition of the use or lack of problems. I have no problem either. I just don't do color critical work on it.
And I've directed you to DP Review at least twice now. There are pro's using the iMac ALU 24" for color work there.
It doesn't really change anything because the set-up still comes up to around 3x the cost of the OP's iMac 20" which is the whole point.
The OP's iMac 20" is not suitable for pro work unless you can calibrate the second monitor.
If you CAN calibrate the second monitor then it IS suitable for pro work and you can stop whining.
In any case, we've probably scared her away thinking that all Mac folks are complete idiots. Hopefully, she's gone to DP Review to ask her question there.
You can't simultaneously claim affordability and then spend your way into a "solution".
No one has claimed that Apple sells inexpensive solutions.
Where's the simple solution though? If people have a budget on the level of the iMac then what do they do when they acknowledge the iMac isn't good enough?
If you are a professional it means that the computer is gonna be part of your business so if you need a Pro Apple machine you go to a bank and ask for a loan. Simple.
You mean where I clearly say $2998?
The budget has increased 65% from $1799 for a 24" iMac to $1999 (15" MBP) + $899 (23" ACD) + $100 (wireless keyboard and mouse) = $2998. That's not triple.
This is where you switch to cost it up from an iMac 24" and I never said triple I said around 3x. And this is still for a slower machine with a short keyboard.
I said it WASN'T called the iMac pro. YOU'RE USING A CONSUMER GRADE MACHINE FOR PRO WORK.
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro.
Clear now? Is english your second language? Because if it is then I apologise. If it is your primary language you're a complete moron.
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't read your own postings.
Reflections are a valid concern. It seems worse on the 24" iMacs than on my 17" glossy.
At last we agree on something.
Yes, you are whining and you are a moron for buying a machine you believe to be unsuitable for pro work in order to...do pro work. You deliberately bought a machine for nearly 2 grand despite your belief you couldn't proof your work on it?
I am not whining. I have said REPEATEDLY I am very happy with my iMac 24" 2.8Ghz, it replaces an iMac 17" G5 which Leopard screwed up, and I am using it for what I bought it for. Unlike the OP I have other machines I can turn to for proofing.
As for DP Review, I found it both painful to search and browse. I couldn't find posters who expressly did work to pre-press standard, however I did find these:
And I still stand by my statements, the iMac is a great machine but not for the working photographer/designer.
What I remember from that process was that I didn't want TFT and/or glossy monitors. I think all of the iMacs have both (?). Anyway, I guess I'm not convinced that the iMac monitor is good enough for what she wants and I'm still trying to find data/reviews that would help me check that assumption.
I've been told the 24" monitor is better than the 20", but nobody has suggested that nither is recommended for "color critical work".
Quite a quandary. Not sure how good the monitors are in the Imacs. Would assume no matter which model Imac you get (especially the 20") you would want a better monitor for color critical photo work.
I love my iMac, except for one thing, the monitor. If you look closely at the monitor performance, you will see some flaws in the iMAc monitor performance. If you are really going to use it for photo work that is a weakness I have observed. My next Mac will be a MacPro
There was plenty more but what's the point, you read these and come up with a completely opposite interpretation.
You are saying get a much more expensive set-up and I am saying the current iMac is not suitable for pro color work. And we both agree the reflections are a problem.
The rest is all bickering. I hope that any other readers of this post don't make the same mistake as the OP and blindly buy into an iMac workstation at a price that won't do the job.
I do clearly foot the blame on Apple for screwing up a model which WAS a good studio machine to chase the consumer market AND try and force designers onto considerably more expensive machines or set-ups.
Which they aren't. They'll just put up with yet another handicap to their work.
btw If anyone else is looking for "easy solutions" the Photodon anti-glare sheet is doing the rounds. I'd put it right up there with those dumb arse "Anti-Radiation Screens" they flogged off in the 90's.
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't read your own postings.
Hahaha. Sorry but what is clear is that your comprehension skills truly suck.
This is where you switch to cost it up from an iMac 24" and I never said triple I said around 3x. And this is still for a slower machine with a short keyboard.
Uh...what? Three times isn't triple?
OMG. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
English is a second language or remedial math is required.
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't read your own postings.
That's known as sarcasm.
Oh and the entire quote is this:
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro. Except it isn't. The iMac is Apple's consumer line that is usable for some, but perhaps not all, pro work.
So you are a liar as well as a whiner. Congrats on obvious selective quoting to the author of the quote.
I am not whining. I have said REPEATEDLY I am very happy with my iMac 24" 2.8Ghz, it replaces an iMac 17" G5 which Leopard screwed up, and I am using it for what I bought it for. Unlike the OP I have other machines I can turn to for proofing.
It's still bloody stupid.
As for DP Review, I found it both painful to search and browse. I couldn't find posters who expressly did work to pre-press standard, however I did find these:
...
There was plenty more but what's the point, you read these and come up with a completely opposite interpretation.
Nope. Not an opposite interpretation but rather that among the posts you didn't find (or choose not to read/quote correctly like you did above) you'll find some folks using their 24" ALU iMacs for Pro work including proofs. You said there were zero. This is untrue.
There's a chap with 25 of the things in his studio. He'd have to be one stupid bugger to get 25 of them and not be able to any color work on any of them.
You are saying get a much more expensive set-up and I am saying the current iMac is not suitable for pro color work. And we both agree the reflections are a problem.
The rest is all bickering. I hope that any other readers of this post don't make the same mistake as the OP and blindly buy into an iMac workstation at a price that won't do the job.
I hope they don't buy a 20" iMac. The 24", should they get a decent one, should be suitable despite the glossy screen. Something a hood might fix, or might not.
I do clearly foot the blame on Apple for screwing up a model which WAS a good studio machine to chase the consumer market AND try and force designers onto considerably more expensive machines or set-ups.
Or made the decision that most designers were getting larger than 20" monitors anyway and the total cost for a 24" iMac is less than the 20" + 23" ACD and put a TN panel into the 20" iMac to maintain the price point and desired margins.
btw If anyone else is looking for "easy solutions" the Photodon anti-glare sheet is doing the rounds. I'd put it right up there with those dumb arse "Anti-Radiation Screens" they flogged off in the 90's.
http://www.gottabemobile.com/Screen+...AntiGlare.aspx
Given the difference between the first shot without the sheet and subsequent shots with it I'd say it probably does work to a degree.
A real solution would be a replacement of the iMac front glass with a matte one. Perhaps someone will since you can pop the front glass off fairly easily.
Wireless keyboard and mouse: YUK, YUK, and DOUBLE YUK! Just wait until the batteries go down during a software update, what FUN you will have. LOL
Agreed. Give me the standard aluminum Apple Keyboard and mouse of my choice before I waste money on something more expensive, minus the 10-key and then costs more to run with batteries.
English is a second language or remedial math is required.
So you are a liar as well as a whiner. Congrats on obvious selective quoting to the author of the quote.
You are a pill. I repeatedly said "around" (talk about selective quoting), he gave the low end of the specs, and whichever way you look at it is a bloody sight more expensive, without counting the other bits and pieces he keeps on throwing in to make things work.
I didn't selectively quote. I quote the entire sentence, that he then says something separate in a following sentence seems to have missed your limited ability to construct or deconstruct arguments.
Or is this one of those dumb American constructs like "Yes, because your (sic) called a genius. Except you are'nt (sic)".
It's still bloody stupid.
No it is bloody stupid thinking I will pay vastly more than I need to get something you (the bozzo) think I should buy.
Nope. Not an opposite interpretation but rather that among the posts you didn't find (or choose not to read/quote correctly like you did above) you'll find some folks using their 24" ALU iMacs for Pro work including proofs. You said there were zero. This is untrue.
Crikes what is it with you? Where did I say zero and where have you shown me any color Pro who thinks the current iMacs are up to the work. As we have seen in previous posters it is easy for someone to claim a level of their expertise when they don't actually do the work. Or they think what they do is it, when it isn't.
It is just a crappy site for Digital photographers, they are hardly the sharp end of the pencil, and in most cases are just passing the problem along.
There's a chap with 25 of the things in his studio. He'd have to be one stupid bugger to get 25 of them and not be able to any color work on any of them.
"There", "some", "all", "zero", "most", "they"; you cast them around like they mean something. I have posted in several forums asking for any professional color prepress users or designers preparing work to pre-press quality to share their experiences and opinions. So far I have had a lot of viewers no takers.
What about you? You are obviously expert at "some"thing. Substantiate your claims.
I hope they don't buy a 20" iMac. The 24", should they get a decent one, should be suitable despite the glossy screen. Something a hood might fix, or might not.
Try "might not". The hood will stop most of the cross reflections, no rear reflections, but enhance the reflection of the user in the screen. None of this solves the high illumination and contrast of these screens. Blind Freddy can see that, but you seem to have a little trouble grasping even the clearest of issues.
But hey, you can add this as yet another patch on the iMac "solution". Along with the frosty glass. Just remember you "probably" had both just lying around the studio, so they count as free.
Given the difference between the first shot without the sheet and subsequent shots with it I'd say it probably does work to a degree.
I think you just showed how little idea you have of both the problem and the physics involved.
btw In the postings where I found this, the posters had rejected and returned the sheets as a dumb idea after testing them.
Well now, we only have your word for that.
You are a pill. I repeatedly said "around" (talk about selective quoting), he gave the low end of the specs, and whichever way you look at it is a bloody sight more expensive, without counting the other bits and pieces he keeps on throwing in to make things work.
Around 3x is still around triple.
65% more is not "around" triple. Nor is $800 for a 23" ACD over the 20" iMac "around 3x" the price...
I didn't selectively quote. I quote the entire sentence, that he then says something separate in a following sentence seems to have missed your limited ability to construct or deconstruct arguments.
Or is this one of those dumb American constructs like "Yes, because your (sic) called a genius. Except you are'nt (sic)".
Now you're speaking to me in the third person?
You deliberately left out the following sentence that clearly indicates that the preceeding one is sarcasm. There is zero ambiguity.
Crikes what is it with you? Where did I say zero
Ah, that was Hope. My apologies. However, you seem to think there is zero but there's at least one in that thread you must have read since you quoted from it. Of course, given that you've proven your low reading comprehension, perhaps not.
Hey, you're back to using second person vs third person. Are you schizo or something?
It is just a crappy site for Digital photographers, they are hardly the sharp end of the pencil, and in most cases are just passing the problem along.
Like you who can't read simple english, or thinks that 3x and triple mean two different things?
What about you? You are obviously expert at "some"thing. Substantiate your claims.
My claims to what? That the 24" iMac has a H-IPS panel? That photoshop doesn't need a 512MB worth of video ram? That the 24" ALU iMacs have poor QC and many have bad panels or backlights?
Yes, they are glossy. Yes, some units are too bright or had uneven backlighting or a color gradient issue. Yes, Apple is aware of these problems and do swap the units. Yes, you shouldn't need to but even Apple builds lemons. The 24" white iMac had it's own share of suckage. Yes, the MBP and MP cost more than a consumer grade iMac but hey, they are "pro" grade machines.
These don't need substantiation beyond using google. Yes, I understand that reading is a challenge for you but each of these points is independently verifiable. Kinda like "The 30" ACD works on the MBP" which should have been pretty easy for you to determine was a true statement rather than getting it wrong repeatedly.
Well, it's been amusing anyway.
The iMac still doesn't do the job. Your figures don't add up, just add to the cost.
You are surrounded by shadowy experts (we never actually see any) who prove your claims.
You blame users for not squeezing all the fruit, till they find a ripe one ignoring, like those pale hard supermarket tomatoes, they never will.
Despite your inability to write clearly you ramble on about case and quote yourself "quoting" me.
iMacs are good enough, but lots are lemons, spend a packet buying something else which is still short of the goods compared with another model which is good enough/isn't good enough, lots of pros use them, see this amateur site which doesn't say anything of the sort, blah blah blah.
Round and round and round and round and round you go...
Down your own, plug, hole.
Blather on, till you actually come up with these mythical Pros, you don't seem to be one of them, this is going nowhere.
Hope, you are far more likely to get help from the Mac forum of DP review than here. The number of folks that own an EyeOne or Spyder here is few. There's got to be someone there with a Spyder, ALU 20" iMac and a 23" ACD that can tell you if it works or not.
I have both a 23" ACD and a Spyder2 Pro calibrator, and I can assure you it works like a charm. I do printwork, and colors are spot on (unthough some colors print better than others). It's a very good combination.
I'm waiting for the ACD's refresh, but there's no hurry. Even after 3 years, the 23" does it's job very well. And as already said by many posters, do not use a glossy screen.
There's also the matter of color display. There was a very intersting discussion about this on one of these forums, but I forgot wich one. The more expensive ACD's use IPS displays, who give you milions of colors ('true' 8 bit, i.e. = 3 (RGB) x 8 bit = 24 bit).
The cheaper ones (like the iMac's, except the 24", wich is IPS), use TN, MVA or PVA screens. These are 6 bit, and show millions of colors by dithering, wich isn't as color-accurate as 8 bit. The viewing angle of these screens is also poor. But they have a better refresh rate than IPS.
Most users won't notice the difference, and since the average user is better served by a faster refresh rate (gaming and video), color accuracy is somewhat sacrified for speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#TN_.2B_film
The different LCD-types are improving over time, and differences are narrowing. But with the rise of the glossy screen, things aren't improving for users who need accuarte color. Even while the 24" iMac is using an IPS screen, the clossy finish over-saturates the colors and the glare often screws the viewing angle.
I hope Apple keeps building high-quality matte panels for the creative industry. Else we are forced to shop at LaCie, Nec, Eizo and the like.
I like my brand new iMac 24" 28.GHz but despite not because of the glossy screen. The variable illumination and color mixed with the killer reflections just makes it impossible to do accurate Photoshop work on it.
No. I have a latest model iMac 24" 2.8Ghz. If you put up an even dark colored background on the screen you can see 2 lighting "candles" at the bottom 3rds marks. The overall screen looks like it is darker at the top and graduates to lighter at the bottom with a brighter corner up to the right.
I bought the new 3.06Ghz model a few weeks ago. I went with the 24" because it was obvious that the 20" had a poor display. I'd read all sorts of stories about uneven lighting on the 24", so when I received mine, it was the first thing I checked - and found. So I packed it back up, sent it back giving a detailed explanation of the problem. I received the replacement, checked it, and this one is perfect - no uneven lighting, no hot spots on a black screen etc. I even checked it with my sekonic lightmeter.
I've been in the photography and digital imaging industry for the last 10 years - i've used all kinds of monitors and calibration devices, and have finally come to the conclusion that there is little point on relying on a monitor to display colour and tone accurately - trying to make a transmissive device match a reflective output is virtually impossible. Everybody sees colour in a different way anyway, even when you get your perfect print, somebody eslse is always going to come along and say - "I can see some green in those shadows" or "the skin tone is a little warm"
I can't understand why people feel the need to moan about their displays being uneven, or having gradients, hot spots etc. It's simple - pack it up and send it back. If you don't get one that works - buy a different product.
The "dozens upon dozens of pros" are just conjured out of thin air like they always are in these arguments. In fact the Apple Forums have been full of the recalcitrant pros since last year complaining about how unworkable the iMac screens are.
"Pro" does not begin and end with photography pros. That is your failed assumption. Early in the thread I agree that the iMac may not be adequate for photo usage, but there are more sorts of pros and semi-pros than just photographers. Read apple's website. They are always highlighting "creative pros" who use macs. Then note the hardware. Guess what: there are people doing great things on budget hardware. The tool does not make the artist, or pro. If you have a talented bone in your body, you'll find a way to make it work until you can buy better tools.
In all the forums I have been in the argument for and against the new iMacs has always broken down to the amateurs who reckon it is good enough and the ever more exasperated pros who say no it isn't.
This bears repeating. I still haven't found a single professional photographer who likes the new 20" iMac. Many people do like it. That's not the point. They aren't trying to do color managed work with it.
The OP's iMac 20" is not suitable for pro work unless you can calibrate the second monitor.
If you CAN calibrate the second monitor then it IS suitable for pro work and you can stop whining.
In any case, we've probably scared her away thinking that all Mac folks are complete idiots. Hopefully, she's gone to DP Review to ask her question there.
Thank you, yes this is the heart of my problem. I couldn't get the 23" ACD to calibrate properly through the 20"iMac, which completely baffles me. I've been poking around on DPreview but haven't found anyone happily running a color managed system through a new 20" iMac and an external ACD.
I will be bailing out on the iMac. Too bad because it does have many excellent features. Its just not suitable for pro photo processing.
No, you only need to look at one 20" iMac to know that it has a TN panel so that is no good for colour accuracy. Then look at one 24" iMac, see that it is a H-IPS panel and check for an even backlight. If it hasn't then you know the iMac is not for you. As simple as that.
Who in the world can take one look at the iMac 20" in the store and know that its a TN panel?? Seriously that's ludicrous. Apple still doesn't admit that its an inferior monitor, the only way you can know that is after you get it home and try to calibrate it and finally start to do some research because you are pulling your hair out. The iMacs in the store are set to maximum brightness with busy, flashy images on their displays, completely masking the flaws. Moreover, many of us were relying on the great reputation of the older white iMacs, which were perfectly suitable for doing color managed work. Apple sure didn't provide any information letting users know that the newer models had poor quality screens.