Get them to confirm the obvious reflections and glare don't exist.
I have asked on multiple relevant forums, including Apple's own, for any professionals who recommend the use of glossy Aluminium iMacs for color critical work. There have been hundreds of views and no-one has recommended them.
That would be supposing that "Pro photographers" are even expert in press ready workflow.
btw The Spyder doesn't register reflections as it covers and is in contact with the part of the screen it reads, and yes I have used the Al iMac in a darkened room where the glare from the screen lights your reflection, hence my suggestion of a burka.
Also there has been a fallacious suggestion that the screen needs to be all black or substantially black for the reflection to be an issue. The point is that any dark part of an image is altered and polluted by the reflections that it picks up which you may not even be aware of, just that your view of the subject matter is inaccurate.
As they say in South Mexico, "Hoarsecheet, ya'll!".
If you want to know who the photogs are, go find them yourself, or learn to ask in a polite manner.
YOU, area legend in your own mind, you should get over yourself.
Glass frosted on the outside and separated from the actual true surface would blur the image and cause rainbowing and shimmer. If the frosting was on the inside it would do nothing because the outside would still be glossy.
Better would be a treated glass surface that cuts down the reflections whilst minimising the blurring which would still happen. There would still be reflections now appearing as frosted highlights because the true flatness of the surface would hold them over the entire screen.
The older slightly barrelled surface of CRT screens tended to hold highlights to a tight line at right angles to the curvature which simple head movements would move from areas of interest.
There probably would be diffraction or rainbow patterns emerging from interference between the frosting and the inherent pattern of the screen itself. Toss in any possible polarisation used in setting the individual color pixels and there could be even more interference.
If what you want is the benefit of the non-glossy screen, you would not replace the glass at all. But as you can see in the links this exposes all the contacts, holes and securing devices to view.
Best would have been if Apple had indeed offered the option of gloss or non gloss, as with the MacBook Pros, with a neat empty frame in place of the glass.
Still this would do nothing to cut the glare and excessive contrast of this model which is a large part of the problem for designers. In fact it may even add to it. The latest Al iMacs have a much stronger rear light source to "punch up" the contrast and "shininess" of this model. Without it the problems of reflections off the glass would have been worse because the difference between the transmitted light and reflected light would have been smaller. The strong transmitted light works to hide the reflected light at the cost of high contrast.
High contrast looks good to non-professionals because it makes the image look bolder and they are not looking into the highlights and shadows for details, as a designer is.
Glass frosted on the outside and separated from the actual true surface would blur the image and cause rainbowing and shimmer. If the frosting was on the inside it would do nothing because the outside would still be glossy.
I hate to break it to you, but anti-glare (AG) polycarbonate films, the kind used in matte displays, are just normal polycarbonate flims that have been roughed-up. The are measured in how much light they let through, as a percent (80 - 90 are typical values). In other words they are not far from frosted glass, and they definitely do cause image blurring. It's just hard to tell unless you have something to compare it to, like a non-roughed up version of the same thing. Yes, increased separation makes the blurring worse, but there's always some blurring.
The "anti-reflective" (AR) versions of the same thing undergo a special treatment that helps cut the glare. They are much more expensive than the AG models. I'm uncertain if Apple's glossy displays have the AR coatings. I know I paid extra for this on my glasses, but I expect most of the cost there is in labor and profit margin.
I hate to break it to you, but anti-glare (AG) polycarbonate films, the kind used in matte displays, are just normal polycarbonate flims that have been roughed-up. The are measured in how much light they let through, as a percent (80 - 90 are typical values). In other words they are not far from frosted glass, and they definitely do cause image blurring. It's just hard to tell unless you have something to compare it to, like a non-roughed up version of the same thing. Yes, increased separation makes the blurring worse, but there's always some blurring.
The "anti-reflective" (AR) versions of the same thing undergo a special treatment that helps cut the glare. They are much more expensive than the AG models. I'm uncertain if Apple's glossy displays have the AR coatings. I know I paid extra for this on my glasses, but I expect most of the cost there is in labor and profit margin.
I have 2 white iMac 24" models so am aware of that. The films are very thin though. It is like the frosted sticky tape that when in contact with a surface becomes transparent. The slight blurring they cause evens out the lighting and also smooths the pattern of the pixels under.
The glossy displays are straight tinted glass, no coating at all. The tinting makes the colors look deeper and richer at the cost of accuracy and contrast.
The glass would have had to add to the weight and cost of the iMacs, so if Apple had deigned to let us have a choice (after all 50% of us voted for non-glossy above) they should have let us have a discount for lower freight and manufacturing costs.
This makes it very plain that Apple deliberately is not going to let us have a choice or let us continue using the iMacs in the way we had with the previous white models.
You don't have to remember too far back to when Apple was making quite a marketing point for their superior color management over Windows. I've been using Macs so long that I have learnt that when Apple makes a "feature" of anything, next step they'll be taking it away.
I will say one thing in defence of the glossy glass screen, they are much easier to keep clean than the non-glossy versions which tend to pick up a lot of grot and build up static charge that attracts dust. The non-glossy screens require regular wipe downs with a clean damp cloth and an anti-static brush. The glossy screen needs cleaning as well, but less so.
Wasn't it established that the Aluminium iMac TFT Panel under the glass was the same anti-glare coated panel as the previous generation matte-iMac?
ie. take the glass off and you have a screen that looks like the old one, but brighter because of the increased backlight they now need to get past the added glass.
I believe so, but you'd have to ask someone who actually has taken the glass off whether the finish on the screen is the same frosted finish as on the white iMacs.
If that was so then perhaps a 3rd party could give you a magnetic black frame to cover up the rough bits around the screen.
You still would not be able to bring the backlighting down low enough to be color balanced for print work according to posters on Apple's forums who have tried. They even used software to unsuccessfully further reduce the glare.
All of which sounds less than ideal to me, even if it "sort of worked".
The only acceptable solution is for Apple to sell matte versions of the iMac with backlighting that falls within the gamut of a color balanced graphics workstation.
While they are at it they could also take the shackles off the iMac's graphic card/Mini-DVI port so that we can drive a second monitor at higher than 1920x1200.
Well you are the one who claims they exist, produce them.
The reflections and glare are obvious enough, what isn't is all these people you claim swear that they aren't.
I understand that you don't even own one of the new iMacs, yet you like to spout off about them.
None of the photogs that i know have told me that I should give out their personal info, or use their names on the internet, willy nilly. This is about ethics, but, I will give you a place to start to look for yourself.
I understand that you don't even own one of the new iMacs, yet you like to spout off about them.
I get to use one every day. In fact I am posting this from one right now.
Quote:
None of the photogs that i know have told me that I should give out their personal info, or use their names on the internet, willy nilly. This is about ethics, but, I will give you a place to start to look for yourself.
Actually (looking furtively left and right and speaking sotte voce)? its about security. Our regulations (no you can't look at those) require that we don't actually confirm our references.
I searched on iMac on this site and got very little material on the glossy models (in fact very little that was even recent and relevant). None that was based on real technical expertise.
I also noticed that if you chase down what these posters mean by printing, it is to an inkjet. No-one, that I found, actually talked about commercial printing, which is the concern of graphic designers.
As I have said previously I would not be looking to "Pro Photographers", even if these were "Pro", for advice on pre-press.
I have never seen a photographer at a press check.
I get to use one every day. In fact I am posting this from one right now.
Actually (looking furtively left and right and speaking sotte voce)? its about security. Our regulations (no you can't look at those) require that we don't actually confirm our references.
I hope so.
I searched on iMac on this site and got very little material on the glossy models (in fact very little that was even recent and relevant). None that was based on real technical expertise.
I also noticed that if you chase down what these posters mean by printing, it is to an inkjet. No-one, that I found, actually talked about commercial printing, which is the concern of graphic designers.
As I have said previously I would not be looking to "Pro Photographers", even if these were "Pro", for advice on pre-press.
I have never seen a photographer at a press check.
If you can't find recent info about the iMac on that site, then you're just plain incompetent. I should not have gone back on what I said earlier, you're a waste of my time. Adios.
If you can't find recent info about the iMac on that site, then you're just plain incompetent. I should not have gone back on what I said earlier, you're a waste of my time. Adios.
Quote:
imac matt screen? - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
28 Jun 2008 ... Find answers to all your darkroom-related questions in the digital darkroom forum only at Photo.net.
photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00PzFI - Similar pages
iMac vs. Apple Cinema Display&PC - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
23 Dec 2006 ... I am considering to purchase a new monitor and in the stage of choosing between iMac 20` and Apple Cinema Display 20` . ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JCgw - Similar pages
imac vs window - Photo.net Wedding and social event photography Forum
24 Jul 2007 ... imac vs window. malcolm sales , Jul 23, 2007; 07:40 p.m. ... I also recently switched to iMac from twelve years on PCs. ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lyi4 - Similar pages
New Imac Screens - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
18 Aug 2007 ... I just placed an order for a new 24in imac to upgrade my G4 tower. However, I'm tempted to cancel my order after reading many negative ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MGf1 - Similar pages
New IMac - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
4 Aug 2007 ... Thanks to all who said the IMac will work fine with CS3. I went to the local Apple Store and got the 24" yesterday. ...
photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00M6AC - Similar pages
Best programs for iMac - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
12 Aug 2007 ... What I have in mind is one of the new iMacs with a 24" screen and maximum RAM available so that I can finally put my Minolta 5400 to good ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MCK6 - Similar pages
20 Dec 2006 ... I'm considering buying the 20" iMac, and have a question about the built in screen. I have read that the quality of the ACD's are excellent ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Iyj3 - Similar pagesimac matt screen?
Here is the result of my search. As you can see only the first is even this year. Of that not much was real actual experience, of that I could not see any reference to any commercial printing experience.
A lot was of the "I've been thinking…", "I heard…" or "I saw…" and as I said the actual references to printing were to an Epson, unspecified model.
Now if you have any competence in this area, show the rest of the iceberg.
Here is the result of my search. As you can see only the first is even this year. Of that not much was real actual experience, of that I could not see any reference to any commercial printing experience.
A lot was of the "I've been thinking?", "I heard?" or "I saw?" and as I said the actual references to printing were to an Epson, unspecified model.
Now if you have any competence in this area, show the rest of the iceberg.
Nincompoop, there were several today, backing my remark that you are incompetent. You didn't read what was posted, you initiated an ill conceived search. What a maroon!
Nincompoop, there were several today, backing my remark that you are incompetent. You didn't read what was posted, you initiated an ill conceived search. What a maroon!
Abuse, abuse, abuse, but where are the links?
I certainly read the posts, in detail. Trying to find anyone who has any real commercial experience. Like I said this is unlikely on this site but you seem impressed by the posters' qualifications.
"Maroon"? How can you tell what color I am?
Are you trying to demonstrate your color management skills?
I am a photographer who prefers the glossy screens for my laptop (MBP). I show my work on my laptop quite frequently... and I use a lot of color and prefer the saturation and richness of a glossy screen when SHOWING anything.
My primary photo editing computer, however, is a Mac Pro with an EIZO FlexScan - and I absolutely love that monitor for its color rendition and working gamut. Of course as most of you know it is much more of a matte surface. I don't SHOW on that monitor, though - I work on it.
I think it just depends on your goals. If you mostly work toward screen presentation then glossy is probably the way to go. If you work toward print, matte is also much closer to a print surface in its appearance.
Much of my work is shown electronically (even if it eventually goes to print, an editor or client is going to see it on-screen first) so I prefer that modality. I also prefer to look at things on a glossy screen and most of my day-to-day image viewing is done on my laptop.
I wrote a blog post a while back on the matte-vs-glossy topic. At the end of the day I just think each person is going to have different needs based on their workflow - how they show their work, what environment they work in, and so on.
I am a photographer who prefers the glossy screens for my laptop (MBP). I show my work on my laptop quite frequently... and I use a lot of color and prefer the saturation and richness of a glossy screen when SHOWING anything.
My primary photo editing computer, however, is a Mac Pro with an EIZO FlexScan - and I absolutely love that monitor for its color rendition and working gamut. Of course as most of you know it is much more of a matte surface. I don't SHOW on that monitor, though - I work on it.
I think it just depends on your goals. If you mostly work toward screen presentation then glossy is probably the way to go. If you work toward print, matte is also much closer to a print surface in its appearance.
Precisely. I couldn't agree more. I also work with both glossy and matte screens, and my experience is the same as yours — the glossy screen (in my case, a 24" iMac) is great for showing work to clients. It's a dazzling screen. But it is also so alluring that one can be sucked into wanting to use it for print, which I have found is a terrible no-no.
Even on the lowest brightness setting and with the screen properly calibrated, the glossy iMac has nearly RUINED two print jobs. One was a $5000.00 run and the other a mere $2700.00. That sounds like small potatoes, I know, but the point still stands.
You are blessed to have the EIZO monitor for print. We still rely on old LaCie CRTs. They reveal every blemish (and nuance) that the lovely iMac screen glosses over (pun intended).
Those designers who manage to use the glossy screen for print work must have access to a form of alchemy that alludes me. In fact, many people in the industry with whom I have spoken on the matter share your view: glossy for great looking on-screen imagery and matte for prepress.
Comments
Name them.
Give links.
Get them to confirm the obvious reflections and glare don't exist.
I have asked on multiple relevant forums, including Apple's own, for any professionals who recommend the use of glossy Aluminium iMacs for color critical work. There have been hundreds of views and no-one has recommended them.
That would be supposing that "Pro photographers" are even expert in press ready workflow.
btw The Spyder doesn't register reflections as it covers and is in contact with the part of the screen it reads, and yes I have used the Al iMac in a darkened room where the glare from the screen lights your reflection, hence my suggestion of a burka.
Also there has been a fallacious suggestion that the screen needs to be all black or substantially black for the reflection to be an issue. The point is that any dark part of an image is altered and polluted by the reflections that it picks up which you may not even be aware of, just that your view of the subject matter is inaccurate.
As they say in South Mexico, "Hoarsecheet, ya'll!".
If you want to know who the photogs are, go find them yourself, or learn to ask in a polite manner.
YOU, area legend in your own mind, you should get over yourself.
As they say in South Mexico, "Hoarsecheet, ya'll!".
If you want to know who the photogs are, go find them yourself, or learn to ask in a polite manner.
YOU, area legend in your own mind, you should get over yourself.
Well you are the one who claims they exist, produce them.
The reflections and glare are obvious enough, what isn't is all these people you claim swear that they aren't.
here's how it comes out...
So what's wrong with taking the glass out and replacing it with a non glossy one?
here's how it comes out...
Glass frosted on the outside and separated from the actual true surface would blur the image and cause rainbowing and shimmer. If the frosting was on the inside it would do nothing because the outside would still be glossy.
Better would be a treated glass surface that cuts down the reflections whilst minimising the blurring which would still happen. There would still be reflections now appearing as frosted highlights because the true flatness of the surface would hold them over the entire screen.
The older slightly barrelled surface of CRT screens tended to hold highlights to a tight line at right angles to the curvature which simple head movements would move from areas of interest.
There probably would be diffraction or rainbow patterns emerging from interference between the frosting and the inherent pattern of the screen itself. Toss in any possible polarisation used in setting the individual color pixels and there could be even more interference.
If what you want is the benefit of the non-glossy screen, you would not replace the glass at all. But as you can see in the links this exposes all the contacts, holes and securing devices to view.
Best would have been if Apple had indeed offered the option of gloss or non gloss, as with the MacBook Pros, with a neat empty frame in place of the glass.
Still this would do nothing to cut the glare and excessive contrast of this model which is a large part of the problem for designers. In fact it may even add to it. The latest Al iMacs have a much stronger rear light source to "punch up" the contrast and "shininess" of this model. Without it the problems of reflections off the glass would have been worse because the difference between the transmitted light and reflected light would have been smaller. The strong transmitted light works to hide the reflected light at the cost of high contrast.
High contrast looks good to non-professionals because it makes the image look bolder and they are not looking into the highlights and shadows for details, as a designer is.
Glass frosted on the outside and separated from the actual true surface would blur the image and cause rainbowing and shimmer. If the frosting was on the inside it would do nothing because the outside would still be glossy.
I hate to break it to you, but anti-glare (AG) polycarbonate films, the kind used in matte displays, are just normal polycarbonate flims that have been roughed-up. The are measured in how much light they let through, as a percent (80 - 90 are typical values). In other words they are not far from frosted glass, and they definitely do cause image blurring. It's just hard to tell unless you have something to compare it to, like a non-roughed up version of the same thing. Yes, increased separation makes the blurring worse, but there's always some blurring.
The "anti-reflective" (AR) versions of the same thing undergo a special treatment that helps cut the glare. They are much more expensive than the AG models. I'm uncertain if Apple's glossy displays have the AR coatings. I know I paid extra for this on my glasses, but I expect most of the cost there is in labor and profit margin.
I hate to break it to you, but anti-glare (AG) polycarbonate films, the kind used in matte displays, are just normal polycarbonate flims that have been roughed-up. The are measured in how much light they let through, as a percent (80 - 90 are typical values). In other words they are not far from frosted glass, and they definitely do cause image blurring. It's just hard to tell unless you have something to compare it to, like a non-roughed up version of the same thing. Yes, increased separation makes the blurring worse, but there's always some blurring.
The "anti-reflective" (AR) versions of the same thing undergo a special treatment that helps cut the glare. They are much more expensive than the AG models. I'm uncertain if Apple's glossy displays have the AR coatings. I know I paid extra for this on my glasses, but I expect most of the cost there is in labor and profit margin.
I have 2 white iMac 24" models so am aware of that. The films are very thin though. It is like the frosted sticky tape that when in contact with a surface becomes transparent. The slight blurring they cause evens out the lighting and also smooths the pattern of the pixels under.
The glossy displays are straight tinted glass, no coating at all. The tinting makes the colors look deeper and richer at the cost of accuracy and contrast.
The glass would have had to add to the weight and cost of the iMacs, so if Apple had deigned to let us have a choice (after all 50% of us voted for non-glossy above) they should have let us have a discount for lower freight and manufacturing costs.
This makes it very plain that Apple deliberately is not going to let us have a choice or let us continue using the iMacs in the way we had with the previous white models.
You don't have to remember too far back to when Apple was making quite a marketing point for their superior color management over Windows. I've been using Macs so long that I have learnt that when Apple makes a "feature" of anything, next step they'll be taking it away.
I will say one thing in defence of the glossy glass screen, they are much easier to keep clean than the non-glossy versions which tend to pick up a lot of grot and build up static charge that attracts dust. The non-glossy screens require regular wipe downs with a clean damp cloth and an anti-static brush. The glossy screen needs cleaning as well, but less so.
ie. take the glass off and you have a screen that looks like the old one, but brighter because of the increased backlight they now need to get past the added glass.
If that was so then perhaps a 3rd party could give you a magnetic black frame to cover up the rough bits around the screen.
You still would not be able to bring the backlighting down low enough to be color balanced for print work according to posters on Apple's forums who have tried. They even used software to unsuccessfully further reduce the glare.
All of which sounds less than ideal to me, even if it "sort of worked".
The only acceptable solution is for Apple to sell matte versions of the iMac with backlighting that falls within the gamut of a color balanced graphics workstation.
While they are at it they could also take the shackles off the iMac's graphic card/Mini-DVI port so that we can drive a second monitor at higher than 1920x1200.
Well you are the one who claims they exist, produce them.
The reflections and glare are obvious enough, what isn't is all these people you claim swear that they aren't.
I understand that you don't even own one of the new iMacs, yet you like to spout off about them.
None of the photogs that i know have told me that I should give out their personal info, or use their names on the internet, willy nilly. This is about ethics, but, I will give you a place to start to look for yourself.
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/
That is the tip of the iceberg.
I understand that you don't even own one of the new iMacs, yet you like to spout off about them.
I get to use one every day. In fact I am posting this from one right now.
None of the photogs that i know have told me that I should give out their personal info, or use their names on the internet, willy nilly. This is about ethics, but, I will give you a place to start to look for yourself.
Actually (looking furtively left and right and speaking sotte voce)? its about security. Our regulations (no you can't look at those) require that we don't actually confirm our references.
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/
That is the tip of the iceberg.
I hope so.
I searched on iMac on this site and got very little material on the glossy models (in fact very little that was even recent and relevant). None that was based on real technical expertise.
I also noticed that if you chase down what these posters mean by printing, it is to an inkjet. No-one, that I found, actually talked about commercial printing, which is the concern of graphic designers.
As I have said previously I would not be looking to "Pro Photographers", even if these were "Pro", for advice on pre-press.
I have never seen a photographer at a press check.
I get to use one every day. In fact I am posting this from one right now.
Actually (looking furtively left and right and speaking sotte voce)? its about security. Our regulations (no you can't look at those) require that we don't actually confirm our references.
I hope so.
I searched on iMac on this site and got very little material on the glossy models (in fact very little that was even recent and relevant). None that was based on real technical expertise.
I also noticed that if you chase down what these posters mean by printing, it is to an inkjet. No-one, that I found, actually talked about commercial printing, which is the concern of graphic designers.
As I have said previously I would not be looking to "Pro Photographers", even if these were "Pro", for advice on pre-press.
I have never seen a photographer at a press check.
If you can't find recent info about the iMac on that site, then you're just plain incompetent. I should not have gone back on what I said earlier, you're a waste of my time. Adios.
If you can't find recent info about the iMac on that site, then you're just plain incompetent. I should not have gone back on what I said earlier, you're a waste of my time. Adios.
imac matt screen? - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
28 Jun 2008 ... Find answers to all your darkroom-related questions in the digital darkroom forum only at Photo.net.
photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00PzFI - Similar pages
iMac vs. Apple Cinema Display&PC - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
23 Dec 2006 ... I am considering to purchase a new monitor and in the stage of choosing between iMac 20` and Apple Cinema Display 20` . ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JCgw - Similar pages
imac vs window - Photo.net Wedding and social event photography Forum
24 Jul 2007 ... imac vs window. malcolm sales , Jul 23, 2007; 07:40 p.m. ... I also recently switched to iMac from twelve years on PCs. ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lyi4 - Similar pages
New Imac Screens - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
18 Aug 2007 ... I just placed an order for a new 24in imac to upgrade my G4 tower. However, I'm tempted to cancel my order after reading many negative ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MGf1 - Similar pages
New IMac - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
4 Aug 2007 ... Thanks to all who said the IMac will work fine with CS3. I went to the local Apple Store and got the 24" yesterday. ...
photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00M6AC - Similar pages
Best programs for iMac - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum
12 Aug 2007 ... What I have in mind is one of the new iMacs with a 24" screen and maximum RAM available so that I can finally put my Minolta 5400 to good ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MCK6 - Similar pages
Intel iMac 20" display quality compared to ACD? - Photo.net ...
20 Dec 2006 ... I'm considering buying the 20" iMac, and have a question about the built in screen. I have read that the quality of the ACD's are excellent ...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Iyj3 - Similar pagesimac matt screen?
Here is the result of my search. As you can see only the first is even this year. Of that not much was real actual experience, of that I could not see any reference to any commercial printing experience.
A lot was of the "I've been thinking…", "I heard…" or "I saw…" and as I said the actual references to printing were to an Epson, unspecified model.
Now if you have any competence in this area, show the rest of the iceberg.
Here is the result of my search. As you can see only the first is even this year. Of that not much was real actual experience, of that I could not see any reference to any commercial printing experience.
A lot was of the "I've been thinking?", "I heard?" or "I saw?" and as I said the actual references to printing were to an Epson, unspecified model.
Now if you have any competence in this area, show the rest of the iceberg.
Nincompoop, there were several today, backing my remark that you are incompetent. You didn't read what was posted, you initiated an ill conceived search. What a maroon!
Nincompoop, there were several today, backing my remark that you are incompetent. You didn't read what was posted, you initiated an ill conceived search. What a maroon!
Abuse, abuse, abuse, but where are the links?
I certainly read the posts, in detail. Trying to find anyone who has any real commercial experience. Like I said this is unlikely on this site but you seem impressed by the posters' qualifications.
"Maroon"? How can you tell what color I am?
Are you trying to demonstrate your color management skills?
This image was processed on a new 24" iMac, and the prints match the display perfectly.
When we are talking about "prints" are we talking inkjet or commercial press?
But, in reality, in printing......
......what matters is not how it looks on screen.....
but how it looks ON THE PRINTED SURFACE, everything else is simply argumentative....
is it not?
My primary photo editing computer, however, is a Mac Pro with an EIZO FlexScan - and I absolutely love that monitor for its color rendition and working gamut. Of course as most of you know it is much more of a matte surface. I don't SHOW on that monitor, though - I work on it.
I think it just depends on your goals. If you mostly work toward screen presentation then glossy is probably the way to go. If you work toward print, matte is also much closer to a print surface in its appearance.
Much of my work is shown electronically (even if it eventually goes to print, an editor or client is going to see it on-screen first) so I prefer that modality. I also prefer to look at things on a glossy screen and most of my day-to-day image viewing is done on my laptop.
I wrote a blog post a while back on the matte-vs-glossy topic. At the end of the day I just think each person is going to have different needs based on their workflow - how they show their work, what environment they work in, and so on.
I am a photographer who prefers the glossy screens for my laptop (MBP). I show my work on my laptop quite frequently... and I use a lot of color and prefer the saturation and richness of a glossy screen when SHOWING anything.
My primary photo editing computer, however, is a Mac Pro with an EIZO FlexScan - and I absolutely love that monitor for its color rendition and working gamut. Of course as most of you know it is much more of a matte surface. I don't SHOW on that monitor, though - I work on it.
I think it just depends on your goals. If you mostly work toward screen presentation then glossy is probably the way to go. If you work toward print, matte is also much closer to a print surface in its appearance.
Precisely. I couldn't agree more. I also work with both glossy and matte screens, and my experience is the same as yours — the glossy screen (in my case, a 24" iMac) is great for showing work to clients. It's a dazzling screen. But it is also so alluring that one can be sucked into wanting to use it for print, which I have found is a terrible no-no.
Even on the lowest brightness setting and with the screen properly calibrated, the glossy iMac has nearly RUINED two print jobs. One was a $5000.00 run and the other a mere $2700.00. That sounds like small potatoes, I know, but the point still stands.
You are blessed to have the EIZO monitor for print. We still rely on old LaCie CRTs. They reveal every blemish (and nuance) that the lovely iMac screen glosses over (pun intended).
Those designers who manage to use the glossy screen for print work must have access to a form of alchemy that alludes me. In fact, many people in the industry with whom I have spoken on the matter share your view: glossy for great looking on-screen imagery and matte for prepress.