I guess to add a note or counterpoint to my statement:
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
The pros are faster graphics performance and the glass touchpad with integrated click. These are nice features, but they do not come close to compensating for the cons, which I?ll get to.
From an investor?s standpoint, this is simply an unmitigated disaster. MacBooks are not competitive with PC notebooks for the simple reason that they are a lot more expensive. To improve market share, Apple needed to find ways to lower the cost of the MacBooks, not make them more expensive. I shudder to think of the number of CNC machines that will have to be devoted full-time to churning these things out, and the cost to purchase or lease those ultra-expensive machines. It boggles my mind. Instead of finding ways to reduce cost, they instead did something that inordinately increased the manufacturing cost! This does not make a whit of sense! I just can?t believe that Jobs allowed this to happen. It is apparent to me that it is not his physical health that people ought to be worried about, but rather his mental health.
The touchpad is no doubt going to be nice, BUT WHAT SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO PUT SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE TOUCHPAD AND THEN USE A KEYBOARD AS LOUSY AS THIS? It does not make a whit of sense. Given a decent mouse, I can do without the touchpad altogether. I cannot do with the keyboard, and I need one that at the very least allows me to sense the individual keys with my fingertips. Every time that I have tried to use one of these keyboards that have flat, smooth upper surfaces on the keys, I have found them to be essentially dysfunctional. I cannot type on them, because I cannot sense the individual keys with my fingertips. In all likelihood, the tactile sensation will be reduced to the dull thud that occurs when the key hits bottom, the same as the keyboards that were introduced with the present iMac, which are the one of the worst keyboards ever.
And just as AppleInsider warned, the new 15? MacBook Pro is not available with an anti-glare screen, and this simply sucks. Previously, the significant advantages of the MacBook Pro over the MacBook included the fact that with the Pro, you could get an anti-glare screen and you got a much better keyboard. Those differences are now gone. The new MacBook Pro is now really just a souped up version of the MacBook, and that sucks. The 15? MacBook Pro is gone. It remains to be seen whether they are going to similarly screw up the 17? MacBook Pro, but I?m not going to pay as much as they intend to charge for it anyway, so that is moot.
I can order a new Lenovo notebook running Microsoft?s crappy operating system for about half of what a comparable MacBook costs, with a truly professional keyboard and an anti-glare screen. Or, I can buy a new MacBook with an operating system that is better but still fundamentally flawed, but with a crappy keyboard and a screen that reflects background light. The Apple OS is flawed because the size of system fonts is fully determined by the screen resolution and the screen size. There is no way for the user to vary the scaling for system fonts except by setting the screen resolution to something other than the screen?s native resolution.
Instead of fixing things that needed fixing and finding ways to lower manufacturing costs, Apple did not fix anything that needed to be fixed and instead did the one thing that they could do to make certain that there would be no way, no how that there computers would be cost competitive with other notebook computers, and to add insult to injury, they diminished the quality of the screen and the quality of the keyboard. I am fuming. If a stockholder vote were taken today on whether Jobs should be fired, I would not hesitate for one second to vote to fire him.
Some people just don?t get it do they?? Did you not watch the video of the keynote speech? Did you not hear that the macbooks have had sustained growth year after year after year, and there will be growth this year? Did you not hear that the macbook has surpassed Del in education market share? If you have this kind of sustained growth you DON?T lower the price of your product! Apple does not want to sell a cheap laptop to everyone on the planet and have that largest market share in the world, they want to sell the best laptop on the market and make the largest profit of off each sale possible, that is good business! Their sustained growth in the laptop market tells them they can do that! If apple was to fall in growth then that would mean they should start selling cheaper computers to compete. When a product is selling really well, why lower the price, you will just be losing money?
People need to stop expecting apple to sell cheap bargain basement computers and realize apple is in the business of premium products for a premium price which keeps profits high and a stable company. I?m glad you are not in charge of apple because you would turn it into a Del rip off just so you could sell lots of an inferior product and lose money doing so.
Tell ya what, after reading this thread, it is clear that wider adoption of Apple products has not resulted in more people being more informed about the how's and why's of what Apple does. The amount of complaining about a small number of issues is hilarious.
If Firewire is a deal breaker, don't get the new Macbook, seems obvious to me. If they'd gone with 1 FW and 1 USB port instead, different people would be complaining about the wider use of USB and so forth.
For me, I'm starting a business and want to make it an Apple shop. I also need to upgrade at home...so now I'm torn again...Macbook/iMac or just get one computer and get the MBP and maybe the 24" cinema display.
I have always ordered matte screens on the every powerbook/macbook I've owned & though the glossy screen would be horrible. I have seen a few in coffee shops & when the sunlight is streaming in, I saw nothing but reflections. So It was a bright sunny day here this morning. I went down to my local mac dealer & played around with a glossy MacBook.
And you know, even with bright lights, & sunlight coming in through the windows, when you are right in front of it, it's not as bad as I thought. There were a few distractions, but a quick pivit & they were gone.
So it was either that or a 17" with the HD display - which I am replacing that exact (slower) model (It died). And to be honest, I like the glossy screen for reading text on. It is a lot easier on the eyes, than the 17" high res screen with a matte finish that I have been using.
So there's only the missing Firewire as a difference beteween MP and MBP. Thats stupid.
Actually, I think it was very smart in a way. If you were in the market for a good laptop, the MBP only offers a slightly bigger display and expresscard, neither of which are essential. Firewire is an essential. The MBP used to offer 10x better GPU but now it's just 2x.
Firewire will now be the biggest differentiating factor between the MB and the MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melgross
Maybe Apple is again a bit ahead of the trends, or maybe not.
Trends don't really imply you should eliminate choice though. If 80% of people prefer strawberry ice-cream, why eliminate the 20% chocolate fans? You're not going to convince them strawberry is better.
Apple's philosophy is Think Different and yet at every turn, they narrow our choices further and further down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melgross
Certainly, if they felt their pro market still wanted matte in any more than small numbers, they would have continued to offer it.
I'd like to see how many high end Mac towers have glossy screen hooked up to them. I've been in a number of print shops full of them and I can assure you not one of them has a glossy screen anywhere near it.
Apple don't listen to customers either, especially not pro users - they've proved this many times in their software line. They listen to their shareholders, accountants and lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Targon
Matte screens had no glare issues, these mirror finish displays have huge glare issues which are acknowledged by everyone, yet you and offer a work around to a problem that was introduced. You tell us the glare is no problem but you tell us in the same line that you always just move the display to avoid the glare. So which is it? Why do you bother moving if the glare is not a problem?
I know, this happens all the time in these discussions. It's hard to understand how obvious a contradiction it is. Glossy is better all you have to do is move it around to get rid of the glare but with matte it's such a pain because you just put it anywhere. It's like arguing that gift vouchers are better than money.
Portable machines that should be usable in any lighting conditions. The adjustments become a constant chore that matte laptop owners have never had. Introducing a problem that didn't exist is not an improvement. I use an LCD screen every single day and I have never thought that the colors were washed out and needed improvement and text is very sharp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XYZ001
Fact is that the picture looks alot better on a glossy screen because the black is more black.
I used to think that before adjusting the contrast properly. Blacks on matte displays can actually look pretty good.
Trends don't really imply you should eliminate choice though. If 80% of people prefer strawberry ice-cream, why eliminate the 20% chocolate fans? You're not going to convince them strawberry is better.
Apple's philosophy is Think Different and yet at every turn, they narrow our choices further and further down.
This is nothing new for Apple. Eliminating old tech is their way of being ahead of the trends. 10 years ago Apple did not slowly transition from P2 ports and floppy disks. They just stopped using them.
You don't think eliminating FireWire is thinking different?
I know, this happens all the time in these discussions. It's hard to understand how obvious a contradiction it is. Glossy is better all you have to do is move it around to get rid of the glare but with matte it's such a pain because you just put it anywhere. It's like arguing that gift vouchers are better than money.
so you have absolutely never had issues with visibility on a matte screen? interesting.
Working in a pro studio like you, I wouldn't ever consider a Macbook for the kind of equipment you are connecting to it or the software you plan to run on it
I doubt you would either.
I agree, get a MB Pro, but i still like having two firewire ports on the MB Pro. Hey I've had my problems with USB. Face it, firewire is more dependable. I like using one port for my pro audio interface or camcorder and the other for an external FW HD.
It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Nowhere does Eizo say that the color is better on glossy displays in a dark room; Eizo claims that given equivalent specs, the reproduction is roughly even, and since this is true, then why use glossy at all? Eizo says that glossy displays can LOOK more vibrant, not that they are more color accurate. Glossy displays have a tendency to crush blacks and make subtle shades look all too dark. This is fine for movie viewing (hence, why Eizo recommends glossy for watching films), but not acceptable for graphics editing.
Actually, you're reasoning is wrong. Anytime something cuts down on the light coming through the monitor, it affects the color as well because not all colors are affected equally.
quote]
Medical monitors are designed for a completely different purpose, with different features in mind, but you're bringing them up why? [/quote]
Because they require extreme accuracy in every characteristic. It's just interesting that they would also be glossy. Medical personnel aren't interested in trends, they just want the best quality image they can get.
Quote:
Of course pros should not use their laptops' LCDs for careful work. This is not my point. My only point is that you, the resident genius, are dead wrong about glossy displays being better overall image quality.
Can't you disagree without dropping to the low level of requiring an insult? Or is that too difficult?
Quote:
BTW, your contention about the olden days when pros used glossy displays exclusively makes little historical sense since CRTs were the norm back then. A "glossy" CRT is a completely different beast to glossy LCDs.
It does make sense because most monitors then had some sort of antiglare finish, even golssy ones, as now. The non glossy monitors were not made in the highest quality models used for precision color.
I'm not the only one here to have posted on this.
Quote:
Despite your cynicism, pro matte LCDs from quality makers like Eizo are not "worse" than they used to be back in the golden age.
Well, actually, it's just about now, with RGB LED baclighted monitors (about $4,500 for a 24" model) that LCD's are beginning to be thought of as equal to, or better than, the best CRT's.
None of the rest have image quality as far as evenness across the field, accuracy of color, blacks, contrast, or color gamut, that's equal to the best of the CRT models. Sadly, the bet of the CRT models aren't being made anymore. Everyone wants LCDs because of their size, power usage, and newness.
There are many pro photographers in these posts that agree with me about glossy screens so you really don't know what you're talking about. Until you have spent hundreds or thousands of hours in front of a screen editing photos than you really can't comment. Some people are so afraid of change they will go to any lengths to prove their unsubstantiated fears. Mark my works, in a few years time all professional graphic and photo houses will be switched to glossy screens, because they are better, period! They just have to get over the fear of change first that is perpetuated by people like you who can't see past their own biases opinion and recognize a good thing. I?ve seen posts here by professional graphic design companies that say they now prefer the glossy screens, after they have used them. Get with the program and learn to see the future, or you'll be left behind. I can't wait until apple releases a 30 inch glossy display, that will be beautiful. You have to realize that's coming, don't you?
So that's why at Photokina here in Germany last month (the largest convention devoted to pro photogs), the entire software and hardware areas were outfitted with either Barco's with anti-glare and blinds, or Eizo's, also ALL matte. A few sprinklings of ACDs were also seen. Hardly any other display maker (certainly NOT Acer, Dell, or even ViewSonic!).
Positive note for APPL was that it was about 95% Macs everywhere...including HP's huge stand showing off there printers. Also, in most instances where iMacs or MBP's were seen, they were invariably also attached to a Second display of the makes I mentioned above.
False SATURATION and blacks is the problem with glossy screens for pro and print work. Period. Great though for watching movies and consumers, considering that almost all printers out of the box over-saturate the prints, which subjectively will match the screen for those users. However in a pro-calibrated workflow, you will definately have problems fine tuning the BW and Sat.
photo work (read editing) or photo slide show? it's two completely different tasks
glossy screen is good for a photo viewing, it gives bright, "better than original" colors
and it's a nightmare for a photographer, even amateur one who targets photos for a printing, not saying about a pro — you just think the colors are great, and it's not when it's printed
Editing. It's not a nightmare.
I just don't understand why a few people say this here. You all should know better.
No monitor matches four color output. Matching photographic output from a high quality inkjet, or other photo quality output, is matched much better from a glossy screen.
First of all, you must calibrate your monitor, glossy, or matt. That will bring the characteristics of that monitor as close as possible to the ideal.
Then you must view prints of any type under proper 5,000k lighting.
Without both of those set up properly, nothing you do with any monitor will have any hope of matching anything.
Photoshop has a control in the advanced color settings that is there for the very purpose of matching four color. It gives you the option of dropping the saturation of the monitor to match a test print from the system your output is going to come from. This setting has been around for quite a long time. It is intended for matt CRTs, Matt LCDs, glossy CRTs, or glossy LCDs. Or any other technology that comes out in the future.
Then, you can hope to do a decent soft proof—if you know how to use profiles properly.
A couple here are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, but they don't seem to know this simple, and well used control in PS, and want to ignore the rest. Maybe they don't do the rest.
I don't get that!
Yes, I admit that I do try to keep lighting under control, as you MUST if you attempt to do any critical work in color. This is basic.
If you can't do that, it's a lost cause anyway, because in bad lighting, your matt screen will not give you what you would get in good lighting anyway.
Yes, I know that reflections can be very annoying, and sometimes it can't be helped. I'm not telling anyone they can't use a matt screen for color. But glossy screens allow that color to come through the way the manufacturer intends, without the dulling incurred from the matt.
Read any book on color correction, and they will all say the same thing, controlling ambient lighting is very important. I'm sorry if some people have to work under poor conditions. I would correct that for them if I could.
But making the best of a bad situation all around, doesn't make it a good situation, and that's what I'm saying.
If someone wants to argue with that, I can't stop them.
...as someone mentioned above, MacBooks are for consumers; MacBook Pro's are for professionals. It has been stated that the MBP 17" will have an option for matte. It's just too bad that the 15" MBP doesn't offer this, since for a lot of us, 17" is over-kill considering we have a pro display when working in the studio.
The 15" with matte would have fit my mobile needs perfectly this time around. I have a 3 year old 17" MBP already, and it looks like it was a good decision not to offer it to a colleague at a great price just yet.
I think Apple just might make matte available at the next update in Jan. when they introduce the new 17" MBP. Just too many pros out there complaining regarding the lack of an option.
Comments
"gloss is good for 'viewing'...but matte is better for working"
gloss would be the best in a completely darkroom, black painted walls, wearing black clothes etc. [lab conditions]
and if only really high-end printing techniques and papers are used for output.
[no one pays for those high end materials/techniques these days though.]
and most offices that have in-house designers are not structured with a dedicated space for them anymore. meaning that I, and many others out there like me, are in somewhat of a cubicle or similar space, where localized lighting is not within our control.
sigh.
I rue the day that I decided to buy Apple stock.
The pros are faster graphics performance and the glass touchpad with integrated click. These are nice features, but they do not come close to compensating for the cons, which I?ll get to.
From an investor?s standpoint, this is simply an unmitigated disaster. MacBooks are not competitive with PC notebooks for the simple reason that they are a lot more expensive. To improve market share, Apple needed to find ways to lower the cost of the MacBooks, not make them more expensive. I shudder to think of the number of CNC machines that will have to be devoted full-time to churning these things out, and the cost to purchase or lease those ultra-expensive machines. It boggles my mind. Instead of finding ways to reduce cost, they instead did something that inordinately increased the manufacturing cost! This does not make a whit of sense! I just can?t believe that Jobs allowed this to happen. It is apparent to me that it is not his physical health that people ought to be worried about, but rather his mental health.
The touchpad is no doubt going to be nice, BUT WHAT SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO PUT SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE TOUCHPAD AND THEN USE A KEYBOARD AS LOUSY AS THIS? It does not make a whit of sense. Given a decent mouse, I can do without the touchpad altogether. I cannot do with the keyboard, and I need one that at the very least allows me to sense the individual keys with my fingertips. Every time that I have tried to use one of these keyboards that have flat, smooth upper surfaces on the keys, I have found them to be essentially dysfunctional. I cannot type on them, because I cannot sense the individual keys with my fingertips. In all likelihood, the tactile sensation will be reduced to the dull thud that occurs when the key hits bottom, the same as the keyboards that were introduced with the present iMac, which are the one of the worst keyboards ever.
And just as AppleInsider warned, the new 15? MacBook Pro is not available with an anti-glare screen, and this simply sucks. Previously, the significant advantages of the MacBook Pro over the MacBook included the fact that with the Pro, you could get an anti-glare screen and you got a much better keyboard. Those differences are now gone. The new MacBook Pro is now really just a souped up version of the MacBook, and that sucks. The 15? MacBook Pro is gone. It remains to be seen whether they are going to similarly screw up the 17? MacBook Pro, but I?m not going to pay as much as they intend to charge for it anyway, so that is moot.
I can order a new Lenovo notebook running Microsoft?s crappy operating system for about half of what a comparable MacBook costs, with a truly professional keyboard and an anti-glare screen. Or, I can buy a new MacBook with an operating system that is better but still fundamentally flawed, but with a crappy keyboard and a screen that reflects background light. The Apple OS is flawed because the size of system fonts is fully determined by the screen resolution and the screen size. There is no way for the user to vary the scaling for system fonts except by setting the screen resolution to something other than the screen?s native resolution.
Instead of fixing things that needed fixing and finding ways to lower manufacturing costs, Apple did not fix anything that needed to be fixed and instead did the one thing that they could do to make certain that there would be no way, no how that there computers would be cost competitive with other notebook computers, and to add insult to injury, they diminished the quality of the screen and the quality of the keyboard. I am fuming. If a stockholder vote were taken today on whether Jobs should be fired, I would not hesitate for one second to vote to fire him.
Some people just don?t get it do they?? Did you not watch the video of the keynote speech? Did you not hear that the macbooks have had sustained growth year after year after year, and there will be growth this year? Did you not hear that the macbook has surpassed Del in education market share? If you have this kind of sustained growth you DON?T lower the price of your product! Apple does not want to sell a cheap laptop to everyone on the planet and have that largest market share in the world, they want to sell the best laptop on the market and make the largest profit of off each sale possible, that is good business! Their sustained growth in the laptop market tells them they can do that! If apple was to fall in growth then that would mean they should start selling cheaper computers to compete. When a product is selling really well, why lower the price, you will just be losing money?
People need to stop expecting apple to sell cheap bargain basement computers and realize apple is in the business of premium products for a premium price which keeps profits high and a stable company. I?m glad you are not in charge of apple because you would turn it into a Del rip off just so you could sell lots of an inferior product and lose money doing so.
If Firewire is a deal breaker, don't get the new Macbook, seems obvious to me. If they'd gone with 1 FW and 1 USB port instead, different people would be complaining about the wider use of USB and so forth.
For me, I'm starting a business and want to make it an Apple shop. I also need to upgrade at home...so now I'm torn again...Macbook/iMac or just get one computer and get the MBP and maybe the 24" cinema display.
I have always ordered matte screens on the every powerbook/macbook I've owned & though the glossy screen would be horrible. I have seen a few in coffee shops & when the sunlight is streaming in, I saw nothing but reflections. So It was a bright sunny day here this morning. I went down to my local mac dealer & played around with a glossy MacBook.
And you know, even with bright lights, & sunlight coming in through the windows, when you are right in front of it, it's not as bad as I thought. There were a few distractions, but a quick pivit & they were gone.
So it was either that or a 17" with the HD display - which I am replacing that exact (slower) model (It died). And to be honest, I like the glossy screen for reading text on. It is a lot easier on the eyes, than the 17" high res screen with a matte finish that I have been using.
petition for Matte Screen
Hey Luke,
There's a separate petition with over 80 sigs here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/m...pro/index.html
Might be better to sign it than split the effort.
Update: Looks like the longer petition has been deleted. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but that's kinda scary.
So there's only the missing Firewire as a difference beteween MP and MBP. Thats stupid.
Actually, I think it was very smart in a way. If you were in the market for a good laptop, the MBP only offers a slightly bigger display and expresscard, neither of which are essential. Firewire is an essential. The MBP used to offer 10x better GPU but now it's just 2x.
Firewire will now be the biggest differentiating factor between the MB and the MBP.
Maybe Apple is again a bit ahead of the trends, or maybe not.
Trends don't really imply you should eliminate choice though. If 80% of people prefer strawberry ice-cream, why eliminate the 20% chocolate fans? You're not going to convince them strawberry is better.
Apple's philosophy is Think Different and yet at every turn, they narrow our choices further and further down.
Certainly, if they felt their pro market still wanted matte in any more than small numbers, they would have continued to offer it.
I'd like to see how many high end Mac towers have glossy screen hooked up to them. I've been in a number of print shops full of them and I can assure you not one of them has a glossy screen anywhere near it.
Apple don't listen to customers either, especially not pro users - they've proved this many times in their software line. They listen to their shareholders, accountants and lawyers.
Matte screens had no glare issues, these mirror finish displays have huge glare issues which are acknowledged by everyone, yet you and offer a work around to a problem that was introduced. You tell us the glare is no problem but you tell us in the same line that you always just move the display to avoid the glare. So which is it? Why do you bother moving if the glare is not a problem?
I know, this happens all the time in these discussions. It's hard to understand how obvious a contradiction it is. Glossy is better all you have to do is move it around to get rid of the glare but with matte it's such a pain because you just put it anywhere. It's like arguing that gift vouchers are better than money.
Portable machines that should be usable in any lighting conditions. The adjustments become a constant chore that matte laptop owners have never had. Introducing a problem that didn't exist is not an improvement. I use an LCD screen every single day and I have never thought that the colors were washed out and needed improvement and text is very sharp.
Fact is that the picture looks alot better on a glossy screen because the black is more black.
I used to think that before adjusting the contrast properly. Blacks on matte displays can actually look pretty good.
Trends don't really imply you should eliminate choice though. If 80% of people prefer strawberry ice-cream, why eliminate the 20% chocolate fans? You're not going to convince them strawberry is better.
Apple's philosophy is Think Different and yet at every turn, they narrow our choices further and further down.
This is nothing new for Apple. Eliminating old tech is their way of being ahead of the trends. 10 years ago Apple did not slowly transition from P2 ports and floppy disks. They just stopped using them.
You don't think eliminating FireWire is thinking different?
10 years ago Apple did not slowly transition from P2 ports and floppy disks.
What is a P2 port?
What is a P2 port?
Parallel Port
Parallel Port
What Mac had a Parallel Port Port?
What Mac had a Parallel Port Port?
From what I remember they used parallel 2 and SCSI ports.
..........the DISTRACTION factor..........but also in it's DISTRACTION factor.
........will have a problem with sharp distractions.....
not once in the last year have i been distracted by a reflection on my 24" iMac glossy screen. it's simply a non-issue.
I know, this happens all the time in these discussions. It's hard to understand how obvious a contradiction it is. Glossy is better all you have to do is move it around to get rid of the glare but with matte it's such a pain because you just put it anywhere. It's like arguing that gift vouchers are better than money.
so you have absolutely never had issues with visibility on a matte screen? interesting.
Working in a pro studio like you, I wouldn't ever consider a Macbook for the kind of equipment you are connecting to it or the software you plan to run on it
I doubt you would either.
I agree, get a MB Pro, but i still like having two firewire ports on the MB Pro. Hey I've had my problems with USB. Face it, firewire is more dependable. I like using one port for my pro audio interface or camcorder and the other for an external FW HD.
It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Nowhere does Eizo say that the color is better on glossy displays in a dark room; Eizo claims that given equivalent specs, the reproduction is roughly even, and since this is true, then why use glossy at all? Eizo says that glossy displays can LOOK more vibrant, not that they are more color accurate. Glossy displays have a tendency to crush blacks and make subtle shades look all too dark. This is fine for movie viewing (hence, why Eizo recommends glossy for watching films), but not acceptable for graphics editing.
Actually, you're reasoning is wrong. Anytime something cuts down on the light coming through the monitor, it affects the color as well because not all colors are affected equally.
quote]
Medical monitors are designed for a completely different purpose, with different features in mind, but you're bringing them up why? [/quote]
Because they require extreme accuracy in every characteristic. It's just interesting that they would also be glossy. Medical personnel aren't interested in trends, they just want the best quality image they can get.
Of course pros should not use their laptops' LCDs for careful work. This is not my point. My only point is that you, the resident genius, are dead wrong about glossy displays being better overall image quality.
Can't you disagree without dropping to the low level of requiring an insult? Or is that too difficult?
BTW, your contention about the olden days when pros used glossy displays exclusively makes little historical sense since CRTs were the norm back then. A "glossy" CRT is a completely different beast to glossy LCDs.
It does make sense because most monitors then had some sort of antiglare finish, even golssy ones, as now. The non glossy monitors were not made in the highest quality models used for precision color.
I'm not the only one here to have posted on this.
Despite your cynicism, pro matte LCDs from quality makers like Eizo are not "worse" than they used to be back in the golden age.
Well, actually, it's just about now, with RGB LED baclighted monitors (about $4,500 for a 24" model) that LCD's are beginning to be thought of as equal to, or better than, the best CRT's.
None of the rest have image quality as far as evenness across the field, accuracy of color, blacks, contrast, or color gamut, that's equal to the best of the CRT models. Sadly, the bet of the CRT models aren't being made anymore. Everyone wants LCDs because of their size, power usage, and newness.
There are many pro photographers in these posts that agree with me about glossy screens so you really don't know what you're talking about. Until you have spent hundreds or thousands of hours in front of a screen editing photos than you really can't comment. Some people are so afraid of change they will go to any lengths to prove their unsubstantiated fears. Mark my works, in a few years time all professional graphic and photo houses will be switched to glossy screens, because they are better, period! They just have to get over the fear of change first that is perpetuated by people like you who can't see past their own biases opinion and recognize a good thing. I?ve seen posts here by professional graphic design companies that say they now prefer the glossy screens, after they have used them. Get with the program and learn to see the future, or you'll be left behind. I can't wait until apple releases a 30 inch glossy display, that will be beautiful. You have to realize that's coming, don't you?
So that's why at Photokina here in Germany last month (the largest convention devoted to pro photogs), the entire software and hardware areas were outfitted with either Barco's with anti-glare and blinds, or Eizo's, also ALL matte. A few sprinklings of ACDs were also seen. Hardly any other display maker (certainly NOT Acer, Dell, or even ViewSonic!).
Positive note for APPL was that it was about 95% Macs everywhere...including HP's huge stand showing off there printers. Also, in most instances where iMacs or MBP's were seen, they were invariably also attached to a Second display of the makes I mentioned above.
False SATURATION and blacks is the problem with glossy screens for pro and print work. Period. Great though for watching movies and consumers, considering that almost all printers out of the box over-saturate the prints, which subjectively will match the screen for those users. However in a pro-calibrated workflow, you will definately have problems fine tuning the BW and Sat.
photo work (read editing) or photo slide show? it's two completely different tasks
glossy screen is good for a photo viewing, it gives bright, "better than original" colors
and it's a nightmare for a photographer, even amateur one who targets photos for a printing, not saying about a pro — you just think the colors are great, and it's not when it's printed
Editing. It's not a nightmare.
I just don't understand why a few people say this here. You all should know better.
No monitor matches four color output. Matching photographic output from a high quality inkjet, or other photo quality output, is matched much better from a glossy screen.
First of all, you must calibrate your monitor, glossy, or matt. That will bring the characteristics of that monitor as close as possible to the ideal.
Then you must view prints of any type under proper 5,000k lighting.
Without both of those set up properly, nothing you do with any monitor will have any hope of matching anything.
Photoshop has a control in the advanced color settings that is there for the very purpose of matching four color. It gives you the option of dropping the saturation of the monitor to match a test print from the system your output is going to come from. This setting has been around for quite a long time. It is intended for matt CRTs, Matt LCDs, glossy CRTs, or glossy LCDs. Or any other technology that comes out in the future.
Then, you can hope to do a decent soft proof—if you know how to use profiles properly.
A couple here are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, but they don't seem to know this simple, and well used control in PS, and want to ignore the rest. Maybe they don't do the rest.
I don't get that!
Yes, I admit that I do try to keep lighting under control, as you MUST if you attempt to do any critical work in color. This is basic.
If you can't do that, it's a lost cause anyway, because in bad lighting, your matt screen will not give you what you would get in good lighting anyway.
Yes, I know that reflections can be very annoying, and sometimes it can't be helped. I'm not telling anyone they can't use a matt screen for color. But glossy screens allow that color to come through the way the manufacturer intends, without the dulling incurred from the matt.
Read any book on color correction, and they will all say the same thing, controlling ambient lighting is very important. I'm sorry if some people have to work under poor conditions. I would correct that for them if I could.
But making the best of a bad situation all around, doesn't make it a good situation, and that's what I'm saying.
If someone wants to argue with that, I can't stop them.
The 15" with matte would have fit my mobile needs perfectly this time around. I have a 3 year old 17" MBP already, and it looks like it was a good decision not to offer it to a colleague at a great price just yet.
I think Apple just might make matte available at the next update in Jan. when they introduce the new 17" MBP. Just too many pros out there complaining regarding the lack of an option.
I'm thinking positive today