New Imac vs. 24" Cinema Display

[jsrockit]

I currently use a Macbook Pro 15" and having just gotten back into photography, I'm feeling like a larger screen would be nice. Which would be the better option with regards to color accuracy... the latest Imac or using a 24" Cinema display with my Macbook Pro? I know both are not the perfect solution. I've also read many complaints about screen brightness on older iMacs. Any issues with the new ones? Can you calibrate both of these, to a suitable level, with the Eye One Display 2 (which I own and used on my Macbook)?

[adan]

Regarding my iMac 27":

1. Brightness - mine adjusts from hellishly bright to almost too dark to read. I can't imagine anyone not being able to find an appropriate brightness level for calibration and work.

2. Color (hue) is fine. Even with tricky stuff like brown animal hair, which will reveal green, yellow or magenta biases quickly. Or neutral grays.

3. Contrast (high) is something of a headache. No control for it, except for the choice of gamma when setting up a screen profile. It took me a while to get a balance of brightness and profile gamma that allows me to accurately judge shadow detail and get what I see on screen in a print. The bias is to block up shadows even when the overall screen brightness is glaringly bright, so I was opening up the shadows too much, to the point that they looked weak in prints.

I think the glass overlay is part of the problem - the matte vinyl-like covering of my previous iMac screen diffused enough light to keep the contrast lower - like the difference between a glossy and a matte print. If the 24" Cinema has the old-style covering, that may be the biggest difference.

4. Color (saturation) is affected by contrast also, so on-screen images look more saturated than prints (brighter colors). Although using a pigment printer, that is going to happen anyway, to some extent.

I should point out that I completely replaced my whole workflow this fall - new computer, new camera (M9), new OS (Snow Leopard - which defaults to gamma 2.2 now instead of the old Mac 1.8), new Photoshop upgrade, new raw developer, new printer drivers (to comply with Snow Leopard) - so that's one reason getting the monitor figured out took more time and work than usual. A lot of variables to chase down (Do my shots look so contrasty because of the monitor, or the M9, or ACR 5.6, or Snow Leopard?....) Working now, though.

[wattsy]

Personally, if I was in the market for a new display, I'd snap up a 30" Cinema Display whilst they are still around. I'm firmly in the "don't like glossy screens" camp and choosing between the 24" and the new iMac would, for me, be like choosing between a pickled onion or pickled gherkin.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by wattsy

I'm firmly in the "don't like glossy screens" camp and choosing between the 24" and the new iMac would, for me, be like choosing between a pickled onion or pickled gherkin.

I guess the glossy screens have more of a "wow" factor in the shops. Personally I don't have a problem with the glossy screen on my 24" iMac - but then I don't have any bright light sources behind me when I'm using it.

Oh, pickled onions for me rather than gherkins.

[jsrockit]

So, glossy screens are a no no for photo? My laptop has a glossy screen and I guess it "pops" with nice colors and contrast, but vs. prints will make a dull image look better. I just really don't want a CRT...I don't have the room.

[adan]

The solid glass (glossy) screen is definitely easier to clean - the iMacs come with a microfiber cloth for wiping, and the glass doesn't "hold" dust or fingerprints the way the delicate plastic surface of matte LCDs do. No "special" screen or electronics cleaning liquids needed. It also makes for a totally flat front surface - no setback for the screen area behind a frame that leaves little corners that are hard to get into with cleaning tools.

For image/video "consumers" they are very rich and colorful - for image editors, they are perhaps too pretty. Sort of like using a really crisp brilliant beautiful SLR screen - sometimes the final image doesn't measure up to what you saw in the finder.

Just making the case that this is not just some Apple weirdness. There ARE some benefits to the screen design.

I guess if they become the norm, one could always get some dulling spray....

[proenca]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Oh, pickled onions for me rather than gherkins.

Sheessh... gherkins all the way.

Now, photo talk again !

I would rather pick up ( and I did ) a 24" Mac screen on the refurb section - fantastic deals and you save having two computers... which can be a hassle to be honest.

I have a MacAir, MacPRO ( main ) and a MacMini ( media center ) and sometimes it s a juggle to keep everything in order...

I feel like a small IT tech sometimes, keepinjg those three plus the wife MacBook PRO, two more old Powerbook's ( total 6 macs ) everything in order and working in the house...

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by proenca

I would rather pick up ( and I did ) a 24" Mac screen on the refurb section - fantastic deals and you save having two computers... which can be a hassle to be honest.

I would probably sell the Macbook Pro if I did buy the iMac. Also, I've never had issues with having two or three computers. I use them each for different tasks.

[Eoin]

I've been using Mac cinema displays for a few years now. The kids also have a 24" iMac which they use. I use a 17" MBP with HD display (non uni body) as my daily laptop.

Recently, I decided it was time to retire my aging G5 PPC in favor of a Mac Pro. The G5 with it's 23" ACD was my main photography workhorse. I opted this time around to invest in a Eizo CG243W for my photography. The only comment I can make is, I didn't realise how poor the 23"ACD really was all this time.

The Eizo is stunning in it's display quality and despite having profiled previous displays on both the G5 and MBP, I now truly get in print what I see on screen.

Without a doubt, cost is an important factor. But if I am to recommend a display to anyone it has to be the Eizo CG234W.

Here is a link EIZO ColorEdge CG243W

[jsrockit]

Thanks Eoin. How are the lower end models, like this one:

EIZO ColorEdge CG222W

[Eoin]

I have no experience of the CG222W, but the main difference seems to be the 222 uses a VA panel where as the 243 uses an IPS panel. Also the resolution is 1900 x 1200 on the 243 and less on the 222. This fact may actually be important if the Mac you use to drive the display can't drive the 243 at full resolution.

There is also a new(ish) NEC 24" display that some are raving about. it might be worth a look at.
LCD Monitor MultiSync LCD2490WUXi LCD2490WUXi-BK: Monitor | NEC Display Solutions

See the direct comparisons here Product Finder - Find & Compare Monitors with Iblick Finder - EIZO

And some quick info on the various panel types here LCD Panel Technology Explained - S-IPS, H-IPS, S-PVA, MVA and TN

Regards

Eoin

[jsrockit]

Hmmm... the newest iMac uses an IPS panel...

[Eoin]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Hmmm... the newest iMac uses an IPS panel...

True!..... but it's behind a shiny piece of glass and is way to bright. You may have an IPS panel but there are no / very limited controls to adjust things like contrast, RGB values and so on.

I'd rather have something I can control to my needs than what Apple thinks I need. Just my opinion,

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Eoin

True!..... but it's behind a shiny piece of glass and is way to bright. You may have an IPS panel but there are no / very limited controls to adjust things like contrast, RGB values and so on.

I'd rather have something I can control to my needs than what Apple thinks I need. Just my opinion,

I can understand that. The shiny piece of glass is there, true, but from what I understand the new iMacs have addressed the brightness issues. To be honest, I'm just not willing to spend $2000+ on a monitor. That said, it is better to keep using my Macbook until I find the right solution as well.

[Eoin]

I agree and I said it in my original post, cost is an important factor.
It's a personal thing and I guess truth be told we could all get by on an iMac for our photography needs.

However that being said, having first hand experience of various Macs, the magnitude of outlay does not necessarily gain the same multiple of magnitude of quality or performance in the end product. A bit like lenses if you know what I mean.

But as far as screens go, it's the primary interface between you and the development of your images and to this end you really need the best quality you can get for your hard earned $. Photography is my passion and my one hobby. I have no qualms about the outlay on it as I know it'll be used and used well. I'm worth it .... even if my photography doesn't necessarily warrant it.

[jsrockit]

I guess what I want to make sure is that whatever I buy is not working against me... it doesn't need to be the best, but it can't be a roadblock either.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I guess what I want to make sure is that whatever I buy is not working against me... it doesn't need to be the best, but it can't be a roadblock either.

I didn't see this mentioned, but just be sure, make sure your MacBook Pro as the new mini connection for the 24 Display. That is all they offer now and there is no such thing as an adapter.

JT

[mdozier]

I didn't see this mentioned, but just be sure, make sure your MacBook Pro as the new mini connection for the 24 Display. That is all they offer now and there is no such thing as an adapter.

Actually I was told at the Apple store that there is now an adapter avail for this connector.
m

[jsrockit]

I've seen so much conflicting info about the latest iMacs, I'm a bit confused. Some swear by them and their photography looks great....some hate it.

[jsrockit]

Any other suggestions for a LCD to work with my Macbook?