Mac Screens

[jimleicam3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's time for a new laptop to replace my 12 inch mac. I am looking at the 17 inch size, but have a question about should I get the glossy or matte screen. I use Aperture 2.0 and CS2 for my photo work flow. Any comments would help. Thanks

[Overgaard]

First of all, PhotoShop CS3 will speed your work on an Intel Mac considerable up. I think it was 4x speed from PowerBook to Intel MacBook with CS3.

 

And RAM will do a lot as well. Fill it up (as far as I recall, PhotoShop can utilize up to 3,5 GB of RAM, so 4 GB will be fine which is maximum in the MacBooks)

 

I'm very happy with glossy screens because I always make sure not to have strong light behind the screen: In any case strong light or colors behind the screen will have an effect. On the glossy screen it is very clear if you have strong reflections.

 

But otherwise, I like the glossy screens for photo work. I know some say the matte is the "right" one for photographic work. I think that is old-school. Use what the viewing audience will be using.

 

Glossy screen appear clearer and brighter for text, and perhaps in general.

[ammitsboel]

I agree with that.

It will always affect your monitor for photo work if there's back lighting, even if the monitor is matte or anti clare coated. The question is of you like the reflections hard or soft?

 

I had trouble deciding if I should go with the glossy or not, so I decided blindly which one to get. I don't have the greatest experience deciding colors and contrast on a macbook, but I would be interested in hearing from others if they have had good experience with these monitors? I use basiccolor for calibration.

[Overgaard]

For calibration I use Pantone Eye One. They have new and smaller/more economical products now which will dot he job too.

 

But on MacBooks I've always had great trouble calibrating properly using the built-in manual calibration. On the iMac i could do a precise calibration using the built-in software and my eyes. But on the newer iMac's you can't.

 

So pay the money it cost for a hardware calibrator for the sceen, and you'll see how precise colors actually can be across several different screens.

 

I did a blog post on this some time ago:

Thorsten Overgaard - Uber - I see colors ... and I see luminance 145 cd/m2

[ammitsboel]

Thanks Thorsten, that's great.

So Leica is the "HiFi" of the photo world? I must sell all my leica gear then.

I assume you mean HiFi related to audio? For the last two decades that word has become synonymous with equipment that can't really play music but in some ways measures well.

Sorry, I hope you don't mind me saying this?

 

Maybe if there's spent a lot of time choosing the right calibrator and right setting, the macbook screen will be ok? but then you still don't see the color depth you see on the better LCD's and maybe that will make you adjust the colors differently to compensate.

[Overgaard]

The MacBook will be ok when you calibrate it. And using a hardware calibrator, the right setting is determined by using the "auto" calibration. Not the advanced mode. So it's half an hour the first time installing and calibrating, then 10 minutes every month or how often one will go through an updated calibration.

 

I don't know if there's any better laptop screens around. I believe if one attach an external 20" monitor (or 30" on the MacBook Pro) one will get slightly better - perhaps 20% - better quality. But that's it in my opinion. And from there there's not that far up to the Eizo and other real expensive screens.

 

So one must consider how much money one will invest in it. Personally, I think external Mac screens is a bargain.

 

As for HiFi, I know no other name for it. High End, perhaps, but the problem is not the expression but the underlying quality the market - the consumers - has gotten accustomed to accept (my own preamplifier and amplifiers are 30 and 38 years old, so I got into that market before the inflation ;-)

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have one of each and if I put them side by side in a darkish room used for computers with the same photo displayed, they look the same.

 

The glossy is less tolerent of bright back light than matt, but backlight detracts from the proper viewing of both types.

 

All things considered, I like the mat, but not by a big margin.