Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wish people would stop trotting out rubbish like this.
Then why do it yourself?

The glossy screens are not inaccurate once calibrated, and actually perform better under direct light as matte screens diffuse the light (and hence affect the colour accuracy), whereas gloss simply has a reflection with no diffusion.
Glossy screens are inaccurate. Period. Why? Because they create the illusion of colours looking good. It has absolutely got nothing to do with calibrating the screens as it is all about that illusion, it's about your eyes and not the colorimeter (eyes are inaccurate compared to a colorimeter). On a matte display you might not even notice the reflection, on a glossy screen you see the exact reflection. Because you can see the exact reflection it becomes another picture on your display making it harder to distinguish all the information on your screen.

As somebody depending upon colour for your work you should also be prepared to set up your work area for best results. Essentially, this means that you position the screen/lights so there are no reflections - and in this the glossy screens win hands-down for colour.
That would be impossible as the screen reflects light back to you causing you to reflect light back to the screen. In other words, because the screen is on with you sitting in front of it you'll get reflections no matter how you position the screen. And yes, this is also the case when sitting in a pitch black room. Remember that everything that gets hit by any kind of light will show up as a reflection on the screen. Glossy screens reflect a lot more light so even the smallest reflections will become visible. Matte displays don't do this, they only show the biggest reflections which you cancel out when setting up a proper workspace.

If you're mobile and working on a laptop, you can move the laptop to your heart's delight. If you really struggle with that, Apple do offer a matte option.
No you can't as you might need to move into a very unergonomic position. You might also not be able to sit down the laptop on something like a table causing yet another unergonomic position. In this case, matte is the best option as it doesn't require you to move.

I have a 27" iMac on my desk at home - zero reflections. Better colour than the ACDs I used to use. I have a 15" MBP which is also glossy, and on location I just move it to avoid glare. In the office we have a mix of matte Eizo screens and glossy iMacs, and none have glare, despite high lighting levels from overhead.
Yep, exactly what I thought, comparing glossy screens to matte screens regarding colour. No they do not show colours differently, glossy screens just create the illusion they have better colours which they don't as mostly they use the exact same TFT panel as matte screens do. Also you can not have 0 reflections as everything that gets hit by light will be reflected. You just don't notice these kind of reflections. Matte screens have the same problem but since they are matte the reflections are very very minimal and very hard to notice.

If you're a professional dependent upon colour, sort your workspace out and quit whining.
Yep, if you depend on your setup than be sure to buy the proper gear. However, a lot of people really wished Apple would give people the option for glossy and matte so they can choose instead of Apple. With the iMac getting up to par with the Mac Pro this becomes even more necessary as a lot of business users are using iMacs (they don't have a lot of flexibility in setting up their workspace).

I don't understand why people are so worried about "profesional" photographers. If you were a professional anything, wouldn't getting an Imac be a stupid thing to do considering nothing is interchangeable? Ex: You fry your monitor. With an Imac, you have to send out the whole thing...putting you behind in your work. Getting a Mac Pro is the obvious and smartest thing to do if you're actually "pro" at anything.

Imacs are for home users. Stop worrying about what the "pros" will do and use.
As the new iMac 27" is on par with the Mac Pro a lot of people are getting the iMac as it is a lot cheaper. Those people can also buy a second display and hook it up to the iMac via DisplayPort (Dell has great matte displays with DisplayPort). If you fry anything you'll need to replace it. With a lot of parts that means you won't be able to work.

Btw, glossy vs. matte is not a discussion about home use vs. business use but more about which one is the most ergonomic to use and mostly which one you like.

If you get one with the yellow tinge, then obviously it's a flaw, and you should replace it.
If a monitor has been calibrated for a colour temperature of 5500K it looks yellow because most of the displays have a colour temperature of around 9300K when they leave the factory. The 5500K screen seems yellow compared to a screen with 9300K because 5500K is warmer then 9300K. Obviously a yellowish display is not a flaw, it might be one ;) First check if the colours and colour temperature are correct, if they are and the colour is off compared to a comparable screen than have it replaced/fixed because in that case it's more likely a flaw.
 
The glass on the iMac is removeable -- how hard would it be for a third party company to make some type of matte replacement for it?
 
Glossy screens are inaccurate. Period.

[lots of info]

One question: what did everyone do 10 years ago when all we had were CRTs? Even the flatscreen ones were polished glass. I don't remember designers dropping their monitors like flies when LCDs came about. I remember them hanging onto them.

AppleMatt
 
One question: what did everyone do 10 years ago when all we had were CRTs? Even the flatscreen ones were polished glass. I don't remember designers dropping their monitors like flies when LCDs came about. I remember them hanging onto them.

AppleMatt

This is a good point.
 
So the so called "professionals" spend thousand on equipment, lights, lenses, filters and computers. They are used to setting up a shot or getting just the right angle for glare/shadows etc... but all the sudden the iMac is a pc of s#@t because you can't have it in the direct sunlight? Amazing...

I guess people just love to bitch about stuff. If I recall, the pro's used to work in "DARKROOMS" to process photo's, now it's like someone asking them to cut off their right arm to pull a window shade down lol.
 
Imacs are aimed for home users primarily.

technically, "aimed" is probably right... but that doesn't mean much.

as a "professional" who works in an "office" i would freaking LOVE a new imac, as it would run circles around my G5 (dual 2.3, fastest air-cooled G5 ever!)

to me, the new imac is one professional computer.

sure, i'd rather have the big iron... but that's just economics. quad core + 8gb ram = professional 'puter. (mostly the ram)

of course, i'd much rather apple make the damn "headless imac" already. stupid greedy apple protecting their product lines. jerks. :mad:
 
Put a glossy screen display next to a matte one and 9 times out of 10 the average consumer that makes up the largest proportion of buyers for Apple will choose the glossy because the colors look richer and deeper. Whether or not there will be a glare on the screen under different lighting conditions is usually the last thing they're thinking about. It's all about the WOW factor.
 
Heh... never thought this would be such a passionate topic.

Then again I've just spent near upon an hour comparing the 30" ACD (got one at home) to the 27" iMac at the Apple Store here in London. For reference I'm a semi-pro photographer that has a decent understanding of colour management. Both obviously uncalibrated. My humble thoughts on both are as follows:

iMac 27": Greater 'general appeal', but was a nightmare if anything not-black got in front of it. Excellent sharpness though, but only really appreciated in a darkroom.

ACD 30": Diffused light as a matte screen should, and gave a much better overall image in the store. Finer microdetails (skin texture, pores, etc.) were less noticable though because the matte surface diffuses such detail.

So to my surprise, the iMac did in fact have benefits over the ACD. So long as you've got the right environment, and the monitor is calibrated to not burst with saturation & contrast - I'd say the iMac is in fact a better monitor. Though if you've got less control over your workspace then it's matte all the way. Horses for courses - little surprise really.

And to those that say an i7 iMac isn't a 'professional' machine... I have friends who are published authors that still write by hand :eek:
 
One question: what did everyone do 10 years ago when all we had were CRTs? Even the flatscreen ones were polished glass. I don't remember designers dropping their monitors like flies when LCDs came about. I remember them hanging onto them.

AppleMatt

Ill tell you what we did, we were all amazed and excited when the matte screens came out as we could work in full sunlight without any reflections. Now we have gone backwards through time like a bad Time machine back-up. We have 4 graphic artist at my place with imacs with matte screens. I even have a matte screen on my 40" HD Samsung the new ones are glossy!! I hate them and even though I bought the new i7 I would have paid 500$ for a matte option. I sit in a dark room now and that is OK, but not my choice. BTW it is more like 30-40% of hardcore Aplle users who say that glossy screens are deal breakers. I was the one of them for 5 years till my G5 died...

Rob
 
Ill tell you what we did, we were all amazed and excited when the matte screens came out as we could work in full sunlight without any reflections. Now we have gone backwards through time like a bad Time machine back-up. We have 4 graphic artist at my place with imacs with matte screens. I even have a matte screen on my 40" HD Samsung the new ones are glossy!! I hate them and even though I bought the new i7 I would have paid 500$ for a matte option. I sit in a dark room now and that is OK, but not my choice. BTW it is more like 30-40% of hardcore Aplle users who say that glossy screens are deal breakers. I was the one of them for 5 years till my G5 died...

Rob

Show us where you got those numbers there, Rob.

And put a dang 3M anti-glare film on your screen if you want it to be matte instead of shiny already! Enough whining, what are ya, a German? :rolleyes:
 
Go ahead and name for me the last time Apple offered an iMac with a matte display.

iMac G4 I believe was the ONLY iMac with a matte display.

The G3 used a CRT therefore was glass and glossy.

G4 used the same panel as my old Studio display. Matte

G5 had a perspex cover - glossy

White Intel same as G5

Alu Intel - Glass..
 
iMac G4 I believe was the ONLY iMac with a matte display.

The G3 used a CRT therefore was glass and glossy.

G4 used the same panel as my old Studio display. Matte

G5 had a perspex cover - glossy

White Intel same as G5

Alu Intel - Glass..

Thank you for proving my point, I do appreciate it. :)
 
iMac G4 I believe was the ONLY iMac with a matte display.

The G3 used a CRT therefore was glass and glossy.

G4 used the same panel as my old Studio display. Matte

G5 had a perspex cover - glossy

White Intel same as G5

Alu Intel - Glass..

I have an iMac G5, and I'm telling you, it isn't glossy. Look at it in person, along with the White Intel iMac.
 
Personally, I now prefer glossy over matte screens as well. I have a 20 inch cinema display that used to be my primary monitor, but is now hooked up as a 2nd display to a 17inch MBP. Now that I've gotten used to glossy, the anti-glare coating really stands out - it makes flat color look noisy, and I'm not mad on that.

I've also found that the anti-glare is harder on my eyes when I read long articles on the web. With the anti-glare coating sitting slightly above the light from the LCD, it's like there is two slightly different points of focus for my eyes, which gives me slight headaches. I've found I don't get this eye strain on my MBP at all.

I'm waiting on an iMac 27, so that should be perfect for me... can't wait until it arrives.

One thing I do agree on about glossy though: The MacBook Pro is almost unusable in my back yard due to glare, I'm not sure how I could position it to make it so. Well if I had a proper outdoor area, it might work I guess! :)
 
Here are some links to Things about Glossy Screens.

BTW I am on my 5 imac but my last G5 with the matte screen was the best (screen). Dont get me wrong the new i7 looks great in my dark room, but my choice would again be matte if available. We can surely disagree what we like however you cannot dismiss the actual people who speak out. There are lots of links here and I only expect the matte lovers to check them out.
JMTC

Rob

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/anti-glossy-articles/



http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=2417

Apple Feedback:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/?aosi...EA-AFF&tduid=94f54ec1de3c61b1fec2463c8f6c156a

More Anti Glossy Screen Links:

http://www.applemacbook.com/mods/do-you-hate-the-glossy-screen

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=161980

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/06/14/mac-laptop-glossy-screens-hazardous-to-your-posture/

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=876409

http://cultofmac.com/24-cinema-displays-get-a-notable-no-confidence-vote/8102

http://www.macosxhints.com/polls/index.php?qid=2008glossy&aid=-1
.
.
Also it looks like Dell lovers are singing the same songs! My eyes hurt! GIVE US CHOICE!!

http://www.ideastorm.com/ideaView?id=087700000000AtkAAE
.
.
Also medical information, screen glare is a health hazard!!

http://office-ergo.com/12things1.htm

http://www.visionworksusa.com/computereyestrain.htm

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/content2/Computer_Vision_Syndrome/82
 
What was your point again? It was proved that an iMac was available with a Matte screen. O.k I named the wrong one.

I had many points if you care to reread, but the one pertaining to imac matte screens is that it's not like it was some long-standing standard feature that was suddenly eschewed. Comparing this to the Macbook Pro's is Apple's to Oranges, if you'll pardon the analogy.
 
One question: what did everyone do 10 years ago when all we had were CRTs? Even the flatscreen ones were polished glass. I don't remember designers dropping their monitors like flies when LCDs came about. I remember them hanging onto them.

AppleMatt
That's because CRTs usually have an anti-glare coating on the glass. The iMac doesn't.
 
Wow this thread got hostile.

Well, while everyone is arguing I will enjoy knowing that every image on my ACD 24inch (glossy) will be matching my prints perfectly. Something I couldn't get 100% exact with a matte display.

Off to print some New Zealand pics :D
 
One question: what did everyone do 10 years ago when all we had were CRTs? Even the flatscreen ones were polished glass. I don't remember designers dropping their monitors like flies when LCDs came about. I remember them hanging onto them.

AppleMatt
That's not because of reflections, that's because of the way colour was being displayed. TFT's use a different technology and are digital. It works completely different than those CRT's did and early TFT panels were not that good. They were the dreaded TN panels with a lot of problems regarding displaying colour and the angle. The TN panels we have now are not to be compared regarding quality with those first TFT TN panels. Those TN panels are still not being used by people who need certain colour accuracy, they use S-IPS panels instead as they display colour much better.

The reason why they held on to their CRT's was the poor colour accuracy of the TN panels they had back then. It had nothing to do with glossiness. Since they used technology that required the use of glass they didn't have much choice. Back then glare was a problem and they tried everything to reduce it (anti-glare coatings, anti-glare screens, etc.). They even used it to market their products. Nowadays they do the exact opposite, they put glossy screens in products and market them being glossy. Basically, they are undoing everything they were doing from the first CRT monitor until a few years ago. Why waste years and years of trying to reduce glare because people hated it?
 
Ok I will chime in..

I have been going nuts for almost 2 weeks trying either buy a good monitor to run off my MBP or go for the 27" Imac. I am a wedding photographer and need accurate color for making prints, etc.

I love the new Imacs, but I have been getting a lot of opposing feedback.
I can live with the glossy screen I am sure, since my office has only one window and my desk sits in front of it so reflections can be managed.
My biggest concern is finally getting a good monitor I can trust since this has been a problem for a while.. long story but now I am deteremined to get it right.

I had 2 Apple salesman tell me that the glossy screen does make the images more saturated and constrasty then you will see on your prints and they are both photographers.
ON the other hand I have had a lot of people say not true, prints come out exactly like I see on the monitor.
We are of course talking about a calibrated system.

So I still am not convinced one way or the other.
I need to prove it to myself I guess. I would hate to pay the stinking 15% re-stocking fee if I find out it's not for me..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.