Let's get the overall consensus once and for all - Alu iMac 24" & Photo Editing

[scaredpoet]

99.9% of Mac users are very casual photographers at best.

A greater falsehood has never been written on these forums as the above.

Consider, for a moment, the real pros. Not those using mere Canons or Nikons, but Hasselblad H2s and H3Ds, or a Mamiya/Sinarback combo. The majority of them are using Macs, and sometimes the software to interface with the digital backs for this gear (the PhaseOne PowerPhase FX, for instance) will only run on a Mac.

That said, I continue to be damn lucky. At my shop we upgraded our white iMac with a 24" Aluminimum iMac, and I have been VERY happy with the results thus far. The display is even and has no abberations (I'll take a photo of it on Monday).

I will say that any glare issues have probably been mitigated by the face that our workstations are in rooms with walls and ceilings painted 15% neutral gray. But then we've also been "used" to glare issues ever since our digital darkrooms were equipped with LaCie 22" Electron Blue CRT monitors. You want glare? Try looking at one of those in anything but a pitch black room, wearing black clothing.

 

[JAT]

99.9% of Mac users are very casual photographers at best. The way I look at it is this: Back when everyone used film how many people cared which brand of film they used and how many took the effort to match the film brand with the subject.

*Raises hand* And I'm hardly a pro.

On the other hand if you were happy to shoot consummer type negative film and have it processed at the drug store then the imac is "good enough" and you don't need a color calibrated workflow.

*Puts hand down* Even my wife's 20" TV is calibrated as best it can be, as is every other monitor in my house no matter what use.

How many people spend $1,000 on a pair of speakers?

*Raises hand again* My sub costs more than my wife's MB. And believe me, it's worth it.

OK bottom line: Good enough for most causel users bu not good enough
for critial use. For those few people, find an older white iMac or buy
a second LCD modit for a new one. Buy a Mini or spring for a Mac Pro.

That's what this discussion is about, but your post makes it sound like we shouldn't be talking about it. Maybe you are in the wrong thread.

I imagine may pro photographers are using MS Windows because Apple keeps refusing to sell a mainstrean desktop machine.

Not a chance. See above posts or check out dpreview.com. Most software still comes out Mac first.

 

[rainydays]

I don't have a problem with photo editing on the 24" iMac. It performs fairly well at that in my opinion. Wouldn't say that it's excellent compared to many other displays in the mid-priced segment, but it will do the job.

Graphics design is a different story though. But that's off topic I guess.

 

[headhammer]

You're missing the point. Put the 24" white and the ALU side by side. Compare with ALL HONESTY which is the higher quality display. The most accurate. Without gradient. Without reflections/eye strain. Come on! If I spend over £1000 on an iMac the screen must be up to par, and be better or equal in all areas than the previous model. For photography? NO WAY. Will kids love to watch movies on the ALU iMac? Sure. Do Apple make their Cinema Displays glossy? Don't make me laugh. Will they ever give us the gloss/matt option? Probably not Why not? They need to sell Cinema Displays and Mac Pros to photographers, videographers, etc

i'm missing the point? heh, ok.

i honestly couldn't say because we sold the old white 24" shortly after the new one was announced. you know, floor stock and all that. i never had the opportunity to compare them because it was sold before we received the new one.

however (and this is the bit where i'm not so sure you got my point) i use my Al iMac almost daily for print (including photos) and video work. and here's the only thing, the one thing, that a professional user (and yes, i know i don't represent the whole design world) has been able to find: the new screen is a little brighter than the old one. i have to bring the brightness up a little in my images if they are to look right when printed. but, this second-biggest-printing-company-in-australia hasn't had any issues either. i made a point of asking our contact from this company about whether they'd had any screen issues after reading this thread the first time. and they haven't, so i can't be all wrong. you know why? because they proof their work.

and this is just the point. in print work, (and even in a lot of video work), you can never trust the screen you use, no matter how good or bad it is. you should still always, always proof your work to see that it looks right. so really, the most finely calibrated screen vs the crappy $50 lcd is not a valid argument for a "professional", because said pro should be testing his/her work to make sure it's right before delivery anyway. it might be easier on the nice big expensive screen, but it shouldn't make the work any better, it'll just save a bit of time and paper because you're proofing less often.

for the record, i can't see any visible difference between the 24" imac display and the 23" ACD when they are side by side in our store, except that the imac is a touch brighter, because the actual lcd is uncoated, vs the cinema display, which has a matte protective coating.

almost every "professional" opinion that i get is that the screen is good or excellent. how is it that it's not good enough for the punters? it's like saying (and i know this argument is exaggerated before i dish it out, but here goes anyway) "oh, sorry, that stradivarius isn't good enough for my six year old, the wood has a knot in it. i need an unblemished violin, thankyou very much"

 

[bocomo]

Seemingly image pro's (certainly any I know) won't use glossy screens, because they don't give a true image. The contrast ratio is far higher than photo prints (or so I've been told)

ANY type of screen has higher contrast than ink on paper

we pros know this and use calibration, soft proofing, and...gasp...printing out the image to truly judge things

as for the OP, unless you are working on large files or really like the upgradability of the mac pro you should be just fine with the computing power of the imac. the monitor is a separate issue and as some have suggested, feel free to add a second monitor for critical work.

 

[Father Jack]

ANY type of screen has higher contrast than ink on paper

I certainly won't disagree, but the glossy screen of the iMac is quite a bit higher ...

 

[mlblacy]

Yikes! lol...

"99.9% of Mac users are casual photographers at best..."

?? Not to start a flame war, but please tell me you just made that up yourself, lol. MOST pros I know use macs, and have for a long time. Most amature hobbyists I know who shoot use PCs because they are cheaper (but not necessarily better suited for the task). Sure GIMP is free, but is it better than Photoshop? I am sure there are plenty of "pros" who are on the dark side, just as there are those who use macs.

"....If you were one of these kinds of photographers then you will not want a 6-bit dithered glossy monitor. Even if you could get a pristine perfect example of one. The design specs of the new iMac are just not what you'd want." ACTUALLY if it came in a 30" monitor, this "pro" would have one on my desk right now.

"OK bottom line: Good enough for most causel users bu not good enough
for critial use. For those few people, find an older white iMac or buy
a second LCD modit for a new one. Buy a Mini or spring for a Mac Pro...
I imagine may pro photographers are using MS Windows because
Apple keeps refusing to sell a mainstrean desktop machine. For
someone who wants a good photo editing system and runs Photoshp
and has a $2K budget, Windows is it. Apple just does not have a
product to sell."

Where do I start here? A pro with a 2k budget?? A pro whose career depends on it, would probably have bigger worries than a 2k computer + software budget. Windows might work for some, but it is NOT the only (or best solution, in my own humble opinion). I choose wisely to spend a little over 3k for a loaded out 24" white iMac when it came out (and was ready to drop about 7500.00 on a MacPro system). Any pro, or imaging specialist, knows that the dynamic range of inket printed images is substantially LESS than what can be rendered on-screen. Furthermore, CMYK offset printing reduces the dynamic range even further. This is why calibration is key. Although if I had my choice I would prefer the iMac NOT to have the glossy glass in front of the screen. But then again, I spent years working on high-end CRT monitors, which were glass, and lived to tell the tale.

Folks, take these claims (even mine, lol) with a grain of salt. I just stumbled back to see the conversation still going on. I do high-end imaging every day on my 24" iMac. I have taught Photoshop and advanced imaging techiques to professional designers, art directors, and professional photographers as well. Photographers hire me all the time for jobs beyond their expertise. There are always options, whether choosing between a MacPro, a semi-pro upper end iMac, or even... a PC. In my opinion, Apple products beat the snot out of any PC. Everything works seamlessly, and the intergration of Pshop with iPhoto, Aperture, Mail, iWeb, Quark, InDesign etc... just works well for me. I have helped tons of friends come away from the dark side, and NONE have ever said they wanted to go back.
peace... michael

 

[Leon Kowalski]

"99.9% of Mac users are casual photographers at best..."

?? Not to start a flame war, but please tell me you just made that up yourself, lol.

... 87.63% of all statistics are just made up,

LK

.

 

[mlblacy]

Maybe he was thinking about Ivory Soap...

... 87.63% of all statistics are just made up,

LK

.

Nevermind... that is only "99-44/100% Pure", lol. I always am amazed at how so many folks troll away, bashing Apple for one silly reason or another. Dude, if you want to spend 2 grand on a PC go ahead. For my money the iMac is a wise Pro-sumer buy (just made that up myself). Sure a MacPro will do more, and be faster, be more expandable... but NO matter which machine I will buy, in 4-5 years it will be obsolete. There are trade-offs, but unless you are working in Video, or crunching mighty big files all the time... the iMac might work for you. It works for me quite nicely. My screen is DEAD-BANG on, and calibrated easily. For graphic design & imaging editing it is fine. I crunch away quite speedily on large projects, and big multi-layered image files. I have around 20k high-res images stored in Aperture and iPhoto, and it works well.

I am sure there are some machines out there with "issues", but big deal... its under warranty, take it back and get a new one. Or buy a Dell if you think you would be better off (yikes, lol).
cheers,
michael

 

[Kuska]

Nevermind... that is only "99-44/100% Pure", lol. I always am amazed at how so many folks troll away, bashing Apple for one silly reason or another. Dude, if you want to spend 2 grand on a PC go ahead. For my money the iMac is a wise Pro-sumer buy (just made that up myself). Sure a MacPro will do more, and be faster, be more expandable... but NO matter which machine I will buy, in 4-5 years it will be obsolete. There are trade-offs, but unless you are working in Video, or crunching mighty big files all the time... the iMac might work for you. It works for me quite nicely. My screen is DEAD-BANG on, and calibrated easily. For graphic design & imaging editing it is fine. I crunch away quite speedily on large projects, and big multi-layered image files. I have around 20k high-res images stored in Aperture and iPhoto, and it works well.

I am sure there are some machines out there with "issues", but big deal... its under warranty, take it back and get a new one. Or buy a Dell if you think you would be better off (yikes, lol).
cheers,
michael

Michael

I am genuinely interested because I'm on my third machine (24" 2.8) and considering sending it back again. When browsing a site such as macrumors, the background is white on one side of the screen and more (in this latest instance, only a little more) yellow on the other - when you say your screen is dead-bang on, are you saying, that with a white background, the screen is completely even ? The yellowing has manifested itself in different places on each of the three machines I've had, but it's definately there.

 

[netdog]

It's the wrong monitor for photo editing. Period.

It's a great machine, but not a great photo-editing station.

 

[SpaceJello]

A) Always calibrate your screens.

B) NEVER EVER trust the screen for print or video work. I always double or even triple check with test prints on archival prints etc. As for video work, you can NEVER trust any screen, different projectors and different setups in different venues will change your color.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

A) Always calibrate your screens.

Calibration can't fix a non-uniform display.

LK

 

[mlblacy]

Michael

I am genuinely interested because I'm on my third machine (24" 2.8) and considering sending it back again. When browsing a site such as macrumors, the background is white on one side of the screen and more (in this latest instance, only a little more) yellow on the other - when you say your screen is dead-bang on, are you saying, that with a white background, the screen is completely even ? The yellowing has manifested itself in different places on each of the three machines I've had, but it's definately there.

Kuska, sorry I was not flaming you... I was actually responding to ChrisA's 99.9% of mac folks only are amature photographers comment. BTW, furthermore his dig at wedding video folks being hacks is a joke. Have you seen what these folks charge these days for their services? It is now a BIG high-end business, offering video, DVDs, websites, Podcasts, blogs, slideshows.... Jobs billing out in the 10's of thousands of dollars each (not bad for those AV-geeks that some may have chuckled at in their school days, lol).

Back to your point, which seems genuine. My screen indeed is very consistant edge to edge, top to bottom. There is some darkening on the bottom 1/8", but this is not really usable real estate, IMO. However, I am on the White 24", and not the aluminum new flavor... so take my experience with a grain of salt. Some monitors just calibrate with ease, and other brands/models just never get quite right. My old g4 had a 17" Studio display that was easily the finest and most consistant screen I ever had (until it died after 5 years of trusty service). It was accurate until the day it died, and then it was just blackness. I replaced it with a new Samsung 20" SynchMaster, with has a nifty TV tuner that does PIP, with little screens that can be moved around (and also full-screen HD quality). Nice and fun to work while watching the news etc... BUT that screen can not be be fully reliably calibrated (at least in my experience). Admittedly that is still plodding along on os9, and the software running my Spyder is OLD. My 24" is seemingly as accurate as my old Studio display, at least so far. My experience is producing files that RIP to plate-setters for CMYK offset printers (magazines, etc.), and it matches exactly my proofs. With the white 24's the complaint was that they were too bright. I tried a third party app to bring the brightness down (it was a train wreck, lol). I simply adjust the brightness to it's dimmest setting, and then ran the calibration on my Spyder. And Bingo!

Calibrating output to one's own printer is WAY more difficult. After 5 years of tweaking frustration I am happy with the output from my Epson 2200, and my newer Canon Pixma. That process NEVER seems to go as smoothly, and perhaps is better suited to someone with a longer attention span than my own, lol.

Boy I am wandering here, lol. Back to you...your screen being uneven is a cause for concern though, and unacceptable if it is a screen defect. I don't know if this is could be a video-card issue, or a backlighting issue, OR a true screen defect. In the "old-days" left to right uneveness was caused by electro-magnetic interference (phones, magnetic devices, etc.). I do not know if LCD screens suffer the same effect (have you tried moving your computer around, or to a different location as a test?). If you are unlucky enough to keep picking the one's that do have issues, just keep taking them back until you get one that works properly. Since you are experiencing "issues" buy an AppleCare plan and extend the coverage to 3 years, if you haven't done so. I usually DON'T do extended warranty plans, but for laptops AND iMacs I make and exception. I recently added AppleCare for my own iMac. But again, in case you missed it amidst my rambling, lol... my white 24" is consistant side to side, and edge to edge (barring minor darkening on the lower 1/8"). This is when viewed againest Pshops fullscreen, neutral background mode. cheers, michael...

 

[mlblacy]

Michael

I am genuinely interested because I'm on my third machine (24" 2.8) and considering sending it back again. When browsing a site such as macrumors, the background is white on one side of the screen and more (in this latest instance, only a little more) yellow on the other - when you say your screen is dead-bang on, are you saying, that with a white background, the screen is completely even ? The yellowing has manifested itself in different places on each of the three machines I've had, but it's definately there.

BTW, I am wondering did you calibrate the screen? I did have some issues on mine until I used a third party hardware device. I use Spyder2 Pro Suite, but the print cal is a bit wonky IMO. The screen part only I think is around 175.00 these days. I don't know if this is your issue, as the edge to edge variation is concerning. Personally I wish the new ones had least had an option for removing the glass covering... but I don't think this is causing your issue...
mlbl

 

[Jdot]

99.9% of Mac users are very casual photographers at best. The way I look at it is this: Back when everyone used film how many people cared which brand of film they used and how many took the effort to match the film brand with the subject. Did you have strong preference for Agfa potrait film over Fuji. Did you like Kodachrome and put up with the jassle involved with getting it processed. If you were one of these kinds of photographers then you will not want a 6-bit dithered glossy monitor. Even if you could get a pristine perfect example of one. The design specs of the new iMac are just not what you'd want.

On the other hand if you were happy to shoot consummer type negative film and have it processed at the drug store then the imac is "good enough" and you don't need a color calibrated workflow.

It is the same with music. Most people are happy with those little "computer speakers" and the Apple iPod earbuds. How many people
spend $1,000 on a pair of speakers? Same reason Blue Ray is not taking off -- most people are happy with 480p.

OK bottom line: Good enough for most causel users bu not good enough
for critial use. For those few people, find an older white iMac or buy
a second LCD modit for a new one. Buy a Mini or spring for a Mac Pro.

I imagine may pro photographers are using MS Windows because
Apple keeps refusing to sell a mainstrean desktop machine. For
someone who wants a good photo editing system and runs Photoshp
and has a $2K budget, Windows is it. Apple just does not have a
product to sell.

Every major photo shoot i've been to there has been a mac present and I myself carry my powerbook g4 along the road for quick fixes and color corrective surgery =D

 

[Mundy]

So, how'd you like to stare at this every single day?

For more/larger iMac screen photos and photo tech info see:

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby

...it's your nickel -- you be the judge,

LK

1) 24" ALU iMac, Background: "Solid Blue Aqua", L:R luminance ratio: 2.5:1
2) 24" ALU iMac, Background: "Solid Gray Medium", L:R luminance ratio: 2.5:1

My 24" aluminum iMac (built on Monday) looks nothing like that. The uniformity is at least as good as my Dell 2407WFP.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

My 24" aluminum iMac (built on Monday) looks nothing like that. The uniformity is at least as good as my Dell 2407WFP.

That's very good news. If you could post a screen photo, I suspect it would be greatly appreciated by some who have been 'round-the-loop several times and are still hoping/trying to find an acceptable display.

..too late for me; I defected to TheWhiteSide™ after "only" two ALU duds,

LK

 

[JAT]

Calibration can't fix a non-uniform display.

LK

Yes, but that is a BROKEN screen. Different topic.

 

[SaSaSushi]

... 87.63% of all statistics are just made up,

LK

.

You should teach a course on the subject. You're the absolute master of the craft.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Yes, but that is a BROKEN screen. Different topic.

Oh, OK. Calibration is a GoodThing™ -- no argument there. I thought you were replying to Kuska's post (#35) in which he described a display uniformity problem: "white on one side ... yellow on the other." Obviously, calibration can't fix that.

LK

 

[Kuska]

Kuska, sorry I was not flaming you... I was actually responding to ChrisA's 99.9% of mac folks only are amature photographers comment. BTW, furthermore his dig at wedding video folks being hacks is a joke. Have you seen what these folks charge these days for their services? It is now a BIG high-end business, offering video, DVDs, websites, Podcasts, blogs, slideshows.... Jobs billing out in the 10's of thousands of dollars each (not bad for those AV-geeks that some may have chuckled at in their school days, lol).

Back to your point, which seems genuine. My screen indeed is very consistant edge to edge, top to bottom. There is some darkening on the bottom 1/8", but this is not really usable real estate, IMO. However, I am on the White 24", and not the aluminum new flavor... so take my experience with a grain of salt. Some monitors just calibrate with ease, and other brands/models just never get quite right. My old g4 had a 17" Studio display that was easily the finest and most consistant screen I ever had (until it died after 5 years of trusty service). It was accurate until the day it died, and then it was just blackness. I replaced it with a new Samsung 20" SynchMaster, with has a nifty TV tuner that does PIP, with little screens that can be moved around (and also full-screen HD quality). Nice and fun to work while watching the news etc... BUT that screen can not be be fully reliably calibrated (at least in my experience). Admittedly that is still plodding along on os9, and the software running my Spyder is OLD. My 24" is seemingly as accurate as my old Studio display, at least so far. My experience is producing files that RIP to plate-setters for CMYK offset printers (magazines, etc.), and it matches exactly my proofs. With the white 24's the complaint was that they were too bright. I tried a third party app to bring the brightness down (it was a train wreck, lol). I simply adjust the brightness to it's dimmest setting, and then ran the calibration on my Spyder. And Bingo!

Calibrating output to one's own printer is WAY more difficult. After 5 years of tweaking frustration I am happy with the output from my Epson 2200, and my newer Canon Pixma. That process NEVER seems to go as smoothly, and perhaps is better suited to someone with a longer attention span than my own, lol.

Boy I am wandering here, lol. Back to you...your screen being uneven is a cause for concern though, and unacceptable if it is a screen defect. I don't know if this is could be a video-card issue, or a backlighting issue, OR a true screen defect. In the "old-days" left to right uneveness was caused by electro-magnetic interference (phones, magnetic devices, etc.). I do not know if LCD screens suffer the same effect (have you tried moving your computer around, or to a different location as a test?). If you are unlucky enough to keep picking the one's that do have issues, just keep taking them back until you get one that works properly. Since you are experiencing "issues" buy an AppleCare plan and extend the coverage to 3 years, if you haven't done so. I usually DON'T do extended warranty plans, but for laptops AND iMacs I make and exception. I recently added AppleCare for my own iMac. But again, in case you missed it amidst my rambling, lol... my white 24" is consistant side to side, and edge to edge (barring minor darkening on the lower 1/8"). This is when viewed againest Pshops fullscreen, neutral background mode. cheers, michael...

Hey no problem, didn't feel the flames Since I have not invested in semi / professional callibration equipment, I guess I can not comment. I've used the profiler in Sys Pref and I downloaded SuperCal. Whilst I was able to get pretty good prints that matched what I was seeing on screen, I have been unable to change the yellowing area on the screens of any of the three machines that I have had. I'm convinced (but it's not been proven) that I must be experiencing a backlighting issue. With regards to interference the yellowing has appeared in different areas on each of the machines and I've moved them around because my first thought was interference from my Lacie drives. The yellowing has not shifted with the machine sitting in a different location. I will order another, but I'm just going to sit it out for a while and watch what happens within the wider community.