matte screen essential for photoediting?

[seraphicsiren]

Looking into getting new Macbook Pro 15", but the matte screen isn't an option.

This will be my first mac and I really want to get into digital photography (still very much a novice).

Should I pinch my pennies together and save up for the 17" (matte screen optional)?

I hear the glossy is terrible for photoediting, can anyone tell me why and if anything can be done about it?

PS- if this is a repeat thread please redirect me, but I searched and didn't find anything.

 

[fulcrum.1995]

this is an arguable topic
considering your environment, if you can achieve a nearly completely neutral dark background in a low light room, the glossy screen will beat the matte screen 10 fold because it doesn't diffuse the light from the panel and probably produces more accurate colors if it is calibrated correctly. unfortunately, most of the time you are forced to work in less idea conditions resulting in glare in different colors that will affect your ability to focus and the colors you see. Matte screens are better for environments but keep in mind the colors you see will never be completely accurate because it diffuses colors resulting in a slightly desaturated image. As for me, the glossy screen has not presented a problem but if you are really serious about screens, it is probably best to but a high end desktop monitor instead of relying the ones in a notebook.

 

[JNB]

Or use something along these lines. (the hood, that is)

 

[durhamj]

I haven't noticed a problem with my glossy screen using PhotoShop-CS3. My setup is in a small bedroom with the window to my 9 o'clock.

 

[durhamj]

Or use something along these lines. (the hood, that is)

Wow , nice solution.

 

[sangosimo]

no matte screens aren't essential. calibrated screens are the most important thing.

 

[OreoCookie]

no matte screens aren't essential. calibrated screens are the most important thing.

QFT.

 

[atari1356]

Since you say you're a novice the glossy screen is probably fine.

Buy the 15" and use the money you saved from not getting the 17" to eventually get a high end external monitor if you decide you need greater color/contrast accuracy. (I love my NEC 2490, which you can buy as a kit that includes a colorimeter).

 

[toxic]

a matte screen is not essential, but a glossy screen may make the colors more saturated than they actually are. this was my experience during a brief stint with the 24" iMac.

however, editing anything related to color should be done on a proper calibrated display. this usually means an external, since there are extremely few laptops (as in one or two) with an IPS panel, so glossy or matte doesn't mean that much anyway.

if you won't print your photos, though, you don't really need to shell out all that money.

 

[seraphicsiren]

thank ya

thanks you guys for all the help. you've saved me a lot of money.

 

[FX120]

The bigger problem with the 15" MBP is that the screen just flat out sucks.

Period. Glossy or no glossy, it sucks.

 

[Maxxamillian]

The bigger problem with the 15" MBP is that the screen just flat out sucks.

Period. Glossy or no glossy, it sucks.

Would have to agree here. My uMBP travels to a client location when I need the portability or am shooting tethered. Thats it. I'd never, ever do color-critical work on this screen. That goes for the 24" LED Apple monitor as well...

 

[joelypolly]

Calibrated more important than either matt or glossy

Matt vs Glossy is really down to preference and what people are use to.
Consider that 15 years ago all professional work was done on CRTs with glossy screens. Anyone doing "pro" work on a LCD was laughed at and we had this big CRT vs LCD debate.

Eventually people got use to matt LCDs (since glossy ones are still recent) and now it has come down to matt vs glossy. Eventually I think it will be LCD vs OLED etc.

Glossy shows better images if we take glare out of the equation. On a matt LCD panel the plastic front scatters the light so images generally have slightly lower saturation/contrast.

So you have to see both have their own issues. Until the day Apple implements better antiglare this is the best we can have.

 

[toxic]

Matt vs Glossy is really down to preference and what people are use to.
Consider that 15 years ago all professional work was done on CRTs with glossy screens. Anyone doing "pro" work on a LCD was laughed at and we had this big CRT vs LCD debate.

CRT screens are not "glossy" in the same way LCDs are. the comparison does not work.

 

[OreoCookie]

CRT screens are not "glossy" in the same way LCDs are. the comparison does not work.

They are not glossy in the same way, most CRTs are curved, so their behavior is different. But the effect is rather similar: if you had direct light from behind -- especially on older CRTs -- you couldn't see a thing, at least on certain parts of the screen. You could even buy `filters' for that.

The comparison is also good in the sense that many graphics artists initially opposed switching to lcds, saying they're not suited for `pro graphics.' The truth of the matter is that the graphics market is (in that sense) rather conservative and they're slower adopting (or sometimes adapting to) new technologies.

 

[Maxxamillian]

Having a matte or a glossy screen is just one facet of what folks should consider when selecting any monitor for color critical work--there are monitors out there that are specifically designed for this type of work. The laptop screen in question is NOT a good idea for this for far more reasons than a glossy (or matte) screen.

The ability to accurately reproduce color is a big (and expensive) deal. The creative industry wasn't slow to adapt just because they were a bunch of sticklers...they did it because color reproduction in LCD screens was unreliable. Read up on the backstory of how HP's Dreamcolor monitor came to exist if you want further insight.

Regardless...color accuracy is something that you will end up paying extra for. Few things are more frustrating than working on pictures that you think look one way, but in reality (print) look completely different. The takeaway? Spend the bucks and do it right as soon as you can...unless you are a glutton for re-work.

The maddening thing is, regardless how accurate your monitor may be...most people looking at your work on the web will be doing it through their un-calibrated and cheaply made pieces of plood.

 

[ChrisA]

Matt vs Glossy is really down to preference and what people are use to.
Consider that 15 years ago all professional work was done on CRTs with glossy screens

No. Not at all. The better quality CRTs while they were not mat surface did have some expensive anti-reflective coatings. This is the same kind of coating we find using in optics, like camera lenses. A good optical coating can mke the glass look almost invisable so what the user sees is the phosphor on the back of the glass and not much else. Pro quality CRTs were very expensive.

I actually still have an Apple "studio monitor" CRT. It's i a closet now but the picture quality is very good, better then any notebook screen. The Apple CRT had a built in color calibration device that was inside the CRT tube and read off the back of the glass somehow. It was self calibrating that way.

I like to compare glossy screen with consummer level speakers. Many of these speakers seem to produce very exaggerated bass, maybe becaise some peole like the sound. But could you imaging a recording engineer trying to use those speakers? He need "accurate". Apple's new screens exaggerate color contrast and make the images look "snappy". But do you want to color correct and edit on a "snappy" screen. no I think you want "accurate".

So the problem is NOT glare. Glare can be eliminated by darkening the room or at least not having bright light source in back of you. But exaggerate color contrast is something you just have to learn to account for i you have a newer Apple iMac. These new Apple products are targeted to user who use computers as media players who like bright colors and music that goes "thump thump".

 

[OreoCookie]

Having a matte or a glossy screen is just one facet of what folks should consider when selecting any monitor for color critical work--there are monitors out there that are specifically designed for this type of work. The laptop screen in question is NOT a good idea for this for far more reasons than a glossy (or matte) screen.

Agreed.
Decent (non-TN panel) lcds run circles around any notebook screen.

The ability to accurately reproduce color is a big (and expensive) deal. The creative industry wasn't slow to adapt just because they were a bunch of sticklers...they did it because color reproduction in LCD screens was unreliable.

Well, yes and no.
For early lcds, this is absolutely correct. However, in my opinion, the bad reputation of lcds stuck longer than necessary based on the actual performance.

 

[hector]

This thread is ridiculous.
The guy is starting out with digital photography and wants to buy a macbook

Go for it I say.
If you get to the point where you start taking it seriously as a hobby and maybe printing a lot of images or even selling your work, then obviously you will upgrade your kit

 

[Sounds Good]

The bigger problem with the 15" MBP is that the screen just flat out sucks.

Period. Glossy or no glossy, it sucks.

Oh? How so? (why?)

 

[Phrasikleia]

Oh? How so? (why?)

Well, for starters, the MBP display has only 6-bit color, but I believe that is true for all laptop screens. If I'm wrong on either point, I'm sure someone here will correct me.

 

[Maxxamillian]

This thread is ridiculous.
The guy is starting out with digital photography and wants to buy a macbook

Go for it I say.
If you get to the point where you start taking it seriously as a hobby and maybe printing a lot of images or even selling your work, then obviously you will upgrade your kit

Yeah, it kind of spun off onto several topics didn't it? Regardless...photo editing is very much a part of the original question, which in turn makes the monitor discussion relevant.

So I'm with you when you say "go for it" because it is an elegant machine with a rock solid OS. However "ridiculous" isn't a word i would chose to represent all of the information shared...

 

[Maxxamillian]

Well, for starters, the MBP display has only 6-bit color, but I believe that is true for all laptop screens. If I'm wrong on either point, I'm sure someone here will correct me.

This is what my research is turning up as well. Additionally, it would seem that the backlight is white LED and not the RGB LED that you find on the higher-end LED color correct monitors.

 

[TheStrudel]

You won't find RGB LED on anything less than $1500 for the screen alone. It's an expensive technology, and as has been stated, nearly all laptop screens these days are TN panels because they simply don't make IPS panels at the needed size.