Yes, that is a funny story. Being the gas of H2O, shouldn't that have been steam and gone upwards
Seriously though, that is terrible. I'm sorry for your loss. But, at least the machine works to some degree.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Took my new 24" Imac back today...
- Thread starter tttexxan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, that is a funny story. Being the gas of H2O, shouldn't that have been steam and gone upwards
Seriously though, that is terrible. I'm sorry for your loss. But, at least the machine works to some degree.
I did hence the reason for my post.
People should be informed about defects in Apples products. As I said before I like Macs as much as the next man on this forum. That does not mean that I think they are all perfect hence my last post stating I browse these forums to see which model suits my particular need and any possible problems that may arise from me getting those models.
My post count is more than double yours (wow never thought I'd bring post count into an argument before) the vast majority is giving advice and help to people. I don't often browse the iMac forum as I have only just ordered one. If you read the Mac Pro / Digital Video / Mac Applications forum you might see me post more.
I stand by what I said.
Basically the long and the short of it is I disagree with your last post which is the reason I posted what I did.
Calibration warning
I would suggest learning how to calibrate before taking equipment back. You now have had two Mac's that you couldn't calibrate. The problem with calibration software is that it is trying to be one thing for all monitors. Each monitor is going to react differently so you don't necessarily take the same steps for each one. For instance at my work, you can't adjust the brightness when the calibration software asks you to, otherwise you will never be able to get accurate colors. Some monitors you can't mess with the contrast. My point is, if you don't know the nuances of the monitor, you will never get a calibration correct. Never mind that you have to rely on someone else to be doing the calibration for the printer. The inks change, the papers change over time. Where you view the print will look different depending on the light. So at some point you have to ask yourself how important is it to be so exact.
I would suggest learning how to calibrate before taking equipment back. You now have had two Mac's that you couldn't calibrate. The problem with calibration software is that it is trying to be one thing for all monitors. Each monitor is going to react differently so you don't necessarily take the same steps for each one. For instance at my work, you can't adjust the brightness when the calibration software asks you to, otherwise you will never be able to get accurate colors. Some monitors you can't mess with the contrast. My point is, if you don't know the nuances of the monitor, you will never get a calibration correct. Never mind that you have to rely on someone else to be doing the calibration for the printer. The inks change, the papers change over time. Where you view the print will look different depending on the light. So at some point you have to ask yourself how important is it to be so exact.
Oh the irony of asking that in a Mac forum! To many people here, if it isn't 100% "perfect", however they define that in their own minds, it is grossly flawed.
Im not sure then...This is why so confusing....I attempted to connnect the mac pro book to external monitor and as stated the colors when printed were way off....However I saved the file to a CF card put to PC and then output that to a printer and Same pic came out fine?? It makes no real sense to me?
Could be that the ICC (color calibration information) is not being correctly interpreted on your Mac for some reason.
The ICC information is embedded in your picture by the device (scanner or camera) that produced the image. It is used to compare with the profiles of other devices to attempt to make sure that the image seen on your screen, printed on your printer, scanned by your scanner, and so on, all look the same.
It's possible that OS X is somehow interpreting that information improperly. And, that's not such a far fetched idea.
I've got a scanner that I use to scan in my pictures. And, in OS X, the pictures look fine. But, when I print them from OS X, they come out scrambled like a poor television picture (like if you try to watch a scrambled cable channel).
If I print them in Windows, they look fine.
If I remove the ICC profile from them, OS X will print them properly, but their colors will be off.
Interestingly, these same images print just fine from OS 10.3.9. I've had this issue with the pictures only in OS 10.4.0 and later (I first noticed the bug in the PowerPC 10.4.0).
And, the issue persists on the new Mac Pro I have with the Intel 10.4.10 release on it.
I've notified Apple, and over time it's gotten slightly better. In 10.4.0, the images would be scrambled on the screen as well. But, after 10 revisions to 10.4, they've finally gotten it to where it looks fine on the screen but still prints scrambled.
At this point, they probably aren't even working on fixing it anymore. Who knows.
I say send a report to Apple, and see what happens.
I find it hard to believe that you can't get an iMac to calibrate so that images don't print the same. Especially since you could do it on a Sam's club computer . This is one of the things Macs are known to be good for.
Something is amiss. Have you tried printing to a different printer? Have you tried calibrating a different monitor? If an external monitor works then we can confirm it is the iMac screen otherwise it could be a different issue.
. This is one of the things Macs are known to be good for.Something is amiss. Have you tried printing to a different printer? Have you tried calibrating a different monitor? If an external monitor works then we can confirm it is the iMac screen otherwise it could be a different issue.
The biggest thing people do incorrectly when calibrating their monitors and color correcting their prints is to rely on the monitor in the first place. The monitor will never show you accurate color unless the light source remains consistent forever, the colors around the monitor and in the room are a neutral grey or remain consistent forever, and your eyes don't change EVER.
The second mistake people make is not calibrating and color correcting their images by the numbers. Use the numbers that show up in the info palette in Photoshop and the Loupe in Aperture or Lightroom. There aren't too many Photojournalists that have trouble color correcting their photos for print since they do it by the numbers, and not by their inaccurate eye sight.
Give me a ten year old CRT, an Apple Cinema Display, or a Glossy iMac or MacBook Pro and my images will look dead on accurate every time because I know who much Red, Green, Blue, Magenta and so forth needs to go in the image to make it POP!
By the number... go by the numbers and stop using your faulty eye sight.
My Opinion
Well, I've read some of the fanboi responses here and as usual, they offer no valuable contribution. I'm no fanboi, but I do like my Apple products. I too was disappointed at first that Apple only offered the iMac with the glossy screen because I knew it would not show pics accurately. BUT, for me there were no other really comparable options so I decided to get the iMac and get an extra monitor. I don't regret it one bit. When I need to do photo work, I use the other monitor but most of the time, I'm on my beautiful glossy screen. I just love the way it looks and it makes doing the day to day things nicer in some way. My wallpaper "pops" and the colors are so vibrant, I find myself just changing the wallpaper periodically just to see the images (before, I never really paid attention to it.) Also, with Leopard coming, I think I made the right decision to stick with a Mac. Maybe later, Apple will offer the iMac without the glossy screen, but I really would recommend it to folks.
Well, I've read some of the fanboi responses here and as usual, they offer no valuable contribution. I'm no fanboi, but I do like my Apple products. I too was disappointed at first that Apple only offered the iMac with the glossy screen because I knew it would not show pics accurately. BUT, for me there were no other really comparable options so I decided to get the iMac and get an extra monitor. I don't regret it one bit. When I need to do photo work, I use the other monitor but most of the time, I'm on my beautiful glossy screen. I just love the way it looks and it makes doing the day to day things nicer in some way. My wallpaper "pops" and the colors are so vibrant, I find myself just changing the wallpaper periodically just to see the images (before, I never really paid attention to it.) Also, with Leopard coming, I think I made the right decision to stick with a Mac. Maybe later, Apple will offer the iMac without the glossy screen, but I really would recommend it to folks.
Its not the colors that are the problem at all....The colors look great its the overall brightness.....I will make a levels adjustment in photoshop but you can never tell what correct luminance is going to be. If I lighten a pic on the Imac 24 glossy the highlights appear severly blown, but prints look good...Visa Verca if the highlights look good on the Imac then toooo dark in print....Its a known problem that Apple has stated when contacting apple support....Look around the web also and you will see mutliple issues on luminance problems when calibrating....
Im not against the mac for photo editing but have not had any luck with my mac book pro screen nor the newer Imac....I have had professionals and genius bar look without knowing what is the cause....Im hoping something will be done and I will once again purchase an Imac....
Im not against the mac for photo editing but have not had any luck with my mac book pro screen nor the newer Imac....I have had professionals and genius bar look without knowing what is the cause....Im hoping something will be done and I will once again purchase an Imac....
I'm not sure what calibrating software you're using - but ColorEyes has been reported to be the best for dealing with the overly bright iMac displays. It manages to get the brightness level down lower than other programs (how exactly, I don't know). You can download a demo to try it out.
Also, this posting on dpreview may be helpful/informative.
I do my pic editing with my Cinema Display - so I'm glad to hear it's the right choice for that - although I notice when looking at my photos I've posted to the net - viewed on other monitors - that sometimes my photos look too saturated.
This thread is very useful to me. I'm trying to decide between a silver or a white 24in iMac, and I'm erring towards the latter after reading so much about the 24in gloss screen.
Thanks
Phil
Thanks
Phil
Sure thing..! Just to start us off, everyone's numbers will be different because everyone's printers, monitors, etc will be different.
For the paper I lab tech (photo edit) for, we use a CYMK profile that sets our blacks to 90%, so when I hold the eye dropper over the black areas (the eye dropper from the Levels Palette) the info window will tell me how much C,M,Y, and K that area will have. If the K = 90% then that is what I want true black to be, I click on the area and the photo adjusts the levels to make everything with that color value black.
Photoshop won't make that color any darker since it will always register that value as true black. The same thing goes for whites, which are C,M,Y, and K all equal to zero. Sometimes, there won't be a perfect black or white, so I have to use the numbers to see which one is close. By doing this Photoshop sets the whites and blacks based on whatever I choose as absolute black and white.
The rest of the colors are a matter of what you or your printer set as there absolute or relative value. If you set all of your images as RGB and absolute red has a color value of R=255 G=100 B=100, then the parts of your image that you want to be absolute, eye poppingly awesome red have to have a value equal to that or somewhat close to it.
Do that for all of the colors in your photo and you won't need to worry about glossy this or matte that. You could actually COLOR EDIT on a black and white monitor. When I went to school (not too long ag0
) we used a bunch of 14.1" CRTs then upgraded to the wonderful Apple Studio Displays with wonderful color accuracy. The first thing I did was forget everything my instructor told me and when he set all the monitors to a different color profile on each machine. The numbers will stay the same no matter what you do to the color profile, even if you change it to the weird negative high contrast mode.Editing by the numbers is the best and most effective way to color correct images and insure accurate printing. Calibrating monitors helps, but it's never as reliable. Monitor's will change their colors and you will see the colors differently if your shirt isn't a neutral color, if the walls and ceiling aren't a neutral color and if the lighting isn't consistent and neutral. Complaining about how this monitor looks or how that monitor looks is something you really won't hear many pros talking about. You can edit on any monitor if you do it by the numbers.
Yeah, same here. Makes me wonder why so many people seem to have problems ... ?
I used my Spyder2Pro to profile my monitor (2.2/6500) and I use Photoshop's color management when I print (I always use the same paper and the same ink, I have a profile for that specific combination) ... My prints look pretty damn good, all the time. I have Photoshop set up to soft proof using my printer profile (CMD+Y) and I always do this just before printing, so that I can add a final level adjustment layer to tweak contrast/brightness/etc. Works like a charm.
You are absolutely right, I totally agree with you. The great thing about these forum posts are to help and inform potential and post buyers of Apple products. Because many of us are Apple's customers it doesn't mean that we have to like every decision they make in terms of the quality or features of their products.
The problem I have with certain forum members here is they will buy an iMac or whatever Mac, get annoyed on Apple's decision on how it was designed, post their concerns or problems and just re-post over and over and over with complaints. If someone is unhappy with what they bought how are they doing other forum members a service by complaining about it and not returning it. Why keep something if it's not what you were hoping for or if it's inferior to you?
It's YOUR (the consumer) money so it's looks stupid to keep what you paid for but constantly post how unhappy you are. It's like buying an expensive car, it won't start up, you keep anyway but then tell other people how horrible it is.
Lastly the good things about the iMac (which are hardly posted) is the build quality, how quiet it is, the fit and finish the overall performance of the processing and computing and all of that is mostly important. But the screen is what you have to look at and if someone is unhappy by all means tell it to the entire internet but to keep it and still complain over and over, that's stupid.
Thanks for that Digital Skunk. I guess I will have to do some more research and reading.... Part of my job involves doing publicity shots which go into print in glossy brochures or colour newsprint. I do all my editing by eye on my uncalibrated 17 inch iMac and PS CS. I have never noticed any colour issues from screen to print, but then again the colour accuracy has never been all that critical.
. Part of my job involves doing publicity shots which go into print in glossy brochures or colour newsprint. I do all my editing by eye on my uncalibrated 17 inch iMac and PS CS. I have never noticed any colour issues from screen to print, but then again the colour accuracy has never been all that critical.
Thanks for that Digital Skunk. I guess I will have to do some more research and reading...
It usually never is unless you have a more complicated printing method. When you have to print onto glorified toilet paper that makes everything look bad and muddy, and you're printing close to 100,000 copies, they hire three or four people and pay them a reasonable amount of money to ensure that the photos look decent in color and B&W.
When a soccer mom prints images from her consumer computer to her consumer printer, the machines do much of the work. The camera puts a profile in it and the computer acknowledges the profile and the printer gets the profile when it is time to print and the images looks okay, it may be off a tiny bit. That profile tells each machine the exact same thing that you tell Photoshop when you edit correctly, what the color values are for this color and that color.
Calibrating a screen helps, but it isn't the defacto standard by any means. And in reality, people that take calibration and color proofing so far as to say their monitor is bad or sub par aren't professional enough to know what they may be talking about. I work with 40+ color professionals and communicate with another 15 more and non of them have had any problems proofing any image from any monitor. We exchange files and we all use different profiles, screens and machines and no image look so bad that we blame the machine.
Setting your standards high and blaming your tools for this and that doesn't make you a professional, setting your standards high and meeting them with whatever tools are made available to you makes you a pro.