Photog Rob Galbraith Rates MacBook Pro Display "Not Acceptable" 504
An anonymous reader writes "Professional digital photographer and website publisher Rob Galbraith has performed both objective and subjective tests on laptop displays, finding that the late-2008 Macbook Pro glossy displays are 'deep into the not acceptable category' when used in ambient light environments. The Apple notebook came in dead last for color accuracy, and second to last in viewing angles (besting only the Dell Mini 9). He concludes: 'Macs are no longer at the top of the laptop display heap in our minds.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Photog? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:3, Insightful)
So true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is running away from the niche markets (like imaging) that sustained them through their dark days as fast as they can. The new unibody Macbooks (and the 24" ADC^H^H^HMini-DisplayPort external LCD) are slightly faster but in many ways less functional than the models they replaced. Glossy is a bug, not a feature.
Meanwhile, HP and Dell are shipping laptops with RGB LED-backlit displays with 105% NTSC color gamut. Apple is slipping, badly, from this user's perspective.
-Isaac
Cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why make it a feature when it can be a "special bonus" or an "extra"?
Plus... haven't you heard of "downgrading to XP" costs for Vista laptops and desktops?
"Downgrading" is the new "works out of the box".
Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Photog" is as much of a real word describing "A person who takes photographs" as "sandw" is a word used to describe "Two or more slices of bread with a filling such as meat or cheese placed between them".
Apple LED displays have an awful gamut... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just when wide gamut LCDs are approaching the range of colors once possible on CRTs, Apple has taken yet another step backwards with their new LED backlight displays.
My LED MacBook has a spectacularly bad display, so I went to visit the local Apple store to see if this was typical. Sadly it is, and what's more, it looks like all of Apple's LED displays are vastly inferior to that of my old iMac G5. (which has an S-IPS panel and conventional fluorescent backlight)
Color wise, the LED MacBook Pro and Cinema Display are better than the MacBook, but they are all shamefully bad, and definitely worthy of a "worst in the industry" rating. (at least color-wise)
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Matte display readily available (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds to me like they deliberately choose an option with hope of failure. The matte display has been an option since the previous macbook introduction.
Yes, because someone who concluded 18 months ago that "Apple was making one of the finest laptop screens we'd seen for use in a pro digital photography workflow." is bound to be setting Apple up for failure.
Thank you for reaffirming my belief in self-delusional fanboi nature.
Re:TN panels (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (and the article down...)
ALL laptop displays are "unacceptable" for serious graphics work, because they are all TN-type (TN is the thinnest).
TFA even admits that the only recent laptop that had an IPS-type panel, a Lenovo, is discontinued.
Rob should know by now that laptops are not for color critical work. This has been blindingly obvious for years.
Re:IS flamebait because (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh.. it's only a $50 pricing difference if you were already going to buy a $2800 laptop.
If you only need a regular macbook, it's a $1550 option.
(and the more expensive laptop is only 30% faster, so really it doesn't seem like that great of a deal to me.)
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gurch, v. is a made up word.
Pelight, n. is a made up word.
Clunes, n. pl. is a made up word.
Froond v. is a made up word.
Photog is just someone being too lazy to type Photographer and too stupid to think up something like PhotR.
Or SnpR (pronounced Snap-aR - from "snapping a photo").
Neither would be any more needed or valid than photog though.
There is a reason we don't have and use just 4-5 letter words for everything.
Not only is the information in those extra letters important - it is often far more beautiful.
The word "photography" comes from the Greek (phos) "light" + (graphis) "stylus", "paintbrush" or (graphê) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light." Traditionally, the products of photography have been called negatives and photographs, commonly shortened to photos.
The One Who Draws With Light or an ugly "snub-nosed" bitten off newspeak like photog?
Re:So true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or this is a direct attempt to go after what non-aware end users think "looks great!" and not what really is great. Think BOSE. Their speakers are not accurate at all, but they "sound great" to the people who think that the speaker built into their TV sounds good.
Personally I did some research and with with an IPS based 24" screen (HP LP2475w) to replace my crappy old 17" TN panel.
The funny thing was I had been using the crappy old screen for so long that the new screen weirded me out at first.
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the difference is that I travel a lot, and a 17" laptop is bigger than I want. The 17" is also the only model that now has the matte option.
I do like OSX as my primary computing platform, but I have no trouble switching to Linux/BSD.
I also do frequently order refurbed equipment too, though the savings are generally not huge.
And ignoramus rhymes with anonymous... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are these things called syllables [wikipedia.org].
They are the reason why we say "a photo" instead of "a photogr" or "a phot".
Also, note that (for all means and purposes) photo-G is actually a case of ADDING a letter to an existing short word (photo) - not shortening a complex one (Photo-grapher).
While you are pondering on that, take this one home with you as well.
Aeroplanes, from aeras and plane are called planes for short - not aerops or airops.
Humans generally don't like words crashing in the middle of the syllable, you know?
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding the usability of GIMP, I would say that yes, they are geeks living in their parent's basements.
The biggest problem with GIMP is that its developers aren't the intended users. I don't think they "get it."
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now I'm in a market for a 15" MBP to replace a PPC Powerbook but the glossy screen is preventing me from purchasing it.
Why don't you buy the Lenovo recommended in the story & install (a retail copy of) OS X on it? That way you'll have the best of both worlds. Decent hardware & a unixy OS that runs your workflow tools.
Re:Cause... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather sad commentary on the state of things isn't it? But quite a few people wont bat an eye at it, and for some people that's what they're stuck with.
Need this particular piece of hardware, and it's more convenient to get it with this software and then go through the trouble of "downgrading" than it is to find another place offering the hardware without the New and Improved Software(assuming such a place exists).
The article seemed pretty good, I like his writing style and he seems to be very knowledgeable about such things. Shame the summary distorted his views somewhat.
Galbraith is known being a flamer and ignorant (Score:1, Insightful)
Rob Galbraith is the frequent butt of jokes about his ego and mouth- the man considers himself an expert on absolutely everything, loves to declare things horrible/worthless (he declared the Canon Mk3 autofocus to be "useless" as well, and that hasn't stopped news agencies the world-over from making the camera their standard equipment.)
His premise is that the laptop is worthless because of the glossy screen. Well, guess what? It's literally a $30 problem [photodon.com], and there will no doubt be at least a couple companies that produce lightweight fancy hoods that weigh next to nothing and shield the screen from glare for photographers who MUST do image adjustment in the field (which nobody does.)
He speaks as if he's an expert- but check out the qualifications of him and his team [robgalbraith.com]. He's a former photographer for a no-name Canadian paper....eight years ago. His partner shoots horsies for work. A third dude doesn't seem to have any qualifications except for being industrious in writing about photography and a former Nikon lackey. None of them have had showings of note. None of them are retained by any wire services that matter. None of them currently work in the field.
Ever heard about "splitting", where people tend to consider something all good or all bad? Galbraith is an almost pathological splitter, and he's completely ignorant of some solutions to the problem [macobserver.com], if you otherwise like working with, or are required to work with macs/mac software by your company/agency/wire service. It's also a problem solved with about $10 of cardboard or plastic to make a viewing hood, which used to be extremely common back when (GASP!) everyone had "glossy" CRTs.
It also demonstrates how ignorant he is of how "real" professional photographers these days work. The big boys are told to send everything, touch nothing- they're in the business of shooting photos, not editing or adjusting them. Anyone who is anyone has a team of people sitting back at "HQ", with fast machines, professionally calibrated displays in controlled lighting, etc. Nobody (at least nobody doing it for money) does anything beyond rate/categorize images on laptops...which is what he claims the MBP "is only good for."
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
This guy sounds amazing! Why didn't he opt for the matte display if he knows so much?
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod Parent up.
This "story" is a pretty egregious example of the slashdot submitter posting something that's utterly out of sync with the linked article (who I otherwise tend to assume is actually the blog author himself trawling for traffic).
Now, I've been around here long enough not to get all worked up and grumpy: "Jeez, slashdot editors, how about RTFA before you post these things?" Because I know it has always been this way and always Shall Be.
But nowadays, the difference is, there are other places I can go for online news and some of them actually do try to maintain some kind of quality control on submissions.
I'm not gonna disappear. I stopped taking slashdot seriously a long time ago. Now I just come for the women.
But continued relevance is at stake. Jeez, slashdot editors!
Re:In other words... (Score:1, Insightful)
It is because people refuse to stand up for themselves and feel "forced" to comply that you get these crazies that go off about Microsoft forcing people to upgrade to vista over XP etc. You simply aren't forced to do anything, you force yourself to comply. You are allowing them to shape the market through supply rather than through consumer demand.
This is an example of the overall pusification of America. People want the government and corporations to think for them, provide for them, bail them out when they fail.
Anyway
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
windows can, in fact, *select* from pre-made or locally made profiles.
big fat note, though! I once installed the MS windows dual-head (dual LUT) color 'power toy' and that damned thing phoned home each time I booted! I deinstalled it and stopped recommending it.
anyway, you don't *create* profiles in that control panel tab and you don't even need it to select profiles on single display (head) cards.
as to the comment about 'only the fussiest' - that's simply not true anymore. when the pucks came down to the $200 range and less, they became cheap as the cameras themselves and ALL serious amateurs (not to mention pros) use the pucks, now. there's no reason not to - and since lcd's NEED actual local custom measured calibrations more than crt's did - its VERY important you get a local puck-computed data profile. taking one from a manuf just is not even close to getting good true whites and skin tones won't ever look exact if you don't have an 'electric eye' (puck) do the color tweaking on the LUT for you.
trust me, the pucks do a damned good job and they give you a clean output you can trust. everyone who does anything even slightly more advanced than 'A' mode on the camera should consider the puck, even a cheap one. just for the gamma setting, alone, its worth it.
Oh, come on⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
It's industry jargon.
Photographers use the term and understand it.
That would make it a real word, wouldn't it?
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Apple has decided to escape their niche-market image and go for the big money? Somebody at Apple must have decided they'd sell more Macs this way. And somewhere in the decision process somebody mentioned their cadre of graphic artists would be pissed off, but they said, "eh, fuck em" anyway.
Either that or their "green" initiative took precedence, but that's just a guess. I've never understood glossy screens and I'm not even an artist.
Re:TN panels (Score:5, Insightful)
Rob should know by now that laptops are not for color critical work. This has been blindingly obvious for years.
That's not really the point.
The point is a digital photographer has to take something with him/her on the road. So what do you take with you?
Just throwing up your hands and saying "all these panels suck! don't accept any of them!" is not really helpful. Because that's equivalent to saying "you can't work outside the office". And clearly that is not at all true - you can work outside the office, with any laptop. The question is just which laptop works best for this kind of thing?
Ever since I first started reading this site several years ago, there is always a certain group of people that take an absolute all or nothing kind of attitude, which just ends up being defeatist. Because it's not realistic. Nothing is perfect, and if you're going to expect it to be, then you're just not going to be able to work. That's reality.
But people do work, including photographers, and they work just fine even with imperfect equipment. That doesn't mean they don't want the best equipment available, but it does mean most people in the real world are (surprise) realists, and they will use whatever they have to to get their work done.
So yes, we should all be pressing manufacturers for better laptop displays. That doesn't mean displays that currently exist are "unacceptable" for photographic use. The vast majority of digital photos you've ever seen in any professional capacity, be it in a magazine, a newspaper, a book or a web site, were taken by a photographer walking around with both a camera and a laptop. Some of these were probably even viewed on laptops with (gasp) glossy screens. Most of them were no doubt viewed on laptops with TN screens.
So to make this blanket statement that laptops are "not for color critical work" is just not a statement you can make. They may not be ideal, but then nothing ever is. Hell, the cameras photographers use aren't perfect either, they're always a series of compromises. Does that mean every camera in the world is "unacceptable" for taking photographs?
language changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Human languages, living ones at any rate, are constantly changing and acquiring new vocabulary. It's a fact.
Bitching about it is about as effective as you waving your fist at those kids who won't get the hell off your lawn.
Re:IS flamebait because (Score:1, Insightful)
It's true, and it's absolutely necessary. Computer screens are absolutely godawful at reproducing colors. The only thing that saves us is that printers are generally worse.
Adobe RGB can represent about 50% of visible colors, and most monitors have a gamut significantly smaller than ARGB. With printing things can get complicated, depending on whether you're talking about CMYK, Hexachrome, CcMmYK, and/or spot color, but it's a feat of technology any time we can get something printed that looks like the image on the monitor.
Re:So true... (Score:3, Insightful)
The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
All but one of the CRTs that I own (I have about a dozen now) has a screen that's *significantly* less glossy than most (all?) of these glossy laptop screens. The rather reflective CRT is in storage, for when *all* of the other ones fail. (I don't want to see *ME* in the screen, I want to see the video behind my reflection!)
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
While at the same time, the slashdot headline says simply:
If you read the whole quote (not to mention the article), then surely you perceive my issue here.
You've expressed *your* opinion: that the MacBook Pro is not an acceptable choice for a professional photographer. Fine - go write a blog post and get timothy to link it.
But this article - the one slashdot actually liked to - says it *IS* acceptable.
Which is why I think the headline is... well, to put it kindly, a bit off the mark.
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Insightful)
Except matte was the DEFAULT for laptop LCDs until someone had the stupid idea of making the fucking thing shiny and glossy.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
But glossy screens look so pretty on the shelves...!
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Specious. Uniformity across the screen is more important to me than "white pollution" - not a term of art I've ever heard, but I know what you mean.
The detailed reflections on a glossy screen are distracting and really slow me down when working with images in the field (i.e. real world laptop use.) In practice, even in a room with controlled lighting, I can still see my reflected face in the dark areas of images where I'd rather be seeing the image I'm working with.
Gamut doesn't really enter into the glossy vs. matte debate. I only brought up the expanded gamut of the new LG laptop panels with RGB LED backlighting being shipped by Dell and HP as an example of how Apple is failing to deliver a truly premium product for the dollar ask of their latest line of so-called "pro" laptops.
-Isaac
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes, you do. Compared to other European languages, English has extremely low tolerance for polysyllabic words. It considers two syllables a long word, and revels in monosyllabic grunts.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Insightful)
No the grandparent is right. If you put both a screens in a display room, the shiny screen looks nicer. It therefore makes sense to put glossy screens on laptops. When someone else sees your screen, it looks good and they think 'that's a nice laptop, maybe I'll get one like that'. It's only when you try to actually use the machine that the glossy screen is inferior, and by that time you've already given your money to the manufacturer.
I'm glad I got my MBP before Apple's hardware team went crazy. The latest models are so far from being a compelling upgrade that I'd rather ditch OS X than buy a new Mac at the moment.
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Also if he's so smart why is he trying to do his colour correction in ANY ambient light, instead of under a hood like the real professional photographers do.
He's a vampire (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains BOTH sights (on matte and glossy screen)
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that's an absurdly high margin, Apple isn't a charity - nor is any other computer manufacturer, for that matter. Regardless of what it costs, you're either willing or not willing to pay the premium that they're asking (welcome to the free market, enjoy your stay).
Re:Where is the "mark for deletion" button? (Score:3, Insightful)
It can get away with it because it has a larger repertoire of sounds than many languages (compare Italian, for example). With more phonemes to work with, the number of distinct monosyllabic combinations is greater. We also use strings of consonants in English that many languages would not permit. Consider a word like "sprints": it's one syllable, but has seven phonemes. In other words, yes we have monosyllables, but they are not "grunts," they are systematically distinct words.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely love my S-PVA Dell 2408WFP [dell.com]. A touch expensive for a 24", but they go on sale often. I got it for $599 CDN.. I've since seen it for $549 CDN, very reasonable considering after you see one, you will never want to look at TN display again.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:4, Insightful)
Dell, HP, Lenovo(IBM) they all do it.
If you have an enterprise agreement, you get all the flexibility in configuration you want, but if you are an end user, you're kind of screwed. You buy a Dell Latitude C620 with 2GB of RAM and want to put in another 2GB, and find out you have two 1GB DIMMS installed, and so can only go to 3GB. Shit like this happens all the time with laptops. Apple's doing nothing new or different.
Um... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps because he wants to work, as opposed to fuck around with computers in crassly unsupported configurations that might not work?
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's a laptop screen, and not a regular monitor? When was the last time you've seen someone use a hood on a laptop? (yes, I know they exist, but they aren't common)