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.'"
Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's this gem:
From earlier:
Basically, if you hate glossy screens, and it would appear these individuals do, the glossy can be a deal-breaker. Which anyone with half a brain could have told you without the trollish tone
FWIW, the 17-inch MBP comes with a matte-screen option. Time will tell if such an option trickles back down to the 15".
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a photographer or a graphic professional, and I think the glossy sucks...
I'm on my 3rd mac laptop as my primary computer, and because of the glossy, I seriously doubt i will ever buy another one. Too bad, because I love them..
Re:Hello Captain Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Something to add is that the old glossy screens were less glossy than the new ones. They had a stronger optical multicoating that allowed a smooth surface not reflect as much as it would have without the coating.
Re:CRT (Score:3, Interesting)
no, I know of no one in the photo world (I'm including myself) who uses crt's anymore.
GOOD lcd's (sips and often pmva) are very good and when calibrated, they are fully functional for photo work. pro photo work.
5 yrs ago it was true. now, no one cares about crt anymore. they are ready to die. let them.
Re:Darn Straight (Score:3, Interesting)
What's annoying is that the typical "matte" option is also crappy...
I think the sort of "dully glossy" surface that seemed to be the default in the days before the stupid glossy/matte split, was much nicer than either.
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy is a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean he knows how to use a computer. For all I know he didn't go to System Prefs and calibrate the thing.
Did you RTFA? Did you look at the website it was on? The guy is clearly into digital photography and clearly knows a thing or two about graphic design and web design. Just look at the layout and photos for TFA! Galbraith obviously knows his stuff.
BTW-- do you know how many professional digital photographers I know? Quite a few. Most of them are, out of necessity, expert users of computer technology. Several even know how to code.
Who do you think writes all those open source photo manipulation tools like The GIMP and Krita? Geeks living in their parents' basements?
Get a grip.
TN panels (Score:5, Interesting)
Have bad angles and limited colors. They all suck, some more or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#TN [wikipedia.org]
And they are used in virtually all laptops.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi. I am an Apple apologist and I despise the glossy screens.
They're fine on low-end laptops and 20" iMacs. If you're a pro photographer or a serious graphic artist you should probably stay away from such consumer-level hardware. These glossy abominations have no business being on MacBook Pros or LED Cinema Displays. Some of us have invested lots of money into color calibration devices and don't want this trendy bullshit ruining the color correction workflow that has worked for so long.
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. For starters, glossy screens are unusable in a properly illuminated room with unequal multiple light sources. Its even worse outside on a sunny day.
I wonder if Apple had realized they fucked up and offered the 17" model with an optional matte display? If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?
Re:Matte display readily available (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm posting from a MacBook Pro with a matte display, bought last November.
I compared the glossy and the matte laptops side by side in an Apple store. (They were the same price I believe, but obviously if buying a MacBook Pro price isn't my biggest concern.) With the matte laptop, I saw a crisp screen with vibrant colors. With the glossy laptop, I saw my dad and the sales guy reflected in the glass.
As I said, I'm posting on a matte display version.
I hate the glossy displays (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what I've found. The casual user that buys a MacBook* for general computer use love the glossy screen. They think it looks sharper, brighter, and clearer. And they maybe right. But anyone that is using a MacBook* for professional use, programming or photo/video, hates glossy screens myself included. It's the secondary reason I keep holding onto this 12.1 PowerBook. (Primary reason being it's 12.1" and fits perfectly on an airplane tray table, even on Southwest's economy class).
Maybe MacMall has a left over 15" from the previous model that still has a matte screen.
Re:So true... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually glossy is a superior technology for imaging hobbled by having only 8bits per color channel. Similar problems have arisen with wide-gamut displays. 8bit precision means fairly coarse steps between shades as the range of reproducible colors (gamut) increases. Glossy screens have better color gamut because environmental light contributes less "white pollution" because most sources are reflected away, not toward the viewer. Using a matte screen is more like looking through a layer of milk. Your mind's eye sees around the matte effect because of its uniformity across the screen, whereas residual reflections are distinctly localized in the glossy case.
Now people doing press work actually cannot use the expanded gamut of the glossy screen--because paper is a limited medium. Therefore, given the bit-depths available, they prefer the more limited reproduction of a matte screen.
To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other words... (Score:1, Interesting)
No... the only model that you can get matte on still is the 17" macbook pro.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:2, Interesting)
If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?
Because the idiots who buy Macbooks and Macbook Pros for reasons that lie wholly outside of the machines' performance/capability in the professional and enthusiast sectors think, "WOW that GLOSSY one is SO CLEAR! It'll work GREAT ALL THE TIME," ...and then proceed to [figuratively] bolt it to a desk, never realizing, as those of us who've bought laptops for their designed purpose--portability--that a glossy LCD on a laptop was the brainchild of an asshole out to further promote the idiotic notion that everyone needs a laptop, rather than a desktop computer.
/rant.
Further, it doesn't help that the dicks in the marketing department at Apple can't seem to figure out how to market a proper desktop computer for under $2000, driving those that require a desktop to instead buy a laptop... which means they'll want a glossy display. Apple deserves no apology.
I own the previous gen Macbook Pro, and I got a matte display because I don't hate myself.
Lastly,
Re:TN panels (Score:1, Interesting)
When the client, art directors, and PR agents are on the set, they're not going to crowd behind a tiny 3" screen on the back of the camera to see the composition, but they'll settle for the next best thing next to a full fledged graphics workstation to see if the colors, styling, and composition is close to their specifications - the purpose of the laptop is to provide an accurate PREVIEW.
Nor will a photojournalist haul a heavy laptop on the field hindering his mobility. But he will get the best compromise so he can edit and color balance the photo for transmission, ready for print for newspapers or magazines (which have higher tolerance for inaccuracies due to understandable short deadlines); just the same way PJs are not going to go on a war zone with a 4x5 field camera with a digital scanning back. PJ images tend to be printed on cheap crappy paper where 200dpi is enough resolution.
Re:So true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Glossy is a bug, not a feature.
It's not quite that simple, but it's really more of a trade-off. Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much. And don't think that just because matte is scattering light that it's not reflecting light, or that ambient light can't mess with your colors on a matte screen. In some environments, a glossy screen can actually help to reduce the amount of ambient light reflected from the screen to your eyes.
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060923202508AAKhUd3 [yahoo.com]
Re:CRT (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a full-time professional photographer [k-gallery.com], and use CRTs for color work. LCDs are overly sharp and overly contrasty. Your work looks good on an LCD, but then you see it in print and it's soft and flat. Using a CRT (properly calibrated...I use a Getag MacBeth Eye-One Pro) means your images will look in print much more like they do on the monitor.
Perspective. (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever anyone complains about the state of the art for either audio or photography applications, my eyes glaze over. I would ask Rob if he would like to return to his Beseler, dialing in filters, or even, sandwiching filters. But then, I doubt he is old enough to remember the bad old days of sheet filters, and the good old days of Beseler heads. On the other hand I honestly believe I miss Kodachrome. Put in the proper perspective, matte display, glossy display, 16 bit audio, 24 bit audio, get real. It's a tempest in a teapot.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indoors, on a desktop panel, for graphics purposes, sure. You'd ideally like the panel to be consistently washed out even if it is slightly washed out. In terms of general usability of a laptop, and particularly for use outdoors, though, I couldn't disagree more. I've used Macs for many years, and recently got a MacBook. I tried both screens and concluded that the glossy screen worked much, much better for me than the matte display when used outdoors, so long as the sun is not directly behind me (at which point it is blinding, of course).
With matte displays, any significant source of light behind me resulted in poor contrast across the entire panel because of the diffuse reflection off the mate screen, to such a degree that I found the matte displays to be very difficult to use outdoors (without a sun hood) except on the darkest, cloudiest days. With the glossy display, by contrast, light and dark areas behind me remain in sharp focus, so I can more easily ignore them; I can always move around to see the portions of the screen I need to see if some part is obscured by a light source. WIth a matte screen, no amount f moving will make the glare go away. I still sometimes use a sun hood, but at least now it is about making me more comfortable rather than being a necessity to be able to make out anything at all. :-)
I'm not going to disagree with complaints about the color reproduction, though. I've never seen an LCD panel in my life from any manufacturer where certain gradients didn't look like absolute excrement, and that's almost bordering on cruelty to the excrement. I'm sure there are some panels that are good, but I certainly haven't seen them. At this point, I'm convinced that the panel manufacturers aren't even trying anymore. Color accuracy hasn't improved significantly in five or six years, and in most cases, has actually gotten worse over that time period.
I blame the panel manufacturers for focusing so heavily on the mass market by constantly trying to make screens brighter. Every time the screens get brighter and increase in contrast ratio, they seem to consistently do so at a cost to the accuracy of their color reproduction. Most consumers, however, seem to care more about brightness than accuracy, and outside of the graphics world, I can see how that would be more useful in many cases. That said, IMHO we've reached a point where the brightness of most modern panels is basically sufficient for most purposes, so I think it's time for the panel manufacturers to take a step back and start working to fix the color accuracy of modern panels.
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NOT flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
I introduced my wife to The GIMP for Windows after she realized her ancient copy of Photoshop was falling short of her needs (yet didn't justify the price tag of an updated version). I really expected a lot of grumbling about The GIMP's interface. I like it. But with all the grumbling the interface gets when someone just mentions "gimp" on /., I expected I'd be hearing it at home too. I was wrong.
Her initial reaction WAS a "woah" of surprise. Lots of windows opening up were a bit daunting at first. But it didn't take her long to get a hang of what's going on. I asked her just now how she's getting along. She's doing fine. "What about the crazy interface?" I ask. "It's more or less like Photoshop - everythings kind of where it would be if it was in a single window. No big deal."
So meh. To each their own. I understand there's folks who just don't like it (witness GimpShop). You get used to a tool you know and its a pain to be handed something alien to what you're used to. But that doesn't mean said tool is without merit.
Of course - this is all old hat. It's been said before. It'll come up again.
Re:So true... (Score:4, Interesting)
To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
*Very* historically. Then in the early 90's every CRT manufacturer started adding anti-glare coatings as standard on CRT's. Even an Eizo, Radius, et. al.
Do you remember those horrendous Kensington Glare Guards everybody had taped/velcro'ed to their CRT's in the 80's so they could work under fluorescent lighting without getting migraines? Apple apparently doesn't (or they just said 'screw it' and went for the bling factor at Best Buy to improve their short-term bottom line).
I see the secondary market is already coming up with various films to address the issue, but quality has to suffer; nothing is as good as factory-applied coatings.
Somebody clever will start offering a mail-in service for people to get eyeglass-quality anti-glare coatings applied to their Macbooks. It's not going to be cheap as a retrofit, though.
Re:Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
A popular apology being offered here and elsewhere but not true. The display option is described by Apple as an "optional antiglare display". It is not matte but a glossy screen with a coating applied and the bezel replaced with the older style aluminum one.
Except... that's all matte displays have ever been. That's why glossy displays have more accurate colour reproduction (while you can see them), and are brighter â"Âthey don't have a filter sat in front of them absorbing and scattering some of the light.
Re:Okay, fanboys... (Score:5, Interesting)
It figures that the rare time that I actually have mod points intersects with the need to say something. I am a graphics professional who just purchased the late-model MacBook Pro when it first came out, so I fit the theoretical profile pretty well. Although I do retouch as part of daily workflow and occasional freelance, I'm not a high-end retoucher; my meat-and-potatoes comes from InDesign/Illustrator/Office (shudder).
No graphic artist in their right mind who uses a screen all day long would get a glossy one voluntarily, and that plus the previously discussed Firewire rationing gave me some headaches in decision-making. I remember struggling with glossy CRTs very well (custom films and covers, anyone?) and knew exactly what I was getting. In some ways, the result has been exactly what you'd think it would be: tilting the damn thing forward and back, turning off lights, looking for seats in cafes at 90 degrees to windows, wiping off the more-obvious keyboard artifacts of my (apparently very oily) fingers with the provided rag, etc.
On the other hand, I love it. Once the concessions are made and it's set up in the right environment, it's the sharpest, brightest laptop screen I've ever used. (This is my third Mac laptop). I pulled two 12+ hour days over the weekend making the fussiest kind of pixel and point tweaking, with _no_ significant eye strain. Everything is razor-sharp compared to my previous Powerbook, which is a real boon to older eyes.
I understand Mr. Galbraith's concerns as a photographer, but as a "regular" graphics person, even though I find the screen somewhat annoying I am usually am working in environments where the glare can be minimized and its other qualities (brightness, sharpness) outweigh the problem. The model's other features (rigidity, magnetic clasp, trackpad scroll options and gestures) make it my favorite laptop ever (knock on... glass).
Re:Macbook pro 17" (Score:2, Interesting)
The price difference is no doubt for two reasons. One - having a premium price on it makes it easier to predict sales. If they were identically priced, who knows how many of each you'd need, but like the Black Macbooks making it more expensive helps ensure that you don't make less of something and then sell too much of it. A corollary to that is they probably do cost more, since they buy less from the company that makes them.