Glossy or not?

Well, judging from your other posts, probably a moot point now...

Most people prefer glossy that I have found, colors look a bit richer and deeper. The Matte tend to be a bit more accurate though in my experience, so for people working in a visual profession the matte is probably a better bet.

Seablade

Who has a matte.

The glossy screens do not calibrate worth a flip. The colors are to saturated, to many ambient reflections. Matte is much much better for accuracy and realism of color recreation and depth.

You know, maxrule -- interesting that you say that. I was just having a conversation with my husband about the matte screen on my 15 in. MBP (LED) ... I do like the colors, but I'm thinking I would opt for a glossy next time around. I see what looks like a "screen texture" with this display ... hard to explain, but it looks like there is a very fine mosquito net over it. Didn't really notice it til I started playing more with Photoshop / Lightroom. But, I trust your judgement when it comes to photography, so maybe you just saved me some $$$.

(of course, I'm thinking a 17" MBP and a nice MBA for travel would be a pretty sweet combo)

I love how people complain that the glossy screens are crap for colour when CRT screens—still the absolute standard for colour accuracy—are glossy.

Glossy screens should give you more accurate colour by default because they're not scattering light every which way to Sunday through a matte coating.

It is much more calibrating the screen that is necessary, and maintaining color accuracy. The glossy screens tend to enhance specific tones to give a more vibrant experience, at least to me. Calibrating them is a high priority for any artist that works in the print field however.

Seablade

aren't matte screens just glossy screens with an anti-glare coating added?

Yes they are.

While that is true for CRTs, and other naturally glossy materials, I am not sure exactly how true that holds up for LCDs.

However I would have to find a nice detailed article on LCD construction to prove or disprove that.

Seablade

Please show a serious photographer that uses a glossy screen.....

I have calibrated many screens for myself and dozens of clients and I have yet to find a glossy coated screen that caligrates correcty. I have more money tied up in color calibration equipment for monitors and printers than I do computers and I have a LOT of computer equipment.

Glossy LCD screens are crap to accurate color rendering for photography work, period.

I bought a MBA and tried calivrating it and using it inthe field when i am out shooting, the colors are not accurate by any means and the gloss finish tryignt o use outside was a joke. I have the new 2.6 17" LED High Def screen MBP and a 15" LCD matte finish MBP. I have not noticed a texture so to speak on them. Have you looked at a Apple store to see if you notice it on other MBP's? I am wondering if it specific to your MBP?

Thanks for the comments Shazza.

Oh crud Shazza I missed your post, I could have explained what you are seeing. Sadly it exists in the glossy version as well, primarily on the 15" MBPs I believe, the 17" I can't remember if they are effected.

Basically, Apple went with a cheap LCD on the MacBook Pros, and uses dithering to obtain their marketing claim of 'millions of colors'. There was a lawsuit filed, attempted(And failed I believe) to get class action status over this, and settled recently out of court.

Instead of using a true 24bit display(8 Bit per color) they went with a cheaper 18 bit (6-bit per color) display and are using software dithering to artifically enhance the colors.

That is what most people are seeing in recent when they describe a texture on their screen. It exists on all screen to my knowledge in the 15" MBP, glossy or matte, just the glossy seems to do a better job of hiding it. Rumor on it is that the glossy screen is a glossy coating over the regular anti-glare coating, but I don't believe that has ever been confirmed.

Sources for reading pleasure:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...k-pro-displays
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-displays.html

A quick google will turn up much more, including one just recently filed in the same domain about the lower end iMac displays(Not the 24" but the smaller ones)

There is a reason I have external displays set up, though I am not as picky as maxrule is I don't believe. I don't make money off my photography and mine all stays digital for website design and similar, so I am not as strongly affected by it, due to the fact that many displays fall under the same problem.

Seablade

I definitely do most of my editing on external LCD's. But in a crunch in the field i have to rely on my laptop LCD.

Every photographer who has ever used a CRT screen?


I don't know what to tell you there. There should be no reason that a glossy screen can't calibrate the same as a matte one.

Ok Kakaze do I really need to point these out?

1. He was referring to glossy LCDs, even though he did not mention it.
2. There is a fundamental difference in how colors and contrast is produced on a CRT that makes it much more accurate in general than any LCD. The catch is that because of the cathode ray it is much larger as well, and is in no way whatsoever feasible on a laptop.

My suspicion comes to the differences in how light travels through a glossy coating and a matte coating. Not to say that glossy CAN'T be calibrated(I do know a few professional photographers that use glossy, but they are vastly outnumbered by the matte in my experience, and it may have been a factor of not having a choice on the computer at the time), just that there is a difference in how light travels through it. This, by the way, is completely not in reference to CRTs as well.

Seablade

From my personal experience. I like Glossy.
Images seem to be more lifelike.
:-)

H

As Seablade has mentioned, I am talking new technology (LCD). Anyone who knows anything about color accuracy knows CRT's are better, but not to many CRT's around anymore and if you find some they are expensive and take up a lot of room. CRT's is a totally different technology than LCD's as you might know and the glossy finish is totally different.

There are reasons a glossy LCD doesnt calibrate down as accurate as a matte finish, but you seem to be set in your ways and beliefs and frankly not worth my time arguing over with you. So believe whatever you want to believe.

It will all depend on your personal level of accuracy and detail you need in your final output for the image.

Interesting conversation so far ...

I did see something about the lawsuit, but didn't pay much attention to it. Have to agree, from what I've read - most serious photographers / graphic artists prefer matte. I'm not in that camp (the serious part), so can probably go with what strikes my fancy.

Since I have a nice display on the desktop, the notebook is not used for any serious editing (actually, I don't do any serious photography ... just starting to have some more fun with it as a hobby).

I will take the advice and stop by the local Apple Store to make sure what I'm seeing is normal. (I got new glasses, so chances are I'm just seeing better!). I do love my MBP 15" er, and imagine I won't bother upgrading til the next models come out - but I do have a 320GB HD on order, along with a 4GB RAM kit! I will look seriously at the 17" models next time, thanks to the other info I've picked up here.