The next question is "When will the iMac be available with a glossy screen?"

I've used a friend's glossy Macbook Pro once and I have to say I did like it. I went with matte for my own Macbook Pro for 2 reasons:

1) While the high-contrast Glossy may make photos LOOK better, it makes color-correcting them a bit tougher since it forces me to guess how much contrast is in the photo and how much is due to the screen itself.

2) The viewing angle is narrower on the glossy screen which means that people working on a project with me can see my screen a lot better when they're sitting next to me. It's a small thing, but it comes up a lot for me.

I have to admit, though...the glossy is a lot easier to see outside in the sun! There are definitely "pros" to each choice.

Fire up the spiderman demo side by side.
Load the FinalCut/iMovie demo side by side.
Play chess side by side.

Whatever you would normally do, side by side.

I went with glossy and will not go back. Whats amazing is how much better Apple's glossy screen is compared to those on other laptops. I'm not sure how they managed to reduce glare AND be glossy, but they did. And of course the contrast and saturation is hard to resist. People are constantly stopping and commenting on the screen. But as has already been said, its a personal choice. Obviously no one thing will ever satisfy 100% of the people.

There seems to be much hatred in the elitest graphic design community, but I get the sense alot of that simply has to do with the fact that glossy screens became established in the consumer market first. That makes it's impossible to support them while remaining "elite." But of course the reality is that most professional print is glossy and more and more people will be using glossy displays. So the glossy screen is destined to become part of the designer's toolkit. Just another type of display to test your images on.

This wouldn't be an issue if the display were hardware calibrated--that is the only reliable way to color correct photos, in truth; on a non-calibrated display, you are always just making your best guess. Get your self a colorimeter and calibrate that puppy. Pantone makes one called the Huey that is very affordable.

You're comparing not glossy to matte screens, but a professional quality lcd panel with brighter backlight to a consumer grade lcd panel. Glossy or matte is besides the point until you start comparing apples and apples.

Right now I have both matte and glossy MacBook pros in my office, and a MacBook. The MacBook's screen is TERRIBLE!! The MacBook Pro's glossy screen is WONDERFUL. So I attest, your comparison is moot.

I just switched to the glossy screen for my MacBook Pro, and taking it outside was a dream come true. Even when the sun is hitting the screen directly, it is perfectly readable. The matte screen in the same situation is unreadable.

If you want actual photos or anything, feel free to ask through my contact page: www.godsipod.com

Quote

Guest wrote:
This wouldn't be an issue if the display were hardware calibrated--that is the only reliable way to color correct photos, in truth; on a non-calibrated display, you are always just making your best guess. Get your self a colorimeter and calibrate that puppy. Pantone makes one called the Huey that is very affordable.

But the contrast on the glossy screen changes depending on the angle of the screen. That's true with any LCD but it's exagerated with the glossy screen.

So it doesn't matter if the screen is calibrated, moving the computer 5 degrees is a much bigger change than the same movement of a matte screen.

I do agree with the sunlight comments, that's the thing I miss the most with my choice.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This wouldn't be an issue if the display were hardware calibrated--that is the only reliable way to color correct photos, in truth; on a non-calibrated display, you are always just making your best guess. Get your self a colorimeter and calibrate that puppy. Pantone makes one called the Huey that is very affordable.

My 12" PowerBook screen is okay. Obviously it's matte. It's not quite as finicky as the MacBook/Pro's glossy when it comes to viewing angle (a friend has the glossy Pro), but the glossy does much more closely resemble my calibrated CRT on the desktop. Drag a photo across screens between the PowerBook and the CRT and you honestly have to consciously remind yourself that the CRT is more accurate, as it's so different that you can't help but wonder. That's with both screens calibrated by the same Gretag device.

Also, I take my PB to consultations with prospective clients. It works well, but the glossy screen would have MUCH greater impact when showing off my photos.

As for the glossiness of the iMac screen, I know a guy who cut a piece of framing glass to slip into the inset iMac screen frame. While not a true glossy appearance it is an interesting effect. Photos do pop a bit more. Not very portable; in fact if you put the screen truly vertical the glass will fall out. But I like it enough to want a real glossy iMac display.

I'd also love a secondary display that coordinates in appearance with the iMac, both in image quality (precisely the same quality), and in aesthetic quality.


- Jon

Thanks for the comparison. I'm not a photographer, so precise color accuracy doesn't really matter, and I don't work in groups, so viewing angle isn't an issue for me. So glossy seems fine, based on what I've seen at my local Apple Store. Good thing, too, because that means I can get a MacBook instead of a MBPro, and save a few hundred dollars.

Here's a tip if you're working outdoors, although I haven't tried it with a glossy screen: sometimes you can see better if you go the Universal Access system preference and reverse the screen colors, so black is white, white is black, etc. Kinda like a Rumsfeld press briefing.

after having had a g4 with Matte, I went for the macbook pro with glossy on the advice of supposed "videophiles"

result: You have to be nuts to want the glossy screen. What is the point with having (a near indistinguishable) richness in blacks in exchange for a nearly unreadable reflective screen indoors.

Glossy is pointless. What you lose in reflection far outweighs any benefit (which I have NOT seen side by side with both machines). If you plant to USE your computer glossy makes it annoying. If you want to use it as a TV well, get yourself a darned TV. I already have a nice external monitor that is much bigger. Get a life and watch your movies on an external source.

As a pro graphics communicator, I find that the colours on 'glossy' MacBook/MacBook Pro screens to be too oversaturated. The experience is lke looking at photos in Windows XP. I much prefer that more natural appearance of colours on the non-glossy screens. Sorry. I think that too many people are getting sucked into this 'marketing machine' and are trying to justify their purchase of a slick, shiney new unit. Emporer's new clothes, I say.

Glad I checked out this thread. I was ready to buy a MBP with non-glossy screen, but after reading the posts where even people who were doing color correcting liked the glossy screen better...well, whose doing color correction on an LCD screen anyway? Definitely not a good idea, glossy or no. OTOH, all those raving about using the screen in sunlight, now that's an advantage I can get hold of.

Thanks for helping me make my decision.

I'm using my new glossy Macbook for the first time out of doors and compared to my iBook it's brilliant. I can read my iBook screen outside but it looks dull and takes effort to read, whereas the glossy screen of the Macbook is so, so easy to read. I've used pc's in the past and never found one that was good to use outdoors on a sunny day either, so needless to say I'm delighted with my Macbook. I have the screen tilted so that the sun's glare isn't falling on it and the text is crisp and clear and very black. The contrast between the white page background and black text is exactly right. So, if working outside is important to you, I'd definitely go for glossy.

The bickering over glossy versus matte shows radical lack of understanding about how displays work.

A matte finish on a displays surface works as a diffusion coating. It breaks up light rays that would otherwise produce reflections. Likewise, it _must_ break up the image coming through from the LCD. Imagine a piece of wax paper held away from a printed page as opposed to held right up next to it. You can read the page when the paper is up against it.

It is no accident that professional optics -- like lenses in cameras -- use special coatings to minimize internal reflections. BUT a matte finish on a lens? It would be a disaster.

For years with CRTs, we had glossy surfaces. The way manufacturers combated reflections was by making the face flatter.

As for color correction and checking, many clearly just do not know what they are talking about:

1. If you are trying to color correct by a window or skylight (or outside), you're not color correcting.

2. There is NO difference in the problem of color correcting with respect to glossy versus matte. If you are going to color correct, you MUST color calibrate your display. Once calibrated, you can use either glossy or matte. If you do not, forget about getting results that match prints.

In principle, for professional work, a glossy display should be better. And Apple has a great track record of producing some of the best displays on the market.

There is no doubt that the glossy screens on the latest iMacs suffer greatly from reflections in all but very dimly lit rooms. As far as I am concerned, I will not buy a mac with a glossy screen for design work, I will stick with my semi-matte Formac display.

But why, oh why are the reflections on glossy screens significantly reduced through the use of coatings. Good camera lenses and filters are all multicoated, as are spectacle lenses. Why doesn't Apple give the best of all worlds by multi-coating their glossy screens?