Will this help the "Glossy Screen" problems?

[Xairbusdriver]

Leaks about Snow Leopard are starting to include things like a pure® Cocoa Finder, one of the remaining Carbon apps still in OS X. But I noticed that there was a mention of the gamma settings going to the 'standard' PC setting of 2.2 versus the 'standard' Mac setting of 1.8. This basically makes the screen a little less bright. Just wondering if this is to compensate for the complaints about the new screens (glossy or not) being much brighter, whether LCD or fluorescent backlit. That brightness has been used a selling point by some. And some even say they aren't bothered by the reflections of the glossy screen because it is so bright it shines through so well.

BTW, now, there are complaints about the shiny glass surrounding the screen, since it does not have any 'image' behind it! I swear, some of these people would complain if you hung them with a new rope!

[iGuy]

The glossy screen on my new iMac is fine.  I understand why some wouldn't like it.  I have no problems with the screen.

[Paddy]

Great info/discussion here:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02/14/th...r-mac-on-drugs/

More discussion: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00GkLw

I have had my monitor set to 2.2 since I got it. Can't remember what the old LaCie was set to...I'd done a custom calibration and saved it - but interestingly, when I switched to the sRGB one recommended in Chris MacAskill, I didn't see any difference. However, I intend to do some testing with my printer - I may have had a mismatch in the color profiles there.

[Mayo]

The reflections are only part of the problem.  The new displays are too bright and over-saturated. I have read reports that they cannot be properly calibrated even when using the current state of-the-art hardware tools. The built-in brightness adjustment barely makes a dent; SuperCal or Shades can be used to dial-down the brightness to an acceptable level. Changing the gamma to 2.2 isn't going to affect the basic shortcomings of the new displays. In fact, switching to 2.2 gamma is already SOP among many pros when calibrating Mac monitors.

The display profiles that ship with Macs are OK, but even an inexpensive software calibration solution like SuperCal will improve things immensely. You can create profiles for different work environments.

The glossy displays are likely OK for casual users. You are fortunate if the displays do not cause you any problems.  But people who are sensitive to the reflections/brightness or who spend many hours doing detailed work or are trying to get a close match color and saturation-wise when printing and doing pre-press work are not happy with the lack of options Apple is giving them.

[Paddy]

Agreed - but this only truly becomes an issue if Apple makes the mistake of bringing out glossy monitors. Most professional photographers and graphics pros probably don't rely on iMacs and certainly don't use laptops for color-critical work, whether they have matte or glossy screens. I'd find it hard to believe that Apple would be that stupid, given the howls of unhappiness we've already seen, but time will tell.

[krissel]

Hey guys, I have the solution at hand....



...just stay up and do all your computing while the sun is gone. One little ambient 7w fluorescent to the side is all I need.

Oh, and don't wear light colored clothing.

[Mayo]

Some pros and certainly a lot semi-pros just starting out use iMacs; not everyone can afford a Mac Pro and ACD, much less an Eizo display. (Dell LCD displays are popular among Mac users for a reason: they are relatively cheap and some models are pretty decent.) It is increasingly common for people to use a MacBook or MacBook Pro as their only computer, adding an external display when working at home. And while no one in their right mind would claim to be able to accomplish critical color work on a portable Mac with a 6-bit display, many photographers do use portable Macs for tethered shooting as well as initial editing and post-processing while on location. Photojournalists generally don't have the luxury of returning home before editing and transmitting their work. It is usually not possible to alter one's work-space to accommodate a highly-reflective display.  I've even read complaints from audio and stage lighting pros that use portable Macs in performance settings who have found the glossy screens to be difficult to use under typical lighting conditions.

[Paddy]

I haven't seen as many complaints about the glossy iMac screens (which have been out for over a year now) as I have about the MacBook Pros - perhaps because it's easier to control the lighting when the Mac is always in the same environment - in theory, anyway. Also, the new MBP is from all reports much MORE reflective than the older glossy MBP, which people seemed evenly divided on, which was fine since they had a choice. Now there is no choice - and you're right, there are some instances where a portable is the only way to go and being stuck with the glossy MBP is not good. Although I haven't done any side-by-side comparisons, I've also read that the MBP is even more reflective than the glossy screens on a lot of PCs, although this is anecdotal. There are very, very few PC laptops out there these days with matte screens. Rumor has it that some Lenovo and Dell business laptops have matte screens. (they don't SAY which they are on the Lenova site however...)

Later: just dropped in on my local Future Shop (Canadian big box retailer) and had a look at the new MacBook side by side with the older model, and the new glossy screen does seem very slightly more reflective than the old. Oddly, brightness seemed about the same - and yes, I did fiddle with the controls.

There wasn't a SINGLE non-glossy laptop for sale there (except for the last model of MacBook Pro) - and they had lots, all different brands.

[Xairbusdriver]

Macs have had the ability, even is somewhat unscientific, to have as many 'screen' profiles as one might desire. Simply use the Display Control Panel (OS9) or the Display pref panel in X. There is an "advanced" checkbox on the first screen but I always used that, so I don't know what you miss if it's unchecked! It's a very subjective process using the 'sit far from the screen or squint' methodology (well know to those who often sit on the back row!). But it does much more than the overly simple "brightness" slider. The next to the last screen allows one to set the gamma. 1.8 is (currently) labeled as "Mac" while 2.2 is shown as PC. What is/would be new is that gamma would become the Mac 'standard.' Apparently some apps change that or expect the number to be 1.8. Those that change it should but may not return the value to whatever it was before their usage. Those that expect one thing should remember Apple builds the boat, so don't expect to always have a 'portal!'

I think it is apparent that Apple expects 'professional' to use 'professional' color monitors and that requires a desktop and an indoor room, preferably with controllable/adjustable lighting. I wouldn't think anyone would confuse an iMac as a 'professional' color manipulation machine. If one must use a laptop, the pro models still are not made, exclusively, for those working in photography, much less color, IMHO. Checking for fine focus is one reason I've heard photogs complaining about the new portable's screens making things harder. How does one check for focus with a device limited to >150 dpi?! Obviously, I no not of what I speak but that's hardly ever stopped me before!

[Mayo]

I have always used Apple's calibration utility with very good results, but try as I might I could not get even acceptable results when I attempted to calibrate my 24" matte screen iMac. One problem was that I could not adequately dial-down the brightness of the display... Fortunately, I stumbled upon SuperCal. It functions much like Apple's calibration software but it has more adjustments and it worked great.

SuperCal costs $19 but it is old fashion shareware in that you can use it without limitations before registering it.

[Xairbusdriver]

Perhaps another reason for the switch to the higher gamma/lower brightness is the complaints sometimes heard by Mac users that their images look too dark on a PC. OTOH, that would imply that His Steveness actually listens to user complaints...

[Mayo]

Switching to 2.2 improves the appearance of my display and also makes it a lot easier to match output to my inkjet printer.

[Xairbusdriver]

I would imagine almost anything to darken a screen would be easier to replicate with ink. The two mediums are dependent on two opposite ways of 'showing' color. The print is dependent on the proper paper and ink, as well as the quality (color and intensity) of the light the light in front of it. The screen is still of dependent on all those qualities but is transmitting light rather than hoping on having enough reflected[/].

I can see how it is very important to get WYSIWYG when doing all the work oneself. But I assumed (my bad, I know!) that there were sufficient tools for the professionals to control that. I thought that was what the monitor 'calibration' and ICC printer profiles were for. Frankly, I'd hate to have to have any print exactly match what's seen on any monitor. I suspected that professionals simply made their choices, knew what a particular printer/ink combination would do with whatever the screen displayed. That would require the most exacting tools he could afford but would still need lots of experience. It's that "experience" that I think makes anyone a real "professional," no matter what they are actually doing.

I think Apple made 'desktop' printing much simpler than what was available at the time the Mac came out (at least when they got color!). And, just like "Write" made many think they were 'writers,' digital cameras, a color monitor and printer made many think they were 'Photographers.' Maybe I'm just being naivé, but I don't think Apple is as dependent on professional photographers as the members of that group might want to think. I suspect that there may be many more professional photographers around because of tools that became available because of Apple than there would have been without it. But Apple's core base is still the "consumer." That consumer wants the brightest, sharpest looking monitor possible. Period.

There is a similar situation in the current TV conversion to digital situation. The money rules what the decision makers decide. Digital means more channels, more channels mean more money, more money means more profit. And that makes even more available for lobbyists! That leaves the smaller users at quite a disadvantage. Wireless microphones are not even considered a 'consumer' of the radio spectrum according to the FCC rule makers. This will affect a diverse number of institutions from museums, schools, churches and especially entertainment.

All I am saying is that I know what it feels like to be a 'minority.' I'm a Mac user, after all! But we must seek new ways to use the tools we have, help develop tools that we need or make other changes. That's what one candidate is proposing as a 'solution,' anyway! Complaining about what we have lost usually doesn't help unless you have some real financial power!