Glossy : I want someone to explain to me.

[/V\acpower]

Ok, lots of peoples freaks out about glossy screen, and the MAIN thing that always comes out is that it "changes" color accuracy.

But, what does make color on a glossy screen innacurate compared to a matte screen since the last one add a "filter" on the screen that affect light who passes through it ?

In other word, what in the process of passing trought a clear glass makes color "less accurate" ? (since it IS clear glass....just like my glasses.)

[FrankieTDouglas]

For starters, things that are glossy reflect light. This means in addition to looking at your image, you are also looking at the colors of your room reflecting back at you. You look through your glasses. Look at someone else who is wearing glasses. See those reflections? Think of your monitor like that.

[isIRus]

For starters, things that are glossy reflect light. This means in addition to looking at your image, you are also looking at the colors of your room reflecting back at you. You look through your glasses. Look at someone else who is wearing glasses. See those reflections? Think of your monitor like that.

Ended! Nice Explenation...;)

[bashveank]

For starters, things that are glossy reflect light. This means in addition to looking at your image, you are also looking at the colors of your room reflecting back at you. You look through your glasses. Look at someone else who is wearing glasses. See those reflections? Think of your monitor like that.

What if you're using a glossy screen in a dark room?

[zombie1210]

Other makers have used glossy screens. I don't see what all the hubbub is about. They work fine. Its not like its a new concept.

[Kwill]

What if you're using a glossy screen in a dark room?

A discussion about screen calibration (http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8424341#8424341) led to this point about glossy screens.

Graphics professionals are concerned about the glossy screen trend. Apple attempts to minimize glare by pushing more light though the screen. A [24]" LED Cinema Display is brighter than the current glossy iMacs. If this trend continues on all displays, it will be even more difficult to calibrate them. We actually prefer matte screens with the ability to dim to 120 L.

[zombie1210]

"Graphics Professionals" use 13 inch Macbooks?

Wow.
:rolleyes:

[thejadedmonkey]

"Graphics Professionals" use 13 inch Macbooks?

Wow.
:rolleyes:

Why not?

[zombie1210]

Why not?

Do they really?

Seems to me that a pro might want something larger.

[bashveank]

A discussion about screen calibration (http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8424341#8424341) led to this point about glossy screens.

but calibrated properly and in a dark room, is glossy color accurate?

[kkat69]

I'm curious, I had my iMac calibrated and my print and display color is pretty damn near on mark. Of course I had it calibrated with the GLASS removed (which isn't actually true glass but a polymer) so my question is, are people having issue calibrating colors removing the 'glass' cover thus using the excuse of light reflection?

Yes, I know the LCD beneath the 'glass' is also glossy coated and to me the colors do really seem 'snappier' (couldn't resist working that in) but as long as I was able to calibrate it properly, I haven't had ANY issues regarding color.

I'm unsure about the current ALUM books if that protective 'glass' cover is removable, BUT (and this is the important party kiddies) even if the LCD beneath the cover was matte you wouldn't be able to properly calibrate it ANYWAY.

So again, has anyone calibrated an Alum iMac (with the cover off) or any other new Mac with the protective cover off to prove or disprove the actual LCD is causing calibration issues?

I see the posts a lot but no one has specified (that I found) if they did the calibration with the cover removed.

EDIT: I failed to mention that my calibration and the calibration I refer to is with an external device.

[jessica.]

Ok, lots of peoples freaks out about glossy screen, and the MAIN thing that always comes out is that it "changes" color accuracy.

But, what does make color on a glossy screen innacurate compared to a matte screen since the last one add a "filter" on the screen that affect light who passes through it ?

In other word, what in the process of passing trought a clear glass makes color "less accurate" ? (since it IS clear glass....just like my glasses.)

Colors look over saturated.

[robbieduncan]

"Graphics Professionals" use 13 inch Macbooks?

Wow.
:rolleyes:

Or 15" MacBook Pros which now only come in glossy too...

[Kwill]

"Graphics Professionals" use 13 inch Macbooks?

Wow.
:rolleyes:

"Graphics Professionals" may use a variety of computers. Currently, I use three and none are MacBooks. Where did you get that idea. :confused:

The Apple Discussion was regarding the 24" iMac with glossy screen. The point made about calibration is that even the lowest brightness setting is way above target luminosity of 120. Though color hue can be set accurately, minimum luminosity is 160 (190 max). New LED displays are advertised as brighter (to offset glare) which can introduce more problems with luminosity settings.

[duncyboy]

What if you're using a glossy screen in a dark room?

You'd still have the light from the monitor itself lighting your desk/face/clothes etc and being reflected in the dark. The impact would be much reduced in comparison to the day time or a brightly lit room but still there :)

[chaos86]

Did everybody forget that matte screens reflect light too, but it's diffused?
My Matte Powerbook gave me more reflection trouble than my Glossy MBP because (I believe) with the gloss, my brain can pick out and ignore the well defined reflections, but with matte, it's all a blur that can't be ignored.

[Kwill]

You'd still have the light from the monitor itself lighting your desk/face/clothes etc and being reflected in the dark. The impact would be much reduced in comparison to the day time or a brightly lit room but still there :)

]Did everybody forget that matte screens reflect light too, but it's diffused?
My Matte Powerbook gave me more reflection trouble than my Glossy MBP because (I believe) with the gloss, my brain can pick out and ignore the well defined reflections, but with matte, it's all a blur that can't be ignored.

The defused reflections from a matte screen are negligible. I doubt if most users even realize they are there. I have a Mac with a 23" ACD (matte) facing a window and a 24" iMac (glossy) facing away. Reflections on the glossy screen are not a problem in a dark room. However, in darkness pupils dilate so there is generally a desire to turn down the brightness. Unfortunately the iMac is turned down to its minimum brightness (160 L) even in daylight. :eek:

[holden15]

Just got an iMac a few weeks ago. I have no problem with the glossy screen.

The iMac has the best looking screen I have ever seen, better than my MacBook Pro. (early 2008)

[FrankieTDouglas]

Just got an iMac a few weeks ago. I have no problem with the glossy screen.

The iMac's has the best looking screen I have ever seen, better than my MacBook Pro. (early 2008)

So, you have it properly calibrated and an appropriate brightness? If so, then you have no problems. Or you aren't interested in such things?

[SnowLeopard2008]

My MB's glossy screen isn't that bad. I don't see my reflection or anything. Just look at it and if you like it, then your fine.

[Digital Skunk]

GLOSSY SCREENS DO NOT hinder color accuracy. For those too young to remember CRTs were glossy....

And for those too young to remember or who never went to college and got a proper image toning/color proofing education you can get accurate color on a B&W monitor.... like the ones used in the early days of desktop publishing.

The glossy screens do suck since they have a reflection, but in NO way does it effect your color accuracy.

If they are, please see this link. (http://www.amazon.com/Management-Digital-Photographers-Dummies-Computer/dp/0470048921)

p.s. over-saturation and bad color comes from using the laptop displays, which DO have a color shift going from the matte to the glossy. Getting it close is the best you will do with a laptop display most time anyway.

[iGary]

GLOSSY SCREENS DO NOT hinder color accuracy. For those too young to remember CRTs were glossy....

And for those too young to remember or who never went to college and got a proper image toning/color proofing education you can get accurate color on a B&W monitor.... like the ones used in the early days of desktop publishing.

The glossy screens do suck since they have a reflection, but in NO way does it effect your color accuracy.

If they are, please see this link. (http://www.amazon.com/Management-Digital-Photographers-Dummies-Computer/dp/0470048921)

p.s. over-saturation and bad color comes from using the laptop displays, which DO have a color shift going from the matte to the glossy. Getting it close is the best you will do with a laptop display most time anyway.

The space between the glass and the actual LCD itself is more of an issue for calibration. CRT's don't have this air gap.

I have no issues with the color workflow on my laptop - never had to settle for getting it "close."

[Digital Skunk]

The space between the glass and the actual LCD itself is more of an issue for calibration. CRT's don't have this air gap.

I have no issues with the color workflow on my laptop - never had to settle for getting it "close."

True, as for laptops their color gamut is just too short for me. In good lighting you can tell the difference between an image on a 23" ACD, the 17" hi res MBP, and the print itself.

[iGary]

True, as for laptops their color gamut is just too short for me. In good lighting you can tell the difference between an image on a 23" ACD, the 17" hi res MBP, and the print itself.

I won't disagree - I get more consistent and pleasant results out of my ACD than my MBP, so that's where I usually print from.

I actually have a friend that takes off the glass front on his iMac and calibrates right to the glossy LCD. He seems to have good luck with that, but what a pain in the ass.

Just wish Apple would, at least in the pro offerings, give us a choice.

If they go all glossy on their ACD's, which looks like the case, I'll have to get my displays elsewhere, or buy used ones online, which is saying a lot considering my blind Apple allegiance.

Anywhoo...

[Kwill]

The glossy screens do suck since they have a reflection, but in NO way does it effect your color accuracy.

If they are, please see this link. (http://www.amazon.com/Management-Digital-Photographers-Dummies-Computer/dp/0470048921)

Agreed. Reflection is more of a problem than lack of color accuracy. I calibrate every month with a glossy screen with the proper hardware. The software (http://reactiveimaging.com/aps/aps_prevalidation.html) I use with eye-one device has the user specify whether profiling an LCD, laptop or CRT monitor as the first step.

Removing CLEAR glass to obtain better hardware calibration results is unnecessary. The reference book quoted makes a distinction between visual calibration and hardware calibration. As a carry-over from CRT days, the first instruction for visual calibration is generally to set display to maximum brightness. This is an inappropriate step for new LCD (or LED) displays.

Apple's misguided reaction to reflections is to increase luminance way beyond what graphic designers and photographers require for print simulation. So, though color cast can be eliminated from ICC profiles created with hardware devices, simulated paper brightness will be off and displays can wear out pupils in a dark room.

Desktop LCD displays have a constant source of power whereas laptops run on batteries. Hence laptops are generally not as bright as LCD ADC. LED is even brighter than LCD. These are the areas that most concern those in the professional printing industry.

[Digital Skunk]

I won't disagree - I get more consistent and pleasant results out of my ACD than my MBP, so that's where I usually print from.

I actually have a friend that takes off the glass front on his iMac and calibrates right to the glossy LCD. He seems to have good luck with that, but what a pain in the ass.

Just wish Apple would, at least in the pro offerings, give us a choice.

If they go all glossy on their ACD's, which looks like the case, I'll have to get my displays elsewhere, or buy used ones online, which is saying a lot considering my blind Apple allegiance.

Anywhoo...

True, I have accepted the limitations on MBP/laptop panels mainly because the printing/post has always been off by a bit whenever I do tone on the lappy. It's really just my opinion backed up by popular reads though.

But, I do know that the 24" iMac has given me spot on color, right up there with my very un-calibrated 30" at the paper. No gray walls, not too much calibration, just the ICC profiles and numbers that the print house gave us poor neglected toners.

Which reminds me. Ever since desktop printing and ICC profiles in digital have taken off, toning and proofing has gotten SICK EASY. For someone to tell me that they have a current DSLR/P&S, printer, and computer and can't get accurate color in their workflow leads me to believe they are just doing something wrong.

And yes, still sitting on the fence about spending $1200 for a NEC, or 2x 23" ACDs. I know Apple won't come through with matte ACDs with FW.

[StealthRider]

I actually have a friend that takes off the glass front on his iMac and calibrates right to the glossy LCD. He seems to have good luck with that, but what a pain in the ass.


Got that right. And ugly, too...I'm surprised no one's come up with an aftermarket solution yet.

[okrelayer]

you know, what i want to know is what photo editors are laying on a lawn chair in the middle of summer at a florida beach trying to edit in Photoshop with all that darn glare!

[riker1384]

Everybody talks about print, like that's the ultimate measure of a monitor. (It may be, to a graphics professional.) But surely paper has its own limitations. What about real life? Does anyone ever try to figure out which kinds of monitors have colors that are closest to what we see in reality? If I look at a photgraph on my computer, I'd rather have it look like the actual scene, instead of looking like that photo would like if it was printed.

[Digital Skunk]

Everybody talks about print, like that's the ultimate measure of a monitor. (It may be, to a graphics professional.) But surely paper has its own limitations. What about real life? Does anyone ever try to figure out which kinds of monitors have colors that are closest to what we see in reality? If I look at a photgraph on my computer, I'd rather have it look like the actual scene, instead of looking like that photo would like if it was printed.

To a true color professional, they are one in the same. That is the ultimate goal of a photo technician or anyone that is a color professional.

True that some put together works that aren't true to life, but a good deal of pros (journalism for example) have to work and tone true to life.

[riker1384]

To a true color professional, they are one in the same. That is the ultimate goal of a photo technician or anyone that is a color professional.

True that some put together works that aren't true to life, but a good deal of pros (journalism for example) have to work and tone true to life.Yeah, but paper or photo-paper has physical limitations. For instance, it's limited by the ambient brightneess of the room, whereas a display can get brighter in some spots if need be. If I'm looking at a picture with the Sun or a streetlamp on it, it will shine brighter on a screen. Both mediums have their limitations, but if you're judging a display entirely by how close it is to print, you're adding paper's limitations to that of the display.

I'm not a professional, I'm a consumer, and I'm wondering if there's any data on how displays compare to reality. I would think that the television industry would be interested in that, at least, as opposed to the print medium which seems to always come up in discussions about monitors.

[Digital Skunk]

Yeah, but paper or photo-paper has physical limitations. For instance, it's limited by the ambient brightneess of the room, whereas a display can get brighter in some spots if need be. If I'm looking at a picture with the Sun or a streetlamp on it, it will shine brighter on a screen. Both mediums have their limitations, but if you're judging a display entirely by how close it is to print, you're adding paper's limitations to that of the display.

I'm not a professional, I'm a consumer, and I'm wondering if there's any data on how displays compare to reality. I would think that the television industry would be interested in that, at least, as opposed to the print medium which seems to always come up in discussions about monitors.

Very true indeed brother. You understand something that many so called pros on this site don't. Though, the paper isn't the limiting factor, the gamut of the printer will be. Or should I say, the limited amount of color the printer can produce compared to our eyes.

But, at the same time our eyes can lead us wrong as well. Our eyes change due to temperature, amount of other colors, amount of light, shadow, etc. Our eyes actually adjust 1000's of times more than an LCD, not to say that the LCD is accurate, just that reproducing "life-like" colors based on reality would vary depending on whose eye/what environment we would compare to.

My old-fart professors and my own mantra is: tone by the numbers. In the RGB color space Red will always and forever be R=255, B=0, G=0 even if your screen is turned negative or black and white.