Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by KeithnFW, Oct 11, 2007.
Does anyone have the "24 iMac and doing photo editing work (photoshop) on it?
Sorry, that's outa my league.
You prolly already know about this, but just in case you don't, check the "Mac Talk" forum at www.dpreview.com
...wall-to-wall photo pros with Macs,
My opinion means nothing, but I'm a freelancer and use a 24" iMac for editing, it's serving me well so far.
There a lot of mixed reviews about the glossy screen, I have no problems. People have been doing photo editing on CRTs for many many years, guess those have been bad cause they are glass?
Try to look past the iMac screen bashing, it's amazing.
Thanks Rev. . . thats what I wanted to hear.
It depends on how picky you are, and how critical/professional you need the results to be.
I went through two new 24" iMacs before coming to the conclusion that it wasn't for me, and that the components used are consumer-grade and not professional-grade (and took it back). Read the forums, they are full of people that have tried the new 24" iMac hoping to do professional photo/graphics work that have realized that it's not really made for that. The two main issues (which I noticed while trying to adjust photos, not from pixel-peeping) are:
- uneven brightness, colour shifting within the screen and from side to side, and vignetting (which because it's uneven can't be fixed with a calibration)
- the iMac screen panels have apparently been downgraded from the previous version/model in the latest upgrade to lower quality consumer-grade components
Again, your mileage may vary - your expectation may not be as high, and the level of critical accuracy you need may not be the same, but having gone through 2 at home, then 4-5 at the store, I determined that while I really liked the new iMac for regular desktop use, for really accurate graphics work it's probably not the best choice. There are tons of threads here and on the official Apple forums echoing this, might be worth checking them out.
I do quite a bit of photo editing
To my amateur eye the results look good.What I do see, is, when choosing a photo for my desktop, the pic looks much darker. I have had to lighten photos used for my desktop. Something changes.Using 20"
What would cause this? Thanks
I'd avoid it. Great as the iMac is, it's screen isn't suitable for judging the colour balance of a photo. The ACDs are far more suitable...
I have these same concerns. My G4 powerbook TI, is showing signs of wear, I have finally saved enough for a new computer. Will the 24 Imac, have a better screen than what I have on my powerbook TI ? Next question, Should I go with a new 24 iMac, or should I go with last gen 20 iMac, with a 23 refurb cinema screen and ram ? I take pictures as a serious hobby. I use a prosumer canon G6, connected to my Zeiss 85 diascope. I do sell a few pictures in a local shop, but I do not make a living from it. Only to cover some of the expense. First post, but have been reading in the background for years. Thank you
I should mention, I am a Photoshop CS3 junkie. Whoops !
I owned a new Imac for 2 weeks and photoshop Cs3 worked very well however the screen brightness is a problem with calibration. The glossy screen is great for everyday but with photo editing not so great. The brightness is just tooo bright using the LED's. I had my machine set to brightness 0 and my final prints came out too dark. I use levels in PS to brighten and know what Im doing and pics on screen look great but final print toooooo dark....I ended up taking the machine back with much dismay.....I loved it otherwise...Hopefully in the future this will get better
it's funny you should say this, because i'd understood the 24" model has the same type of display as the 23" and 30" ACD's? i can't see any difference between my Al 24" and the year old 23" ACD sitting next to it.
besides which, monitors can never be completely trusted for print work, no matter how much you pay for them. they emit light from behind (or produce light) whereas print work (i.e. ink on paper) absorbs light, and reflects light. if you are in a pitch black room with no light source, you'll be able to see a monitor, but not a printed photo.
which means there are colours that you can produce on screen that you can't physicaly print, and vice versa. they are different media.
Keith, don't worry too much. proof your work before final print runs (as you should be doing already anyway...)
i use mine with cs3 for print and web work.
Yep they are the same panel type. Only difference is the glass that the iMac has, which doesn't seem to be effecting my results.
Thanks Headhammer, good points
Yep, very similar. They're all LG.Philips S-IPS panels -- but somehow, Apple managed to FUBAR the backlighting on many (most? all?) ALU iMacs.
Mid_2007 24" iMac: LG.Philips LM240WU2-SLB1, S-IPS, 8-bit
Late_2006 24" iMac: LG.Philips LM240WU2-SLA1, S-IPS, 8-bit
Mid_2007 20" iMac: LG.Philips LM201WE3-????, TN Film, 6-bit
Late_2006 20" iMac: Samsung LTM201M1-????, S-PVA, 8-bit
20" Cinema Display: LG.Philips LM201W01-SLA3, S-IPS, 8-bit
23" Cinema Display: LG.Philips LM230W02-????, S-IPS, 8-bit
30" Cinema Display: LG.Philips LM300W01-????, S-IPS, 8-bit
See: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk for additional panel specs.
That may be your experience, but here's what my 24" looks like.
Eight others I examined in two Apple retail stores had brightness gradients at least as bad -- or worse:
My iMac's left:right luminance ratio measures 2.5:1. That's three times worse than the absolute worst-case allowable for TCO'03-certified monitors -- like the ACDs, and hundreds of economy-priced monitors.
http://www.tcodevelopment.com (note language-selector at top of page)
..the ALU iMac displays would be an embarrassment to Wal*Mart,
I don't understand how Apple, a fairly reputable company, would put to market something that is sorry as what I am reading here. Does anyone at Apple bother to check these things? Monitors have been around for 100 years. . .how can they screw something up so vital to their product? I blame myself for not looking into this closer (it arrives Tuesday). I'll believe it when I see it. I appreciate everyones input here. thanks, (future iMac owner)
My wife is in a photography program at a local college. Their computer lab consists of iMacs for photo editing work. I would the iMacs are fine unless you are planning to make a living off of your photos. In which case, I would get a Mac Pro and ACD.
When I went to school, they taught me the most important thing about photo editing I have ever learned, and that not too many other have learned.
"If you can't edit a photo on a crappy monitor, then you won't be able to edit a photo at all... edit by the numbers, not by your eyes."
Get the 24" iMac because Apple engineers understand that concept. The only monitor that sucks for photo editing is the one that doesn't work.
The iMac 24" is perfect for photo editing. But like any other tool there is always something better and there are those who will always argue that you need a MacPro with a ACD.
My belief is if you're already financially successful enough in photography or graphic arts you wouldn't need to ask this question. Your lucrative contracts will more than accommodate the price of a MacPro and ACD. If you're asking this question, then you should forget about all the iMac glossy screen bashing and keeping up with the Joneses.