Use of iMac and MacBookPro for "professional" color workflow

[Joachim]

In a workshop the trainer sad.

The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.

but:

The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.

I start my work in digital photography and I'm an absolute greenhorn.

OK I know that both monitors are not the best for digital work.

My question:
Is the trainers statement right and what can be the reason ?
The next lesson is in one month so I cannot ask the trainer.

I think both screens are LED and both adjustable in settings > Monitor > Color > Calibration.

Can someone help me.

Jochen

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I presume the trainer has Mac Book Pro... And I think he is mistaken!

A good screen would be angle independent and have at least full 8bit olor. Portables in general have TN-screens that fail both criteria. Some iMacs have IPS (In Plan Switching) screens that are quite OK. Some have Used to have TN (Twisted Neumatics?) screens. Avoid TN!

Older iMacs had limited brightness adjustment, the newer ones are rumpred to be better.

A MacMini and a hardware calibrated Monitor may be a nice alternative.

Best regards
Erik
 

In a workshop the trainer sad.

The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.

but:

The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.

I start my work in digital photography and I'm an absolute greenhorn.

OK I know that both monitors are not the best for digital work.

My question:
Is the trainers statement right and what can be the reason ?
The next lesson is in one month so I cannot ask the trainer.

I think both screens are LED and both adjustable in settings > Monitor > Color > Calibration.

Can someone help me.

Jochen

[Joachim]

Thanks for answer

Hi,

I presume the trainer has Mac Book Pro... And I think he is mistaken!

OK.

A good screen would be angle independent and have at least full 8bit olor. Portables in general have TN-screens that fail both criteria.

My MBP has
Farb-LCD:
  Auflösung:   1920 x 1200
  Pixeltiefe:   32-Bit Farbe (ARGB8888)

Is that OK ?

Some iMacs have IPS (In Plan Switching) screens that are quite OK.

I don't know what you mean. My English isn't good ;-(

Some have Used to have TN (Twisted Neumatics?) screens. Avoid TN!

OK in future, see below

Older iMacs had limited brightness adjustment, the newer ones are rumpred to be better.

I don't found the translation for rumpred.
Do you mean like changing ?

A MacMini and a hardware calibrated Monitor may be a nice alternative.

At the moment I use a MBP buyed in 2009 and a iMac buyed in 2011

Jochen (.de)

[Tim Lookingbill]

The iMac screen is better than the MBP screen for photo editing.

I've edited close to 1000 Raws on a 2004 20" G5 iMac and get good screen to print matches with all of them.

Use the iMac.

This local ad design business does some very high quality work using a 27" iMac...

http://www.50foot.net/

The reason I know this is because the owners of that business is letting a new photography club I've joined use their facilities for meetings. We get to use their iMac for photo presentations to a separate bigger wide screen TV.

[Joachim]

The iMac screen is better than the MBP screen for photo editing.

I've edited close to 1000 Raws on a 2004 20" G5 iMac and get good screen to print matches with all of them.

Use the iMac.

So I will use i1Display Pro to calibrate the iMac screen.

I don't earn money with my Mac. I use my camera and the Mac in my free time.

Is that OK ?

Jochen (.de)

[Luca Ragogna]

There's a lot of professional photographers doing very high caliber work on "unsuitable" monitors. We tend to get caught up in the numbers and specifications of gear when we should just concentrate on improving the craft of our photography. Does the monitor make a difference? Sure, but if you're using your camera for fun then you can be assured that whatever gear you have is perfectly acceptable.

I edit on my Macbook pro both on the built in monitor and connected to a cheapie external monitor as well as editing on a Mac Pro with dual 24" Cinema Displays. Everything is calibrated with a ColorMunki. I get better results from the Mac Pro / Cinema Display combo but the results from the Macbook Pro and the cheap monitor are predictable and perfectly acceptable.

I would be hesitant to believe an instructor that bags on gear instead of preaching about technique, craft and expertise.

[HSakols]

I finally bought a NEC 221W with xrite software and hardware to use with my 2007 imac.  The whole package was something like 550.00 and I must say that I should of done this a long time ago.  I think I now understand what is meant by consistant output.  Don't get me wrong, I have made a number of fine prints using my imac screen, yet many never were quite right.  I now find that many of these images have less contrast when viewed on the NEC or have colors especially reds that were over the top.  However, the imac images look "sharper" and maybe have more punch.  I should have done this sooner.  I'm not a pro but I do enjoy print making. I bet this will make a bigger difference than buying a new lens. 

Hugh
www.yosemitecollection.com

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Sorry for the terse response and spelling errors. I'm not so good at writing on my iPad. It would be "rumored", not rumped, sorry!

The way it is there are different designs for LCD screens. The cheapest one is TN (Twisted Nematic) display. these are very dependent on viewing angle, so if you move your head left to right or up and down you see slightly different colors and contrast. For professional quality work IPS (In Plane Switching) LCDs are preferred, because they have much less dependence on viewing angle.

Almost all notebooks have TN screens (I think there are two exceptions, one from Dell ant another from Lenovo).

It has also been frequently stated that TN displays on notebooks only use 6 bit per color, I have no evidence for this but it seems it is taken for fact. According to this rumor the last 2 bits are produced by dithering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#Twisted_nematic_.28TN.29

The technology that seems to be most popular for demanding work is IPS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#In-Plane_Switching_.28IPS.29

There is more to the question than LCD panel type.

1) Background illumination can be of different quality.

2) How well is the screen internally calibrated? It is possible to correct calibration by modifying the "color lookup table" in the computer, but that may lead to posterisation/banding. It's prefarable to have a correctly calibrated screen to start with.

3) Can you reduce brightness? Brightness must much paper white in the viewing environment, else we get into the "My prints are too dark!" syndrome.

4) High end screens can be calibrated internally. Their color lookup tables may be 10 or even 12 bits. That essentially means that all the 8 bits per color normally available can be used for representing color. Very few OS/Software/hardware/display combinations fully support 10 bit signal path.


Regarding 8, 24 and 32 bits of color, the numbers mean the same. There are three colors , so 24 bit color 3x8 ("red", "green", "blue") and 32 has also a transparency (also called Alpha) channel.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for answer
OK.
My MBP has
Farb-LCD:
  Auflösung:   1920 x 1200
  Pixeltiefe:   32-Bit Farbe (ARGB8888)

Is that OK ?
I don't know what you mean. My English isn't good ;-(
OK in future, see below
I don't found the translation for rumpred.
Do you mean like changing ?
At the moment I use a MBP buyed in 2009 and a iMac buyed in 2011

Jochen (.de)

[Scott Martin]

In a workshop the trainer sad.
The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.
but:
The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.

The iMac's IPS LCD is certainly higher quality than the MBP's TN LCD. Sounds like he might just be turned off by the glossyness of the iMac display and prefers the anti-glare displays. available in the MBP line. If they just had an anti-glare option on the iMacs and Cinema Displays I think Apple would sell a whole lot more...

[Luca Ragogna]

Yeah, I don't think Apple's hurting in the sales department. I also think that they hardly give a rat's ass about what professional users want, as evidenced by the way the Mac Pro still doesn't have Thunderbolt, the demise of the X-Serve and the new simplified Final Cut X. Apple has become a decidedly consumer focused company and the fact that their machines are still the best option for professional graphics use is happenstance. I'm not convinced that it will always be the case.

You can pretty much forget about a matte iMac screen and either go with an (out of date) Mac Pro and third-party monitors or buy some black out curtains and be careful with your placement of lights.

[Ellis Vener]

In a workshop the trainer sad.

The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.



Can someone help me.

Jochen

And his brain is absolutely full of manure if he really believes that.

I am a professional photographer. I have commercial advertising clients who are extremely sensitive to color accuracy issues. I use a 27 inch iMac, these have white LED backlighting technology. The iMac's display compares very well to other display. Here's a 2D comparison of the iMac to an Eizo CG 222W (not Eizo's largest gamut display but still quite good according to Chromix's Patrick Herold ( http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Eizo_CG222W_Review ) ) to sRGB to Adobe RGB (1998) to the very large Pro Photo RGB working spaces.
 
The iMac's display is smaller i n the more saturated greens than the Eizo, but overall is larger than sRGB and in some colors, larger than Adobe RGB (1998)

The Eizo was profiled with Eizo's Color Navigator 6 version 6.0.1.12 using an i1 Display Pro Colorimeter.

The iMac display was profiled with the i1 Display Pro Colorimeter and Xrite's i1 Profiler.

The graphs were created with ColorThink 2.3.

[VitOne]

I am a MacBook Air (Intel i7 based) user and I work also with the iMac 27" (Intel i5).

I am happy with the iMac 27" screen but I need to say that recent Eizos and Nec are better.

The problem of the iMac 27" is not only a gamut problem but is mainly a problem with homogeneity (the screen is noticeably less uniform than other monitor that I regularly use) and with the "double glass" in front of the monitor (this is how a guy working in the Apple store called it) that makes it not very easy to calibrate and create profile for this monitor and this also means that the monitor is not anti-glare (this could be a serious issue in many working environments). There are many parameter that ColorThink can't tell you. Try validating the profile that you have made in different positions around the monitor, in "my" iMac 27" the MaxDeltaE 2000 is grater than 3.5

If I look my pictures I can clearly see that they appear at their best on my SpectraView Reference 271 and 301. This does not mean that you can't use the iMac 27" for color critical works (some good printing operator can work with a very bad lcd screen, reading the numbers, using color correction in combination with color management, for example). Many printers exceed in some areas the gamut of the best monitors available today.

I think that, for many "amateur photographers", a good solution could be the Mac Mini with a Nec PA271W or PA241W. This are just my 2 cents.

[Ellis Vener]

I am a MacBook Air (Intel i7 based) user and I work also with the iMac 27" (Intel i5).

I am happy with the iMac 27" screen but I need to say that recent Eizos and Nec are better.

I agree. And that is what you are paying for. A 27" Eizo CG275W is around US $3200-3300.00. The NEC PA271W is around $1200.00, so yes I'd hope they are better displays than the iMac.

The problem of the iMac 27" is not only a gamut problem but is mainly a problem with homogeneity (the screen is noticeably less uniform than other monitor that I regularly use)

I have validated my profiles and yes there is a difference between the corners of the 27" iMac display and the center.

... and with the "double glass" in front of the monitor (this is how a guy working in the Apple store called it) that makes it not very easy to calibrate and create profile for this monitor

Disagree strongly with that. I've profiled ours with Spyder 3, i1 Photo Pro (current), ColorMunki Display and i1 Display Pro. It profiles very easily and accurately.

and this also means that the monitor is not anti-glare (this could be a serious issue in many working environments).

glare can be an issue but if you are doing critical color  work you should also be taking care with your working environment as well: ambient lighting levels and the area surrounding the display have a large phsyiological effect on the way we perceive color and subtle tonal value separations. . This holds true for any and every display.

There are many parameter that ColorThink can't tell you.

Please elaborate.

Many printers exceed in some areas the gamut of the best monitors available today.

Agreed! One thing Joseph Holmes (http://www.josephhomes.com ) suggested to me recently was to make a soft proofing preset of your display profile  so you can see which if any colors in a shot are outside of your display's gamut.

I think that, for many "amateur photographers", a good solution could be the Mac Mini with a Nec PA271W or PA241W. This are just my 2 cents.

The Mac Mini is an interesting option and one I have seriously considered but it is an option that has limitations the current iMacs do not.
1) Currently there are only i7 dual core options available. The current iMacs are quad core-- and faster processor speed.
2) Mac mini is limited to 8GB RAM, the 27" iMacs will support at least 16GB. However OWC ( http://eshop.macsales.com) has 16GB kits for the Mac Mini (US $580) and up to 32GB for the most recent iMacs (US $ 1130.00)

[ErikKaffehr]

Ellis,

I think you have a balanced view of the issues, I agree fully!

Best regards
Erik

I agree. And that is what you are paying for. A 27" Eizo CG275W is around US $3200-3300.00. The NEC PA271W is around $1200.00, so yes I'd hope they are better displays than the iMac.

The problem of the iMac 27" is not only a gamut problem but is mainly a problem with homogeneity (the screen is noticeably less uniform than other monitor that I regularly use)

I have validated my profiles and yes there is a difference between the corners of the 27" iMac display and the center.

Disagree strongly with that. I've profiled ours with Spyder 3, i1 Photo Pro (current), ColorMunki Display and i1 Display Pro. It profiles very easily and accurately.
 

glare can be an issue but if you are doing critical color  work you should also be taking care with your working environment as well: ambient lighting levels and the area surrounding the display have a large phsyiological effect on the way we perceive color and subtle tonal value separations. . This holds true for any and every display.
 

Please elaborate.

 

Agreed! One thing Joseph Holmes (http://www.josephhomes.com ) suggested to me recently was to make a soft proofing preset of your display profile  so you can see which if any colors in a shot are outside of your display's gamut.

The Mac Mini is an interesting option and one I have seriously considered but it is an option that has limitations the current iMacs do not.
1) Currently there are only i7 dual core options available. The current iMacs are quad core-- and faster processor speed.
2) Mac mini is limited to 8GB RAM, the 27" iMacs will support at least 16GB. However OWC ( http://eshop.macsales.com) has 16GB kits for the Mac Mini (US $580) and up to 32GB for the most recent iMacs (US $ 1130.00)

[VitOne]

Disagree strongly with that. I've profiled ours with Spyder 3, i1 Photo Pro (current), ColorMunki Display and i1 Display Pro. It profiles very easily and accurately.

glare can be an issue but if you are doing critical color  work you should also be taking care with your working environment as well: ambient lighting levels and the area surrounding the display have a large phsyiological effect on the way we perceive color and subtle tonal value separations. . This holds true for any and every display.

Please elaborate.

Agreed! One thing Joseph Holmes (http://www.josephhomes.com ) suggested to me recently was to make a soft proofing preset of your display profile  so you can see which if any colors in a shot are outside of your display's gamut.

The Mac Mini is an interesting option and one I have seriously considered but it is an option that has limitations the current iMacs do not.
1) Currently there are only i7 dual core options available. The current iMacs are quad core-- and faster processor speed.
2) Mac mini is limited to 8GB RAM, the 27" iMacs will support at least 16GB. However OWC ( http://eshop.macsales.com) has 16GB kits for the Mac Mini (US $580) and up to 32GB for the most recent iMacs (US $ 1130.00)

If you google it you will easily find that many people had problems in calibrating and profiling iMacs 27". I had problems too and I can confirm that sometimes you can’t reach a good calibration/profile. For example I had problems to reach a satisfactory D65 white point (color temperature, using 2 different software and 2 different device). It is never easy to match 2 different devices in terms of white point , but I had less problems in matching a Cintiq 24HD to a SpectraView 301 than matching the same SpectraView 301 with the iMac 27”.

I also had problem in finding a good setting for the TRC: I was not happy with the reproduction of L* values of 100-95 and of 0-5 (too “close”). I found this to be a common problem on many different glossy screens that I have tested.

This does not mean that the iMac 27” has a bad monitor, this only means that there are better monitors. I don’t know if you have ever tested the iMac 27” monitor side-by-side with other monitors. Maybe many of the issues I am reporting are related to the fact that I have used the iMac 27” with other (better) monitors and I clearly noticed the difference.

With ColorThink you can’t see if your display is uniform, if it has a good angle of view, if the gradients are “homogeneous”.

In real working environments it is really hard to have perfect lighting. Also taking care of this aspect (I have tried many different solutions, taking care also of the paint used for the walls) it is possible to have reflections and “bad lights”. This is way almost all color-critical monitors are sold with a light protection hood. I personally would love to see a non-glossy display on the iMac.

I don’t know what kind of work you are doing but for many photographers I think that the MacMini could be a great solution (I strongly suggest the SSD). Of course somebody may have different needs from mine.

[digitaldog]

With ColorThink you can’t see if your display is uniform, if it has a good angle of view, if the gradients are “homogeneous”.

Exactly. But should you feed ColorThink numbers of measurement data, what it calls a color list, do this over time, you can plot the stability and consistency of the display which like your comments above, are real useful for a quality display system.

[Ethan_Hansen]

Regarding the ease of profiling a 27" iMac screen, Ellis and VitOne make contradictory claims. Quite likely, both are correct. The white LED used in the iMac plays havoc with most older colorimeters. Depending on the luck of the draw, how well a particular Spyder or i1D2 performs on an iMac ranges from acceptable to atrocious. There is a detailed article on our site, and a typically wide ranging discussion here on LuLa. The table below gives a summary. Although the wide-gamut column was measured  on a RGB LED backlight, the results for white LED panels are very similar (Spyder a few tenths better, i1-Pro a few tenths worse).

[ixania2]

Yeah, I don't think Apple's hurting in the sales department. I also think that they hardly give a rat's ass about what professional users want, as evidenced by the way the Mac Pro still doesn't have Thunderbolt, the demise of the X-Serve and the new simplified Final Cut X. Apple has become a decidedly consumer focused company and the fact that their machines are still the best option for professional graphics use is happenstance. I'm not convinced that it will always be the case.

You can pretty much forget about a matte iMac screen and either go with an (out of date) Mac Pro and third-party monitors or buy some black out curtains and be careful with your placement of lights.

The mac pro goes out of business soon.

[nkpoulsen]

QUOTE

In a workshop the trainer sad.

The iMac is not suitable for "professional" color workflow.

but:

The MacBookPro is suitable for "professional" color workflow.

I start my work in digital photography and I'm an absolute greenhorn.

OK I know that both monitors are not the best for digital work.

I find this interesting.  I use my MBP for color adjustment and was surprised (and pleased) to find it an acceptable option.  I have the non-glare screen.  (I wouldn't have a gloss screen.)

I've calibrated several I-Macs, and I wouldn't care to have one.  (A personal choice.)  The glossy screen
would drive me crazy, and the I-Macs are very hot.  (Bright.) 

What bothers me with calibrating either, is that one can't get very fine distinctions for brightness.  So, the screen ends up being too bright or too dim.

If I wanted to be fastidious, I would get either an Eiso or an NEC high-end monitor with the high-bit lookup table, expanded color gamut (95% Adobe RGB?), and a true ability to calibrate prior to profiling.

But for my current needs, my MBP

[Lost]

I would agree with this. The matte displays fall in to the 'good enough' category for most work.

While it is true that the colours do shift with viewing angle, in practice the acceptable angle range is large enough to not be a problem. Laptop screens are not large and you are hard pushed to edit while looking sufficiently sideways to have a problem. The display gamut seems pretty good and is significantly larger than any print output I have used.

That said, Apple - like most manufactures - makes many changes to component sourcing, even within what is supposedly the same model. Probably the only way to be sure a laptop display is adequate is to test it yourself and return the computer if it doesn't meet your needs.