iMac Monitors

<p>Hi Gang,</p>

<p>I'm a PC guy, but I'm thinking about switching to Mac. Awhile back, I read on this forum that the 27 inch monitor on the iMac had some problems and the 21.5 inch monitor was better for photographers. Is that still the general consensus? What were the problems?</p>

<p>And, in general, are the monitors on the iMacs acceptable for photographers? I'm sure they can't compare with an expensive Dell or SpectraVision, but are they okay?</p>

<p>Many thanks,<br />Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well. I bought a 27" iMac precisely because of the monitor. If you buy that monitor separately, as for a tower machine, it costs little less than the iMac+monitor combination.</p>

<p>I wouldn't be too sure that it is inferior to the monitors you mention, although it's obviously not a thousands of dollars photo-editing monitor.</p>

<p>You will have to unlearn a few things to switch to a Mac OS, but once you've settled in, I think you would be glad that you switched.</p>

<p>If I could put it in automobile terms: Windows is a Chevrolet sedan -- it will get you where you want to go in an acceptable fashion. But the Mac OS X is like a fine sports car. It handles a lot better, is a lot more fun (a concept foreign to Microsoft - look up "Bob" to see what they really think about a graphic user interface), and you will hardly ever see a 'screen of death' and probably only when you are running MS software..</p>

<p>Nothing at all special about these displays, in fact if you get a white LED backlight, many Colorimeters will have issues with that Lightsource. NEC SpectraView, way different beast in terms of quality and ability to calibrate and profile with SpectraView II. </p>

>>> And, in general, are the monitors on the iMacs acceptable for photographers? I'm sure they can't

compare with an expensive Dell or SpectraVision, but are they okay?

 

Current iMac displays are great. While better, separate SpectraView (not SpectraVision) displays cost

significantly more.

<p>Is a white LED backlight common? Do iMac monitors have it?</p>

<p>Apple has been using white LED’s for some years now. </p>

<p>In terms of the ‘quality’ of Apple displays:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58869.20</p>

<p>I always have to wonder if these sort of threads are just marketing driven discussions because no real pertinent questions ever arise that prove a photographer will get better looking edits and subsequent better looking images on a higher quality display over a lesser one.</p>

<p>I'ld have to agree with the claims of the 27" iMac's uniformity issues and that gloss screen which is annoying as well IMO. The uniformity issues of the demo's at Best Buy made me want to check one from an unopened box in their inventory which always seems depleted whenever I drive the 20 miles.</p>

<p>I had an iMac before and the thought of tying the screen with the computer hasn't ever set well with me with regards to workflow. If the computer or the display go out, you have nothing to work with.</p>

<p>You can't use the computer when the display goes out and thus have to buy another display to attach to it or if the computer goes out and the display is OK, you now have to buy both units. And the new iMacs can't be worked on by the user. It has to be done by a certified Apple repairperson. Just check a tear down of one online to see how difficult it is.</p>

<p>The 27" iMac is fabulous for photography.....check out the work I do at davidjefferyphotography.com on my iMac.</p>

<p>As the once-proud owner of a 2006 model iMac which developed the dreaded vertical line syndrome just out of the warranty period, I fear that any comment I might make would be instantly (and rightly) removed my Mr Root.</p>

<p><em>If I could put it in automobile terms: Windows is a Chevrolet sedan -- it will get you where you want to go in an acceptable fashion. But the Mac OS X is like a fine sports car. </em><br /><em></em><br />I build my own computers. My Chevy will blow the doors off your sports car, and I can work on it in my own garage. Unfortunately, I really, really don't like Windows 7 and I've reached the limits of XP.</p>

<p>I do not know about the latest 27" iMacs, but the 24" previous-version I have is perfect for me. Admittedly, I am only an amateur, not a pro photographer. But I've been working as a professional in IT and telecom for some 25 years, and I made the switch to Macs a couple of years ago.<br>

I ain't going back to Windows no matter what.</p>

<p>Windows vs Mac is as bad as Canon vs Nikon. Neither is better than the other, its just a matter of how much you are willing to spend. There are benefits and disadvantages on both.<br>

Personally is use a mixture, have a iMac, a PC and a Linux laptop as I prefer Qtpsfgui for HDR.<br>

Have a stroll into your local computer store and look at both. The most important thing is the ability to calibrate screen, and printer, and there are plenty of tools for both systems.<br>

I find workflow on the pc a little easier but prefer the colour (yes I'm from England :) ) rendition on the iMac. I have the 27" screen and love it.<br>

Guess what I'm saying is that there is no real right or wrong answer just a matter of how much your budget is and how much you want to invest in re-purchasing a lot of software.</p>

<p>iMac monitors while not the industry leader, with the related price list, is in fact quite good. For extremely fine color matching the iMac 27 will not be quite as precise as a NEC Spectraview, but it's pretty darn good, and I don't think the Dell's are really any better. With a modern calibration tool they calibrate very well. I get pretty much match prints from the files I send to the printer I use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the computer or the display go out, you have nothing to work with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that the same with a desktop and separate monitor?, either goes out and you have nothing to work on. </p>

<p>I have a 27 inch iMac and a 27 inch Apple monitor that I use side by side. Like all monitors, you have to calibrate them. However, the monitors have less difference between them and display color better than my two eyes do. There is more variance in the color perception between my eyes that between the monitors. I have owned a wide range of monitors an I have not seen better monitors in this price range and even at the highest price the gain is nominal.</p>

<p>David Jeffrey - you should calibrate your monitor - or something - most of those pics look bombastic.</p>

<p><em>For extremely fine color matching the iMac 27 will not be quite as precise as a NEC Spectraview...</em></p>

<p>for the difference (having both) the diference for most user are not existing. for me, i need to see this *perfect match* and this 2% cast.. the NEC is what i need as a professional. But i could live with the imac alone if my NEC stop working (i will run to get another one so i can sleep at night ; )</p>

<p><em>I don't think the Dell's are really any better</em></p>

<p>the Dell U2410 i always suggest is the equivalent of the Imac, but in matte and 1/2 price. It is the best solution if you are a amateur on a budget that need a seriously good monitor to add to your imac or mac / pc tower.</p>

<p>The *problem* people are talking about (mostly photographer) was when the earlier glossy mac (24inch) where not able to drop there luminosity lower than 140.. when you need 110/120 normally (depend of your pritn viewing condition) .. the new imac 22 and 27 inch can go as low as 16... so you are cover.</p>

<p>Glossy get on your nerve? if you work with a black / gray / white background you will quickly forget about it.. if you work with a window, lamp or similar object you will get mad in no time. Dont use the *i see it in store* reason for not buying it.. as you obviously know that in store is far from the perfect controled condition.</p>

<p>Monitor, monitor. If I'm here, some of your nice gentlemen, please give me an advice.<br>

I have a LaCie Photon20vision on my old G3 MAC, (at list, 10-15 years old, running without any glitch) working perfect, calibrated and I'm not able to increase the brightness, compared with my LaCie 324, 24" monitor. (more then 10 years old) It is not a problem the problem is my newest 24" monitor running from a MAC tower (3 years old, monitor - computer) started to haw a 8-10 inch darker band at the bottom, so, I had to replace the monitor. I lost confidence of this LaCie, expensive, and no longer manufactured in Franc. ( made in china?) What is the best monitor to day available, 24" for the MAC power pc . . . . .desktop, big tower? Price below 1000 bucks.<br>

Thank you.</p>

dell u2410

<p>Thank you Patrick. 479 dollar only?! I don't believe my eyes. I paid for my LaCie 324 C$ 1260.00 3-4 years ago. What is the next step upwards, in quality? And matching to the MAC? The time I bought the LaCie for my new MAC, I compared the two monitor, side by side at the store, calibrated, and the LaCie was better then the MAC 24" monitor. But I wasn't luck this time, monitor sharpness and color is perfect, except those dark band started to shown up lately. No more LaCie.</p>

>>> And, in general, are the monitors on the iMacs acceptable for photographers?

 

The OP is not asking for the best standalone professional grade stand-alone monitor.

 

Rather he's asking if the built-in display that comes with a new iMac is acceptable for photography. Of course it

is. Loads of photos processed with mine it and it calibrates fine. As Patrick up above says, the

differences for most people are non-existant. Especially true considering the price differential, and the fact

that we're talking about a professional grade monitor vs a computer that includes a display.

<blockquote>

<p><em>For extremely fine color matching the iMac 27 will not be quite as precise as a NEC Spectraview...</em><br>

for the difference (having both) the diference for most user are not existing. for me, i need to see this *perfect match* and this 2% cast.. the NEC is what i need as a professional. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its important to point out that there are significant architectural differences between NEC SpectraView’s (and Eizo’s, perhaps one or two others) and all the other displays discussed. These are <em>smart monitors</em>; displays that operate internally in high bit where the software+hardward control the process to a very precise and easy level. We’re talking high bit internal calibration paths in the display, not the graphic system. Result, less (no) banding. Its pretty useful to know if you see banding, its in your document, not a result of the display path. </p>

<p>These displays also have more control over the calibrating process. Case in point is setting the contrast ratio for a closer visual match to your print. You simply can’t effectively control this by altering a LUT in the graphic system, you have to alter the condition of the panel. The other advantage is that you simply tell the software what calibration targets you wish (backlight intensity in cd/,2, white point, TRC gamma and contrast ratio), walk away with no futzing with an OSD control. The electronics in the panel precisely control all this. Set it and forget it. NEC has some robust purity controls. You’re working on a neutral image on that iMac or similar display and its corners are magenta while the center is more neutral, not useful! </p>

<p>A good display system should last many years, longer than many keep their CPU’s around. Its the window onto your digital images which are just piles of numbers. Such a system greatly aids in effective soft proofing which saves a lot of time and money on wasted output. Skimping on a display system is like buying a great camera and puting a crappy lens on it. It <strong>will</strong> take images, but is this an effective use of your money? </p>

<p>Interesting. Nobody mentioning the LaCie monitors, one time one of the best, now, not so best. I have a 15 years old <strong>Photon 20 vision</strong>, and still running very nicely. But the <strong>324</strong>, 2 years old and all ready faulty. And I have no idea, with what kinda monitor I going to replace the 324 LaCie.</p>

<p>It is important to keep in mind that those you send images to have to have a monitor as good as and calibrated like yours is to see the same results you do.</p>

<p>I love this website -- lots of intelligent people with educated opinions. Thank you very much. I always learn a lot here.</p>

<p>Can I ask one more question? Comparing images on my Dell 1905FP monitor to the images on my Dad's 21.5 inch iMac, I noticed images on the Mac seemed to be higher resolution. That's a consistent trend too. Images displayed on a Mac seem crisper and sharper, i.e. displayed at a higher resolution, than on a PC monitor.</p>

<p>So I pulled out a ruler and measured pixels per inch, and found out I was right. I don't remember the exact numbers, but my Dell displayed around 75 pixels per inch and my Dad's iMac displayed closer to 90 pixels per inch. It was a noticeable difference, although neither monitor would display the 300 dpi you can get on a print. (And I do remember the Dell <em>wasn't </em>at 72 ppi, disproving that old myth again.)</p>

<p>So, my question is, would another monitor or monitor/video card combination make a PC display at a higher resolution like a Mac or is that an intrinsic characteristic of PCs? Is that why Macs have always been the preferred choice of graphics professionals? </p>

<p>Does that make sense? </p>