Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nycdunz · Jun 15, 2008, 05:24 PM

I am in the print/graphic design/photography business. I use my computer mainly for those reasons.

I have a question about getting a glossy screen vs antiglare(matte)... I know it is relatively important in my field to get accurate colors. Since I do a lot of print and design work.

In my opinion I prefer glossy screen, colors look much more vibrant, everything looks sharper... but I'm not sure if this would be good for printing. I heard matte screen is better for people who are into the print/design world.

Another concern I have is, smudging. I have a 1st gen 17" powerbook, and it has a lot of smudges that I cannot get rid of. This is matte screen of course, because there was no glossy option at the time. Will getting a glossy screen benefit me? I mean is it easy to clean smudges, and fingerprints off a glossy screen vs a matte screen? I know if you leave smudges or fingerprint marks on a matte screen for awhile, it won't come out at all. But is this also the case with glossy screen?

I am stuck on between the 2 and don't know which one I should get that will suit me... I am the type who can't stand people who touch my screen. So if glossy will be easier to clean then I guess I'll go with that then.

@pplejaxkz · Jun 15, 2008, 05:35 PM

This is definitely a huge debate around here and at the Apple Store. I myself like the Glossy screen because I think things look brighter and more sharper. But again this is my opinion and there are many people who think the exact opposite.

It is true that a lot of people who are into graphic design and photography prefer the Matte screen. Some people say that it has a better color consistency. I recently had a customer buying a Macbook Pro and opened up the same photo on a glossy screen and a matte screen and they both looked good. The matte looked a little brighter with the photo, but again that was one photo.

When it comes to the screen and leaving marks such as fingerprints and grease spots. It's fairly easy to clean the screen. Usually a lightly damp paper towel should do the trick. Please not soaking wet as it would seep into the screen and cause damage.

I hope any of this helps your choice. Again it all comes down to you and your preference. Just because most people do a lot of graphic design work on a matte screen doesn't mean there are people who do it with no problems on a glossy screen. I myself am one of them. Good luck!

ghporter · Jun 15, 2008, 05:38 PM

Oh boy, you've opened up a big old can of worms! In the past, people have represented their personal choices as "the only logical thing to do" and defended these choices with religious zealotry. This thread is in for a bumpy ride!

I think the most effective advice you'll be likely to get is about keeping screens clean. I have a 15" early model MPB with a matte screen, and by following Apple's advice (slightly damp, no-lint cloth), my screen has stayed pretty much smudge free. A friend has an original model 17" MBP whose glossy screen shows a lot of finger prints and such—but not at all from straight on. She's had good luck with the Apple instructions, but I don't know if she's been able to get all the marks and smudges off and just put more on it later.

OreoCookie · Jun 15, 2008, 05:51 PM

If you want color consistency, you should definitely invest in a hardware calibration tool, no matter if you go for a matte screen or a glossy screen.

mduell · Jun 17, 2008, 02:27 PM

There's an argument to be made both ways; it really comes down to personal preference.

With the glossy display, you get sharp reflections that make small parts of the display unviewable. With the matte display, the reflections are diffused, resulting in large portions of the display washing out. The former is more annoying to a lot of people, but I believe the latter plays more havoc with calibration, requiring recalibration every time ambient light changes.

0157988944 · Jun 17, 2008, 06:05 PM

I love my matte screen and getting smudges off is really easy. It's hard-coated, so it's smooth and doesn't soak in fingerprints like some older LCDs I've had.

@pplejaxkz · Jun 17, 2008, 06:44 PM

I had a guy come in to the store today looking at the Macbook Pros and he was going on about the difference between the glossy and matte finish screens. He was there for at least an hour talking to many different Mac Specialists about the subject. I pulled up the same picture on a glossy screen and a matte screen and showed him the difference. I thought that would somewhat solve his question but it only made it worse for some reason. I think he just wanted to disagree with whatever anyone told him.

polendo · Jun 17, 2008, 08:06 PM

I have a MBP 15" matte and a MB 13.3"glossy. I haven't calibrated neither of the two (haven't got the time yet). The matte screen colors looks so washed out. The glossy screen seems nitid and sharp with more saturation of color. Nevertheless, I agree with what Oreo says.. calibrating the screen will make huge improvements on any type of screen. I think the key on having adequate colors and such is on the calibration of the screen.
Case in point I have an iBook G3 (which is about to be sold) with a calibrated screen and looks much better overall than the MBP or the MB as they stand right now.
If I were you, I would test drive both types on real conditions and decide upon. If this particular issue is very important for what you do, I guess it requires a bit more attention than usual.. you will feel better with your decision.
good luck

amazing · Jun 18, 2008, 12:19 AM

polendo: On the MBP, since you don't have time to calibrate it, just go into the color portion of the display Pref Panel, and set it to sRGB--washed colors will go away. A lot easier on the eyes, too. 'Course, calibrating it is the real way to go, but this is way better than washed out.

forumhound · 11:29 PM

Hi Amazing, I find mbp color profiles baffling, and as I no longer own a color calibrator, I tried ur suggestion without much luck. I have mbp late 2007 model (matte finish) and using the profile called "Color LCD" looks more true then the rest. Not bad, but a bit washed out. The sRGB profiles to choose from are Adobe sRGB IEC61966-2.1 x2 - not sure why they are duplicated. But there is a severe blue tint to them (visually). There is one called supercal1 which looks a little better but still with a blue "tint." I suppose there is no other solution but buying a calibrator (which is not available in this country) arg...thx
coocoo

To OP: I understand this is subjective, but as a designer working with vid/web/print all day everyday, the matte screens are much easier on the eyes and seem to be color accurate. I tried working on a glossy 24 inch imac downstairs, and while the screen real estate is nice, my eyeballs began to gloss with the screen - and the harder to remove fingerprints started to drive me bonkers.
CC

polendo · Jun 19, 2008, 01:38 PM

Amazing, thanks for the tip.. I will try it.

Supercal is a software screen calibrator. It works really well.. I asume that the profile named supercal1 was made up using the software. I would recommend to calibrate the screen with that software if there is no solution at hand. Give it a try.. its definetly worth it.

SuperCal 1.1.4 software download - Mac OS X - VersionTracker

SierraDragon · 07:25 PM

Glossy displays add saturation and contrast to images. Although many consumers like the extra added "pop" most graphics pros do not want their displays to add anything to work images.

Laptop displays, glossy or matte, are substantially inferior for accurate color work in any event. Best is a second display for critical color. However I have used my 17" MBP matte screen by itself when it is unavoidable. Generally you don't know what you are missing unless you have an ACD display next to a laptop display.

Advice from retail store folks is IMO generally useless at best. They are sales professionals, not graphics professionals. And store display Macs are typically very poorly set up.

-Allen Wicks

mduell · Jun 19, 2008, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

Glossy displays add saturation and contrast to images. Although many consumers like the extra added "pop" most graphics pros do not want their displays to add anything to work images.

While the glossy display coating allows for higher contrast/saturation, isn't how much the display adds or takes away a matter of calibration?

forumhound · Jun 20, 2008, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by polendo

Amazing, thanks for the tip.. I will try it.

Supercal is a software screen calibrator. It works really well.. I asume that the profile named supercal1 was made up using the software. I would recommend to calibrate the screen with that software if there is no solution at hand. Give it a try.. its definetly worth it.

SuperCal 1.1.4 software download - Mac OS X - VersionTracker

Amazing, thanks for that. I must have had it installed once and sorta remember trying to remove the tint from my mbp display. its strange, i was just trying to match the external SyncMaster that I have with the LCD on the mbp as close as possible, and whenever I use a software calibration tool all i get is a blueish tint on the mbp. Maybe it's a hardware problem, dunno. But i think the only way I will ever be able to find out is to get a hardware calibrator....
cheers,
FH

OreoCookie · Jun 20, 2008, 05:01 AM

No software calibration is a match even for the cheapest hardware calibration tools (they start at $65 or so).

Also, no notebook screen, glossy or not, (except perhaps the 17" ProBook) can match the quality of even midrange lcds. If you want accurate colors, you need to get an external non-TN panel lcd. However, if you calibrate your notebook screen, you can do first corrections and get a good impression of what your picture will look like.

amazing · Jun 20, 2008, 12:03 PM

Here's a very detailed, knowledgeable review of the MBP screens. Doesn't mention glossy vs matte screens until the very end, where the text seems to indicate to are referring throughout to matte screens:

Rob Galbraith DPI: Evaluating the MacBook Pro 15 inch LED-backlit display

Very complicated calibration, but good if that's how you make your living (or you're passionate about photos.)

Mojo · Jun 29, 2008, 06:10 PM

No software calibration is a match even for the cheapest hardware calibration tools (they start at $65 or so).

That isn't my experience using SuperCal... my first profile was close to perfect. A little tweaking and I think it could be spot-on. I think that it does an admirable job for only $19. If you find that it doesn't meet your needs then I think that a realistic hardware expenditure is going to be closer to $200 than $65...

Since SuperCal is shareware you can try it before you buy it and you can create more than one profile if you need to adjust things a bit. I think that a lot of Mac folks would be fine using SuperCal vs. a hardware solution, but unfortunately they listen to folks on forums who think that hardware is the only way to go even though they usually have not tried giving SuperCal an honest chance.

OreoCookie · Jun 29, 2008, 07:47 PM

I've paid $65 for my Color Spyder 2 Express. The sensor is the same for all lines, only the software differs with the more expensive versions of the Color Spyder. Not sure if this is still true with version 3. Some trivial limitations (calibration of only one monitor) can be trivially circumvented using only the Finder (renaming the profile) and changing the name of the profile via ColorSync Utility.

There is simply no way that a human and software can get close to even entry-level hardware calibration -- which is more than affordable.