Slashdot Mirror
Photog Rob Galbraith Rates MacBook Pro Display "Not Acceptable"
An anonymous reader writes "Professional digital photographer and website publisher Rob Galbraith has performed both objective and subjective tests on laptop displays, finding that the late-2008 Macbook Pro glossy displays are 'deep into the not acceptable category' when used in ambient light environments. The Apple notebook came in dead last for color accuracy, and second to last in viewing angles (besting only the Dell Mini 9). He concludes: 'Macs are no longer at the top of the laptop display heap in our minds.'"
Sorry, but Rob is perfectly capable of flamebait. He had an opinion and he made sure he found data to support it.
Plenty of OTHER professional photographers disagree with him, and lots think ALL laptop screens suck.
Just because someone is an expert does not mean you should automatically assume impartiality.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seems to me that Apple has made a decision to favor battery life over color fidelity. This seems reasonable given that the vast majority of Mac users are not working in the color industry.
A lot of graphic artists and photographers are mobile, and need a mobile computer to do work in the field, though. Serious color work should be done on a pro-quality external monitor.
Apple might want to consider a "color pro" edition with a screen that is more geared to these specialists, so they don't have to lug around an external screen, but I doubt it's likely to happen.
But if there's serious interest for serious pros who are used to dropping serious dollars for pro equipment, maybe it could happen. I've supported photographers who've spend more on cameras than I would on a house if I won the lottery, so getting them to spend a ridiculous amount on a special laptop, say 5-figures, seems not totally unreasonable to me. Realistically, though, my guess is they could build something acceptable for quite a bit less.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I wonder if Apple had realized they fucked up and offered the 17" model with an optional matte display? If glossy displays are so great, how come this traditionally stubborn company made this concession?
Probably, but I'm often mobile and 17" is just too big. But this whole escapade has opened my eyes to the risks of using a single vendor for hardware, especially reversing itself by one going with low-quality parts and which is willing to be capricious on major customer issues. My 15" MBP (late 2006) is fine for now, but it's going to go south at some point. I can't use a glossy screen, my brain doesn't filter out the reflections.
So, after 17 years on the Mac desktop, I'm moving to all-linux. KDE 4.1 on Fedora 10 kinda sucks, though. 4.2 looks to fix all the problems I'm having though, so for now I'm slowly moving over using VirtualBox on OSX.
It's not just this, 10.5 has been super-buggy for me, so I'm still on 10.4. But if it were just 10.5 I'd be willing to wait for 10.6.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Rob Galbraith is the frequent butt of jokes about his ego and mouth-
So, he's the Dvorak of the photo world?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When someone else sees your screen, it looks good and they think 'that's a nice laptop, maybe I'll get one like that'.
I doubt that he will think that, seeing him cursing and swearing because he can't see a thing on that craptop.
On another note: Since when was Apple known for high quality hardware or even good displays? Have I missed something?
Because I always saw Macs as shoddy hardware in a cool shiny box with a high price. Only the PowerPC CPUs were cool. And in my book, they were IBM chips (as are AMDs chips [they got tons of help, every time were at risk to die because of intel] and the Cell and POWER chips.)
But maybe I was the only one who actually cared about what chipset was on the mainboard...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm comparing LCDs, I don't give a shit where they sit.
It's not impossible to use MVA or IPS in laptops, it's just that no-one seem to make or use them.
TN panels is shit no matter where they sit, and laptop TN panels in general seem to be even more crap than desktop ones.
And then I just mentioned some panels which don't seem that crappy but still has decent price.
And Apple uses TN in their 20" iMac to, there cinema displays is quite well regarded but then again you can get similar performance for less from Dell so I'd never buy one.
And the lack of functionality is a small price to pay for broadcasting our coolness.
Isn't this Apple's mission statement?
I got an iPod as a gift and I'm very close to either putting it up on eBay or running it over with my car.
Who makes an audio player without volume controls? And the scroll wheel is great for long menus or scanning through many songs, but what if I want to go to the next menu item or move 1 song down the list? It's not so good for that.
That's before we get to the stinking pile of fail that is iTunes.
But as you said, at least I can broadcast my coolness.
EXACTLY! Which is why I refuse to pay the APPLE PREMIUM EVER!