• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

So, Which PowerbookPro tethered in studio or for RAW workflow?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I'm almost ready to splurge!

1. SIZE: However, there's a 13" model (2GHZ, dual core 2GB RAM) seems well fiited out!

Has anyone chosen a 13" plus a 20" or 23" display for the the best of both world?

Or is everyone just skipping the 13" to go for the extra real estate, 2.3GHZ and 3GB RAM?

1. GLOSS: Who is choose in matte v. gloss ans what practical differences have you found?

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Asher Kelman said:
1. GLOSS: Who is choose in matte v. gloss ans what practical differences have you found?

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Asher
Bonjour Asher
I think the glossy screen is more marketing option to attract Sony Vaio users...

In that case the best for you would be to go to an Apple store and look at the visual difference, you may even bring a CD with an image that you know well on your Eizo to get a better idea...
 

Tim Armes

New member
Asher Kelman said:
1. GLOSS: Who is choose in matte v. gloss ans what practical differences have you found?
Asher

I hadn't realised that glossy was an option until you pointed it out. Looking at the Apple site, I see that the MacBook has a glossy screen and the MacBook Pro has a glossy option.

I've looked at glossy screens in the shops, and my view is that they look nicer, and the photos look better, but that they're probably worse for retouching because of all the reflections. So, if the object is to show your magnificent portfolio to your clients, then go for glossy. If it's to use as a retouching tool, then go for matte (and print your portfolio!).

Tim
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Tim Armes said:
I........

I've looked at glossy screens in the shops, and my view is that they look nicer, and the photos look better, but that they're probably worse for retouching because of all the reflections. ......

Tim

I've read, that the glossy are harder to calibrate as well...
 

Paul Caldwell

New member
Glossy vs. Matte

When I purchased my MacBook Pro, I didn't realize that the glossy screen was an option. I have used a Sony with the glossy screen and for photo displays I feel it's hard to beat. I like alot saturation and contrast in my work and the Sony Glossy screen added to that. From what I have seen on the Mac's it is the same way.

I have read that calibration is harder on the glossy, but Alan Briot from had posted on outbackphoto that he liked the glossy Mac screen and was going to post how well he thought it calibrated, but I haven't seen that post.

The reflection on the sony screen is very harsh, but I have looked at the Mac screens and they don't seem as bad, however they do have reflection issues.

I attempted to return my MacbookPro for the glossy screen, but wasn't able to and now have come to like it. I recently compared a 17" Pro with the glossy and one with the matte and I feel for some reason the glossy screen was a tad brighter. This was running mac OS, no windows.

Paul C.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for the answers guys!

Well, going to the Mac store is now a must! I will also look to see how my combo of an extra screen and smaller laptop might work!

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
If you frequently have to travel with your notebook you should consider the smaller MacBook accompanied by a large Cinema Display while in-studio (or at home). If not, just get the 17" and be done with it.

In either case I recommend the matte screen. The shiny screen seems a bit higher contrast but, in fact, it can be a real nightmare for reflections...not a good alternative for photographers. Leave those for the kids using them to watch u-tube.

I've been using my 17" MacBook Pro for 2-3 weeks. It's and excellent system that bests my previous 17" Mac notebook.
 

Stan Jirman

New member
If you want to drive an external monitor and actually work, god forbit using Aperture, then you need an MBP; the lack of special video hardware in the MB will be painful. Even so, an MBP is not a good workhorse for Aperture and friends. You'll be much better off with a MP with a real video card (i.e. the ATI 1900 or the FX4500).

The glossy screen is wonderful if you are in a basement with no lights. The contrast and saturation is remarkable. However, the moment you turn on the light, or god forbit find yourself outdoors you'll wish you had the classic matte screen :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Stan Jirman said:
If you want to drive an external monitor and actually work, god forbit using Aperture, then you need an MBP; the lack of special video hardware in the MB will be painful. Even so, an MBP is not a good workhorse for Aperture and friends. You'll be much better off with a MP with a real video card (i.e. the ATI 1900 or the FX4500).
So the 15" (or 17") matte screen PBPro is needed. Are there expansion buses available for adding high powered video cards? This used to be standard with the G3 powerbooks working with Avid or other programs.

Also is there a table top stand for the Apple monitors that can fold flat so one can easily transport a monitor?

Asher
 

Stan Jirman

New member
Asher Kelman said:
So the 15" (or 17") matte screen PBPro is needed. Are there expansion buses available for adding high powered video cards? This used to be standard with the G3 powerbooks working with Avid or other programs.
Nope.

Also is there a table top stand for the Apple monitors that can fold flat so one can easily transport a monitor?
All current Apple monitors are standard VESA mounts. So if you can find a VESA mount that fits your needs, you can simply attach it to the Apple screen (or vice versa? :))
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Stan Jirman said:
Nope.


All current Apple monitors are standard VESA mounts. So if you can find a VESA mount that fits your needs, you can simply attach it to the Apple screen (or vice versa? :))

Hi Stan,

I found the Magma expansiopns chassis. So getting a card seems no problem. What card would be the ideal to test?

Asher
 

Stan Jirman

New member
Wow. That's not what I understood by "adding a high powered card" :) This thing will be a monster. To me, a laptop exists for portability, and every cable that I plug into it - from power to external video - diminishes this feature. Plugging in a beast of an adapter, plus the actual video card (which are huge) would kinda make me wonder if I am doing the wrong thing here. Also I doubt that Apple officially supports it; you would be best advised to contact Magma directly and ask them. Maybe they know what it works with. I would guess you would need an EFI video card, such as the new MP cards, so that the Intel system knows how to talk to it. However this is just a guess and hardly a recommendation.

If your requirements are so vastly different - portability yet huge computing power - maybe two different computers (laptop & desktop) are the way to go. At least that's how most people seem to solve this quandry :)
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Paul Caldwell said:
I have read that calibration is harder on the glossy, but Alan Briot from had posted on outbackphoto that he liked the glossy Mac screen and was going to post how well he thought it calibrated, but I haven't seen that post.
Paul C.

The glossy screen calibrates just as well as the matte screens. No difference. It seems that there would be a difference, but there isn't. Also, unless you have a bright window or light source behind you, the glossy screen does not give reflections.

ALain
 
Top