Glossy compared with matte screens for photography?

crogers

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
98
I know this has been beat to death but what are your opinions on the two, pros and cons.

I do professional photography, weddings, and need to upgrade to a good monitor or buy a new system like the 27" Imac quad. However it has a glossy screen and after doing some research and talking to a couple of sales people at the busy Apple store, both were photographers, they gave me straight talk and said it may not be good for what I do.

One explained if you take a b&w 8x10 print and then put a piece of glass over it what will happen? Will it appear more contrasty and sharper? I said yes. She said there is your answer.

I use a MBP now and run another monitor off it but its a old Mitsubishi 20" CRT and it is losing it's red channel so I am either thinking of another monitor or buying the Imac.
I tried the wide gamut Hp 2475 but I was not sure I was getting a good calibration with it, plus it had a damaged base so I sent it back.

I am also considering a nec 2490wuxi2 or the more expensive 2490wuxi and I am trying to get feedback between the two models.

I would rather get the 27" Imac but there is no way I can try one out, 15% restocking fee to see if its for me.

any thoughts?
 
Wow, what a great article.. everyone should read it. I hope it's right?

so I guess I will going to a NEC, now which one?
 
Personally I strongly prefer glossy screens for photography, because matte screens introduce a grain into everything that acts like photo noise (except that the noise pattern changes depending on viewing angle — which is why this grain is also sometimes called "sparkle"). DSLR cameras are capable of very low noise, so a matte screen becomes the limiting factor against seeing smooth noise-free photos on-screen.

I'm trying to convert my 30" LCD from matte to glossy for this very reason.

(Note that with TN panels and probably most PVA panels, this is not an issue. It's only IPS matte screens that have the grain problem.)
 
Last edited:
Personally I strongly prefer glossy screens for photography, because matte screens introduce a grain into everything that acts like photo noise (except that the noise pattern changes depending on viewing angle — which is why this grain is also sometimes called "sparkle").

You really should look at good matte screens, then. Glossy is not the answer.
 
any other unbiased views about glossy versus matte??

Like I said I would love to buy that 27" Imac but don't want to try it out and get killed with a $300 restocking fee if I find that I can't hack it.
 
any other unbiased views about glossy versus matte??

Like I said I would love to buy that 27" Imac but don't want to try it out and get killed with a $300 restocking fee if I find that I can't hack it.

Why not go to your local bestbuy and check out the 27 inch imac with your own eyes? It sounds like you're leaning that way so you might as well go see it yourself to make SURE before you plunk down the cash for it.
 
You really should look at good matte screens, then. Glossy is not the answer.
As far as I know, all IPS matte panels have the grain problem. And PVA panels have inferior off-axis viewing properties, not to mention that they may tend to have more output lag (which is bothersome to me for general use, not just gaming). H-IPS matte may have less grain than S-IPS matte, but it still has noticeable grain, and that is unacceptable to me. So with IPS as the only option, it has to be glossy. If you want to elaborate on what you mean by "good matte screens", please do.

Note that I work in a lighting environment where glossy reflections are not a problem, even during the daytime. There are no light sources in front of my monitor, only to the side or above. Others may not have this luxury, and for them, the reflection-diffusing properties of a matte panel may outweigh the cost of having grain. Or for others yet, the disadvantages of PVA panels may not be an issue.
Any professional video and/or graphics editor will tell you that glossy screens suck. They artificially boost the contrast, which does make things look more sparkly, but it also means that it absolutely won't show you anywhere near what you'll see once you print it or show it on a non-glossy screen.
In a darkened room, a glossy screen has a virtually identical contrast ratio as a matte screen (all else being equal). In a room with ambient lighting, a matte screen will diffuse all the light hitting it, yielding an inferior black level. How is this a "benefit"? You can have lower contrast on a glossy screen, too; just calibrate it to have a higher black level or lower contrast ratio.
 
If you don't like it you could always just throw some dirt onto the screen and then it will look exactly like matte.
 
Why not go to your local bestbuy and check out the 27 inch imac with your own eyes? It sounds like you're leaning that way so you might as well go see it yourself to make SURE before you plunk down the cash for it.

The danger of this being of course that glossy in the right setup may [/i]look[/i] better than a matte display due to the boost in contrast levels. I think that in this case it makes more sense to read good monitor review sites on what they recommend for the OP's purpose.

Since the OP will be printing the pictures he works on I'd absolutely advise him to stay away from glossy screens as what is on-screen won't be anywhere near what the printed version will look like due to the false contrast levels. Opting for something like the NEC Spectraview II series may be a good choice.
 
The danger of this being of course that glossy in the right setup may [/i]look[/i] better than a matte display due to the boost in contrast levels. I think that in this case it makes more sense to read good monitor review sites on what they recommend for the OP's purpose.

Since the OP will be printing the pictures he works on I'd absolutely advise him to stay away from glossy screens as what is on-screen won't be anywhere near what the printed version will look like due to the false contrast levels. Opting for something like the NEC Spectraview II series may be a good choice.

I am getting a lot of opposite views, amazing.. Who do you trust?
Some say they get great results printing with their new glossy Imacs.
Others says glossy is not good increased contrast/sharpness from the glass, your prints will come out flatter looking..
I have a room, my office and my computer is set up in front of the window and I use a White light on the side for working temp, so reflections may not be that big of a deal.
I have been in correctly making prints for a long time now and just found out 2 reasons why and now that I know what I was wrong, I don't want to make the wrong decision about a monitor.
 
Pro monitors are not glossy. That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are dabbling, doing home photography and 'for fun' stuff, do not plan to do a hardware calibration, getting a glossy monitor should not significantly affect you.

If getting your colors right is important to your job, and you have a hardware calibrator and need accurate colors, grayscale and low dE, you need a pro monitor, and pro monitors are not glossy.
 
Pro monitors are not glossy. That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are dabbling, doing home photography and 'for fun' stuff, do not plan to do a hardware calibration, getting a glossy monitor should not significantly affect you.

If getting your colors right is important to your job, and you have a hardware calibrator and need accurate colors, grayscale and low dE, you need a pro monitor, and pro monitors are not glossy.

You are right. I think the right thing for me to do is forget the IMac 27" glossy and just get the older version NEC 2490wuxi..
 
Glossy is marketing and visual BS. Plain and simple. Some like the look, some don't, but that still does not get over the fact that it is changing the image to be less true. Just because it looks better on a glossy screen does not mean squat. With visual media it is all about making it look good on everything such as print, web, etc.by being accurate and true. Glossy is not accurate or true unless compensated for. There should be no reason to compensate on a pro display you are paying a premium for.

Matte all the way for professional visual art work (videography, photography, digital artist, etc.).

Frankly I don't understand how anyone can prefer glossy as it really is so artificial (if you don't think matte has enough "pop", it is not the monitor it is your source material), but that is beside the point and the above info stands the same no matter my opinion on glossy.
 
I don't like matte because it looks grainy. Glossy is no BS. All the work done on computers all those years when the only monitors were CRTs was glossy. And the best prints and best photo paper used are glossy, as are magazines. You can make your work accurate and true on regular paper and standard screens, but I believe something tailor-made for glossy used with glossy output sources looks best overall.
 
Frankly I don't understand how anyone can prefer glossy as it really is so artificial

So, now antiglare coating is equated with being "accurate" and "true" ? I thought it was just a necessary evil for some unfortunate poor souls that have to work in environments that won't let them control outside lighting...
I'll tell you what seems "artificial" to me...here is what matte does...
h-ips.png


and a glossy for comparison...
as-ips.png
 
I don't like matte because it looks grainy. Glossy is no BS. All the work done on computers all those years when the only monitors were CRTs was glossy. And the best prints and best photo paper used are glossy, as are magazines. You can make your work accurate and true on regular paper and standard screens, but I believe something tailor-made for glossy used with glossy output sources looks best overall.

CRTs are glossy? That's news to me. My CRTs are definitely matte and I have never seen the 'graininess' you mention with matte displays, especially not on my CRTs. Perhaps you mean that cheaper (<$700) LCDs suck and the glossiness helps to cover up the artifacts?

Also, 'glossy' paper and glossy screens most definitely isn't the same thing.
 
They sure are! Aren't all CRTs technically glossy? I haven't considered a matte CRT because the screen is glass. They all reflect to some degree depending on the coating, but the shinyness from the glass is still there. Though I have yet to see a CRT screen that's grainy, I was talking about some LCDs, Dells in particular. But I do hate when cheapo and crappy panels are given glossy treatment to hide their shortcomings.

Of course glossy papers and screens aren't the same thing, but the intended effect to the eye is. That's the good stuff! As Buffy says.."OOo shiny!"
 
You need the NEC wuxi range. I have seen something like 50 of these displayed in a local retailer. Wow!

If they are matte you really can't tell i.e. their is NO grain perceivable (to me at least).

Image is amazing, didn't like the look/design though.

Where can you still pick up one of these bad boys out of curiosity?
 
I am also looking at a 30" cinema apple display, refurbished.
It seems that display is regarded as one of the best.
It's more than the NEC 2490 but it is 30". I would need to buy the extra apple care which would give it a 3 year warranty.

The wheels are still spinning
 
They sure are! Aren't all CRTs technically glossy?

I use CRTs on a daily basis and I have seen glossy LCDs. There's a world of difference. While CRTs are a tad more shiny than matte LCDs, they absolutely do not have the mirror finish of a glossy display.
 
CRTs are glossy with an anti-reflective coating. They still reflect things just as crisply as a mirror, except that the reflection is very dark and usually deeply purple- or violet-tinted.

Some CRTs may have a matte shadow mask or aperture grille, which would give them a brighter black level with ambient light hitting the monitor &#8212; but the front glass is still glossy. The GDM-FW900's aperture grille seems to be more matte than the GDM-F500's, for example.
 
Last edited:
CRTs are glossy with an anti-reflective coating. They still reflect things just as crisply as a mirror, except that the reflection is very dark and usually deeply purple- or violet-tinted.

Some CRTs may have a matte shadow mask or aperture grille, which would give them a brighter black level with ambient light hitting the monitor — but the front glass is still glossy. The GDM-FW900's aperture grille seems to be more matte than the GDM-F500's, for example.

As I said, I have seen glossy LCDs like those on the new iMacs and it's hugely different from looking at a CRT screen. Yes, a black/off CRT screen does reflect a fair bit, but the matte LCD of my laptop does it pretty much to the same extent as it also has a glass layer and an anti-reflective coating, so there isn't much difference there.
 
the matte LCD of my laptop does it pretty much to the same extent as it also has a glass layer and an anti-reflective coating, so there isn't much difference there.
If your laptop LCD is matte, it has an anti-glare coating, not an anti-reflective coating. There's a big difference!

An anti-reflective coating is microscopically smooth, and works by reducing the jumps in index of refraction between materials; a good one is made up of multiple layers. An anti-glare coating is microscopically bumpy, causing it to diffuse light both transmitted and reflected.

If a CRT had the same kind of anti-glare coating as a matte LCD, the image would be horribly foggy and grainy due to the amount of space between the front coating and the shadow mask or aperture grille.
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly no expert, but wouldn't a matte screen designed to reduce glare and reflection from outside light sources also adversely affect light (the picture) coming from inside the monitor?
 
Thats a good point. However the use of matte screens that are made by NEC and Eizo for professionals set the standard I guess. There must be a good reason why they don't offer glossy screens.
The 23 and 30" cinema displays that pass the SWOP standards for printers are Matte.

So why have been trying to get people to tell me if the glossy screen on the Imac interferes with obtaining accurate prints? Are they being used by pro photographers? Good question.

I want people to say yes there is absolutely no problems with the glossy Imacs because I would like it to be true, I would like one.
But I think that the nec 2490wuxi is my best choice, or the 30" cinema.. big bucks though.
 
I learned a long time ago that when it comes to electronics, the sexiest looking equipment isn't necessarily the best for your needs. Consequently, despite their sexy looks, I will never own an Apple desktop. If your number one reason for wanting to buy something is because it looks badass, then you should probably pass.
 
Some of you just need to see a good monitor in person. Pro matte monitors look better than the glossy monitors out there. They are crazy good. I would own one if I had more of a need, I just can't justify spending thousands on a monitor at this point in my life.

And glossy prints are not at all equal to glossy monitors....
 
So, now antiglare coating is equated with being "accurate" and "true" ? I thought it was just a necessary evil for some unfortunate poor souls that have to work in environments that won't let them control outside lighting...
I'll tell you what seems "artificial" to me...here is what matte does...
h-ips.png


and a glossy for comparison...
as-ips.png

Those are comparing two different IPS technologies, not just matte vs. glossy.

The H-IPS, which is your first picture, is actually better performing than the S-IPS by a little bit, your second picture.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031919557&postcount=2
 
Back
Top