Bummer! New low end imac

The new low end imac with 20inch monitor and 2.4GHZ has a cheap video card which is not suitable for serious photography. Colors are all washed out. Pay $200 more for the 2.66 and the problem is solved. If possible go the an apple store and see for yourself.
--
Richard Garnett

Video card has nothing to do with colors being "washed out."

That's the reason the guy at the apple store gave me. What would the reason be then? The next model up with a different video card looks much better. Regardless of the reason the 2.4 monitor does not look good. I'm not the first person to note this.
--
Richard Garnett

If you're really interested why not search this forum as iMac displays (glossy, 20' vs 24") have been discussed ad nauseam.

Your post seem nothing more to me then trollish.

Video card has absolutely nada to do with the colors looking washed. Any monitor with any video card can be "calibrated" to look bad. If you calibrate correct they will all look the same.

I would say that the Apple Store guy was trying to upsell you...

Mikael

Richard Garnett said:

The new low end imac with 20inch monitor and 2.4GHZ has a cheap video
card which is not suitable for serious photography. Colors are all
washed out. Pay $200 more for the 2.66 and the problem is solved.
If possible go the an apple store and see for yourself.
--
Richard Garnett

Click to expand...

Sorry, dude. I'll check them out. I would like to know what is happening and why. I've been called a few things in my life, but this is the first time anyone has called me a troll.
--
Richard Garnett

Didn't call you anything I just referenced your post "seems trollish". Sorry if you're offended.

Speaking of Apple Store guys...

I once overheard a conversation between an employee and a customer who was looking for a carrying case for his 1st gen iPod Nano. The employee explained that the tiny hard drive in the Nano is really fragile and that the customer needs to buy a really well padded case. That was a Nano, as in, solid state flash memory!

I checked out the "ad nauseum" section and did not find out too much. These monitors are barely a month old and have not had enough time to develop nausea.

The questions is not between the 20" and 24". It is between the low end 20" and the high end 20. The high end looks better. They have different video cards. If it is not the video card what is it? Help me out on this and maybe I save 300 bucks.
Thank you.
--
Richard Garnett

The video card will not make a difference to the rendition of the color on the display. It does impact other things like performance... What you are seeing is a difference in calibration between the two setups. The systems should be configured with the same profile but it is possible that someone has been playing. For any serious color work you really should calibrate. I would spend the $300 you saved on a calibration puck. You may well be able to arrange to try one out at the store on your display. It should make it spot on. On note of caution. Its possible the less saturated wishy washy version is the correct one...

It is most probably the monitor. Monitors are expensive and they probaby used a lesser LCD technology on the entry level. Video cards vary in quality/speed but they should all be capable to produce vibrant colors.

My latest work laptop has such a bad screen and I have to connect it to a separate monitor for any image viewing.
Guy

Richard Garnett said:

I checked out the "ad nauseum" section and did not find out too much.
These monitors are barely a month old and have not had enough time to
develop nausea.
The questions is not between the 20" and 24". It is between the low
end 20" and the high end 20. The high end looks better. They have
different video cards. If it is not the video card what is it? Help
me out on this and maybe I save 300 bucks.
Thank you.
--
Richard Garnett

Click to expand...

Thank you Paul for answering my question clearly and concisely.

Just open System Preferences, click on Display and then Color. There should be a list of different profiles for the monitor. Just click on a few of them and watch the monitor go from good to bad to worse.

Spend the $300 on a calibration device like the ones from datacolor.com or similar products. I have the Spyder Pro and I use it on all my monitors. Even my work laptop, Dell D630 running XP, which is not used for image processing but it's at least consistent with my Mac at home.

The video card will only make a difference in games and if you edit movies as it can render more frames / second. Some of the newer image processing software packages also claims to take advantage of the video card cpu for faster image processing such as converting from RAW to jpeg etc.

Mikael

Richard Garnett said:

I checked out the "ad nauseum" section and did not find out too much.
These monitors are barely a month old and have not had enough time to
develop nausea.
The questions is not between the 20" and 24". It is between the low
end 20" and the high end 20. The high end looks better. They have
different video cards. If it is not the video card what is it? Help
me out on this and maybe I save 300 bucks.
Thank you.
--
Richard Garnett

Click to expand...

--
Mikael

Dude, try this;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1017&message=27895757

OK. I don't want a 24". I want a 20". Would a 20" be good enough for your photographic work assuming that it is properly calibrated?

That's my next question. Do I buy new or do I stick with my 5 year G4 which is a little long on the tooth but works fine as far as color is concerned.
--
Richard Garnett

I would go with the 20" and a calibration unit. Buy both somewhere where they have a good return policy. If it doesn't work out...return the stuff. I wouldn't be worried though. Spyder Pro 2 is only $150 (I paid $300 a few years ago...)

Maybe you can try the calibration on one of the store computers? The default settings on all monitors I've calibrated (including my Mac Book Pro 15") is always to blue and you will see the biggest difference in skintones looking more natural.

Mikael

Richard Garnett said:

OK. I don't want a 24". I want a 20". Would a 20" be good enough
for your photographic work assuming that it is properly calibrated?
That's my next question. Do I buy new or do I stick with my 5 year
G4 which is a little long on the tooth but works fine as far as color
is concerned.
--
Richard Garnett

Click to expand...

--
Mikael

For an interminably ferocious discussion on this subject visit Mac Forums: 20" TN 6-bit panels?

Most posters don't like the monitors (overdone, perhaps). My Conclusion: 1) The 24" is better than the 20". 2) I don't want a 24, not because it's too expensive. but because it's too big. 3) Therefore I procrastinate and live with what I have now.

It's seems that the 20"s will always be low end and will never have the best display.
Bigger is better. More is better.
--
Richard Garnett

I've read up on the web about picture issues with 20 in iMacs. Looked at two models today in two different stores. The screens looked perfectly fine to me. The staff had still photos to look at and the screen if one sits say + - 20 degrees of dead centre looked fine, as good as any other non-Apple screens each store had in a comparable size. My current NEC screen has served me for post processing of images just fine and IMO yes it was only two examples that I saw in brightly lit stores but I think once more appropriately adjusted I see no reason why the 20in iMacs can't work for photos as well as my NEC or better than it. Yes the 24inch screens are a step up and if you have the budget for one then get it but I was worried from the cr@p I read online that the 20in iMacs were cr@ppy displays. I see no reason to think this is so. They may not be the best screens for the ultimate fussy person but if you sit IN FRONT of your screen and not IMO stupidly too far off to the sides or up and down I fail to see why a 20in iMac can't work for photography.

--
visit my photo gallery of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

Sounds like you really don't need a new computer after all. But if you are tempted, consider a refurb older white 20-in model or a 24-in one. Those screens are excellent and the cost of one of those units is a real bargain. Either will run rings around your ancient G4. I have several photographer friends who use those models with great satisfaction. You can also attach an external monitor.

The difference is not the card, but the type of display. From what I understand, the 20" uses the cheap TN type of LCD, whereas the 24" uses H-IPS technology which is much better at reproducing colors accurately (on par with very good CRT monitors). The Apple Cinema Displays are S-IPS and the H variant is the latest iteration of this technology.

Even though you'll do ok by getting a 20" with a calibrator, you simply won't get the same sort of accuracy and consistency that you will with a better panel. I'm surprised that the cost is not more different, given the other hardware is not much more expensive from the 20" to the 24".

My advice would be to get the 24" and save yourself some headaches down the road. There is no substitute for a high quality monitor, which is why you'll pay several thousand dollars for a top of the line LCD. I use the 20" at work (college newspaper) and it's not very accurate, despite calibration on a regular basis. It's too bright, for starters, and has a magenta cast that calibration doesn't seem to fully correct. I get far and away superior results at home on my Dell 2007WFP which is an S-IPS panel. If you look on a harder angle on the 20", you will see a very purple cast on the screen, which you won't get on the 24".

Good luck whatever you do, but I strongly recommend you get the better panel, even though it is larger.