Matte or Glossy? (A "unique" question! :D)
Hi,
I'm sure this was asked roughly 12856 times before, and I did read some posts on the matter, but I didn't find all I was looking for.
Let me first clarify that glare would be a non-issue in my workspace, so let's put that disadvantage of glossy screens aside.
I sure love how things look on iPad and iPhone, maybe or maybe not because it's glossy (their screens are way better than my TN panel screen).
I read that glossy screens have more pop to their colors, and so it won't look exactly the same on paper (and probably on other people's computer/tv screens, which are mostly matte I believe). However, will software calibration using an external device compensate for that fact? Because the device does look at the screen through that glossy material...
If I could have a profile with more popping colors, for movies and such and one for photo editing, that could be awesome, if it's even possible.
Thank you!
YonathanZ wrote:
Hi,
I'm sure this was asked roughly 12856 times before, and I did read some posts on the matter, but I didn't find all I was looking for.
Let me first clarify that glare would be a non-issue in my workspace, so let's put that disadvantage of glossy screens aside.
I sure love how things look on iPad and iPhone, maybe or maybe not because it's glossy (their screens are way better than my TN panel screen).
I read that glossy screens have more pop to their colors, and so it won't look exactly the same on paper (and probably on other people's computer/tv screens, which are mostly matte I believe). However, will software calibration using an external device compensate for that fact? Because the device does look at the screen through that glossy material...
If I could have a profile with more popping colors, for movies and such and one for photo editing, that could be awesome, if it's even possible.
Thank you!
Don't waste your time with such an attempt. It is not possible to match a display surface to a paper type. You'll eventually get used to dealing with different paper types and how they will look with the same color, brightness and contrast from an accurate display.
In that case, does it matter if I choose glossy or matte?
It's a personal choice and since you seem to prefer a glossy display your decision seems to be easy...
However, in my experience displays with a glossy panel tend to over-saturate dark areas and make judging shadow detail more difficult than a panel with a good anti-glare coating. The gradations between pure white and pure black are more subtle with a good quality anti-glare display. I find it easier to judge how a print will turn out when using an anti-glare display than a glossy display. Most if not all monitors designed for professional use have anti-glare panels.
Overhead lighting and window glare/reflections aren't the only problems associated with glossy displays. Even when glare-producing sources are well-controlled some glossy displays have annoying reflections; wear light-colored clothing when demoing displays and you will see what I mean... I don't want to see myself reflected in a display that I am using for hours every day...
Anti-glare coatings vary among manufacturers: some companies tend toward a heavier, grainier coating while others are lighter making them barely noticeable. I become accustomed to the better-quality anti-glare coatings after using them for a short period of time i.e. less than an hour.
Apple once used very nice anti-glare panels with a coating that was essentially invisible. The closest anti-glare coatings I have found in current reasonably-priced models are NEC displays. NEC has a wide variety of panels with a choice of panel type and back-lighting ranging in price from cheap to expensive.
It would be best if you could personally demo both kinds of displays so you can see for yourself. The best test would be comparing your own images on both displays so you can see how they handle them. Watching a movie trailer isn't the kind of A/B comparison I have in mind...
Here is a good article about display coatings that include the positive and negative aspects of anti-glare and glossy: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_coating.htm.
If you want to get into it deeper you can register to access the TFT Central forum and post a question. An online search will turn up articles and forum posts on glossy vs. anti-glare displays.
Thank you for your detailed response. I was considering the U2412M, but I'm not sure anymore, because:
1. Some people say the AG coating is too much and some say they don't notice it from a certain distance.
2. It has no scaler so I can't connect a device that doesn't output 1200p (Like a console). I'd like a monitor that I can use for everything, but that can be calibrated to have fairly accurate colors).
I only heard of one competitor in the U2412M's price range, and that's the ASUS PA248Q, but unfortunately that screen, like many others, is not available in my country.
MrMojo wrote:
However, in my experience displays with a glossy panel tend to over-saturate dark areas and make judging shadow detail more difficult than a panel with a good anti-glare coating. The gradations between pure white and pure black are more subtle with a good quality anti-glare display. I find it easier to judge how a print will turn out when using an anti-glare display than a glossy display. Most if not all monitors designed for professional use have anti-glare panels.
There is nothing special about glossy or matte displays. Glossy displays simply have much less veiling glare (to borrow a phrase from describing lens properties). For the brightest part that doesn't make much if any of a difference but the darker the tones get, the stronger that difference shows and thus glossy displays have noticeably darker blacks and thus a higher contrast. Which exacerbates the problem that monitors have a higher contrast than most prints. Additionally it makes viewing things in the darkest parts of the image more difficult as it is darker.
But since prints are generally never as bright as a monitor (unless you tone down your monitor a lot), matching prints perfectly to what you see on the monitor is not possible (additionally anything backlit, ie a monitor, will always look different to something that is frontlit, ie, a print, unless the lighting is perfectly homogeneous such that tilting the print doesn't change the brightness of the light falling on it). Therefore being able to get a print as bright as you want it, with the right tonal ramp, requires experience in addition to following some technical guidelines (which include keeping the brightness of your monitor low but also ensuring that the brightness values that are still easily visible on in the print are also visible on the monitor). And in principle, proper softproofing should be able to simulate how a print would look like if black point compensation is enabled.
Thus my opinion is that glossy vs matte shouldn't matter if the monitor brightness is low enough and if softproofing is able to correctly show the brightness the darkest parts of the print will have (reflective vs. transmissive still throws a little bit of a wrench into this).
Overhead lighting and window glare/reflections aren't the only problems associated with glossy displays. Even when glare-producing sources are well-controlled some glossy displays have annoying reflections; wear light-colored clothing when demoing displays and you will see what I mean... I don't want to see myself reflected in a display that I am using for hours every day...
That is partly a perceptual problem, most people are able to tune out of the reflections, ie, the mind only seeing the image without the reflections (partly by focussing on a different distance) but this can be tiring. With matte display you have similar problems, just the that reflections are less sharp and less pronounced and again most people can tune out these reflections.
Anti-glare coatings vary among manufacturers: some companies tend toward a heavier, grainier coating while others are lighter making them barely noticeable. I become accustomed to the better-quality anti-glare coatings after using them for a short period of time i.e. less than an hour.
To be clear, there are matte displays (which to exaggerate are very finely sandblasted glass screens) which in a sense blur the reflections and there are antireflective coatings as they are used on photographic lenses which reduce the magnitude of the reflections without reducing contrast. These two are quite different things. Starting with the retina MBPs and the 2012 iMacs, Apple applied reflective coatings.
But the display surface alone doesn't govern maximum contrast, the underlying panel influences that naturally as well to a significant degree.
In short, reducing the contrast of displays via the help of a matte surface makes print matching out of the box easier but it displays your images with lower contrast than technically possible and thus somewhat compromises the quality of your images viewed on such screens. Thus, the question whether the screen is primarily used to prepare prints or to display images for others to view them is an important aspect into which surface properties are preferable.
YonathanZ wrote:
In that case, does it matter if I choose glossy or matte?
Nope. I use an iMac with the new low glare glass displays and i love it.
MrMojo wrote:
It's a personal choice and since you seem to prefer a glossy display your decision seems to be easy...
However, in my experience displays with a glossy panel tend to over-saturate dark areas and make judging shadow detail more difficult than a panel with a good anti-glare coating. The gradations between pure white and pure black are more subtle with a good quality anti-glare display.
Not true. If anything there are less gradations with a matte display. A matte display has roughened surface to disperse external light hitting the display. On the flip side, the light coming from the display with your image information is now going to be diffused. That is why matte displays reduce sharpness, contrast and saturation.
Your experience of matte being better than "glossy" is due to other factors, all other things being equal.
I find it easier to judge how a print will turn out when using an anti-glare display than a glossy display. Most if not all monitors designed for professional use have anti-glare panels.
Overhead lighting and window glare/reflections aren't the only problems associated with glossy displays. Even when glare-producing sources are well-controlled some glossy displays have annoying reflections; wear light-colored clothing when demoing displays and you will see what I mean... I don't want to see myself reflected in a display that I am using for hours every day...
Anti-glare coatings vary among manufacturers: some companies tend toward a heavier, grainier coating while others are lighter making them barely noticeable. I become accustomed to the better-quality anti-glare coatings after using them for a short period of time i.e. less than an hour.
Apple once used very nice anti-glare panels with a coating that was essentially invisible.
I don't recall that. The way a matte display works is because it is unclear and visible. Clear and unclear are actually much better ways to describe a "glossy" and a matte display, respectively. The only invisible or clear glare reduction method used today is the one used on the current iMac displays where the glass is multi-coated with the same coatings used on camera lenses. It is the only anti-glare method that does not affect image sharpness, contrast and saturation.
The closest anti-glare coatings I have found in current reasonably-priced models are NEC displays. NEC has a wide variety of panels with a choice of panel type and back-lighting ranging in price from cheap to expensive.
It would be best if you could personally demo both kinds of displays so you can see for yourself. The best test would be comparing your own images on both displays so you can see how they handle them. Watching a movie trailer isn't the kind of A/B comparison I have in mind...
Here is a good article about display coatings that include the positive and negative aspects of anti-glare and glossy: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_coating.htm.
If you want to get into it deeper you can register to access the TFT Central forum and post a question. An online search will turn up articles and forum posts on glossy vs. anti-glare displays.
I currently don't print anything. However, isn't it the case that most people use matte screens for their computers? Because, in such a case, that's another reason to go matte.
The again you have smartphones and tablets (and some screen monitors) that use glossy displays.
Hard to choose.
Perhaps a good idea would be to start with a glossy display and add a matte screen cover if I don't like the glossiness?
It's a waste of time to concern yourself with the kind of displays other people use since you don't have any control over how your images will be displayed. Most people do not calibrate their displays because they don't know that it possible or they don't want to spend the extra money on calibrating hardware and software.
I have always found software calibration to be more than adequate for my purposes. A lot of people on this forum will say that software calibration isn't good enough but it hasn't been a problem for me...
From what I have read I think that the majority of people use glossy displays because they are a lot more prevalent than matte monitors. You can go into a large computer store and not be able to find a single anti-glare monitor on display or for sale. Consumers are taken-in by the more saturated colors of a glossy display so the market has steadily moved away from matte displays.
Having said that, I think that the vast majority of people using anti-glare displays are serious photographers and pros who don't mind buying anti-glare displays online.
So in the end the kind of display you choose should be based on what you prefer, period.













