3 ms·

Real "creatives" _never_ preferred Macs. Mac, until very recently, didn't have any way to calibrate a monitor (and you had to buy a 3rd party monitor to get a f

Real "creatives" _never_ preferred Macs. Mac, until very recently, didn't have any way to calibrate a monitor (and you had to buy a 3rd party monitor to get a full-gamut display), or 10 bit/channel color. For all our color-critical work at our shop, we _never_ used macs.

acdha 10y ago
It's not helpful trying to play No True Scotsman by defining “real creative” as “what we do”. Anyone with more than cursory exposure to printing, video, photography, etc. knows that there's a sizable percentage of people who vocally prefer Macs – certainly not everyone, but far, far too many to pretend that a claim like “never preferred” is anything other than fanboy hyperbole. As an aside, what do you mean by “calibrate a monitor”? ColorSync arrived in 1993.
- AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
  Mac LCD monitors have a LED back light that's too blue and too narrow a gamut to do color grading. Yes, it's true that some of the early CRT machines were capable of this.
  - acdha 10y ago
    So let's correct your statement: 1. Every Mac since the early 90s has had support for color management 2. Most people doing serious color work have to buy a more expensive, professional-quality display – as has long been the case on every platform. This was a staple of reviews for printing, photography, scientific/medical imaging, etc. publications, along with comparing color calibration devices, and a big reason why CRTs persisted longer those fields than the general market.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - laurentdc 10y ago
    I hope no one is trusting a "Mac" LCD monitor for any sort of serious color work. Especially the laptop ones are truly awful and hard to calibrate due to the glossy nature. Heck, a decent HP DreamColor / EIZO / NEC display costs almost as much as the top of the line 15" MacBook Pro.
    - AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
      Apparently, The Mac Faithful do!

acdha 10y ago

It's not helpful trying to play No True Scotsman by defining “real creative” as “what we do”. Anyone with more than cursory exposure to printing, video, photography, etc. knows that there's a sizable percentage of people who vocally prefer Macs – certainly not everyone, but far, far too many to pretend that a claim like “never preferred” is anything other than fanboy hyperbole. As an aside, what do you mean by “calibrate a monitor”? ColorSync arrived in 1993.

AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
Mac LCD monitors have a LED back light that's too blue and too narrow a gamut to do color grading. Yes, it's true that some of the early CRT machines were capable of this.
- acdha 10y ago
  So let's correct your statement: 1. Every Mac since the early 90s has had support for color management 2. Most people doing serious color work have to buy a more expensive, professional-quality display – as has long been the case on every platform. This was a staple of reviews for printing, photography, scientific/medical imaging, etc. publications, along with comparing color calibration devices, and a big reason why CRTs persisted longer those fields than the general market.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- laurentdc 10y ago
  I hope no one is trusting a "Mac" LCD monitor for any sort of serious color work. Especially the laptop ones are truly awful and hard to calibrate due to the glossy nature. Heck, a decent HP DreamColor / EIZO / NEC display costs almost as much as the top of the line 15" MacBook Pro.
  - AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
    Apparently, The Mac Faithful do!