Don't buy an IMAC for photography

To make a long story short I basically have a new Imac that is useless for photography. The brightness level cannot be turned down under 226 making it impossible to calibrate correctly. I understand some might not have this problem, however searching the 24" IMAC's I have found this issue posted in quite a few places.

Keep this in mind before purchasing one. OH and BTW it's not the brand new one, it's about 2 months old...........that's how long it took me to figure out this problem.

Try using Shades. Apple's getting a lot of heat over their iMacs. I started a thread yesterday about it. Seems the iMacs are taking away some of their business from the Mac Pros, so speculation is they're making it less pro(sumer)-friendly. I'm just glad I'm using a Mini.

It's worse than that - in my (brief) experience, the colour isn't even consistent on those screens from edge to edge. I duplicated an image, and placed it in the centre and to one side of the screen, and the outer one was visibly lighter.

Tony-S wrote in post #3816653
Try using Shades. Apple's getting a lot of heat over their iMacs. I started a thread yesterday about it. Seems the iMacs are taking away some of their business from the Mac Pros, so speculation is they're making it less pro(sumer)-friendly. I'm just glad I'm using a Mini.

Thanks, but there are not very many positive comments on that site, and it sounds like it might throw the color off.

I honestly can't believe Apple is not addressing this. I bought this to use for the sole purpose of photography, and it's worthless.

Wow! That blows, I was planning on getting an Imac in the near future. They look quite slick!

Are you saying the Pro Desktop monster ($2500) with the monitor ($1000) is what I'm gonna have to get to get good consistent color? I was trying to avoid that!


JA

Nope ... just get a decently-priced PC, and any monitor you want.

SeanH wrote in post #3817142
Thanks, but there are not very many positive comments on that site, and it sounds like it might throw the color off.

It looks to have a 4.5 rating (out of 5) from those who use it. My understanding is that this software needs to be launched, THEN do a calibration.

Let's hope Stevie rectifies this. I hear the 20" iMacs are even worse. The 24" iMac I have at work (bought in January) has an H-IPS panel in it.

Damo77 wrote in post #3817351
Nope ... just get a decently-priced PC, and any monitor you want.

Eh, not a fan of Windows to be honest but I really can't afford a Mac Pro. Guess it's the only choice for the cheapo college kids like me =/

Tony-S wrote in post #3816653
Try using Shades. Apple's getting a lot of heat over their iMacs. I started a thread yesterday about it. Seems the iMacs are taking away some of their business from the Mac Pros, so speculation is they're making it less pro(sumer)-friendly. I'm just glad I'm using a Mini.

I'm one of those that's been on the edge of going Mac (more for fun of doing it than actually believing its any better), since its now possible to dual-boot windows... don't really have anything against them other than higher entry price point, and limited choice of software.

But IMO if they are crippling their imac's in such a way, they are shooting themselves in the foot. The long standing thought is that Mac's are better for graphics and imaging... if it turns out they are doing this, they're driving their lower-end customer base to PC's, and once those users have a shelf full of software they've invested in, they're less likely to turn back.

In my opinion, the belief that "Macs are better than PCs for imaging" is similar to the recent "CRTs are better than LCDs for imaging".

Yes, it was true once, but it's becoming less and less so.

I couldn't make up my mind which way to go Mac or Microsoft but now i do...

Mac is suppose to be the graphics bees knees....

Dunno guys, I'm going to war with Apple and we will see what happens. Probably just going to end up selling it and getting a new Dell XPS or something. And honestly my Dell 24" that is on my PC seems to be much sharper. Really I don't get the whole Mac thing after owning one, software is hard to find, some website don't work.........just a pain in the butt. I have yet to see any benefit..........excep​t for the virus thing. Other than that they are just a neat toy to have, and maybe just to be "different".

I'm not really sure why you're so shocked. iMacs are for mums and dads who want to surf the net, look at photos from their P&S, watch youtube movies, email Aunt Bertha ... that kind of stuff. Normal household type stuff. They're consumer-level computers. Consumer-level computers don't need colour calibration/etc.

Mac Pros are for serious graphics work. They're professional-level computers. They're not designed to do the same tasks.

Mat Fitzsimmons wrote in post #3817609
I'm not really sure why you're so shocked. iMacs are for mums and dads who want to surf the net, look at photos from their P&S, watch youtube movies, email Aunt Bertha ... that kind of stuff. Normal household type stuff.

Mac Pros are for serious graphics work. They're not designed to do the same tasks.

Aunt Bertha. Haha.

But Sean, Macs are so much more than what you describe. The software and OS itself is enough for me to get one over the PC. (I don't game) Every software I've used on Windows has a counterpart on the other side. I guess it's a personal preference.

Well, I gotta tell you, I just love my headless mac (Mac Mini). It's only a 1.66 gHz Core Duo, but it does just what I need - photography and video. I'm not much of a 3D gamer, so I don't need the big graphics processor. Plus, I can put any DVI or VGA display I want on it (although at this point all I can afford is a 22" Samsung SyncMaster 225BW). Considering I only have about $1300 in it, I feel pretty good.