iMac-21,5" (late 2012) : which chip for (post) photo editing ?



  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @PB_PM: Update for your information, the monitor's reflection is massively reduced. Apple says 75% and if only 50% would be true, it's cool enough. Different kind of glass and the LCD closer to the front glass does this trick.
    @Gitzo: it's not Lion 10.7. Mountain Lion 10.8 is recognised to be a bit faster and more reliable. Can't tell, I'm still happy with 10.6 and don't see a must have at 10.8
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,312Member
    edited January 2013
    I don't have to "update" my information, I just look at the screen of my 27" iMac, compared to a high quality matte screen. Of course the new one is less reflective, but I'm not talking about the reflective quality's am I? I'm talking about contast... 8-| 8-| 8-|
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    And your mac is which year? If not this year - the 27" was in delay and could not be bought last year - you still have the "old" bathroom mirror ;) As for more or less contrast, this can be corrected a bit by calibration. I don't think, somebody is expecting a screen to bring a real print 1:1 to the user's eye. So, no matter how contrasts "really" (in which reality?) are, no screen can bring the impression of a print. And the non matte display makes pictures look sharper, too.

    No, I think the reasons for seeing an iMac a less ideal picture editing machine is the lack of a big colour room. Good enough for sRGB, but modern cameras have more colors than the screen of an iMac shows. Also, a Mac Pro has more HD bays and can be connected to light transmission networks, which is faster (slightly) than the thunderbolt interface. It has more processors. But for what? photoshop is no good sample for parallel processing, so one has to look for specialised multiprocessor apps. There are not so many on the market.
Sign In or Register to comment.