do photographers prefer widescreen?

[allen]

it seems most on here couln't really care for the widescreen T series, but what about the photographers here?, using photoshop cs2, bridge, raw files, film scans, retouching, organizing, photo business, excel? etc.

or is widescreen just better for watching dvds?

anyone care to comment for or against it?
assuming there might be a flexview option, otherwise it doesnt seem worthwhile

[perry_78]

A widescreen flexview would be enough for me to upgrade mine.

For Photoshop work, when working with 4:3 images, its nice to have the panels along the side.

[marlinspike]

Some people like the widescreen for photo work because it gives them more room to put the tools thing in PS CS(2) (I forget the real name for it, that thing that has all those crop and clone stamp type things). I definitley do not fall into that camp. In fact a big motivation for me to get a T60 (almost as big as the motivation flexview was) is that it's 4:3. For one, I mainly shoot sports, which means most of my photos are in portrait orientation. Widescreen would only hurt me here since the fit to view zoom percentage would be smaller (since widescreen isn't only wider but also shorter). A 4:3 screen allows me a big enough view of a landscape photo, but a widescreen would give me a much too small a view of a portrait photo. That, plus I take my laptop on airplanes and widescreens are much more cumbersome.

[tomh009]

Some people like the widescreen for photo work because it gives them more room to put the tools thing in PS CS(2) (I forget the real name for it, that thing that has all those crop and clone stamp type things). I definitley do not fall into that camp. In fact a big motivation for me to get a T60 (almost as big as the motivation flexview was) is that it's 4:3. For one, I mainly shoot sports, which means most of my photos are in portrait orientation. Widescreen would only hurt me here since the fit to view zoom percentage would be smaller (since widescreen isn't only wider but also shorter). A 4:3 screen allows me a big enough view of a landscape photo, but a widescreen would give me a much too small a view of a portrait photo. That, plus I take my laptop on airplanes and widescreens are much more cumbersome.

I, too, do sports photography -- but almost exclusively landscape orientation (my area is motorsports, and cars tend to be horizontal ...). As you note, a widescreen display allows the Photoshop tool windows to be docked on the side without a loss of space for the (landscape) image. Nice, but certainly not critical.

On a flight, I would prefer an X60 widescreen to T60 4:3 as the screen would be much easier to fit in the seat spacing in coach. The form factor (but not the design or build quality!) of the Dell D620 is a good example -- not much deeper than an X series, but with a wider screen and a full-size keyboard.

P.S. For judging photo colours, that glossy screen would be very nice, even with reflections and all ...

[marlinspike]

P.S. For judging photo colours, that glossy screen would be very nice, even with reflections and all ...

It's really the opposite. My experience is that glossy screens exaggerate the saturation, contrast, and sharpness of an image, so you don't really know when you image is just right. I have yet to try one (arriving Wednesday), but everything I've read is that the Flexviews are the best laptop screen for photo work (well...the only good one if that's the case since IMHO none of them are really that good).

[Mr. The Guy]

Wide screen is just a 'theft' of vertical screen real estate. Vertical pictures take up just a tiny part of the screen. It's bad enough in 4:3 to have these wide empty spaces with vertical shots, but widescreen? Maybe for video, but NOT for photography, IMHO.
Also, widescreen increases the number of times websites have to be scrolled. Also, it's impossible to read websites that have text all the way from side to side with widescreen. Just a bad idea. I hate widescreen.

[npish]

From my perspective, this whole debate seems rather silly; if I'm going to purchase a standard 15" notebook, I will only consider an SXGA+ resolution, i.e. 1400 x 1050 pixels. I would vastly prefer, however, a 15.4" WSXGA+ resolution, i.e. 1680 x 1050 pixels, which, in turn, constitutes a 280 horizontal pixel gain.

As I stated in a previous post, I'm looking to buy a (IPS/Flexview) notebook for graphic design and digital photography; having the extra horizontal screen real estate simply to allow more space for the numerous PS palettes I have visible at any given time alone makes the WS option a no-brainer (this is why I'm hoping they offer an IPS version of the next generation widescreen T6x's).

It is very surprising to me that anyone who deals with, say, twelve open palettes in PS, Illustrator, In Design, etc. at any given time wouldn't prefer the extra horizontal space. In an absolute sense (ie. with respect to available notebook displays/resolutions), how on earth is widescreen a "theft" of vertical screen real estate?

This all being said, if the new T60's don't offer IPS, I'll go with the standard screen for that feature alone.

This whole impassioned debate between widescreen vs. standard is much less comprehensible to me than that between glossy and matte. I'm personally completely baffled by this whole mass shift to glossy screens; talk about a vacuous marketing gimmick.

[RUSH2112]

Im not a photographer, but heres my take:
I have owned both 4:3 and 16:9 notebooks. I prefer the 4:3. It makes the computer shorter in width, gives the screen more vertical height, and generally looks more professional. That being said, on a desktop or a stationary notebook, I would go widescreen for the extra real estate.
As far as resolution goes, I can see why you would want a WUXGA (I had one), but from my experience, SXGA+ or definately WSXGA+ should be enough for just about everyone. If I had the choice to opt between an SXGA+ and UXGA, I would take the UXGA, but not having the UXGA would not make me look elsewhere (unless the only option was XGA, eek)
The closest thing to a decent glossy screen I've ever seen was on the MacBook. It actually wasn't a mirror *all the time* (like the compaq V2000). They should stay away from the Thinkpads though.

[tomh009]

It's really the opposite. My experience is that glossy screens exaggerate the saturation, contrast, and sharpness of an image, so you don't really know when you image is just right. I have yet to try one (arriving Wednesday), but everything I've read is that the Flexviews are the best laptop screen for photo work (well...the only good one if that's the case since IMHO none of them are really that good).

Well ... I suppose it depends on what's "real". While I haven't had the pleasure of owning a Flexview screen (not available on the X series), I find that the glossy screens are much closer to a high-quality print on glossy photo paper than a standard LCD. The reflection are a pain, but the standard LCDs just don't do the photos justice, either.

Maybe if Flexview were available in smaller sizes I would forget all about glossy LCDs though?

[marlinspike]

Well ... I suppose it depends on what's "real". While I haven't had the pleasure of owning a Flexview screen (not available on the X series), I find that the glossy screens are much closer to a high-quality print on glossy photo paper than a standard LCD.

Odd, because that's exactly what I meant by real. On my fully color managed workflow (profiled monitor, soft proof profile, ICC profile for printer) I found glossy's to be oversaturated and oversharp and overcontrasty (I have a few different laptops in my house, basically every member of my family has one, so I've been able to compare).

[christopher_wolf]

From all my work in Photos (I did more when I was younger) and pictures in Photoshop and Illustrator, I really can't see any benefit incurred by use of 16:9 or glossy at all. At best, they were the same as what I would look at on a 4:3 matte, with just a little sideways room for the toolboxes and such. At worst, colors would appear to look overbright/overdone in comparison to the surroundings and it would throw the rest of the picture off. Else, 16:9 never helped any of my edits in Photoshop or Illustrator. With a glossy LCD, I still wasn't guaranteed a preview of what would come out on a glossy page, unless the color profiles were, automagically, *exactly* tuned, especially with some pictures where there were alot of bright specular highlights on shiny surfaces and glare.

[npish]

hey marlinspike, is there a specific profiling package that you recommend? I've heard good things about Monaco/X-Rite...

[marlinspike]

hey marlinspike, is there a specific profiling package that you recommend? I've heard good things about Monaco/X-Rite...

I use gretag macbeth stuff, but I think the Manaco stuff is at least just as good...I don't even remember how I came about choosing, but I think it's 6 is one and half a dozen is the other. You know www.fredmiranda.com?

For the printer profile I use cathysprofiles.com, it's a lot easier (and I suspect better) than making my own.

[seeplus]

From a design/photo perspective (especially considering utilizing multiple simultaneous images/toolbars) I will always choose a 16:9 aspect ratio panel (provided it's a true widescreen and not a short-screen.) The extra horizontal space makes the difference for me.

Wide screen is just a 'theft' of vertical screen real estate.

&

Widescreen would only hurt me here since the fit to view zoom percentage would be smaller (since widescreen isn't only wider but also shorter)

This depends upon the resolution of the Widescreen 16:9 display versus a 4:3 screen. A 1920x1200 16:9 wuxga LCD panel has 10% more pixel/display space than a 15" 4:3 uxga LCD panel. You may lose physical (vertical) space (ie-- the widescreen is slightly "shorter" than the regular aspect ratio screen) but it displays the same number of pixels: 1200. Which is currently the maximum available in a Thinkpad/any laptop.

The space is invaluable to me. Resolution-independent scaling is nearly a reality, anyway!

Glossy is a gimmicky solution to problems caused by poor flat-panel technology; IPS nearly solves the issue, but I'd rather have a higher-res matte display (weather an IPS/TFT/MPA/PVA) than a glossy on a laptop for work purposes (try sharing your work in a sun-lit room on a glossy screen..)

[tomh009]

Odd, because that's exactly what I meant by real. On my fully color managed workflow (profiled monitor, soft proof profile, ICC profile for printer) I found glossy's to be oversaturated and oversharp and overcontrasty (I have a few different laptops in my house, basically every member of my family has one, so I've been able to compare).

So I will admit that I haven't done a proper side-by-side comparison -- and my family is standardized on X31/X32 so there isn't much help there.

My issue isn't really with the colour profiles which can be corrected, but with the contrast and saturation. Working in a press room side-by-side with other photographers, their Apple or HP laptops will have much higher contrast/saturation (whether just right or too much, is harder to say) than the X31. Then, looking at a print on glossy paper (I get these done at a lab rather than doing them myself), again the difference is there.

But it certainly could be that the glossy MacBooks and HPs are overdoing it -- I don't have those prints with me in the media centres to compare.

And, finally, I will admit that I'm much happier with the contrast/saturation on my external monitor at work, and that's still a matte screen (it's a Dell 2001FP, 20" 1600x1200) so it appears that it's possible to do better with matte screens, too.

[BillMorrow]

it depends..

i don't do much photo work on my T60p..
when i DO i like the IPS flexview display, color rendition and screen real estate..

if the wide display is robbing vertical and adding to horizontal, then a BIG no..
if the display resolution is more pixels, i.e. 1200x1920 or the like and it is a flexview display, then MAYBE..

if the overall size is not much bigger..

for serious work where lots of display real estate is needed i use my desktop with two 20 inch 1200x1600 displays and when i can pay for them i will increase those to two or three 24 inch 1200x1920 displays..

or, IF (as the muslims all say and saddam kept saying as he was sentenced to be hung this morning) god IS great and he presents me with a 50 inch, 12,000x48,000 display that is within reach of mere mortals, pricewise, then i would go for that..

but back to thinkpads and display size..

these ARE supposed to be something one can carry about, no?, so why are they getting larger and heavier..?!
so until a thinkpad has a 50 inch display that deploys like an umbrella, i feel a 15 inch is about the max size for a true notebook/laptop format computer..

[Thinkpad_T43_Fan]

Bill - wait until laptops don't have any screens, but rather wirelessly integrate "LCD" glasses that blast a 70" screen in your eyes, like the army's new smart soldier goggles.

That would be really cool.

[gearguy]

I don't understand why some people like widescreen less than 'foolscreen' simply because a:


It's not the shape that actually matters, it's the resolution and clarity.


Palm rests are for lazy noobs who can't type properly.

[christopher_wolf]

I don't know...For some reason, whenever I see widscreen "letterbox" format, I keep thinking that is the "New" fad (OF THE FUTURE!).

Why not just get these glasses and, with a 4:3 screen, you can turn it into 16:9 widescreen any time you want. Neat, eh? Vertical screen space is for the non-1337 who don't want to wear Widscreen emulators (of the future!).

[allen]

wow, you guys have considered things way more than i have imagined, i was just curious, but really, i usually just hit tab to make the tools go away.

EDIT: but i think the answer i like is it depends if you're adding pixels to the sides, or cutting pixels off the top and bottom, resolution setting wise. i hope i got that right

[creed_mty]

If you only edit photos or videos at home or office I highly recommend to buy an extra Widescreen at least 19" flat panel LCD (really not much expensive about $170) and a small external hardware device I don't remember the name but fix the right color to your images and also match the color of the screen when printing!

But if you work on images or videos at "anywhere" outside home or office then you need to buy a Z60 series with a "WUXGA Screen"
or buy a Dell Lattitude D820 WUXGA with a 512 MB Gfx Nvidia Quadro Ahhh another option and I think the best for you, the Acer 20" widescreen monster laptop. BUT, not better than a Z60 Series Thinkpad!
I'm strongly disagree about making a widescreen T60 in my opinion.

I'm sorry for Lenovo if they will release a Widescreen T Series like many people are speculating about!

[christopher_wolf]

I will be OK with it *as long as* they do not change anything whatsoever about the 4:3 Thinkpads and keep offering 4:3.