Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Monitor Differences and Calibration...
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Sep 24, 2011 01:02:59   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
We're having some, I don't know, confusion, conflict, in the forum that I think may be due to differences in people's monitors. It may be leading to some misinformation in some of our critiques. Suppose I send out what on my monitor looks to be very well exposed images with good contrast and colors, tone, saturation, etc., and some folks are coming back saying I need to do this and I need to do that. Then I see some of their pictures and I have nearly an opposite reaction to their images.

The problem is how it may affect the person being critiqued and render the value of those doing the critiquing virtually useless and actually damaging, especially with lessor experienced photographers. It might be nice if we could add some caveats to our critiques rather than blasting others images as though it were the law. I don't mean to pussyfoot but perhaps it would be good if we at least allowed for some monitors to be off and allow that to be the problem with the images and not dis everything from a persons camera to their editing software, to their ability to see straight, and approach it in a more advisory manner rather than so much a matter of fact.

It might not be a bad thing if we were to adapt a procedure for trying to determine what the problem is. For instance, if you, as I did today, submit some images and someone critiques you and tells you that you ought to punch up your color and darken your images some and then you go critique them and your response is that they need to lighten theirs. I think you just solved a problem there. Maybe we could have a little three person committee to review and critique the same people to see if they have a consensus about the appearance of a persons images. We're not talking composition and "eye" and stuff like that. We're talking color, saturation, focus, etc., things that can often be explained in terms of differences in monitors by different manufacturers. As it now stands we all have different monitors and we're all seeing room to criticize others based only on what we see. Can that really happen and be considered to be beneficial? If it were only monitors, there are often profound difference in the way graphics cards handle the information in images. I'm seeing comments on some people's pictures and I'm not seeing what I'm hearing that person say - potentially very harmful stuff and maybe unjustified. How about some ideas on this one? What do you think? Do you see any benefit and what would you suggest about how to go about it?

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 01:26:55   #
Jwilliams0469 Loc: Topeka, Ks.
 
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact my monitor isn't set up with the correct color for photography. I am using the brand new Dell Inspiron laptop that just hit the shelves this year. My biggest issue, I don't even know the first step to calibrating my laptop monitor it's huge 22" but to actually know what my differences in what my photographs honestly look like, I have no idea. I think that maybe a post on how to calibrate would be great. But normally, I just pay the extra little bit of money to have the camera shop fix them up for me before they print them.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 01:33:15   #
rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana
 
Well said Gessman,
I've had this gut feelin gthat exactly what you said so eloquently was going on. I just couldnt have said it so well in twice the space. Sitting back and observing you could get a flavor for the "I fixed it".... "I fixed it more"... "I fixed it back" scenario. The good thing about ADVICE instead of hard rules is that you can politely say, "Thanks, I'll take that under advisement."
As for how we proceed, I am thinking on it but its late and my head hurts.....perhaps it'll come to me in my dreams.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2011 01:38:39   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Jwilliams0469 wrote:
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact my monitor isn't set up with the correct color for photography. I am using the brand new Dell Inspiron laptop that just hit the shelves this year. My biggest issue, I don't even know the first step to calibrating my laptop monitor it's huge 22" but to actually know what my differences in what my photographs honestly look like, I have no idea. I think that maybe a post on how to calibrate would be great. But normally, I just pay the extra little bit of money to have the camera shop fix them up for me before they print them.
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact m... (show quote)


When it comes time to print, that's sure not a bad way to go if you get what you should be getting, or if it doesn't make you any difference. And, I don't meant to be sounding disagreeable, but, that, to me however, would be like what's happening in here. People look at your images and rather than analyzing it in an honest effort to try to understand what you're trying to say with a pic, they decide for themselves what the main subject ought to be and then start criticizing your image based on their idea of what the image says based on some rules and guidelines that have been in place for 100 years or so. That's not appropriate. It's up to each viewer to try to understand what you meant to say and not change it to suit themselves.

Your printer is no doubt setting your prints on some preconceived notion of what skin tone is supposed to look like and letting all the rest fall where it may. That's fine as long as your image has skin tones in it, but birds, alligators, bears, etc., do not have skin tones. What then? I don't hardly every print any of my images and I've yet to have any of them printed commercially. If and when I do arrive at a point of doing some printing, I want my images to look as I desire, not based on some averages that may or may not even be in my image. I will want complete control and absolute reproduction as close as it can be done.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 02:37:47   #
Jwilliams0469 Loc: Topeka, Ks.
 
gessman wrote:
Jwilliams0469 wrote:
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact my monitor isn't set up with the correct color for photography. I am using the brand new Dell Inspiron laptop that just hit the shelves this year. My biggest issue, I don't even know the first step to calibrating my laptop monitor it's huge 22" but to actually know what my differences in what my photographs honestly look like, I have no idea. I think that maybe a post on how to calibrate would be great. But normally, I just pay the extra little bit of money to have the camera shop fix them up for me before they print them.
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact m... (show quote)


When it comes time to print, that's sure not a bad way to go if you get what you should be getting, or if it doesn't make you any difference. And, I don't meant to be sounding disagreeable, but, that, to me however, would be like what's happening in here. People look at your images and rather than analyzing it in an honest effort to try to understand what you're trying to say with a pic, they decide for themselves what the main subject ought to be and then start criticizing your image based on their idea of what the image says based on some rules and guidelines that have been in place for 100 years or so. That's not appropriate. It's up to each viewer to try to understand what you meant to say and not change it to suit themselves.

Your printer is no doubt setting your prints on some preconceived notion of what skin tone is supposed to look like and letting all the rest fall where it may. That's fine as long as your image has skin tones in it, but birds, alligators, bears, etc., do not have skin tones. What then? I don't hardly every print any of my images and I've yet to have any of them printed commercially. If and when I do arrive at a point of doing some printing, I want my images to look as I desire, not based on some averages that may or may not even be in my image. I will want complete control and absolute reproduction as close as it can be done.
quote=Jwilliams0469 Well, Gessman I have to agree... (show quote)


I agree, I know that I've taken time to view my images on my wife's laptop, and they look to be extremely bright compared to what my monitor shows them to be (how I wish them to look). Then I've used my parents computer to show them off to them and they look dull. I'd like to be at the point where I can print off my birds, pups, kittens, and so on. But I'm like you when it comes to them, they stay in several safe places until I am able to do them like I wish, or close. This is a very needed topic! As you are 100% right about this, but whats sad? Not many have even looked at it nor posted to it. Hum, I know it would be rude but then again it wouldn't but maybe it shouldn't be posted here, but instead, copy and paste to each other post as (Important)? I don't know, may make a few a little upset... :-D

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 02:42:15   #
Jwilliams0469 Loc: Topeka, Ks.
 
I've also noticed what you mean by people basically placing in what the subject should be instead of what it actually is, I will admit, I've done it myself to a few of them on here. But if I'm not sure about the subject, I won't comment nothing less than " Great shots and happy shooting!" I honestly don't like to be rude, but if I know what the subject is and it's not a great photograph, I'll point out the subject and what I would have done different. If they take time to tell me the subject is not what I pointed out, I'll go back and review the photograph again. Then I will make a change to my opinion on the matter.

By the way, If that's you in the photograph (Avatar) - You look like my uncle who owns a horse ranch somewhere in the United States... I've never met him but I plan to one day before I don't have the option to. Can't think of his first name, sorry. I'm sure it's not you but I wanted to point that out.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 02:43:13   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Jwilliams0469 wrote:
gessman wrote:
Jwilliams0469 wrote:
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact my monitor isn't set up with the correct color for photography. I am using the brand new Dell Inspiron laptop that just hit the shelves this year. My biggest issue, I don't even know the first step to calibrating my laptop monitor it's huge 22" but to actually know what my differences in what my photographs honestly look like, I have no idea. I think that maybe a post on how to calibrate would be great. But normally, I just pay the extra little bit of money to have the camera shop fix them up for me before they print them.
Well, Gessman I have to agree, I know for a fact m... (show quote)


When it comes time to print, that's sure not a bad way to go if you get what you should be getting, or if it doesn't make you any difference. And, I don't meant to be sounding disagreeable, but, that, to me however, would be like what's happening in here. People look at your images and rather than analyzing it in an honest effort to try to understand what you're trying to say with a pic, they decide for themselves what the main subject ought to be and then start criticizing your image based on their idea of what the image says based on some rules and guidelines that have been in place for 100 years or so. That's not appropriate. It's up to each viewer to try to understand what you meant to say and not change it to suit themselves.

Your printer is no doubt setting your prints on some preconceived notion of what skin tone is supposed to look like and letting all the rest fall where it may. That's fine as long as your image has skin tones in it, but birds, alligators, bears, etc., do not have skin tones. What then? I don't hardly every print any of my images and I've yet to have any of them printed commercially. If and when I do arrive at a point of doing some printing, I want my images to look as I desire, not based on some averages that may or may not even be in my image. I will want complete control and absolute reproduction as close as it can be done.
quote=Jwilliams0469 Well, Gessman I have to agree... (show quote)


I agree, I know that I've taken time to view my images on my wife's laptop, and they look to be extremely bright compared to what my monitor shows them to be (how I wish them to look). Then I've used my parents computer to show them off to them and they look dull. I'd like to be at the point where I can print off my birds, pups, kittens, and so on. But I'm like you when it comes to them, they stay in several safe places until I am able to do them like I wish, or close. This is a very needed topic! As you are 100% right about this, but whats sad? Not many have even looked at it nor posted to it. Hum, I know it would be rude but then again it wouldn't but maybe it shouldn't be posted here, but instead, copy and paste to each other post as (Important)? I don't know, may make a few a little upset... :-D
quote=gessman quote=Jwilliams0469 Well, Gessman ... (show quote)


I think it'll pick up some steam in the morning hopefully. Lots of folks back on the east coast checked out hours ago 'cept a few insomniacs. It's had 32 views in only about an hour. We'll see what happens.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2011 03:18:47   #
Dunatic
 
I totally think that the computer monitor has much to do with the critiques given on some photos. I wouldn't change my images because of people's opinions of them being "too light" or "too dark." The images you post may look different from monitor to monitor. If it looks good on mine, it may not on yours.

However, if skin tones don't appear correct on your own monitor, you aren't happy with how your own photos print, you can purchase software to calibrate your own monitor. Therefore, when you adjust the photos, they will be correctly color adjusted before you print. Here is a site that offers several different products that will do this for you: http://spyder.datacolor.com

Hope this helps.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 03:40:53   #
Dunatic
 
I forgot to mention, I print at a professional lab which provided me with a color correction card in which to calibrate my monitor. They also sent me a software package which contained the calibration software and information how to calibrate the monitor.

I used to print at home, the ink was so costly and half the time I'd toss the images. I'm happy with the professional lab, but it's not for everyone and is a bit pricey. I only print my images a few times a year.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 06:17:36   #
FuzMuz Loc: Southern Utah
 
Dunatic wrote:
I forgot to mention, I print at a professional lab which provided me with a color correction card in which to calibrate my monitor. They also sent me a software package which contained the calibration software and information how to calibrate the monitor.

I used to print at home, the ink was so costly and half the time I'd toss the images. I'm happy with the professional lab, but it's not for everyone and is a bit pricey. I only print my images a few times a year.


what lab do you use, I'd like to contact them for their s/w - thanks

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 06:18:36   #
FuzMuz Loc: Southern Utah
 
gessman wrote:
We're having some, I don't know, confusion, conflict, in the forum that I think may be due to differences in people's monitors. It may be leading to some misinformation in some of our critiques. Suppose I send out what on my monitor looks to be very well exposed images with good contrast and colors, tone, saturation, etc., and some folks are coming back saying I need to do this and I need to do that. Then I see some of their pictures and I have nearly an opposite reaction to their images.

The problem is how it may affect the person being critiqued and render the value of those doing the critiquing virtually useless and actually damaging, especially with lessor experienced photographers. It might be nice if we could add some caveats to our critiques rather than blasting others images as though it were the law. I don't mean to pussyfoot but perhaps it would be good if we at least allowed for some monitors to be off and allow that to be the problem with the images and not dis everything from a persons camera to their editing software, to their ability to see straight, and approach it in a more advisory manner rather than so much a matter of fact.

It might not be a bad thing if we were to adapt a procedure for trying to determine what the problem is. For instance, if you, as I did today, submit some images and someone critiques you and tells you that you ought to punch up your color and darken your images some and then you go critique them and your response is that they need to lighten theirs. I think you just solved a problem there. Maybe we could have a little three person committee to review and critique the same people to see if they have a consensus about the appearance of a persons images. We're not talking composition and "eye" and stuff like that. We're talking color, saturation, focus, etc., things that can often be explained in terms of differences in monitors by different manufacturers. As it now stands we all have different monitors and we're all seeing room to criticize others based only on what we see. Can that really happen and be considered to be beneficial? If it were only monitors, there are often profound difference in the way graphics cards handle the information in images. I'm seeing comments on some people's pictures and I'm not seeing what I'm hearing that person say - potentially very harmful stuff and maybe unjustified. How about some ideas on this one? What do you think? Do you see any benefit and what would you suggest about how to go about it?
We're having some, I don't know, confusion, confli... (show quote)


Well said, you have opened my eyes

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2011 06:33:43   #
RFranko Loc: Albuquerque, NM
 
Nice thought but I don't think critiquing color works and you have to just ignore it. Each monitor is different and laptops are terrible for rendering color correctly. Unless a person is working on a calibrated monitor and everyone is using the same brand and size with the same profile all bought at the same day, and we are viewing the monitor under the same room lighting conditions, everything will be different. With regard to composition and focus that is different and most monitors render them the same. However even composition could be compressed or stretched and different monitors and given pin cushioning or barrel effects; so we have be take critiques with a gain of salt. Its only when you are sanding in front of an actual print that you can judge it and even then its a personal opinion. Just sit in a gallery show some time and listen to the comments. You can't base YOUR opinion of YOUR art work on what others think or say. You have to be your own judge and if your work meets your standard and YOU like it, that is all that counts. I'm sure you have heard the saying, "that child has the looks only a mother could love?" You are the mother of your own art, just love it.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 07:07:27   #
RFranko Loc: Albuquerque, NM
 
Dunatic;
Their color correction card doesn't do a thing for your monitor except screw it up. The only way you can calibrate a monitor is to use a color spectrometer to read it and have the software to adjust your drivers to a specific profile it calculated. If you want your monitor calibrated invest in a DataColor Spyder or a Munki. You will find that most laptops and low priced desk tops won't even meet the SRGB color gamut let along Adobe RGB 1998 and never the ProPhoto gamute. There are monitors out there that will calibrate to Adobe RGB and higher but you will pay 2-3K for them. In addition once you calibrate one of those monitors, you better calibrate the brightness and color of the room light and keep it constant. Then recalibrate everything every couple of weeks to keep it all within specifications. By the way, does my face look sunburned to you on your screen? The original image on my computer looked fine until I uploaded it to this site and now it looks like I have a 3rd degree burn on my face. Gessman, you even look a little cyan around the edges.

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 09:46:13   #
Dunatic
 
I agree that you have to look at the print, but what I was saying is if people wanted to calibrate their monitors go to the Spyder website and purchase the software. But it is expensive and I've yet to find it free anywhere on the net. The Professional lab I use is Burrell Imaging and I love the results. But, I had to calibrate my monitor first to get satisfactory results. Thanks!

Reply
Sep 24, 2011 09:54:12   #
jrubin11
 
Gentlemen:

Due to the differences between monitors and printers (discussed in this forum at length)it is extremely difficult to judge and critique images sent over the internet and viewed on a computer screen. So much depends on the intended use of the image; for ultimate printing or only electronic use.

If you want to see what your work looks like as a print to hang on the wall,go in a scrapbook, or to send to someone, you might consider the simple solution I have found effective: I work on the computer, use graphic software if necessary, and make small prints (on my Epson R2400)without calibration adjustments until the print pleases me.I then take that print,with a disk on which I have downloaded the digital image, to a photolab and ask them to match the print. They then adjust their own monitors and printers to achieve a very professional result. I've done this with several labs, none of which have charged me any extra fees and the results have been very good.

If you only use the electronic digital images and never print you have a real problem. The professionals I know all use special calibration hardware and software and calibrate every day!

Joe Rubin
joerubinphotography.com

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.