A good processing package
Jan 16, 2019 17:22:03 #
....would try to simulate the intended viewing conditions for the final image.
If a print:
* type of printer: inkjet or laser
* brightness of paper and darkness of ink or toner
* white balance (if color)
* print size
* viewing distance
* lighting color balance: sunlight, incandescent, etc.
* lighting intensity
If a display:
* type of monitor: LCD/LED, OLD, Plasma or CRT
* screen resolution setting
* white balance
* brightness
* contrast
* print size
* viewing distance
If the final image is larger than the screen on which the software is being run,
then only a portion of the image could be displayed at a time. If it cannot simulate
the viewing environment, then the software should display statistics about the image,
and not a misleading image. Or the window should be captioned
"NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF FINAL IMAGE".
If you tweek an image file so its looks good on your computer monitor, you are optimizing
it to be displayed at the same size and screen resolution on a computer monitor similar to yours.
That's not very sensible if your monitor is not typical, if the size or resolution will be different, or
if you intend to make a print.
Here comes the poo storm....
If a print:
* type of printer: inkjet or laser
* brightness of paper and darkness of ink or toner
* white balance (if color)
* print size
* viewing distance
* lighting color balance: sunlight, incandescent, etc.
* lighting intensity
If a display:
* type of monitor: LCD/LED, OLD, Plasma or CRT
* screen resolution setting
* white balance
* brightness
* contrast
* print size
* viewing distance
If the final image is larger than the screen on which the software is being run,
then only a portion of the image could be displayed at a time. If it cannot simulate
the viewing environment, then the software should display statistics about the image,
and not a misleading image. Or the window should be captioned
"NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF FINAL IMAGE".
If you tweek an image file so its looks good on your computer monitor, you are optimizing
it to be displayed at the same size and screen resolution on a computer monitor similar to yours.
That's not very sensible if your monitor is not typical, if the size or resolution will be different, or
if you intend to make a print.
Here comes the poo storm....
Jan 16, 2019 18:58:45 #
Bipod wrote:
....would try to simulate the intended viewing con... (show quote)
The "poo storm" is already here!....it's in your post!
Jan 16, 2019 23:06:33 #
srt101fan wrote:
The "poo storm" is already here!....it's in your post!
Jan 17, 2019 04:15:31 #
Jan 17, 2019 05:48:46 #
Jan 17, 2019 07:00:53 #
Bipod wrote:
Very intelligent replies. About what I'd expect from you guys.
Wow. Thanks for your confidence, Bipod!
Jan 17, 2019 08:33:31 #
It is kind of like cleaning your rear-end with a bicycle wheel, the POO just never ends here on the Ugly Hedgehog!!! I'm just saying, JimmyT Sends.
srt101fan wrote:
The "poo storm" is already here!....it's in your post!
Jan 17, 2019 09:03:00 #
Bipod wrote:
Very intelligent replies. About what I'd expect from you guys.
Sorry, Bipod, I didn't mean to be rude. I got carried away a little. I find your posts exasperating: sometimes very informative, but often just full of condescending, depressing and sometimes wrong/misleading stuff that helps no one be a better photographer and may be more suited to the "Attic" or "Chit-Chat" sections of UHH.
But maybe getting people frustrated and maybe angry is exactly what you want!?
Again, sorry for the rude and snarky remark. The best thing for me is to quit reading and responding to your posts. I wish you well...
Jan 17, 2019 11:09:33 #
Bipod wrote:
....would try to simulate the intended viewing con... (show quote)
You can control the first 4 of the "If a print..." items. Everything else is beyond your control.
Jan 17, 2019 12:07:10 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
Bipod wrote:
....would try to simulate the intended viewing con... (show quote)
Is there a question here? Or are you just making a statement?
What is the question, or statement?
I got lost figuring out what you are saying.
Jan 17, 2019 14:52:29 #
RonH
Loc: Shoreview MN
..would try to simulate the intended viewing conditions for the final image. From this statement do you mean ONE person as surely no two people would have everything set up the same or use the same paper etc.
I really didn't understand your original post but then again maybe I'm just not in one your wave length of thinking.
I really didn't understand your original post but then again maybe I'm just not in one your wave length of thinking.
Jan 17, 2019 15:37:03 #
RonH wrote:
..would try to simulate the intended viewing conditions for the final image. From this statement do you mean ONE person as surely no two people would have everything set up the same or use the same paper etc.
I really didn't understand your original post but then again maybe I'm just not in one your wave length of thinking.
I really didn't understand your original post but then again maybe I'm just not in one your wave length of thinking.
All I can say is, that is why the first print is not usually the final print. When it comes to these things, you don't know what you're going to get until you get it!
Jan 17, 2019 17:00:58 #
srt101fan wrote:
The "poo storm" is already here!....it's in your post!
- all true ....and all minutia.Jan 18, 2019 09:59:42 #
Jan 18, 2019 10:33:02 #
Bipod wrote:
Very intelligent replies. About what I'd expect from you guys.
It would help if you started with an intelligible post.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.