DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> So, is it the type of monitor
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/07/2011 09:54:37 AM · #1
...or my eyes? I know different type of monitors show things differently, but I don't know which types show what. I always seem to get comments about oversharpening or artifacts, yet I can't see them. I'm using an LCD flat panel monitor. I know my colors are fine (though I do my calibration by eye) and my prints are always fine. I only have access to one monitor, unless I go to a library. And it's never a large number of comments, so is it my monitor or theirs that's the problem?
 11/07/2011 09:58:20 AM · #2
Some monitors do seem to have fuzzier and less clearly defined images, despite similar specs. Do you have other monitors available, say at work, or a friends? I'd suggest checking those images on several monitors to get a feel for what is going on.
11/07/2011 09:59:03 AM · #3
Post an example shot, I'm trying to figure out if it's a gamma thing.
 11/07/2011 10:04:32 AM · #4


Like this one for instance. I see a slight grain (which was a result of the b&w conversion type that I used).

I have a couple in voting though, one specifically that I can't post where I see a fairly creamy background and I've got a comment about oversharpening artifacts.
 11/07/2011 10:14:25 AM · #5
I see a lot of dark specks in the areas that are supposed to be smooth (in the background and on the cloth in the foreground) and also the lines have jagged artefacts - this is visible on the hair. It looks like a sharpening problem. How did you process this photo?
 11/07/2011 10:15:22 AM · #6
Originally posted by Kelli:


Like this one for instance. I see a slight grain (which was a result of the b&w conversion type that I used).

Yes, I see that too. The pixels above the baby's head, and on the left hand side of his head in his hair. In fact, this could easily be mistaken for over-sharpening.

What's causing that grain, it does look a bit odd?
 11/07/2011 10:17:02 AM · #7
that's what i'm seeing too on both the lcd and the crt i have
 11/07/2011 10:26:04 AM · #8
I used topaz detail and topaz b&w conversion and topaz denoise, it was a basic challenge so no layers and no selective editing.

Here is the image straight from the camera, just resized. Do you see noise or artifacts here?

eta: I might have to chalk it up to the topaz, but I just can't see it on my crappy monitor and a new one isn't in the cards any time soon. ;D

Message edited by author 2011-11-07 10:28:06.
 11/07/2011 10:39:22 AM · #9
b&w conversion can look quite different depending on which channels are emphasised. And it's possible that the channel (or mixture of channels) that you picked for this conversion caused the dots.

I'm pretty sure it's not over-sharpening causing the artifacts, but it's a result of the 'extra' pixel noise in the hair, caused by the b&w conversion. I can't see any noise in the colour shot you posted.
 11/07/2011 10:43:28 AM · #10
The problem is that the original is not sharp (the focus is on the background), so when you use topaz detail it accentuates the color noise also - that is why you get these dark specks. The color noise is not so much visible in color version, but stands out in the B&W conversion.

- try using Denoise before any sharpening (including topaz detail)
- try different color profiles for B&W conversion
 11/07/2011 10:46:22 AM · #11
Originally posted by JH:
b&w conversion can look quite different depending on which channels are emphasised. And it's possible that the channel (or mixture of channels) that you picked for this conversion caused the dots.

I'm pretty sure it's not over-sharpening causing the artifacts, but it's a result of the 'extra' pixel noise in the hair, caused by the b&w conversion. I can't see any noise in the colour shot you posted.


OK, that makes sense. I just wish I could see it on my monitor. LOL! The one in voting I also used topaz b&w conversion.
 11/07/2011 10:57:57 AM · #12
Yes, that's definitely your problem; Topaz artifacts. You CAN see them with your monitor, I'm sure, if you view the image critically at 100% magnification. Maybe even 50%. Even a soft monitor will show that junk when blown way up.

R.
 11/07/2011 11:05:13 AM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, that's definitely your problem; Topaz artifacts. You CAN see them with your monitor, I'm sure, if you view the image critically at 100% magnification. Maybe even 50%. Even a soft monitor will show that junk when blown way up.

R.


I view them at 100% (view - actual pixels in PS) at the 800 pixel level before submitting. Should I be looking at a higher level than that? Truth be told, my eyes are going at an alarming rate so maybe the fault lies there. I'm not going for new glasses until January though.
 11/07/2011 04:14:37 PM · #14
I've taken the original colour image, but no matter what way I play with the channel mixer, I can't get these dots to appear. So it must be something Topaz is doing (as bear pointed out) - or perhaps the order you're applying the Topaz effects.

The black pixels are fairly obvious on my monitor, you can see them all over the background above the baby's head, on his chest, and on his forehead.
 11/07/2011 04:40:09 PM · #15
I'm in agreement with Robert, there are definitely very visible artifacts from Topaz. Do they really affect the image in a really negative way? IMO, no, not greatly, but they are noticeable enough that I would (and I believe I did) see them during voting.
If you cannot see them at 100%, definitely increase your view to 200%. It may well be that your vision is not quite acute enough to pick it up at 100%. I know that I need to wear mild reading glasses for computer work, or things look ever so slightly blurry at my preferred working distance.
 11/09/2011 05:34:18 PM · #16
fwiw I looked at the image on 5 screens. Two at work, my laptop and my iMac with a second dell monitor. The work computers and laptop showed it very pronounced. My iMac it was noticeable but not as much and on the calibrated dell I had to get close to the screen to see it but that screen is also a lot darker then everything else and the image was almost too dark on it. I meant to post earlier but I kept forgetting to check it on my photo editing screens.
 11/09/2011 06:22:52 PM · #17
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, that's definitely your problem; Topaz artifacts. You CAN see them with your monitor, I'm sure, if you view the image critically at 100% magnification. Maybe even 50%. Even a soft monitor will show that junk when blown way up.

R.


I view them at 100% (view - actual pixels in PS) at the 800 pixel level before submitting. Should I be looking at a higher level than that? Truth be told, my eyes are going at an alarming rate so maybe the fault lies there. I'm not going for new glasses until January though.


View your image at 100% BEFORE you resize. Artifacts, especially the topaz kind and the sharpening kind, will be glaringly obvious. Just scroll around. Even 50% is usually enough on an uncropped image.

R.
 11/11/2011 06:53:47 PM · #18
The artefacts do show clearly on my laptop screen, which is hardware calibrated but far from excellent.
Fine details in hair are often prone to that kind of problem, particularly if you are trying to get tack sharp detail from a soft image, and what colours hide effectively can sometimes be revelead quite ruthlessly by B&W. Areas made of different hues with the same brightness can turn into very noticeable blotches.
I guess that kind of defect works against most pictures but particularly this one, as newborns portraits are normally expected to compliment skin softness.

Some images withstand better than others being displayed on very different quality displays without falling apart. The typical example are stock desktop backgrounds in MS windows. Get in a shop and all monitors will be showing the same image without massive differences, even if some are great displays and others just junk.
In general terms, I have noticed that many good images in DPC will also remain pleasant to the eye even when displayed on a bad and/or uncalibrated monitor. It's in a sense the same approach web designers take when restricting options to web-safe combinations of colours and brightness level, so that a site will display decently on most monitors. I would love to learn how to apply that to photos.

Aside of what others commented, which makes lots of sense, I think it's often a good idea to assume that somebody might use a much brighter or darker monitor than you. If making the image much darker or brighter than it should shows noise or details in areas you meant to be uniform, perhaps is a good idea to clean that up.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:06:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:06:37 AM EDT.