| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2005 03:18:50 PM · #1 |
Never really gave this subject a lot of thoughs, until i got into Pet Portrait.
My home monitor, where i do all my post-process and viewing on pictures, is print calibrated (its about 97% calibrated) for true colours from Monitor to paper. That also implies that the colour adjustments i do are usually pretty accurate.
Showing my Pet Portrait entry to some friends and viewing it on their monitor kind of got me worried; which i believe is a reason why my score is lowering. On my monitor, colours are rich and bright, while on generic monitors, colours look a little fadded and dull.
It must be said that i followed some photographer's advise and always edit my shots on a 100% bright monitor.
Anyone thinks that this actually affects scores that much? |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 04:27:56 PM · #2 |
Many times people have asked questions about their monitor calibration, including myself. I have often felt that if a monitor was poorly calibrated none of the images would look good, not just your own. So if one was to look at a winner on DPC for example they should wonder why it did so well while it looked so bad on their out of whack monitor. Wouldn't there be a major contrast between what they finished and what others produced?
Just an observation.
If images processed outside of my equipment look good to me then I assume mine look good to others. Am I wrong? Of course I am not talking about printing, another level entirely.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 16:29:13.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 04:45:04 PM · #3 |
I have had comments that my images are flat. I use a calibrated 21" trinitron that has excellent colors. When I view my images on my laptop, they are sometimes a little flat and I have a brand new Dell D600 with a Radeon9000 adapter. So, if you are using good monitors it could be the voter. I have a few comments on Best Friends where they stated the image was flat. One returned to say that it was the monitor they viewed it with.
Whoops - sorry - should hae been Bored, not best friends
I will not vote on images with my laptop - I don't think its fair to the photographer.
Seems you are damned either way - it will be over saturated to some and flat or washed out to others.
d
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 17:04:36.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:29:55 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by autool:
Many times people have asked questions about their monitor calibration, including myself. I have often felt that if a monitor was poorly calibrated none of the images would look good, not just your own. So if one was to look at a winner on DPC for example they should wonder why it did so well while it looked so bad on their out of whack monitor. Wouldn't there be a major contrast between what they finished and what others produced?
Just an observation.
If images processed outside of my equipment look good to me then I assume mine look good to others. Am I wrong? Of course I am not talking about printing, another level entirely. |
Look at it this way; suppose 75% of DPC voters used junk monitors to prepare their entries AND to vote. These monitors produce, let us say, flat, dull dolors. So these members, in their post processing, overly saturate colors and use too much contrast and USM in their images, to make them look good.
And, in this hypothetical case, 75% of the voters think they look good too.
Meanwhile, those of us who produce work on high-end monitors that are properly calibrated get comments that our images are flat, with dull colors.
And of course, "we" vote down all the oversaturated, oversharpened images, blissfully unaware that on the maker's screen they look just fine.
So, to answer your question, no matter how "off" your calibration is, a certain percentage of images will look right on it, and those are the ones you will think are the "best", technically.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 20:31:03.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:43:25 PM · #5 |
Robt.,
Would you take a look at this one and let me know how it looks to you? I am using a new Dell 20 inch LCD and have hesitated to calibrate it using Adobe Gamma, as it looks good to me. Your opinion would be appreciated.
Dick
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:04:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by RedOak:
Never really gave this subject a lot of thoughs, until i got into Pet Portrait.
My home monitor, where i do all my post-process and viewing on pictures, is print calibrated (its about 97% calibrated) for true colours from Monitor to paper. That also implies that the colour adjustments i do are usually pretty accurate.
Showing my Pet Portrait entry to some friends and viewing it on their monitor kind of got me worried; which i believe is a reason why my score is lowering. On my monitor, colours are rich and bright, while on generic monitors, colours look a little fadded and dull.
It must be said that i followed some photographer's advise and always edit my shots on a 100% bright monitor.
Anyone thinks that this actually affects scores that much? |
The way you have described your setup is that you have calibrated your printer to match your monitor. This means very little if your monitor is not calibrated. All that means is that your prints match your monitor, which may not even be close to accurate. You must have a properly calibrated monitor if you hope for others to see an accurate representation of your intent...and that only works if they too have a calibrated monitor.
Your setup does not imply, as you said, that the color adjustments that you do are in any way accurate. It just says that you have your printer adjusted so that it will reproduce your monitor.
Do yourself a favor, and get something like this
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:16:37 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by autool:
Robt.,
Would you take a look at this one and let me know how it looks to you? I am using a new Dell 20 inch LCD and have hesitated to calibrate it using Adobe Gamma, as it looks good to me. Your opinion would be appreciated.
Dick |
Looks perfect to me. 4 very odd blue dots in a square formation on lower mid-foreground, but that is not a calibration issue, whatever it is. The tonal range is lovely, the blues and greens are rich, the whites are textured, the windmill blades pop nicely.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:59:56 PM · #8 |
when I see an image that may be suffering from my monitor not being calibrated, I leave a comment, that the image looks funny and it could be their monitor needs to be calibrated or mine needs it. I dont let that affect my vote at all
I do this in hopes of the photog contacting me during or after the challenge to discuss the area of the photo that looks out of wack and to see whos monitor is not calabrited correctly. I keep my calibrated often and check it a few times between calibrations.
James
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 22:00:44. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:37:21 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Dick |
Looks perfect to me. 4 very odd blue dots in a square formation on lower mid-foreground, but that is not a calibration issue, whatever it is. The tonal range is lovely, the blues and greens are rich, the whites are textured, the windmill blades pop nicely.
Robt.
Those are wild flowers. Really
Thanks for taking a look, my confidence is back now.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 23:38:17.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 12:05:35 AM · #10 |
Eh...monitors. Who needs 'em? Honestly though, there is only so much one can control in getting a score. After a certain point, you just have to let it slide.
Someone might already have said that, but I rarely read all the posts on a thread--frequently none. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 06:31:08 PM EDT.
