Author | Thread |
|
06/23/2005 04:36:12 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by ubique: Originally posted by rikki11: Your monitor doesn't seem to be correctly calibrated. Follow this link and calibrate your system so you don't run into these problems in the future.
//www.easyrgb.com/calibrate.php |
Yeah, you're right. Damn thing shows too much detail, and I just can't stop it no matter what I try. |
If you agree that your monitor is giving too much dark detail to work on the "average DPC screen", then you want to make a photoshop action that will "convert" your images for DPC entry. If, for example, you agreed that my monitor was representative of an average-but-reasonably-well-calibrated DPC standard viewing environment, then I could "adjust" your image in PS to display well on my screen and save the adjustments as an action, which you could then use after resizing but before exporting. This is essentially what I do, myself, bumping up brightness a notch before entering the challenges, especially in very dark images. So mine's not, obviously, the correct monitor to use as a baseline...
The process is simplified if you can use somebody else's monitor to view your own image and do the adjustment/action creation yourself. Which is what I was able to do.
This sounds rambly... Blame it ont he late hour.
Robt.
|
|
|
06/23/2005 04:40:33 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti: The face is way too subtle. Remember that not all voters will have their monitor set up properly to see all shades of black so it probably just looked like a knife on a black background to most.
|
How does anyone expect to be even a mediocre photographer without calibrating their monitors? |
|
|
06/23/2005 05:20:46 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by karmat: It's odd, I was looking at it, then the face kinda jumps out at ya. That was scary. |
I thought that was exactly the effect he was going for, that's why I voted it so highly. SO lightening it would alter the whole feel and impact of the image. I thought it was really well executed??
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 05:22:17. |
|
|
06/23/2005 05:25:49 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by danderson107: Originally posted by cpanaioti: The face is way too subtle. Remember that not all voters will have their monitor set up properly to see all shades of black so it probably just looked like a knife on a black background to most.
|
How does anyone expect to be even a mediocre photographer without calibrating their monitors? |
If the image they see on their monitors is an accurate example of what their printer produces, that's the primary goal fpr most people. I have to use a completely different colorspace and other parameters to accurately prepare my images for printing than I do to prepare them for DPC. This is probably more than can be expected of most people, I'd guess. The situation is aggravated by the huge variations in monitor outputs, as far as online viewing goes. I have a monitor preset that I use solely for DPC participation/image manipulation. It's not the one I use the rest of the time, because it's too bright for comfort most of the time. I have another monitor preset I use for doing graphic design and preparing my images to print, one that more accurately predicts the final color output. Plus I have a special colorspace I use when I'm working with a particular book printer we often use.
So it's a complicated topic. Certainly, the most practical "solution" as far as challenges go is to determine how to make your images work with the mythical "average DPC mnonitor", and to avoid entering images that don't show advantageously within those limits.
R.
|
|
|
06/23/2005 05:27:25 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by amber: Originally posted by karmat: It's odd, I was looking at it, then the face kinda jumps out at ya. That was scary. |
I thought that was exactly the effect he was going for, that's why I voted it so highly. SO lightening it would alter the whole feel and impact of the image. I thought it was really well executed?? |
That IS what he was after, and it works very well on properly calibrated monitor. Those viewing the entries on a darker screen completely missed the impact of his image, though.
Robt.
|
|
|
06/23/2005 05:37:14 AM · #81 |
No more voting at work for me. I can see the face fine at home, but at the office computer I couldn't see it at all. |
|
|
06/23/2005 05:49:56 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by bear_music: Originally posted by amber: Originally posted by karmat: It's odd, I was looking at it, then the face kinda jumps out at ya. That was scary. |
I thought that was exactly the effect he was going for, that's why I voted it so highly. SO lightening it would alter the whole feel and impact of the image. I thought it was really well executed?? |
That IS what he was after, and it works very well on properly calibrated monitor. Those viewing the entries on a darker screen completely missed the impact of his image, though.
Robt. |
Thanks, Robert, for once again taking such pains to illuminate a difficult issue such as the one I raised in this forum thread. I'm happy with my monitor performance, but I like your suggestion to develop a personal monitor preset that replicates what appears to be "typical" DPC monitor performance, so I can check my entries before submission, and adjust them if necessary. As it happens I do have access to a less discriminating monitor I can use for comparison purposes, so I will certainly be taking you advice for the future. |
|
|
06/23/2005 05:56:56 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by bear_music: Originally posted by amber: Originally posted by karmat: It's odd, I was looking at it, then the face kinda jumps out at ya. That was scary. |
I thought that was exactly the effect he was going for, that's why I voted it so highly. SO lightening it would alter the whole feel and impact of the image. I thought it was really well executed?? |
That IS what he was after, and it works very well on properly calibrated monitor. Those viewing the entries on a darker screen completely missed the impact of his image, though.
Robt. |
Agreed, but if he altered it for those who couldn't see it, on my screen it would be over light and I would lose the impact...whose monitor do you aim for? Or should we just stick to bright colours, better yet, just sunsets?
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 05:57:38. |
|
|
06/23/2005 06:11:29 AM · #84 |
The face is too underexposed -- intentionally 'barely there' or not, it would have benefitted greatly better exposure. That is, even when dark, the image needs detail to push the impact to the viewer, but when under (or over) exposed too much the detail is gone. Even in the edits that have increased the brightness to be seen well, the face is little more than an outline of a face. It was a great idea, but I feel the missing impact is due more to this than to how wildly out of calibration the viewer's monitors are.
BTW: it does no good to state that the monitor is calibrated without also stating what standard it is calibrated to -- and what standard of calibration (if any) was in use while preparing the image for presentation. All monitors used in the viewing so far can be said to be perfectly calibrated -- they just are not calibrated to the same set of specifications.
David
|
|
|
06/23/2005 06:19:48 AM · #85 |
Ok, I got it, I can see the forehead crease and the light in the eye. Still, alittle mor definition would have thoroughly creeped me out. In a good way....HA-HA
|
|
|
06/23/2005 06:40:21 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by amber: Originally posted by bear_music: Originally posted by amber: Originally posted by karmat: It's odd, I was looking at it, then the face kinda jumps out at ya. That was scary. |
I thought that was exactly the effect he was going for, that's why I voted it so highly. SO lightening it would alter the whole feel and impact of the image. I thought it was really well executed?? |
That IS what he was after, and it works very well on properly calibrated monitor. Those viewing the entries on a darker screen completely missed the impact of his image, though.
Robt. |
Agreed, but if he altered it for those who couldn't see it, on my screen it would be over light and I would lose the impact...whose monitor do you aim for? Or should we just stick to bright colours, better yet, just sunsets? |
True enough, but the point here is to try to find a happy medium, as it were, where the smallest number of viewers sees an incomprehensible image, while no viewer (or as gfew of them as possible) sees an unacceptable image. In this particular case, it would be nice if everyone had at least seen a hint of a face, while nobody saw a face that was too "obvious". That's not possible, of course, since some monitors are so badly calibrated that he'd have to bring up the face too far for those viewers to see it at all, but hopefully there aren't that many of this subset.
Of particular importance is to realize this is almost exclusively a problem with significant detailed, but very dark, areas in an image. As a rule, monitor calibration issues are not going to make blown-out highlights appear where in reality there are none, but calibration dramatically affects dark-area detail. So much so that it's probably a good idea, in general, not to enter in challenges images liek the examples in this thread. Of course, the TOPIC here was darkness, and this is why it's such an issue in this case. Same thing happened in the night shots challenge, btw.
Another area where monitor calibration is important is in the perception of color, of course. I suspect our monitors are even less in agreement on color rendition than they are on black-point setting.
Robt.
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:07:20 AM · #87 |
David - Is it possible you might be missing some of the point? Or perhaps I am?
What is monitor calibration to the extent of this thread? Why do some see the face while others do not? If everyone was 'calibrated' correctly would it not be the same? Or is 'calibrating' different based on some other set of standards?
Is this monitor test useless?
test
Is the idea of some monitor test prior to voting not looking more and more like a decent idea?
Like HighwayFlower pointed out earlier, she isn't going to vote anymore using her work monitor. Now that she knows the difference. How many other voters out there have no idea how bad their monitor is?
Just food for thought I guess...
Originally posted by Britannica: The face is too underexposed -- intentionally 'barely there' or not, it would have benefitted greatly better exposure. That is, even when dark, the image needs detail to push the impact to the viewer, but when under (or over) exposed too much the detail is gone. Even in the edits that have increased the brightness to be seen well, the face is little more than an outline of a face. It was a great idea, but I feel the missing impact is due more to this than to how wildly out of calibration the viewer's monitors are.
BTW: it does no good to state that the monitor is calibrated without also stating what standard it is calibrated to -- and what standard of calibration (if any) was in use while preparing the image for presentation. All monitors used in the viewing so far can be said to be perfectly calibrated -- they just are not calibrated to the same set of specifications.
David |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:23:13 AM · #88 |
Im thinking it is not everyone elses monitor that need to be calibrated Last night i calibrated mine to adobe rgb and the image did not show up did the same at work same resuts.....I fear if you see this image you are adjusted way to bright and will ruin all the other pics you look at thinking they are over exposed or need saturation |
|
|
06/23/2005 08:28:58 AM · #89 |
My home monitor is calibrated weekly using SpyderPro.
It is right on where it is supposed to be...
The image is tooooo dark |
|
|
06/23/2005 08:47:42 AM · #90 |
So again I ask - Is this monitor test useless?
test
I can see the face on the image in question clearly (yes it's dark, but quite identifiable) - yet on the monitor test I'm seeing the square when it hits level 3. That's decent right?
Feel like I'm missing something here...
Originally posted by holdingtime: Im thinking it is not everyone elses monitor that need to be calibrated Last night i calibrated mine to adobe rgb and the image did not show up did the same at work same resuts.....I fear if you see this image you are adjusted way to bright and will ruin all the other pics you look at thinking they are over exposed or need saturation |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:58:07 AM · #91 |
When I took the test at work where I could not see the face, I scored a 16! At home where I can, I scored a 7. |
|
|
06/23/2005 09:50:45 PM · #92 |
I can see the face. It's dark, but I can see enough detail to make it out. I checked out the monitor test and I see the square at number 5. That seems about right I'm assuming. |
|
|
06/25/2005 10:44:31 AM · #93 |
On my monitor at home (CRT), which is the monitor I use for photo editing and voting, I can see the face quite clearly. On my monitor at work (LCD), which is too dark, I pretty much can't see the face at all. I can barely make out that there is something there, and I think that if I didn't already know there was something there, I wouldn't be able to see it at all. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 01:36:36 PM EDT.