| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2006 11:26:12 AM · #26 |
CRT = Cathode Ray Tube, the old kind of TV screen
LCD = Liquid Crystal Display, or the flat-panel/laptop monitors
To make the blocks in Photoshop, just make a selection, click on the foreground color, and set it to 100% black. From the Edit menu, fill the selection with the Foreground color, and set it to 10%. Make another selection, and repeat, this time setting it to 15% or 20% or whatever increment you want to use. Repeat until you fill the last block with 100% black. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 12:08:22 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by espy:
Mine was bought about 2 years ago. My resolution is at a decent place. I think the 3rd line in now that I just checked. Thanks for saying where to go or I wouldn't have known :) On the right, my choices are 16bit and 32bit. I am set for the 32bit. I have no 24bit. So....does this mean I would need a new graphic card??? |
espy, I think you have "true color"! Let me explain a bit about the different kinds of color.
Memory used to be very expensive so that the amount of memory on a graphics card was an important factor in its cost. The card needs to have enough memory to store the color of each pixel on the screen. In the early days, I had a monochrome monitor. Each pixel was either on or off, so it only took 1 bit of memory for each pixel.
Then I got a color graphics card and monitor, but it could only display 16 colors (8 colors, each with two levels of brightness). It took 4 bits of memory to store the color of each pixel. You can't really display a photograph on a system with a system like this.
Both these are ancient history. Now memory is cheap and all modern graphics cards have enough memory to store a full range of colors for each pixel. There are two basic systems that are currently in use.
One system, often called "HighColor," uses 16 bits for each pixel. This makes it possible for a pixel to be any one of 65,536 colors. This is enough for reasonably adequate display of photographs. This system is sometimes called "thousands of colors."
The other system is called "TrueColor" and uses 24 bits for each pixel. This allows each pixel to be any one of 16.7 million different colors. This is more different colors than the eye can see so it provides excellent display of photographs. This system is sometimes called "millions of colors."
Many graphics cards can do either HighColor or Truecolor. The advantage of using HighColor even when you could be using TrueColor is that it is faster--an important factor for game players but not for photographers.
You said your system was set for 32 bit color. That is really the same as TrueColor, so I think you have a graphics card that is capable of either HighColor (16 bit) or TrueColor (32 bit) and you have set it correctly to 32 bit.
The other issue is the display capabilities. I know that some LCD monitors are not able to show the full color range. A good monitor can show 256 shades of red (or green or blue), but some less expensive LCD displays can show only 64 shades of each color. But this is only one factor affecting monitor quality and I'm not sure how important it is.
I hope this helps.
--DanW
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 03:05:33 PM · #28 |
| I hope you can continue with answering my question. I have my monitor set to 32 bit color. My question is, will it make a difference with how you all might see my images? Another question, I have something that allows me to adjust the screen resolution. It is currently set on medium low, or 1152 by 864 pixels. I just tried changing it to a higher number, and all my images looked really skewed. Is it possible that my images are being seen as somewhat skewed and distorted? Of course they were all saved at 1152 by 864, so perhaps if I saved at a higher resolution the images would look okay. Any info on screen resolution and how it is reflected on dp would be helpful. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 03:10:20 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
I hope you can continue with answering my question. I have my monitor set to 32 bit color. My question is, will it make a difference with how you all might see my images? Another question, I have something that allows me to adjust the screen resolution. It is currently set on medium low, or 1152 by 864 pixels. I just tried changing it to a higher number, and all my images looked really skewed. Is it possible that my images are being seen as somewhat skewed and distorted? Of course they were all saved at 1152 by 864, so perhaps if I saved at a higher resolution the images would look okay. Any info on screen resolution and how it is reflected on dp would be helpful. |
Your monitor probably has a native resolution ratio of 1.33:1, which is native for "common" resolutions of 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x960 (among others). You probably put your resolution to 1280x1024, which is native to a 1.25:1 ratio (which some monitors have, mostly LCDs these days). If your monitor is native to 1.33:1 (which I suspect it is), then having it set to 1280x1024 will stretch images, making them look skewed.
*EDIT* In other words, it doesn't matter what you save your images at, it's about what resolution your monitor can handle natively. Most CRT or older monitors will be the 1.33:1 and will have the common resolution sizes. Check your monitor's manual to find out more.
Message edited by author 2006-05-20 15:12:51. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 06:30:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
CRT = Cathode Ray Tube, the old kind of TV screen
LCD = Liquid Crystal Display, or the flat-panel/laptop monitors
To make the blocks in Photoshop, just make a selection, click on the foreground color, and set it to 100% black. From the Edit menu, fill the selection with the Foreground color, and set it to 10%. Make another selection, and repeat, this time setting it to 15% or 20% or whatever increment you want to use. Repeat until you fill the last block with 100% black. |
Yeah, ok, well, I have a large monitor that looks like a TV set. It's actually a flat screen 17". I don't have a plasma screen. Don't like'm. :) |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 06:34:21 PM · #31 |
DanW that was very informative. Thank you.
I guess I am all set now. I'm at 32 bit. On other sites where calibration is the actual mainstay, I am seeing blocks and gamma just right. So that is good enough for me. Anything else stated on my images I can only believe is on the part of the viewer and not myself.
After viewing a few of my images, and even my most recent, I can see a few places where a remark or two would be allowable as to seeing "some" very "miniscule"...LOL..processing techniques. I wouldn't say as some commenters have said though, which was like it was all off kilter. So, and as usual, I will take all comments with a large grain of kosher salt. I just think some voters are WAYYY to picky. Quite funny how I was getting some really decent scores without my new glasses or calibration being off. LOL..Watch. Now that I have everything right, my scores will drop like a rock. :)
But thanks for the information guys! It was very informative!!
Message edited by author 2006-05-20 18:39:57. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 06:40:30 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by espy:
DanW that was very informative. Thank you.
I guess I am all set now. I'm at 32 bit. On other sites where calibration is the actual mainstay, I am seeing blocks and gamma just right. So that is good enough for me. Anything else stated on my images I can only believe is on the part of the viewer and not myself.
After viewing a few of my images, and even my most recent, I can see a few places where a remark or two would be allowable as to seeing "some" very "miniscule"...LOL..processing techniques. I wouldn't say as some commenters have said though, which was like it was all off kilter. So, and as usual, I will take all comments with a large grain of kosher salt. I just think some voters are WAYYY to picky. But thanks for the information guys! It was very informative!! |
The point here would be, if ANY "processing marks" of any kind are visible to anybody, you have a problem with your processing. If it is done properly, post-processing should not be "visible" per se, as far as being able to "see" it goes, by anybody.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:11:44 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by espy:
DanW that was very informative. Thank you.
I guess I am all set now. I'm at 32 bit. On other sites where calibration is the actual mainstay, I am seeing blocks and gamma just right. So that is good enough for me. Anything else stated on my images I can only believe is on the part of the viewer and not myself.
After viewing a few of my images, and even my most recent, I can see a few places where a remark or two would be allowable as to seeing "some" very "miniscule"...LOL..processing techniques. I wouldn't say as some commenters have said though, which was like it was all off kilter. So, and as usual, I will take all comments with a large grain of kosher salt. I just think some voters are WAYYY to picky. But thanks for the information guys! It was very informative!! |
The point here would be, if ANY "processing marks" of any kind are visible to anybody, you have a problem with your processing. If it is done properly, post-processing should not be "visible" per se, as far as being able to "see" it goes, by anybody.
R. |
I don't agree. That is not the point. The point is on my monitor my shots looked perfectly fine. If I viewed them on another's computer where I frequent, I could see processing steps. A perfect example would be with my b/w "JUMP" entry. On my monitor I can't see one area where the dodging was done. When I viewed it by happenstance elsewhere (and for the very first time did I ever view my entries anywhere else), I could see all the dodging areas I did, and I was mortified and embarrassed. I also only then understood one commenter who said "what is that around the hair". I was like "WHAT? What is around the hair". When I saw it on another computer that was calibrated correctly, I saw the dodging that was done around the hair.
So, the point is, if your monitor does not have the right brightness/contrast/gamma/and color set, you will not notice what others will with your entries as you are processing, saving, and entering. Processing steps using any kind of software does not superceed what your monitor shows you. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:16:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by espy:
So, the point is, if your monitor does not have the right brightness/contrast/gamma/and color set, you will not notice what others will with your entries as you are processing, saving, and entering. Processing steps using any kind of software does not superceed what your monitor shows you. |
NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:17:26 PM · #35 |
I totally agree with you Robert... Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point here would be, if ANY "processing marks" of any kind are visible to anybody, you have a problem with your processing. If it is done properly, post-processing should not be "visible" per se, as far as being able to "see" it goes, by anybody.
R. |
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:21:48 PM · #36 |
You would. LOL....
I think you both need to read the thread before taking one post out of context, and that is what I think you have both done.
Just my own little suggestion.
Originally posted by Di:
I totally agree with you Robert... Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point here would be, if ANY "processing marks" of any kind are visible to anybody, you have a problem with your processing. If it is done properly, post-processing should not be "visible" per se, as far as being able to "see" it goes, by anybody.
R. |
|
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:25:47 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by espy:
So, the point is, if your monitor does not have the right brightness/contrast/gamma/and color set, you will not notice what others will with your entries as you are processing, saving, and entering. Processing steps using any kind of software does not superceed what your monitor shows you. |
NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
NOT if your monitor is set for a high brightness with little contrast, or vica versa it won't. And I can tell you this is fact, because of my last explaination. Not sure you read it. If what you say is true then I would not be able to see the editing done on one computer but then not on my own. That simple. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:26:05 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by espy:
I think you both need to read the thread before taking one post out of context, and that is what I think you have both done.
|
My, that's one heck of an assumption! |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:27:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by espy:
I think you both need to read the thread before taking one post out of context, and that is what I think you have both done.
|
My, that's one heck of an assumption! |
Some make bigger ones then me :) |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:28:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by espy:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by espy:
I think you both need to read the thread before taking one post out of context, and that is what I think you have both done.
|
My, that's one heck of an assumption! |
Some make bigger ones then me :) |
Bigger than assumeing your monitor doesn't show "true color"? Where? |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:29:28 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
Spoken by a man nwho KNOWS his post-processing! You're totally correct on this Robert!
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:29:39 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by espy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
NOT if your monitor is set for a high brightness with little contrast, or vica versa it won't. And I can tell you this is fact, because of my last explaination. Not sure you read it. If what you say is true then I would not be able to see the editing done on one computer but then not on my own. That simple. |
Read what I said a little more closely, please:
NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
It is definitely true that bad PP can be masked by some monitor settings, and exaggerated by others; but if the tools are used properly they live NO MARKS regardless of the monitor settings.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:32:19 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by espy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
...If what you say is true then I would not be able to see the editing done on one computer but then not on my own. That simple. |
Rose, what Bear is trying to explain is that if the image in question has been properly post-processed, there shouldn't be any artifacts in it. People don't comment on artifacts that don't exist. Sure, one person might have an incorrectly calibrated monitor, but if an image is receiving several comments about careless PP then it would be a reasonable assumption that the problem is with the PP, not everyone else. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:34:05 PM · #44 |
Bear is 100% correct in his statement ...
and i still agree with him
Originally posted by A1275:
Originally posted by espy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
...If what you say is true then I would not be able to see the editing done on one computer but then not on my own. That simple. |
Rose, what Bear is trying to explain is that if the image in question has been properly post-processed, there shouldn't be any artifacts in it. People don't comment on artifacts that don't exist. Sure, one person might have an incorrectly calibrated monitor, but if an image is receiving several comments about careless PP then it would be a reasonable assumption that the problem is with the PP, not everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:41:49 PM · #45 |
Ok, I have taken your advice. I have read and reread what Bear is saying and what A125 is saying. But I have to disagree again, and finally.
I don't know what perfect world of processing there is out there, but when I process, I do not do it pixel by pixel with a size 1 brush. There are times, evidently, now that I see it on monitors that had better calibration, when ones "toolmarks" will be seen. Especially in b/w's or sepias where dodge and burn is the main tool used.
How do I know this as fact you may wonder? LOL....Because when I view my jump entry on my computer (before today that is), I could see all dark where dark was meant to be processed and seen, and dodging where it was supposed to be and not be seen. When I viewed the same exact entry on a relatives monitor, ALL that can be seen, especially the dodging. So this is why I disagree.
Now, I guess it is just one of those things that if it hasn't happened to you, you can't understand it. Moving onward. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:42:42 PM · #46 |
I'm happy for you. I, on the other hand, still disagree. So, we can all just agree to disagree and let it rest. :)
Originally posted by Di:
Bear is 100% correct in his statement ...
and i still agree with him
Originally posted by A1275:
Originally posted by espy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...NO, if you PP correctly the toolmarks are invisible no matter what monitor setup someone is using; it's that simple.
R. |
...If what you say is true then I would not be able to see the editing done on one computer but then not on my own. That simple. |
Rose, what Bear is trying to explain is that if the image in question has been properly post-processed, there shouldn't be any artifacts in it. People don't comment on artifacts that don't exist. Sure, one person might have an incorrectly calibrated monitor, but if an image is receiving several comments about careless PP then it would be a reasonable assumption that the problem is with the PP, not everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:54:16 PM · #47 |
| Poor post processing is no reason to blame a monitor or others monitors... when there are very good free tutorials for paint shop pro adn photoshop on the web |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:56:01 PM · #48 |
| i didn't read the whole thread but would like to know, if anyone can tell me, if someone viewing at a different res. would view it differently? 600x800 vs 1024xwhateveritis? |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 07:57:16 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by rider:
i didn't read the whole thread but would like to know, if anyone can tell me, if someone viewing at a different res. would view it differently? 600x800 vs 1024xwhateveritis? |
Different resolution won't matter, but different color depth might.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:01:14 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Di:
Poor post processing is no reason to blame a monitor or others monitors... when there are very good free tutorials for paint shop pro adn photoshop on the web |
Thanks, but I do blame my monitor and for good reason. Factual reasons actually, at least this time around. Since my Jump entry I have been trying to figure out the problem, and just resorted to no longer worrying about it. But I recently received a few comments on two of my images about the processing, and ones I didn't understand because I couldn't see what they were referring to. Therefore the reason I started this thread, so I could see what can be done if anything.
I have had Paint Shop Pro 8 for over a year. I think I am pretty ok with how I use it. I used to process images for money, and did darn well at it may I add. I can't help it if how I do things isn't as accepted, or what I even say for that matter, on the subject here. That is really of no matter though, as the problem has since been solved.
|
|
