|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2006 08:04:14 PM · #51 |
thanks terry on a slightly different note what can a body do to get his printer to print the way it looks on the screen? mine usually looks much lighter than the screen
Message edited by author 2006-05-20 20:06:40. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:06:39 PM · #52 |
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? |
This is a situation, from my own experience, that is of ongoing debate on a few sites I frequent. They will see photos differently at work, or on their laptops, or on a friends computer, etc, then how they see it at home. There is always a call for "calibrate your monitors!" when one's comments are either for or against the processing of ones entry. Some even get comments about processing that never even occured, as in "too much neat image". I've gotten those on photos I never used it on as well. So, I do think that different monitors will show different things, as I have witnessed this myself on many occasion. Not just processing, as with my own, but with color depth. One image I did was very well colored on my computer, but on my daughters laptop it looked faded. She may have had her brightness up to high, not sure. I'm no computer tech, but I do believe that not everyone sees an image as we intend. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:06:47 PM · #53 |
To be clearer:
Monitors don't create artifacts. PP can create artifacts if done poorly. If you are seeing artifacts on one monitor and not another, the cause is likely the PP, not the monitor.
OK? So if people are commenting that the PP appears poorly done, it's probable that the PP was poorly done.
Why not post the shot in question, after the challenge is over, and ask for assistance with PP to avoid similar technical issues in the future?
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:33:54 PM · #54 |
alot of cheap / fast refresh TFT's only display 18bit colour and dither to give you a false 24bit
theres a website - i cba to find it right now that has a list of all the TFT's made and tells u what drives them so u can see if your display or the display you're looking at purchasing will give u true 24bit colour
when Windows tells u that its driving ur display @ 32bit, 8bits is set to alpha channel for 3D so you're getting 24bit colour within a Game or 3D app and then you have 8bits grey for transparency on a texture..
i switched my main display to TFT when i was sure that TFT technology was at a standard where a 24bit display wasn't going to cost the earth.. i use a Formac 2010 which is also Pantone approved (i'm a graphic designer so its important that i get colours right in the brochures i design etc, as well as the photography i take..) my secondary display is a Mitsubishi 930SB which was my primary ,which replaced my aging hitachi CRT..
my formac's colours were only very slightly out and i didn't really need to calibrate it, but my Mitsubishi does need the calibration and so did them both at the same time..
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:42:45 PM · #55 |
| I can understand what espy is saying. If the monitor wasn't calibrated properly, it would be like doing pp wearing a pair of sun glasses. It would look ok while you had the glasses on, but when you took them off, boom, all the mistakes would show up. It's somewhat like someone that over cooks the colors because they might be color blind. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:47:21 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by A1275:
To be clearer:
Monitors don't create artifacts. PP can create artifacts if done poorly. If you are seeing artifacts on one monitor and not another, the cause is likely the PP, not the monitor.
OK? So if people are commenting that the PP appears poorly done, it's probable that the PP was poorly done.
Why not post the shot in question, after the challenge is over, and ask for assistance with PP to avoid similar technical issues in the future? |
I don't really want to continue with this, and I just want to say I understand what you are saying. But, let me see if I can make my point clearer. Lets say I am dodging hair and to me it seems like I am doing a damn good job. LOL....Looks nice. Just where I want it. I moved the brush ever so slightly and where I wanted it. I used a size, oh, let's say 20 for a brush, and it was round and full. Dodgeing at maybe 30% power. Ok, done. The image looks great! (TO ME). Just the right touches and highlighted areas! YEAH! Resize, submit.
I then go visit a relative. I want to check the update button on the entry. I go to my photo and see what appears to be white in the black background that I didn't put there. WELL, apparantly I DID put it there, since it is my entry, but I just couldn't see it at the time of resizing, rechecking, and uploading at my house. Not to mention the umpteen times I viewed it before it actually went into challenge at my house.
This to me means that both of the monitors are viewing things differently. If I was THAT far off on my processing skills, then I "should" be able to notice it at the same place where I am processing - at home. This is all I am saying. I am not saying that I am a painter that always stays within the lines. I'm not perfect by any mreans, and I do process like a painter more than pixel by pixel. I brush, swipe, remove, etc, all quite quickly. However, I am just saying that going out of those lines is not (or was not) visible to me where I was doing the processing - at home. So, maybe my processing was bad, or is bad, but I wasn't able to ascertain that given what I was seeing on my monitor.
I hope that clears up that much. On the other hand, I have taken up your suggestion. However, I will not be posting the shot in question after challenge to get 300 different ideas and techniques thrown at me :) , but I will be privately working with another (who has graciously offered) on some processing techniques to prevent this from hopefully happening again, and will also be rechecking my monitor on a regular basis.
Thank you all for your time! |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:48:40 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by pcody:
I can understand what espy is saying. If the monitor wasn't calibrated properly, it would be like doing pp wearing a pair of sun glasses. It would look ok while you had the glasses on, but when you took them off, boom, all the mistakes would show up. It's somewhat like someone that over cooks the colors because they might be color blind. |
EXACTLY !!! Thank you! |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 08:50:57 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
alot of cheap / fast refresh TFT's only display 18bit colour and dither to give you a false 24bit
theres a website - i cba to find it right now that has a list of all the TFT's made and tells u what drives them so u can see if your display or the display you're looking at purchasing will give u true 24bit colour
when Windows tells u that its driving ur display @ 32bit, 8bits is set to alpha channel for 3D so you're getting 24bit colour within a Game or 3D app and then you have 8bits grey for transparency on a texture..
i switched my main display to TFT when i was sure that TFT technology was at a standard where a 24bit display wasn't going to cost the earth.. i use a Formac 2010 which is also Pantone approved (i'm a graphic designer so its important that i get colours right in the brochures i design etc, as well as the photography i take..) my secondary display is a Mitsubishi 930SB which was my primary ,which replaced my aging hitachi CRT..
my formac's colours were only very slightly out and i didn't really need to calibrate it, but my Mitsubishi does need the calibration and so did them both at the same time.. |
This sounds very helpful, however, I can't read Greek? LOL...I am just not that computer literate to understand what you are saying, but darn, it sounds great! How do you change your main display to a TFT, and what is a TFT? I have no idea what a tomac is or a pantone is. LOL...I guess I am just out of the loop on this one. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 09:02:16 PM · #59 |
| I have had a few images where people saw my dodging and burning marks. When I looked at them on my monitor I did not see what they were talking about. However, I have since learned a little trick. Before I submit, I put the brightness slider up to its very lightest, and lo and behold I can see my dodging and burning marks. Therefore, I go back and redo those areas after canceling the brightness adjustment, then do it again. I keep doing this until I can no longer see the marks. Try it. If you are told your marks can be seen, this is a good test on your images before you submit. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 09:12:22 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
I have had a few images where people saw my dodging and burning marks. When I looked at them on my monitor I did not see what they were talking about. However, I have since learned a little trick. Before I submit, I put the brightness slider up to its very lightest, and lo and behold I can see my dodging and burning marks. Therefore, I go back and redo those areas after canceling the brightness adjustment, then do it again. I keep doing this until I can no longer see the marks. Try it. If you are told your marks can be seen, this is a good test on your images before you submit. |
WOW, seems like a lot of work..LOL..but congrats on being so dedicated! I will try that as well. I am sure it will be worth the effort. Nice tip!!
At least this thread speaks on why the photo looks as it does, and it isn't that I just like entering badly edited images. :) Still, at a 5.4 for such a terribly processed entry..LOL..I'm not going to complain. Maybe next time I should put on blindfold's and try for a 6.0! LOL..... |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 09:17:35 PM · #61 |
It's always a good idea to process at a higher gamma level than you normally display, for DPC, in order to appeal to more people.
If, however, you *honestly* don't care about any of it, than process however you like, and let people's comments go by the wayside.
It's all about how *you* feel.
However, if you *honestly* don't care about what other people have to offer, then it's my opinion that threads with questions or asking for advince should never be started in the first place.
Either/Or really.. can't have both. |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 09:35:54 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
It's always a good idea to process at a higher gamma level than you normally display, for DPC, in order to appeal to more people.
If, however, you *honestly* don't care about any of it, than process however you like, and let people's comments go by the wayside.
It's all about how *you* feel.
However, if you *honestly* don't care about what other people have to offer, then it's my opinion that threads with questions or asking for advince should never be started in the first place.
Either/Or really.. can't have both. |
If you are referring to me, it isn't that I don't care about what others have to offer. It just seemed as if the only person understanding what I was referring to was pcody, and I didn't want to continue on trying to explain it.
As for comments, I usually do let them fall by the wayside for the most part. They are just too diverse to give a lot of credence to. But with a problem of this magnitude, and only recently, I thought it was one time I should find out what the problem was that was going on that I couldn't see. Now I know, and you were helpful in the process as well.
I'm signing off for the night, but just wanted to thank you all for your input! |
|
|
|
05/20/2006 10:17:36 PM · #63 |
Rose, if your post is about that one comment I left you where you PM'd me, then it was a matter of photographic error, not anything to do with PP or with a monitor.
I wouldn't worry...go click on vote, and look at the grayscale slider...if you can't see like 2 or 3 up from each end, then you got issues...otherwise, you're fine.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2006 11:30:50 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by espy:
Dodgeing at maybe 30% power. Ok, done. The image looks great! (TO ME). Just the right touches and highlighted areas! YEAH! Resize, submit.
|
OK here is the essence of the problem. Dodging at 30% will leave noticable tool marks on your image. You may not be able to see them on a poorly calibrated monitor, but they are there. Pcody's sunglass analogy is a good one - a dark monitor may prevent you seeing problems that many others will see.
The better the monitor and the better its calibration, the more obvious they are. The marks will also be visible if the image is printed at a medium to large size on a good printer.
Dodging or burning for this sort of work are best done at 3-6% power, varying the exact route each time so you don't get that hard edged tool line. Yes it is a lot more work but if done correctly nobody will ever be able to see PP tool marks no matter how their monitor is calibrated.
The aim in (most) PP is to modify the image but keep the quality the same as when it came out of the camera - not introduce tool marks.
Espy - people here are trying to help, please remember that!
Message edited by author 2006-05-20 23:33:50. |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 06:15:34 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by espy:
This sounds very helpful, however, I can't read Greek? LOL...I am just not that computer literate to understand what you are saying, but darn, it sounds great! How do you change your main display to a TFT, and what is a TFT? I have no idea what a tomac is or a pantone is. LOL...I guess I am just out of the loop on this one. |
LOL sorry :)
TFT is short for Thin Film Transistor, a type of LCD flat-panel display screen, in which each pixel is controlled by from one to four transistors. The TFT technology provides the best resolution of all the flat-panel techniques, but it is also the most expensive. TFT screens are sometimes called active-matrix LCDs.
Formac is a Monitor Manufacturer :)
Pantone is an innovative system of identifying, matching and communicating colors to solve the problems associated with producing accurate color matches in the graphic arts community. www.pantone.com |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 08:09:31 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Rose, if your post is about that one comment I left you where you PM'd me, then it was a matter of photographic error, not anything to do with PP or with a monitor.
I wouldn't worry...go click on vote, and look at the grayscale slider...if you can't see like 2 or 3 up from each end, then you got issues...otherwise, you're fine. |
WOW, didn't expect to see this thread continued this morning.
deapee, I don't remember PM'ing you on any image. You would have to enlighten me. Certainly I didn't PM you on any recent image that I know of. I have three images up presently, and you haven't commented on one of those, so I don't know to what you are referring.
The blocks at DPC are separated, except for the last 4 or so in the black. However, on a calibration site aside from DPC's blocks, the blocks are separated and gamma is where it is supposed to be.
I am just going to go with what I have for calibration now. SO far it has worked for me in the past. The problem may lie with "grunge" as well. It is a new tool I am using other than dodge and burn. Not sure if there is a huge difference, but only since I have used grunge to lighten and darken have I received the comments I have. I really can't see why there would be a big difference, but there does seem to be a corrulation between that and the comments.
Leok, I don't think we have ever talked before. There are some on this thread I have talked with at length in the past, and they know to what I am referring in the way I answer them and why. A matter I won't get into personally, but for the most part, I do know that most on this thread are here to help.
Bobster Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like you definately know your field! LOL...A bit too complicated for me I'm afraid. :)
Message edited by author 2006-05-21 08:11:41. |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 10:16:16 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by espy:
deapee, I don't remember PM'ing you on any image. You would have to enlighten me.
|
No problemo Rose...
This photo: 
--
When I left a comment saying that your flash was too strong that it overpowered the ambient light, and that it looks like you neat imaged it too much...
and you responded and said that it was the way you wanted it, with the completely black background and that his face looks like that from being outside playing...
and I said then you need more backlight to help seperate your subject from the completely dark background...
Then you told me to get my story straight. First I say you need less flash, then I say you need more flash...
Then I said that since you broke your anonymity and were unwilling to listen to advice, I was bumping your photo from it's 3 down to a 1...
--
Remember?
|
|
|
|
05/21/2006 10:30:56 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by espy:
deapee, I don't remember PM'ing you on any image. You would have to enlighten me.
|
No problemo Rose...
This photo:
--
When I left a comment saying that your flash was too strong that it overpowered the ambient light, and that it looks like you neat imaged it too much...
and you responded and said that it was the way you wanted it, with the completely black background and that his face looks like that from being outside playing...
and I said then you need more backlight to help seperate your subject from the completely dark background...
Then you told me to get my story straight. First I say you need less flash, then I say you need more flash...
Then I said that since you broke your anonymity and were unwilling to listen to advice, I was bumping your photo from it's 3 down to a 1...
--
Remember? |
Oh, yes. LOL...Now I remember. You're the guy who bumps photos down to a one for giving contridicting advice that isn't understood, and therefore, not adhered to.
I was trying to understand what you were talking about. Needs more light, needs less light? Sounded contridicting to me so I questioned it. I also didn't use neat image on the photo. You didn't like me questioning you or trying to understand you, and so you used the excuse of breaking anon for bumping the image down to a one.
You know, I have a LOT of people that PM me over comments I make on their images. They thank me, they bash me, they curse me. LOL.... I don't "punish" them for it by bumping the image down to a one. I leave my name and don't bag myself just in case they DO want to discuss what I have said. Whatever vote I give them stays that way. If anything, and after understanding something that maybe I didn't understand prior to that communication, I bump a photo up. But I NEVER bump it down simply because they question my comment.
You should be ashamed.
Message edited by author 2006-05-21 10:31:56. |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 10:35:05 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by espy:
Oh, yes. LOL...Now I remember. You're the guy who bumps photos down to a one for giving contridicting advice that isn't understood, and therefore, not adhered to.
I was trying to understand what you were talking about. Needs more light, needs less light? Sounded contridicting to me so I questioned it. I also didn't use neat image on the photo. You didn't like me questioning you or trying to understand you, and so you used the excuse of breaking anon for bumping the image down to a one.
You know, I have a LOT of people that PM me over comments I make on their images. They thank me, they bash me, they curse me. LOL.... I don't "punish" them for it by bumping the image down to a one. I leave my name and don't bag myself just in case they DO want to discuss what I have said. Whatever vote I give them stays that way. If anything, and after understanding something that maybe I didn't understand prior to that communication, I bump a photo up. But I NEVER bump it down simply because they question my comment.
You should be ashamed. |
OK first off, I didn't actually bump it down, if it matters to you. I just said that I did. I actually left it at a 3.
Secondly, you can't tell me that you didn't smooth his skin...not to mention, you definately either did, or you put makeup all over your son's face...which is probably a criminal offense in like 40 states or so by this day and age lady.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2006 10:38:10 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by espy:
I don't "punish" them for it by bumping the image down to a one. I leave my name and don't bag myself just in case they DO want to discuss what I have said. Whatever vote I give them stays that way. If anything, and after understanding something that maybe I didn't understand prior to that communication, I bump a photo up. But I NEVER bump it down simply because they question my comment.
You should be ashamed. |
And I didn't 'pretend' to bump it down because of your comment ... just because you broke anonymity in a challenge, like you have posted on some photos in the past from using the same subject more than once that you were scorring their photo down.
Originally posted by espy:
The funniest part about this photo is that in forum I told you in jest to take the pencil out of your pugs paw. My first post was going to say to take the dunce cap off your pug, but I thought you may be offended if I said so. Seems I would have offended you, but only in that it WOULD have really been your entry. Not that that matters, as once again you seem to be going for the popularity votes than a photo that doesn't involve your dogs and is anon. This is now entry number 11 of yours with pug in challenges, and again you have discussed your dog all week in forum. I will be voting later on today. I guess you know what to expect from me. |
--
OK I'm done with this conversation before I get out of hand. Have a good day.
Message edited by author 2006-05-21 10:39:08.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2006 11:31:50 AM · #71 |
i would like to state for the record that i'm really ashamed of the way this thread went down.
espy had a perfectly valid, relevant hardware question. the discussion that proceeded was both useful and civil. it did not IN ANY WAY warrant any discussion about the level of post-processing skill or ability.
if you do not agree with what the OP has said, or if the thread is of no practical use to you, you should ignore the thread either by skipping over it or using the "ignore thread" option at the top of every forum page.
the last thing this site needs is a band of vigilante policemen stirring the pot whenever particular users are concerned. if you have issues with a user or users that affect your enjoyment of the site, it is YOUR responsibility to avoid interacting with them. if a user has violated the Forum Rules or the Terms of Use, you should contact the SC with the relevant information and then move on.
personally i am tired of playing babysitter to threads like this. i also hate locking them because the first half is relatively useful. however, the actions of some of the participants necessitate the end of this discussion, which i am invoking now. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/25/2025 03:06:53 PM  |
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: 09/25/2025 03:06:53 PM EDT.
|
