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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Calibrate your monitors
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 41 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/29/2004 12:11:23 AM · #26
Originally posted by Malokata:
...or buy a decent LCD. I'm getting far too many "too dark" comments where they're not justified (I'm using an Apple display, so I suppose I have an unfair advantage, but it's still a bit frustrating).


Post the pic that people say is too dark, and let the masses have at it. :) I will agree that everyone who isn't sure should defintely calabrate their monitor... To increase the chance of this, how about adding another Checkbox to the challenge entry screen that says "I have properly calibrated my monitor and provide proof...". LOL, may work!
 06/29/2004 12:28:26 AM · #27
I am a PC user who seems to be a victim of Mac displays, and have been told that my image is overexposed (and it is not). Under/overexposure is easy enough to check if you have photoshop (or an equivalent), just choose the colour picker move it over light or dark area of the image and see if the read-outs are all 0(s) or 255(s).

Message edited by author 2004-06-29 00:29:18.
 06/29/2004 01:16:17 AM · #28
Originally posted by Sammie:
Just found a website where you test to see if your monitor was properly calibrated:

Calibrate Your Monitor

My monitor seems to be just right.

Be wary of that sight as a calibration guide. The charts on it (like on DPC image pages) are useful for adjusting Brightness and Contrast, but tell you nothing about what gamma the monitor is calibrated. In fact, at the bottom of the page they state:
Originally posted by Ed Morris in article:
Gamma is probably set by selecting a color temperature value. If your monitor permits this, start with a white point value of 6500K (degrees Kelvin).

This is not right. Gamma sets the contrast of the display, the color temperature sets the White Balance (just like on your camera), and will be different under different lighting. It brings serious questions to mind concerning his knowledge of the subject. The brightness and contrast can be adjusted for any gamma to allow the gradients to be displayed properly on the screen (unless you hit the top or bottom end of the adjustment device).

An image being produced can be produced to look 'right' on any screen with any calibration. If the image is only to be viewed on the screen it was produced with, there is no need to calibrate. But if you want to be able to view the image on more than one display, they need to be calibrated to the same gamma. An image produced on a display with one gamma will not look right on a display that has another, even if they both display the gradient charts properly. An image produced an a monitor with a lower gamma will look 'darker' on a display calibrated to a higher gamma, and vice-versa.

As to what gamma to calibrate to: 2.2 is the cross-platform standard. It is roughly half way between the old PC standard of 2.5 and the Mac standard of 1.8, and was choosen because it provides a near optimal distribution for an 8-bit color space. Such an 8-bit color system is the sRGB color space, the default standard for the internet. It can not be stressed enough how important it is to produce the image to 2.2 gamma if it is to be displayed on the internet. Browsers by default display in sRGB, and any image not produced to a 2.2 gamma will not display properly; depending on how drastic the difference, the results can be perceived brightness issues as well as color shifts.

This site on monitor calibration is likely the easiest to follow while still remaining correct. There are other sites that calibrate essentially the same, but do so by going into much more detail than is needed to do it. The detail is needed to understand what is happening, but not to do it. A few of the other sites are found here and here if you want to dig deeper.

David
/edit: clarity

Message edited by author 2004-06-29 01:36:12.
 06/29/2004 01:37:37 AM · #29
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
... Post the pic that people say is too dark, and let the masses have at it. :) ...

It would only demonstrate that different people have different tastes in images, even those with calibrated displayes.

David
 06/29/2004 03:29:01 AM · #30
Right; it's possible and probable that my image is too dark for some folks' taste, but I'd like to at least know they're seeing the same picture before they decide.
 06/29/2004 06:18:36 AM · #31
Originally posted by Malokata:
...or buy a decent LCD. I'm getting far too many "too dark" comments where they're not justified (I'm using an Apple display, so I suppose I have an unfair advantage, but it's still a bit frustrating).


What Apples don't need calibration?
June
 06/29/2004 06:30:15 AM · #32
Originally posted by Malokata:
Right; it's possible and probable that my image is too dark for some folks' taste, but I'd like to at least know they're seeing the same picture before they decide.

You're using a brighter gamma and brighter screen. Maybe it is you that should be targetting more common calibration, before complaining?

Message edited by author 2004-06-29 06:32:13.
 06/29/2004 06:42:20 AM · #33
Well, see, I have the opposite problem. Pictures on my screen look bright, brighter than when I print them. Now, which device is miscalibrated? How can i find out?

June
 06/29/2004 12:19:40 PM · #34
Malokata,

I had problems with dark images and color shifts when first posting to dpc. I use a powerbook and I could even see a difference between my images in photoshop and when viewed on dpc using safari. After a lot of digging around the internet I found a group of mac color workflow experts that were recommending a gamma setting of 2.2 and color temperature of 6500 for photograhic work. These recommendations were based on current and proposed color workspace standards and were very nicely documented. I wish I could find the link now... but I followed the recommendation and my workflow has been much easier, for both web based display and printing my printer or at the local lab.
 06/29/2004 12:22:41 PM · #35
ok lets just all get the new 30" Cinema displays from apple and problems like these are behind us forever.

Check them out here
 06/29/2004 02:54:31 PM · #36
Originally posted by Malokata:
Right; it's possible and probable that my image is too dark for some folks' taste, but I'd like to at least know they're seeing the same picture before they decide.

I would like to see the image in question as well. A similar test was conducted a while back, but all it showed was the different tastes of the viewers. A standard image is too subjective. When I said you image would be darker when viewed on a display calibrated to a higher gamma than the one it was created for, I was not making a subjective evaluation of the mood you choose for your image. The image will appear darker, which may make a difference in the mood or it may not. One thing that is certain; if you calibrate your monitor to a non-standard gamma, your images will appear different to those of us that have calibrated to the standard.

Originally posted by chiqui74:
Well, see, I have the opposite problem. Pictures on my screen look bright, brighter than when I print them. Now, which device is miscalibrated? How can i find out?

June

Calibrate you monitor, paying particular attention to the temperature, then look at the difference. It could be that you are working in RGB and your printer prints in CMYK, when you print it performs the conversion of colorspace before printing. If your image editing program allows it you can use a proof display to see how your image looks in a different colorspace. CMYK can not reproduce many of the colors in the RGB colorspace exactly, so the nearest is choosen. How that color is choosen can make a difference, so it is usually best to do the colorspace conversion in an image editing program where you can control it more rather than depend upon the usually limited abilities of the printer. It may be possible, once you have the monitor calibrated, to create a color profile for the printer that corrects for any differences - but that depends a lot on what the print drivers allow.

Originally posted by Nusbaum:
... After a lot of digging around the internet I found a group of mac color workflow experts that were recommending a gamma setting of 2.2 and color temperature of 6500 for photograhic work. ...

Again, the monitor temperature controls set the white balance of the display, and will change with different lighting. These workflow experts are probably recommending a specific kind of lighting as well, but the lighting and the temperature can not be considered independant of each other. If you use different lighting at different times (such as room light during the day and a desk lamp at night, or work next to a window) you will need a profile for each change in lighting (with recalibration for that temperature) in order for you display to be consistant.

Originally posted by Nazgul:
ok lets just all get the new 30" Cinema displays from apple and problems like these are behind us forever.

Check them out here

They would still need calibrated. :p

Besides, the 30" only works on the G5 and requires a special video card. I do not feel like paying more to down-grade to a G5, and after trying both ATI and nVidia I like ATI's products a lot more. But that is just my personal preference.

David


06/29/2004 03:37:16 PM · #37
Originally posted by Britannica:
One thing that is certain; if you calibrate your monitor to a non-standard gamma, your images will appear different to those of us that have calibrated to the standard.
I do not feel like paying more to down-grade to a G5, and after trying both ATI and nVidia I like ATI's products a lot more. But that is just my personal preference.

David

Those of US...meaning Windows. Yes it is 2.2 and Mac is 1.8. But who gets to say that 2.2 is THE standard? Pure volume of computers or what MOST people in the video/graphics/photography industry say it is?
It has been shown that it is easy to flood the market with below standard computers and monitors. Just because more people have crappy computers and OS systems that needed patched every other day, doesn't mean it should be right.

How do you DOWN grade to a G5?

This is not to start a Mac vs PC thing or a flame war, just a point of view.
 06/29/2004 03:51:57 PM · #38
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Britannica:
One thing that is certain; if you calibrate your monitor to a non-standard gamma, your images will appear different to those of us that have calibrated to the standard.
I do not feel like paying more to down-grade to a G5, and after trying both ATI and nVidia I like ATI's products a lot more. But that is just my personal preference.

David

Those of US...meaning Windows. Yes it is 2.2 and Mac is 1.8. But who gets to say that 2.2 is THE standard? Pure volume of computers or what MOST people in the video/graphics/photography industry say it is?
It has been shown that it is easy to flood the market with below standard computers and monitors. Just because more people have crappy computers and OS systems that needed patched every other day, doesn't mean it should be right.

How do you DOWN grade to a G5?

This is not to start a Mac vs PC thing or a flame war, just a point of view.


The gamma standard for sRGB is 2.2. This was established because it is the optimal gamma for 24bit photographic images, not because it was used by the more common Windows/Intel PC.

I understand that the wider standard color space being defined right now, forget the name, will also use 2.2 as the standard. Once again this is based on a lot of technical factors that are NOT related to with Windows platform.

I'll try to find something from good source, but I wanted to avoid the PC vs MAC debate (because I stay up all night justifying my position).
 06/29/2004 04:37:09 PM · #39
Some things I found
The gamma value 2.22, sometimes simplified to just 2.2, is part of the video, Photo CD, and sRGB standards and is very close to the value incorporated into most PC display adapter hardware. Just to make things more complicated, the prepress industry standardizes on a gamma value of 1.8 to correspond more closely to the characteristics of printing presses, and some Macintoshes use a gamma of 1.4 for no reason that anyone has ever been able to explain to me. Nine steps to better prints
Scan with a gamma of 2.2 if your image will be seen on PC monitors because they have a gamma of 2.2, or above. The new sRGB standard also uses 2.2 and a gamma of 2.2 works well with most inkjet printers.
Scan with a gamma of 1.8 if the image will be seen on Mac monitors because they have a gamma of 1.8.
It is hard to lower contrast; you can always increase it; therefore, as a general rule, you might go for 1.8 as a general rule when scanning. Chicago Media Works

So some info. Not that conclusive to me. So I will stay with my gamma at 2.0

Message edited by author 2004-06-29 16:38:06.
 06/29/2004 09:36:43 PM · #40
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Britannica:
One thing that is certain; if you calibrate your monitor to a non-standard gamma, your images will appear different to those of us that have calibrated to the standard.
I do not feel like paying more to down-grade to a G5, and after trying both ATI and nVidia I like ATI's products a lot more. But that is just my personal preference.

David

Those of US...meaning Windows. Yes it is 2.2 and Mac is 1.8. But who gets to say that 2.2 is THE standard? Pure volume of computers or what MOST people in the video/graphics/photography industry say it is?
It has been shown that it is easy to flood the market with below standard computers and monitors. Just because more people have crappy computers and OS systems that needed patched every other day, doesn't mean it should be right.

As David (Nusbaum) said, the 2.2 industry standard was set independent of MS or Intel, it is a standard that has been around since back in the B&W video days. Adjusting the gamma changes the dynamic range of the image, 2.2 (2.222 is actually closer, but...) is the gamma at which the largest dynamic range is present. It is the optimal value for gamma when displaying images in the additive colorspace of RGB. 1.8 gamma may be the standard for printing, it may even be optimal for that, but the printed image is a subtractive colorspace (CMYK) and calibrating an additive colorspace device (monitor) to a subtractive colorspace standard instead of the additive colorspace optimal value just does not make much sense to me.
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
How do you DOWN grade to a G5?

This is not to start a Mac vs PC thing or a flame war, just a point of view.

I, like most everyone, do certain things for which I use specific programs on a day to day basis. The G5 is less capable of using those programs (if at all) to do what I want to get done. Sure there may be capable Mac alternatives, and I am sure there are, but that would just add to the already extreme price of ownership. As far as raw performance is concerned, the G5 is nothing special. It may be able to out-perform anything on the market in certain areas -- once the software has been optimized for it, but the same can be said about the new PC platforms and OS as well. I do not concern myself much with what might be, but what is currently avialable and at my disposal, with a nod toward cost effectiveness. So for me, going to a G5 would be a downgrade. In the same way, if you already have the software and a workflow optimized for the Mac, then moving to a PC could well be a downgrade for you.

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
... It is hard to lower contrast; you can always increase it; therefore, as a general rule, you might go for 1.8 as a general rule when scanning. ...

A quick note on this line. Most cameras use the industry standard of 2.2 gamma, by importing into a lower gamma you are reducing the contrast and losing quality.

David
 06/29/2004 11:53:46 PM · #41
Originally posted by nborton:

that site is very similar to the bar at the bottom of every pic on dpc when you are voting. maybe people just ignore the bar on dpc.

People on DPC ignoring something?

Say it ain't so!

Clara
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 11:43:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/27/2025 11:43:25 AM EDT.