Require monitor calibration for membership?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/16/2004 07:11:40 PM · #1

It is quite clear from the comments for this photo (not my photo) that a number of DPC'ers are using monitors that are drastically out of calibration:

I thought of a possible solution in this thread, but then realized that it belonged under "site suggestions", sorry for the cross-posting:

How about requiring people to calibrate their monitors, at least roughly, in order to become members? Am I remembering correctly, isn't there already a "warm body" test in the registration process where you have to type the characters that you see in some funky font in a small image into a form? Well, how about making these fairly dark characters on a dark background, such that you can't see them unless your monitor is at least in the ball-park of good calibration?

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/16/2004 07:23:41 PM · #2

What about a user with a vision impairment who may realize that can not vote fairly, but wishes to participate in the forums, enter challenges, or sell their own work on DPC Prints. Should they be precluded from doing so by virtue of their impairment?

Also, for what it's worth, I agree with many of the comments on this image. While in general I like the lighting on this image, I believe it is too dark for the purpose for which it was shot (advertising).

It's readable, but the viewer of an ad isn't going to work that hard.

-Terry

rgordon

Canon PowerShot A70

07/16/2004 07:32:14 PM · #3

I think it's a good idea. Although there's no guarantee that the computer a user registered on is the one they'll always use to view photos.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

07/16/2004 07:32:20 PM · #4

Sometimes people might say they can't make it out or it's too dark and what they mean is it is imperfectly exposed. To me it looks like the photographer had to dodge those two letters to get them to show at all. The reason I say that is by looking at the color of the letters. The I and most of first N are gray while the others have a gold tint. That area needed more light. Therefore it is too dark. There is even a comment from someone that states they just recently calibrated their monitor and the area was dark. Would that person be kept from the challenges?
I think if I got that many comments on it being dark, I would think the problem was in my picture not someone else's monitor.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/16/2004 07:35:01 PM · #5

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Also, for what it's worth, I agree with many of the comments on this image. While in general I like the lighting on this image, I believe it is too dark for the purpose for which it was shot (advertising).

It's readable, but the viewer of an ad isn't going to work that hard.

-Terry

Title it 'out of the dark' suddenly the lighting make sense. Gunniess is all about being the black stuff - it shouldn't be bright and obvious.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/16/2004 08:57:49 PM · #6

People with vision imparements certainly shouldn't be barred from joining, but presumably few enough people would fail this test that it would be reasonable to give them the option to email and petition their case. So if they claim it's a vision imparement, then you'd just have to take their word for it. If it's a calibration issue, then chances are they weren't even aware of the problem, so then they might need pointers to pages that explain how to calibrate.

BTW, I'm not sure I would have made this photo quite so dark either, that's not the point. The point is that you can't make any judgement at all about the exposure of a photo if the calibration is really far off.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/16/2004 09:00:09 PM · #7

My point is that none of the comments clearly suggest to me a bad calibration... only an opinion that this image was too dark.

-Terry

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/16/2004 10:15:24 PM · #8

"Guinness? I think one of the first rules of advertising is make sure the product name is visible. I'm just guessing this is Guinness based on the gold and black."

"I dont know if its my monitor but i cant see the product. Is it guinsess?"

Those don't clearly suggest bad calibration? Then there are the numerous comments along the lines of "And the brand is?????".

Soleil9

Canon PowerShot A80

07/16/2004 10:42:20 PM · #9

Mangus, I'm a new member, and I'm glad I just saw your post. I realized when I was voting that I couldn't quite see the definition on the last 3 bars or so of the calibration guide. I have to admit, I remember seeing your pic and thinking, "bad photo, the entire name should be visible!" Ijust calibrated my monitor, and it was like magic, there was the entire name, come out from the shadows! Amazing differance it made, esp. on your entery. I looked at a few other photos, and the calibration didn't affect it so much, but I guess your was just so low on the dark end that yours was esp. affected by ther poor calibration.

Again, thanks for urging us newbies to calibrate!

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

07/16/2004 10:44:49 PM · #10

Lots of folks over react because they get a too dark or too light comment. Chill pill.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

07/16/2004 11:38:12 PM · #11

interesting contrast in comments.. from perfect lighting to too dark.

I have been sayong for months that we need to emphasize the importance of calibration but with little response.

Others likely have done the same. It's not only that you might have apic that is perceived to be too dark but that the shots you yourself put out there with a uncalibrated monitors is not the best that it can be.

I say its a good idea or at the very leat a place to start

gajmaj

Canon EOS-20D

07/17/2004 12:15:47 AM · #12

All I can say is that a properly calibrated monitor is of major importance in all aspects of digital photography from post processing to viewing to preparing for print. A poorly calibrated monitor (and I've seen some real duds straight out of the box) can only lead to disappointment. WiziWYG by Praxisoft can go a long way to obtaining an approximate calibration - you can download a free version from //www.praxisoft.com/pages/products.wiziwyg.html or //www.freedownloadscenter.com/Business/Printer_Tools/WiziWYG.html amongst others and you don't need hardware. You can also use Adobe Gamma which is usually installed with Photoshop. Otherwise for those who want to offload some spare cash you can always buy a monitor Spyder or similar :)

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/17/2004 12:34:36 AM · #13

That picture was too dark. Adjusting to the dpc audience includes realizing that not all people have the monitors and/or the software to calibrate perfectly. Same as adjusting to the tastesof dpc voters, not everyone will see things the same way. Nagging people to calibrate is a waste of time.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/17/2004 01:56:50 AM · #14

I don't think requiring a calibrated monitor at registration is all that good of an idea. It's not that I don't think calibration should be required, many of my other posts show my stand on it. Rather, DPC is a site for learning photography, and part of the process is to learn to use the equipment you have properly. Calibrating a monitor is a lot like setting the exposure of the camera properly. It is something that must be done correctly if you want to consistently produce a quality photo. Requiring a calibrated monitor in order to register raises the bar on new members. It requires them to already have a certain level of knowledge about some portion of the process of photography. I like that the site has its doors wide open to the rank amateur with no previous knowledge.

However, it has been previously suggested that instead of the gradient bar on the voting page, a click-thru screen that ensures a properly calibrated monitor before each voting session, would educate the voter to a potential problem. This click-thru page would be a screen that displays a gamma chart and gradient, with an explaination of how it should be seen, and emphasizing that if it is not seen properly the voter is not seeing the images as the photographer created them to be viewed. It would not eliminate the problem, but it would go a long way toward educating those that are willing to be educated -- which is really all that can be expected from any such system.

David

garrywhite2

Canon EOS-7D

07/17/2004 02:30:32 AM · #15

Originally posted by coolhar:

Nagging people to calibrate is a waste of time.

I don't know that it's a waste of time, but it is at minimum one of the perpetual revolving doors at dpc.

If a calibrated monitor is required for voting, it should also be required when submitting a photograph.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/17/2004 02:42:48 AM · #16

Originally posted by garrywhite2:

If a calibrated monitor is required for voting, it should also be required when submitting a photograph.

I guess I am a minimalist when it comes to enacting requirements.

Let a photographer with a poorly calibrated monitor submit a photo if they want, they will suffer a similar fate as those who submit photos that are improperly exposed. In fact, I oftem wonder if the shot is actually under or over exposed, or just edited on a monitor that has not been calibrated. Require calibration before voting, and the effect on these submitters becomes much greater. It takes care of both sides of the issue, one directly and the other indirectly.

David

mirdonamy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/17/2004 03:43:54 AM · #17

My monitor sucks and doesn't take calibration. It's very very dark, but I take it into account when voting. I try to vote at work, on the mac screen. At home, I usually just post. My pictures always turn out to bright due to my compensation for my dark monitor, and it's turned up all the way to 100 on brightness & contrast. It just sucks. Don't require calibration, please. i can still vote from work!!!

07/17/2004 03:57:05 AM · #18

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

The calibration would then need to be done on your monitor at work, which I presume can be calibrated.

My monitor is old, and losing a lot of the life it once had. I am unable to calibrate it with the controls on the monitor, but the driver for my video card have the same controls that add to what my monitor is capable of on its own. If you know what video card is in your system it may be worth-while to look on the manufactures website to see if there is an updated driver.

Wouldn't you like to know the voters are seeing your images the same as you saw them while editing?

Wouldn't you like to know that while voting you are seeing the image the way the photographer intended it to be seen?

Calibration just makes sense.

David

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

07/17/2004 12:13:59 PM · #19

I hadn't seen the previous thread David mentioned on a click-through screen with a calibration chart, that's a darn good idea! The only advantage to the registration requirement approach is that it would just be a simple addition to the test that's already in place (the one that filters out bots trying to impersonate real applicants). But the click-through approach would be far more effective, since it would always be done on whatever monitor you are about to use for voting.

As for nagging people to calibrate being a waste of time, that may be true. So rather than nagging, either require it, or find some way to convince people that it's in their own best interest. A click-through screen with a particularly striking "this is what you should be seeing" demonstration may do just that.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

07/17/2004 12:31:04 PM · #20

The click-through is a great idea. I wouldn't mind doing that at all, plus it would help me on my other photos that are not on dpc and help keep the monitor consistant from week to week. Maybe have it up on the page where people submit their photos for the challenge. Nothing like self interest to get people to use it.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/17/2004 02:33:59 PM · #21

The reasons I say the nagging about calibration, in the dpc context, is a waste of time are: 1) most of the complaints, like the one that started this thread, come along with disapointing results for photos that are too dark; 2) the complainer's monitor turns out to be the one that is not calibrated correctly when everyone else agrees an image is ok; and 3) many, if not most, dpc users either don't have a monitor capable of correct calibration (think laptops and Macs to begin with) or don't have the software to do the calibration to the satisfaction of those complaining. Even if we all could afford top quality monitors and the fancy software there would still be a variety in the results each person acheives, and also differing tastes and differing eyesight.

However, a "click thru" method of calibration that is freely available on dpc would be desirable. If you think about it, that's what the bar on the bottom of the voting page is, however primitive. If there is a better method available I'm all ears.

Having all of us looking at the entries in the same manner as we are voting is certainly desirable; but trying to get everyone else to calibrate their monitor the same way as you have yours calibrated is a waste of time.

garrywhite2

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/17/2004 03:16:18 PM · #22

Well said both Harvey and Jacko.

Here's another thought. Spend as much thought on how everyone else who doesn't participate in DPC views your portfolio. Talk to your friends that don't use photoshop and other imaging software. Ask some of them when the last time they calibrated their monitors. I think, as a photographer you have to take responsibility for your photograph and the possibility that some won't be able to view it the same way as you. If your colors, contrast, or brightness are near the extremes of what most people cannot see without exacting calibration.... well, that's your choice.

07/17/2004 03:19:23 PM · #23

So there is such a thing as "correct calibration" and laptops and Macs can't reach it? That's news to me. There certainly are monitors out there that can't reach halfway decent calibration, but that's usually because they are very old.

As for what to put on the click-through page, I'd suggest maybe a calibration bar and also something more eye-catching. Maybe a photo with text in both the very dark and very bright regions? A calibration bar just looks so technical and boring, whereas if you see no text in a photo where you are told to look for it, chances are you'll say "wow, I really have to do something about this!"

BTW, just a reminder that the photo that started all this isn't mine. Credit goes where credit's due: redmoon