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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Calibration -- editing dilemma
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/08/2006 11:26:39 PM · #1
About a week ago I recalibrated my monitor -- put the gamma at 2.2 instead of jacking the brightness up in order to be able to see things, which was how I'd done it before. This really helped -- I see a lot more detail, and it's the first time my monitor's ever passed the graduated-b/w-bar test -- but now I'm a little worried about how others will see my photos. I didn't get complaints before, when I was editing things for my messed-up settings; does this mean that most people are as clueless about monitor calibration as I was? I've a photo which I edited at my current monitor settings and I like the way it looks. If I put my monitor back the way it was before, it's REALLY REALLY DARK. It's AWFUL.

My question is, what's the usual state of viewers' monitor calibration? Should I assume they're off and re-edit this image accordingly before I enter it in a challenge?
01/08/2006 11:37:02 PM · #2
I have the same dilemma. I've just calibrated my monitor also. 2.2 Gamma here also. Made a huge difference.
01/08/2006 11:39:24 PM · #3
You must consider that most people probably do not calibrate their monitor.

I think gamma at 2.2 is pretty high..I wouldn't go more than a couple of tenths if at all.

The only way to calibrate your monitor is with something like a spyder..a special tool to calibrate but that is mainly for designers to match to their print devices. Even when photographers and designers send their files to print services there is no guarantee that thier files do not need calibration for output.

Also remember, lots of people now use LCD's both on their desktops and..of course..on their laptops..which brings in a whole nother set of differences.

So..I would move your gamma back to something less aggresive.

Message edited by author 2006-01-08 23:39:53.
01/08/2006 11:42:02 PM · #4
Yeah well I used that special tool, the spyder 2. Thats how I calibrated it to 2.2.
01/08/2006 11:45:33 PM · #5
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:

Yeah well I used that special tool, the spyder 2. Thats how I calibrated it to 2.2.


Then you are golden for proper output for your printer.

I have my gamma tweaked up I think about 3 tenths over normal...I used to view my photos on my work laptop and always found going to levels and going up a tenth..to give it that bit of a pop...for average computer users out there.
01/08/2006 11:47:33 PM · #6
According to Colorvision, 2.2 gamma is the norm.
01/08/2006 11:51:19 PM · #7
2.2 for Windows; 1.8 for Mac
01/08/2006 11:52:40 PM · #8
That's what I've heard too (2.2 should be the norm). I have nine minutes to decide if I want to pull my Burst of Color image, or use it as a test case in the monitor-calibration discussion. :)

01/08/2006 11:57:32 PM · #9
Originally posted by rachelellen:

That's what I've heard too (2.2 should be the norm). I have nine minutes to decide if I want to pull my Burst of Color image, or use it as a test case in the monitor-calibration discussion. :)


Decided to pull it. I didn't actually photograph it for the challenge anyway; just got home, looked at it, and thought it might do. So here: Is this image really DARK on your monitor?



Now that I look at it -- I still like it as an image but I'm glad I pulled it from the challenge. The color doesn't exactly burst at you, does it, and I would have received ten 'the head should be in better focus' comments and fifteen 'the upper right hand corner is distractingly busy' ones.

Message edited by author 2006-01-08 23:58:57.
01/09/2006 12:41:18 AM · #10
Doesn't seem dark to me at all.

R.
01/09/2006 12:59:27 AM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Doesn't seem dark to me at all.

R.


Thanks for the input. Of course your monitor would be calibrated properly, so we can now assume that anyone for whom it is dark is completely incorrect. ;)
01/09/2006 02:22:14 AM · #12
I don't think it looks very dark either. But my monitor isn't capapble of distinguishing between the darkest 4 squares on the gradient page, even after adjustment... if I crank it up high enough to see them it throws the colors off. Time for a new one...

BTW, I don't know how well that would have done anyway. I might have given it a 4 or so.
01/09/2006 03:57:56 AM · #13
It is dark, the histogram shows that to clearly -- but too dark? No, the lowest shadows are not blocked. Any opinion that it is 'too' dark falls squarely into the realm of opinion.

That doesn't mean it isn't limiting your audience -- it likely is. :(

David
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:28:44 PM

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: 08/27/2025 06:28:44 PM EDT.