would someone look at these/calibration problem

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

12/10/2006 03:22:33 PM · #1

Originally posted by TJinGuy:

I would choose the re-edit if I had to pick one. The re-edit looks better everywhere but in her face. The original looks washed out but the face tones are better.

My previous statement was using my laptop.

I am now looking at the two first photos on my work LCD (a Samsung 204BW) and things are a bit different. The original photo looks fairly washed out and with the exception of a tiny bit too much red, the re-edit looks much better.

chip_k

Canon EOS-20D

12/10/2006 02:38:52 PM · #2

Okay, I'm going to try ANOTHER one... as soon as I find one that doesn't just apply to one program ;)

One thing you want to do is make sure you're using the sRGB color profile in Photoshop for the web. Windows machines are set to it by default and the VAST majority of people don't touch it. I even have my Macs set to the sRGB and to Windows Gamma.

Message edited by author 2006-12-10 14:43:40.

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

12/10/2006 12:04:22 PM · #3

How about someone putting together a tutorial on calibrating a monitor. Maybe someone that knows what they are doing? I would try but I don't think I fall into that category.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

12/10/2006 06:58:26 AM · #4

The original looks better to me, but then I often get told that my images look wrong.

Sheryll

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/10/2006 05:27:11 AM · #5

Okay from the 29 shades thing and Heather's comment I just took the shades and put them against a black background like you said and can't differentiate between the last 3 shades. That means I need to calibrate my monitor but how the heck do you do that? It's a pretty new HP vs17.

Blue Moon

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/10/2006 04:53:53 AM · #6

the original looks better to me. The new one looks orangey and oversaturated. Your new monitor might be brighter, which I've notive going on other computers, but I can see all 29 shades, so I'm assuming there's nothing wrong w/my moniter b/c I've checked it multiple times.

Ozzie

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

12/10/2006 04:45:36 AM · #7

Thanks

TechnoShroom

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/10/2006 04:41:33 AM · #8

Originally posted by heatherd:

I'm wondering if my monitor is on it's last legs..I can't differentiate between the last few shades of black, after calibration.

Copy the image and put it on a black background. If you can distinguish between the darker squares then you may want to recalibrate your monitor.

EDIT: That should have been... If you can't distinguish..

Message edited by author 2006-12-10 16:17:01.

Ozzie

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

12/10/2006 04:26:34 AM · #9

I'm wondering if my monitor is on it's last legs..I can't differentiate between the last few shades of black, after calibration.

alien2thisworld

Nikon D70s

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Nikon

12/10/2006 02:37:26 AM · #10

Ah, that's good. It atleast means that your new monitor brightness setting is good. I went through a similar event as you. I had an old CRT that I didn't realize was darkening as it died. I found that photos edited to look right on the dark CRT were washed out on correctly calibrated monitors. Unfortunately some of the shots had already been submitted to challenges. It was frustrating, so now I check my calibration every few weeks to avoid a repeat.

Message edited by author 2006-12-10 02:39:35.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Nikon

12/10/2006 01:35:20 AM · #11

Originally posted by alien2thisworld:

The first wind shot below does look a little washed out, while the re-edit looks just about right for me (maybe just a touch dark).

On all the pages for challenge images being voted on, there is the scale of shades from black to white.

Can you differentiate between all 29 separate shades on your new monitor?

yes i can, but does that mean everything's ok, because my portfolio looks washed out still.

alien2thisworld

Nikon D70s

12/10/2006 01:20:36 AM · #12

Can you differentiate between all 29 separate shades on your new monitor?

Message edited by author 2006-12-10 01:27:11.

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

12/09/2006 11:36:02 PM · #13

Uh oh - I just got a new monitor and your original looks waay better to me...voter-monitor-calibration is a big factor in scores, methinks.

12/09/2006 10:13:36 PM · #14

On "Huh", it looks very good to me. The skin tones are good. The eyes look good and the lips look natural. The backdrop may be a little washed out but the girl looks very good. I guess that overall it looks like a very natural photo.

jaxsond

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

12/09/2006 09:12:43 PM · #15

I like re-edit best too

12/09/2006 09:02:47 PM · #16

Originally posted by TJinGuy:

I would choose the re-edit if I had to pick one. The re-edit looks better everywhere but in her face. The original looks washed out but the face tones are better.

I may have altered the color, not sure, but the washed out look is what I'm struggling with.

What about this one, it looks very washed out to me now.

Message edited by author 2006-12-09 21:06:27.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

12/09/2006 09:01:13 PM · #17

Originally posted by heatherd:

Do the Monitor settings work better if they are at 6500 K setting?

I don't know. On that setting I'm having a hard time getting anything to appear normal. Everything looks low-contrast and dim.

Ozzie

Nikon D90

12/09/2006 08:53:27 PM · #18

The re-edit looks more orangey to me, a little too much perhaps?

I just calibrated my monitor yesterday also, and for the first time. (Huey Pantone)

I'm still not sure if the colours look right, at times it looks a bit washed out. Do the Monitor settings work better if they are at 6500 K setting?

So I can relate to how you are feeling there.

Message edited by author 2006-12-09 20:53:43.

TechnoShroom

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/09/2006 08:43:51 PM · #19

The original is much much better. The re-edit is darker which doesn't bother me but it's also very much warmer. Too much red.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/09/2006 08:27:29 PM · #20

I would choose the re-edit if I had to pick one. The re-edit looks better everywhere but in her face. The original looks washed out but the face tones are better.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

12/09/2006 08:06:15 PM · #21

I agree about finding something in between.
The re-edit seems a tad overly saturated and or too high of contrast, and a lot of shadow detail lost. The original Bad hair day has very real skin tones.

12/09/2006 07:50:32 PM · #22

Originally posted by magnus:

I use the Spyder hardware calibrator and just follow the instructions. Before that I used to use the software calibrator built into the MacOS, but didn't find the results very consistent.

i wish i could afford a spyder.....

magnus

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

12/09/2006 07:42:21 PM · #23

I use the Spyder hardware calibrator and just follow the instructions. Before that I used to use the software calibrator built into the MacOS, but didn't find the results very consistent.

12/09/2006 07:38:25 PM · #24

Originally posted by magnus:

I think I like the re-edit slightly better, but agree that there's probably an even better version hiding somewhere between the two.

There's some excellent stuff in your portfolio (in particular "nevaeh-on-patio") and no obvious calibration problems, at least not as seen on my aging-but-calibrated PowerBook screen.

thanks, I think I still have some calibration problems with my new one though.

Do you or anyone else know what I can do to get this right?

magnus