| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2005 12:09:41 PM · #1 |
Someone else mentioned in the light on white scores thread that he/she saw a lot of imperfections in the white balances. I have voted on about fifty percent of the entries and have left comments on about fifty percent of those, mentioning the blotches/rings/blue/pink/green tones that show - sometimes badly - in the photo. When I worked on mine (almost two hundred shots, btw) I ran my dropper tool over the white background before I entered it, the red blue green was almost even and showing over 200 value throughout, to me that means it is going to show true white and took a LONG time to get right. Is it NOT that important, am I wrong in my assessment? I do realize that different monitors show differently, but is it not worth the time to do that? Is there something I am missing/not seeing? Just wondering, LOL. Maybe start a nice discussion as a highlight? LOL
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:12:47 PM · #2 |
The "blotches" you mentioned on my image was shadows.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:14:12 PM · #3 |
| You just left a comment on my entry that leads me to believe you seriously need to re-assess the state of your monitor. You were so far off base that I thought about PM'ing you to tell you...but I wasn't sure how you'd take it. I know it's not me, since I have viewed my entry on another computer and even printed a copy of the photo. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:14:24 PM · #4 |
| Thats a good thought, my background I wanted white but knew it would turn to grey in some spots due to my lighting and angle I took the shot ect, I Wanted that look, and came out that way on the camera and no my 2 monitors, but I did not check it like you suggested. Now on some systems(my co workers and my laptop lcd vs my work monitor) my shot looks blue...very frustrating. I try to give alot of leeway in the whitebeing off for that reason, but I do look closely at that and the use od sepia/B&W to see if they might be hiding colors. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:15:49 PM · #5 |
I think if you dropper is reading even R/G/B values that are high, you should have a true white. technically true white would be 255/255/255 and the rest would be gray, but you get the picture.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 12:16:33. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:33:03 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by idnic:
The "blotches" you mentioned on my image was shadows. |
Comments I have recieved reflect the same line of thinking. The challenge description states that the background is supposed to be white. Not BRIGHT white, not shadowless white....just WHITE.
IMO, many of the voters are WAY over thinking this...
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:36:09 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by LtHousLady:
Originally posted by idnic:
The "blotches" you mentioned on my image was shadows. |
Comments I have recieved reflect the same line of thinking. The challenge description states that the background is supposed to be white. Not BRIGHT white, not shadowless white....just WHITE.
IMO, many of the voters are WAY over thinking this... |
What else is new? ;o)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:46:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
You just left a comment on my entry that leads me to believe you seriously need to re-assess the state of your monitor. You were so far off base that I thought about PM'ing you to tell you... |
I received the same. I wasn't going to mention it, but judging from olddj's post here, I think I'll check the RGB levels when I get home to see if there is a 'cast' on my background or not.
Could be another round of monitor calibration in store for me if my image background RGB levels aren't equal... :)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:52:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by KaDi:
You just left a comment on my entry that leads me to believe you seriously need to re-assess the state of your monitor. You were so far off base that I thought about PM'ing you to tell you... |
I received the same. I wasn't going to mention it, but judging from olddj's post here, I think I'll check the RGB levels when I get home to see if there is a 'cast' on my background or not.
Could be another round of monitor calibration in store for me if my image background RGB levels aren't equal... :) |
Personally, I don't think it's you. I think it's olddj. I just opened the file I submitted in PS and ran the eyedropper around the photo--everything that should be pure white is. (255,255,255) If he's seeing things, it's not my fault. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:52:51 PM · #10 |
At least there is a discussion, LOL. Now, I did NOT mean shadows, shadows are not only acceptable sometimes, but can be an intrical part of the photo. My monitor has been checked and is in good condition, printing a photo not only can but does affect the way it looks, most often for the better with whites, at least I have found it so, maybe others have found that different. Now with that said, I did not vote a low score for any photo just because the white background was off on my monitor just because I know it can look differently on different monitors, but there are a lot of good solid white backgrounds on this challenge too, and there HAS to be some difference to have many show true white and many others showing the blotchy/rainbows/blue/pink etc.
Thanks drachoo, I allowed myself anything over about 210 and even as being close enough. LOL
I am sorry if my comments have upset anyone, I was/am trying to help. If you would rather not have comments that disagree with your assessment of your photo, that could be why so many people have stopped or will not start to leave comments. All I can judge by is what I see and although I am getting a bit tired of "Please leave comments" then the rants against mine, I will continue to try to leave more. If someone can come up with a way of trying to help, which is what I truly want, without upsetting anyone, please post it. I do not think I have left any abusive or derogatory comments, and if anyone feels I did, I am honestly sorry, I can guarantee they were not meant to be that way!
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:57:01 PM · #11 |
| Your comment didn't upset me...but it did raise some concern. Mostly for the health of either your eyes or your monitor. There are no "rainbows" in my image. Nor is any of it out of focus--at f22 and an appropriate lens to subject distance and sharpening at two separate stages of post-processing, it's simply not possible. (Even if you vote me a 1, it won't matter, btw.) |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:00:59 PM · #12 |
No, Please leave comments! - Your comment was much appreciated. It really helped me in that I had some doubts about the way I achieved the white background anyway, so your comment really got me thinking.
I was playing around with the colour channel mixer in PS before submitting the image. Also, I just *know* I should have lit the background differently, and I'm kicking myself for not taking one last WB reading before taking the shot.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:42:54 PM · #13 |
jhonan, THANK YOU, I probably will not stop, as long as there are people who truly understand why I do comment, but those personal attacks can get to me.
KaDi, I am not now, or hopefully never will be, vindictive or hypocritical, the score I left you (as I think those two comments together were on only one photo, which I also said I liked, btw) was not bad. I left the comment only because I saw something I thought could be improved, easily. I HONESTLY try to vote each photo A: meet the challenge, B: quality and combine with slight emphasis on meeting the challenge, which is the way it is written on this site. I am all too human and do make mistakes and probably judge photos too harshly, but I really do try to be honest, always!
Please try to remember that everyone has different views/opinions/ways of looking at things and if anyone leaves you a comment you disagree with - do not defend your view by trying to make the commenter look bad. It is difficult not to want to retaliate, but it is ONLY one persons opinion, and you are not only able to, but should just ignore it if you truly feel you are correct. I have had a few and KNOW it is hard to do, but can be done! Thanks for listening,
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:49:32 PM · #14 |
olddj,
I have no idea why you're being so defensive. You have obviously missed my point. So, to put it bluntly, I think your monitor is off or your eyes need a check up because, what you say you see in my photo simply is not there. If you're seeing rainbows in lots of people's photos, I suggest it is YOU that is in error and not the majority of voters. Either that, or I have two monitors which magically remove all traces of rainbow effect from everyone's photos!
So, I would ask you this question: How would you know if you were wrong? |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:02:38 PM · #15 |
KaDi, will try ONE more time, I do NOT know if I am wrong about this or anything else, that is NOT the point. I make comments on what I see to TRY to help, odds are that others can/do see the same and that MAY be the reason for some of the lower votes. You not only inferred that I may be ill or have terrible eyesight, you also stated that I may go back and lower your score because of it. Those are PERSONAL attacks. Being human, I tried to be nice and restate my opinion, which obviously you do not understand. That is okay, I do not have to worry about it as I will probably never meet you. All I have done is comment - privatly originally - on your photo, and if you do not like it, that is FINE, and I just do not see the need to attack me personally for trying to help, misplaced though that be in this case.
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:33:22 PM · #16 |
olddj, just curious as I really don't know if this would help or work and I haven't gotten any comments about this. Have you taken a few of the images you think have blotches or rainbow effects in the background and maybe print screened them into your processing program and running the eye dropper across their image as you did yours? Again, not sure if this would help or even work.
I have not taken enough time to view all the images so I cannot comment on what you may be seeing but I did comment on a few in a past challenge that had this same type of effect and mentioned that maybe they compressed a little to much since they were different colored squares in the lighter areas. The member disagreed with me and said they (and I) didn't know what I was talking about, so I just left it at that.
edit to add...just took a quick glance at some that have a lot of white space and have to agree that I do see a weird effect on some, similiar to what I commented on in previous challenge mentioned above. Usually more towards the edges of the image where the shot may have been darker and was adjusted to fix.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 14:37:31.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:45:20 PM · #17 |
| I was going to PM you too. I was so shooked by your comment and I honestly believe it is your monitor considering I have looked at mine on 5 different PC's. I think you should also readjust your scores for the fact you have faulty gear. I will have you know I have never wanted to PM anyone. But I don't see any rings just a perfeftly white background. I would never say don't leave messages, I want good feedback for improvements. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:57:46 PM · #18 |
| humm some discussion, well as for your comment on picture, I appreciate it, although it seems you didn't get the picture correctly, what you referred to as blotches (if its the same patch of light I think you mentioned) was intentional...but its not your fault, see my current rating I believe many others missed the point completely !! |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 03:03:24 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by LtHousLady:
Comments I have recieved reflect the same line of thinking. The challenge description states that the background is supposed to be white. Not BRIGHT white, not shadowless white....just WHITE. IMO, many of the voters are WAY over thinking this... |
Exactly! |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 03:07:22 PM · #20 |
dude, is this guy high on something? I remember once (okay, a couple of times) seeing rainbows on everything. But I'm much better now ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 03:09:59 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by lepidus:
Originally posted by LtHousLady:
Comments I have recieved reflect the same line of thinking. The challenge description states that the background is supposed to be white. Not BRIGHT white, not shadowless white....just WHITE. IMO, many of the voters are WAY over thinking this... |
Exactly! |
I would also bring in the interpretation of the word "predominately" If a subject has shadows on it, isn't is still "predominately" light? Judging from the scores thread, people are being way heavy handed with the absolutely no shadows of even the mildest kind interpretation.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 03:22:49 PM · #22 |
| I confess I am the one who mentioned this on the light on white score thread. I am not one who usually comments on a challenge as a whole but did on this one. I am not seeing the blotches and rainbows but did notice there were a lot of photos that had some very strong color cast that really took away from the photos. I know my monitor is calibrated right because I use a very good calibration system and also because there are many wonderful photos which show a very pleasing white to them. I didn't vote down a photo if it wasn't pure white if the tones complimented the photo, only if it didn't. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:04:14 PM · #23 |
Firstly, I do owe an apology, went to one of the calibration sites suggested, it did show monitor was off. Recalibrated it, and that DID lower the effects I was seeing!! The two sites I used still showed this as accurate, but was off enough to make a difference. Now, I did NOT lower scores unless it was so signifigant as to be a huge distraction (not many of those and those still show badly) and I really did NOT say that on that many comments, LOL, but enough so I have gone back and changed the comments ( or removed them) where applicable!!
Glad I started this thread, otherwise I would have gone on believing this monitor was in great shape. LOL
Again, my apologies to any I may have wronged, even if it was purely unintentional!!!
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:09:08 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by olddj:
Firstly, I do owe an apology, went to one of the calibration sites suggested, it did show monitor was off. Recalibrated it, and that DID lower the effects I was seeing!! The two sites I used still showed this as accurate, but was off enough to make a difference. Now, I did NOT lower scores unless it was so signifigant as to be a huge distraction (not many of those and those still show badly) and I really did NOT say that on that many comments, LOL, but enough so I have gone back and changed the comments ( or removed them) where applicable!!
Glad I started this thread, otherwise I would have gone on believing this monitor was in great shape. LOL
Again, my apologies to any I may have wronged, even if it was purely unintentional!!!
Jacque |
What sites did you go to for the monitor calibration?
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 16:10:02. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:28:51 PM · #25 |
What I don't understand is that people here tend to spend hundreds of dolars on photo equiptment but not the 99$ for a color spider to adjust their monitor.
Postprocessing your pic is (for me) as important as taking the shot.
And a calibrated monitor, even with the cheapest spider, is so necessary....
|
|
