|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 3:38:51 GMT
It is a bummer since the photo is no where near as dark before being uploaded. Oh well 😔 Judy, I am not sure you want to go down this route but you could try a Levels adjustment or you could try this technique posted by the late Wendy Williams on the EV forum.
- Duplicate the background layer.
- Change the blending mode to Screen. (Adjust the Opacity if needed.)
Imho trying to make images displayed in a browser match what the creator sees on a screen is a total waste of time.
There are many reasons why an image might look different in a browser than in your editor on your screen.
1. Your screen is not properly calibrated.
2. There is no colour profile embedded in the uploaded image.
3. An inappropriate colour profile is embedded in the uploaded image file.
4. The hosting web site might apply some filters/editing to an image - I am sure imgbb sometimes do some "massaging" to uploaded images.
5. The browser might not support icc profiles embedded in an image.
These are just 5 I can rattle off off the top of my head.
As I mentioned in your earlier thread for this image, if domeone edits an image to suit particular ,then they will more than likely negatively affect the viewing experience for users who were able to view the image as originally intended.
Out of curiosity:
1. How have you calibrated your computer screen in which you created the image?
2. Have you embedded the correct colour profile into your uploaded image?
If you are not using a properly calibrated screen then whether you actually embed a colour profile in the image is probably moot and trying to edit it to suit some users might help some users while definitely negatively affecting others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 3:40:30 GMT
Is the white a square? If it is then I can't distinguish the bottom three....and yes I assumed that would be the reason I couldn't see the image as clearly as you and Judy were seeing it.
No, the white is not a square, at least on my screen.
I see 13 rectangles.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Dec 15, 2018 3:51:01 GMT
OK....so I'm missing the second one from the top and the two bottom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Dec 15, 2018 4:01:36 GMT
I can see the outlines and some coloration in on my Samsung 9-inch tablet (but not the person) if the screen brightness is lightened to Retina Blaster that actually comes with a eye-care warning from Samsung. The image below (in my post) is what I see on my monitor..mostly just dark. ...Dell, 24-inch screen.
Clive,
I can see the details in Judy's image when I view it using two computers with a high-definition monitor.
I also have a tablet (Microsoft Surface Pro). I don't have it with me at the moment; I will check it later.
You made an excellent point!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 4:41:38 GMT
... I can see the outlines and some coloration in on my Samsung 9-inch tablet (but not the person) if the screen brightness is lightened to Retina Blaster that actually comes with a eye-care warning from Samsung. ... Users fiddling with monitor settings is probably the main reason why the overwhelming number of monitors in use nowadays are out of calibration.
... BTW, I can see 11 shades on the grayscale. ... That helps explain why you might have difficulty distinguishing some elements in an image. ... However ... and I am hardly one to be commenting on anything to do with calibration, but according to the the dpreview article here: www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonr3000/4... this image ibb.co/4drkTLS is a scan of a print made with an Epson printer so has gone through several levels of interference: editing; printing; scanning; editing (or not) and posting. Obviously you would need the original image to do a proper comparison/evaluation. There is something more here than calibrating monitor levels, or else those who us who see dark (Helen and I for sure), could not post anything online and most of our images are suitable based on feedback. Yes of course, as I posted in blackmutt's earlier thread: It is unreasonable to expect an image to look the same on every screen being used to view it. The most likely reason is that either the image creator's screen is not calibrated properly or the screen the image is being viewed on by others is not calibrated properly. And even if both creator's and viewers' screen are properly calibrated, if the appropriate colour profile is not embedded in the image then it is very unlikely the image will be displayed properly on other screens. For an image to be displayed correctly and consistently across all screens: 1. The image creator's screen must be properly calibrated 2. The screen of the person viewing the image must be properly calibrated. 3. The image must have the correct colour profile embedded in it. I don't know how blackmutt's monitor has been calibrated, if at all. I also don't know if the appropriate colour profile, if any, is embedded in the uploaded image. |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,361
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Dec 15, 2018 6:19:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 6:27:18 GMT
Those blacks and whites at close to both ends are brighter and so more easily distinguishable.
The bottom line is, you should be able to see all 13 shades in the image I posted earlier. If not, then for whatever reason your screen cannot distinguish very subtle differences in some shades - maybe your screen is not properly calibrated/profiled?
Sure, you can change the brightness, contrast or whatever on any monitor to make something look right on it but will most likely mean it won't look exactly the same on some else's monitor.
I don't think you will find you anyone understands colour management who will tell you to simply adjust brightness, contrast and other settings to suit your eyes and forget about calibrating/profiling screens and still expect other people to see an image on their screen the same as on yours.
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,361
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Dec 15, 2018 6:38:16 GMT
Bailey
You are a wealth of information regarding calibration, for which we are grateful, but I simply disagree with your last post. The dprevew image you posted is an example only and not specifically a calibration chart. As previously noted, according to the owner of that image on dpreview, it is a scan of a print made with an Epson printer so has gone through several levels of interference: editing; printing; scanning; editing (or not) and posting.
Clive
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 6:51:21 GMT
No problem Clive.
As I posted earlier, of course you would need the original image which is what I use. The image I uploaded is a downsized version for the Web.
I downloaded the original several years ago and unfurtunately do not have the url anymore.
The image you posted might or might not be an original and it really doesn't matter but it has been downsized by my browser.
If you can find anywhere on the www that is contrary to what I have posted regarding why images do not appear the same on all monitors, then I am all ears. If I don't have to calibrate my monitor anymore and embed appropriate colour profiles in images that would be very useful. But I don't think you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 13:21:02 GMT
Hi blackmutt,
I just had a look at your image using exiftool and I see there is no colour profile embedded in the image.
I can't tell though whether you uploaded the image without a colour profile or if it was stripped out (and I can't think why) by the image hosting site.
Either way, the missing colour profile in the image will definitely contribute to visitors possibly not seeing your image as intended in their browser.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Dec 15, 2018 16:02:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Dec 15, 2018 19:33:28 GMT
Interesting discussion. My laptop is not calibrated. I am not technically adept nor inclined at this point. Sepiana, I will take your suggestion. Had to get Christmas cards designed and to the printer so I couldn’t play too much. Gotta love the local shop-called me this am and told me the card looked good and did I want to see before he printed the rest! Won’t get that online!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 15, 2018 22:59:08 GMT
Hi Pete, I have always used the following chart when calibrating .... check it out ... Given the method (screen snip on the right) they suggest to calibrate your monitor, I don't have much confidence in the accuracy and/or reliability of their chart. No offence intended, but to rely totally on the quality of one's eye-sight to calibrate a monitor is the dumbest and most laughable way I can think of to do it for obvious reasons. They also address only the grey tones. What about all the other colours??? I suspect whoever published that web page had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek at the time 
[offtopic] I have to say something here and I hope it's because I am missing something  I am really, really surprised at hmca's and Clive's apparent endorsement of relying totally on one's eye-sight to calibrate a monitor. What am I missing/misunderstanding in the method described in Pete's link ?
[/offtopic]
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Dec 16, 2018 0:02:44 GMT
pontiac1940 and PeteB......I find both of your contributions helpful and look forward to testing both when I get home. Like Judy, I am not especially interested in monitor calibration, although I respect those of you who are. However, as Clive pointed out most of the images I submit here and elsewhere, as well as those I print usually meet my expectation. I have had problems with imgbb and will often use cubeupload for images that I submit. I have also used the method that Sepiana suggested if an image looks too dark....Matt K. has also made this recommendation.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Dec 16, 2018 0:07:13 GMT
[offtopic] I have to say something here and I hope it's because I am missing something I am really, really surprised at hmca's and Clive's apparent endorsement of relying totally on one's eye-sight to calibrate a monitor. What am I missing/misunderstanding in the method described in Pete's link ?
[/offtopic]
For me if what I see in PS/LR, is translated to the web I am more than satisfied. You, I am sure will have an argument as to why I shouldn't feel that way, but that's just the way it is for me. Pure and simple as that.  |
|
