|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:17:03 GMT
No problem hmca 
It's only when people question why their images are not looking as they expect online and when people can't see features in images that others can that I try to help by mentioning/discussing screen profiling/calibration.
After all, isn't one of the goals of this web site to help people, especially newbies to photography and image processing, to get the best results they can?
As I have pointed out in other threads, if colour management is not important to someone, then of course screen calibration/profiling is not a high priority or interest. And that is fine.
But if colour management is important to someone and they are not getting the results they expect, I will try to help
Whether colour management is important or not to anyone, imho they shouldn't be encouraging "bad practice" to anyone, especially newbies who might be following. Imho, "liking" a post anywhere on the www can justifiably be interpreted by viewers as endorsing the contents of that post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:20:38 GMT
... I have also used the method that Sepiana suggested if an image looks too dark....Matt K. has also made this recommendation. Duplicating a layer and setting the blend mode of the duplicate to screen is a widely published on the www quick and simple method to try to repair (lighten) under exposed images. You can use the Multiply blend mode to try to repair (darken) over exposed images. |
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Dec 16, 2018 0:37:01 GMT
To clarify my photo, it was taken in daylight. The night was dreamed up by me as was the rain
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:40:28 GMT
No problem blackmutt
I suspected the rain was added in post processing as it just didn't quite look totally real to me.....at least on my screen  .
But whether an image is totally original or processed, the concepts and reasons behind screen calibration/profiling for online display still apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Dec 16, 2018 0:48:13 GMT
I have also used the method that Sepiana suggested if an image looks too dark....Matt K. has also made this recommendation. Helen, I have used this method many times as well. Pleased to see it recommended by Matt K.
BTW, it is also recommended by Barbara Brundage.
Source: The Missing Manual, Chapter 7: Basic Image Retouching
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:54:31 GMT
Hi Sepiana,
Does she also mention to set the blend mode to Multiply on the duplicate layer to try to repair over exposed images?
Screen and Multiply blend modes to try to repair under/over exposed images are a widely published pair of methods to try to fix these frequently asked for help problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Dec 16, 2018 1:14:54 GMT
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.) Sepiana, I will take your suggestion.
Judy, I believe you will be pleased with the results either way you go -- Levels or Screen blending mode. Personally, I prefer the Screen technique. If you decide to use it, try reducing the Opacity to about 75% to 85%. See how you like it.
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,361
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
Member is Online
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Dec 16, 2018 1:19:56 GMT
Apologies to blackmutt for the hijacking. Good chat. Regarding calibrations, I am concerned that my photos on my computer, posted online or printed look the way I want others to see them. I don't own a working monitor calibration system but used one for afew years and can't say it made a lot of difference. I randomly use three system to attempt to make certain the monitor is close and yes, not of them would be acceptable to all. I've used Windows color management, the actual screen adjustments and the NVIDIA color management control panel. I'm not unhappy. Photos that I print and post seem to be close to what I want. Two years ago my screen was either too bright or too dark and it showed in my prints....was corrected. Just a hypothetical situation. Let us say my colors, contrast, lights and darks are a titch off. In another thread we were discussing photograph manipulation. My guess is that many manipulations are far more extensive than any wonkiness in my monitor calibration. Case in point. Below is Chinook arch 2.0 and it has been jazzed up way beyond what some might like. One of my nieces liked the original (this is actually a new series I'd not considered previously) but she stressed she wanted it to be colorful. Not sure of this is clear. So even if my monitor is off say 10% I've jazzed it up 40%. Make sense? Incoming company!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 1:37:13 GMT
Hi Clive, Apologies to blackmutt for the hijacking. Good chat. Regarding calibrations, I am concerned that my photos on my computer, posted online or printed look the way I want others to see them. ... That is all well and good and I, like just about everyone else I would imagine, would like the same. But as I have posted on many occasions previously, we cannot have a 100% guarantee that the colours we see on our screen will be the same colours that other will see on their screens because we obviously cannot control how a screen used by others is configured and set up. All we can do is maximise the possibility that what we see on our screen will at least be very close to what others see. The only way an image can be displayed consistantly on other devices is with these 3 criteria being met. 1. The image creator's screen is properly calibrated (100% certainly not by any means that depends on the quality of someone's eye-sight). 2. The colour profile used to create an image must be embedded in the saved image to be uploaded online. 3. The screen viewing the image online must be properly calibrated (again, 100% certainly not by any means that depends on the quality of someone's eye-sight) The creator of an image has total control over criteria 1 and 2 only.
If criteria 3 is not met then your image is in the lap of the "internet/cyber gods" as to how close your image's colours on the viewer's screen will match the colours you see on your screen. If criteria 1 and/or 2 are not met then what a viewer of the image will see (whether they have a calibrated monitor or not) may or may not be close to what the creator saw on their screen. If anyone can post any information that shows anything of the above is not accurate, then I am all ears |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 3:59:55 GMT
... So even if my monitor is off say 10% I've jazzed it up 40%. Make sense? ... Not really  .....I'm guessing you mean that even if your monitor is slightly out of calibration, since you "jazzed up" the image by so much then viewers will still see most of the effect of editing. If that is what you mean then it all depends on what, if any, colour profile you embedded in the uploaded image and whether the viewer's screen is calibrated properly or not. Of course I see a highly saturated image but since I can't see the image as you see it on your screen, I have no idea how close or how far the saturated colours I see on my screen are to the colours on your screen. There is no way for anyone of knowing with certainty how close the colours they see on their screen are to those you see on your screen. Sure, greens will still be greens, yellows will still be yellows etc but it is impossible to tell how close they match what you see on your screen because we can't see exactly what you see.
Consider this scenario:
1. You create an image on a calibrated screen and embedded the screen's colour profile in the saved image and uploaded it.
2. Someone comes along to view your image and they have their screen set to a much lower brightness and contrast because for whatever reason they have "calibrated" their screen by eye only, to the point where their own images look great on their screen.
3. Because their screen is set to a much lower brightness and contrast, your image would most likely look very dark and bland.
4. Or someone might come along with a screen that has its saturation level much, much higher than yours (because to them their images look great on their screen) and so your image would be way, way over saturated on their screen
If your screen is not properly calibrated in step 1 above, then the situations in 2,3,4 could be even worse.
So if anyone is happy with "near enough is close enough" with regards to displaying images consistently across devices, then calibration/profiling is probably not an issue.
But if colour management is important then:
As I posted above, the only way to ensure images are displayed consistently across devices is when the 3 criteria I posed earlier are met. |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 5:05:51 GMT
I can't add much more than what I have already posted in this thread but for anyone interested in the importance (or not) of colour management, I'll leave you with an excellent example where I posted an image I was experimenting with and 2 members see the image's colours very differently on their screens. Obviously someone's screen is not calibrated properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Dec 16, 2018 16:48:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Dec 16, 2018 18:43:03 GMT
Since some members had questions about the tonal chart, I posted a link to a better and easier to read chart. Then you criticize the site and question its accuracy with an uncalled for "Tongue in cheek" remark. I agree with you, Pete. While members may have differing opinions or want to offer additional information; sarcasm is usually not resorted to or well-received by our members. |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 20:26:19 GMT
Hi Pete,
The reason I posted my view that calibrating a screen using a method that relies on the quality of one's eye sight is the dumbest and most laughable way of doing it is because if you put 5 people in front of a screen one at a time and ask them to calibrate it using an eye sight based tool, you will probably end up with 5 different screen settings. Obviously they cannot all be correct, if any.
I will never endorse an eye sight based screen calibration tool. But that's just my view. If other people are happy to use it, then of course they can use it. In my opinion there are much better ways to calibrate a screen than relying on one's eye sight.
I have now had a chance to look at the 3 web pages you linked to. Yes they all refer to the chart you originally posted about and I notice with interest that at least 2 of the web pages state that hardware calibration is much better than the eye-sight based method suggested by PhotoFriday.
ww.lifehacker.com/5488142/photo-fridays-monitor-calibration-tool-makes-easy-on-the-eyes-monitor-tweaks
Their tool only helps set brightness and contrast. It doesn't calibrate any other colours which I mentioned in my initial reply to your post.
ww.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/
Here, they are essentially giving the same reason as me regarding the flaws in eye-sight based calibration.
|
|
|
|
Post by srmoment on Dec 16, 2018 22:39:21 GMT
I'm late to the discussion, but I see what Helen sees on my computer which is a really dark image. My computer is a gaming computer(...which I don't use for games, and wouldn't my son just LOVE to get hold of this computer!!!) and I figured when I bought it a few years back that the graphic cards should be able to handle my photos.
I print some of my images on metal prints (which look like glass btw) and for gift calendars....the colors that print are the same as I see on my monitor.
I do have a calibration thingee somewhere which I used for my last computer, but I can't be bothered with recalibration on a timely basis.
Blackmutt's lighthouse is intriguing and I would love to see a lightened version....
|
|
.
.....I'm guessing you mean that even if your monitor is slightly out of calibration, since you "jazzed up" the image by so much then viewers will still see most of the effect of editing.
