pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,372
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 13, 2021 17:52:47 GMT
Hi all,
Bought a 4K monitor specifically for photos. Been fiddling with the Windows display settings and changed the PSE 2021 UI scale factor to 200% otherwise the icons are so small. I am not sure if that affects the benefits of the hi-rez monitor on viewing images. Gosh they seem sharper than with the 1920X1080 monitor.
At the moment things are "okay," however if you have suggestions regarding settings I'd love your input. (Overall computer display settings or PSE settings.)
Thank you,
Clive
|
|
Chris
Established Forum Member
Posts: 491
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Chris on Oct 13, 2021 19:52:03 GMT
Clive, happy viewing and editing with your new monitor! I guess you have already changed your computer display settings to 3,840 by 2,160. www.pcmag.com/how-to/set-up-gaming-pc-on-4k-tv If you have programe compatibility issues you can always change the resolution back to 1920X1080 for a specific programme. (Right click/display settings/adjust resolution). In PSE, I suggest you go to Edit/Color settings/Optimise for printing (Adobe RGB). The colour gamut is better in Adobe RGB. You have already adjusted the PSE Icon size. I would strongly recommend a hardware colour calibration device to make sure your monitor is showing the correct gamma contrast and colour. There are various brands (Datacolor/Spyder) Kind regards Chris |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,372
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 13, 2021 23:23:22 GMT
a hardware colour calibration device Chris Thanks for your suggestions. I had all but the colour optimization for printing...so changed it. I had a monitor calibration unit years ago when I a desktop tower was my main computer. For the past few years my laptop has been my main computer and at home it's been connected to a large monitor and have not done calibration. Print colours, contrast, levels etc have always been acceptable. I will do some test prints and if no happy will look into a calibration unit again. Thanks Clive |
|
Chris
Established Forum Member
Posts: 491
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Chris on Oct 14, 2021 18:41:06 GMT
The old obsolete CRT displays used to vary in colour quite a lot and had to be calibrated regularly. Modern Led displays are probably acceptable right out of the box and are much more stable over time. My uncalibrated display has a slightly cooler colour. My calibrated display has a warmer colour and better skin tones.
The only other thing I can think of is checking the default monitor settings using the buttons on the monitor. Probably, the default settings are just fine for photo editing and you can leave them there. You will want a standard neutral setting. But there may be other settings that will dramatically change the appearance of images that you don't want to use for editing. For example, on my HP monitor it has: Low blue light/ Night/Reading/HP Enhance+/Multimedia/Photo/Custom. Some of these settings will introduce a colour cast or change the contrast and saturation. So if you accidentally do editing in those modes then what you see will not be what other people will see. So if you use any of the other settings, you will need to remember to reset back to the best setting for editing. Once or twice I accidentally used the warmer "Reading" setting for editing which gave me the wrong colour balance. Now I am much more careful. I have calibrated my monitor and don't change the settings.
Kind regards
Chris
|
|
caspa
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 121
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by caspa on Oct 15, 2021 1:14:28 GMT
The old obsolete CRT displays used to vary in colour quite a lot and had to be calibrated regularly. Modern Led displays are probably acceptable right out of the box and are much more stable over time. My uncalibrated display has a slightly cooler colour. My calibrated display has a warmer colour and better skin tones. The only other thing I can think of is checking the default monitor settings using the buttons on the monitor. Probably, the default settings are just fine for photo editing and you can leave them there. You will want a standard neutral setting. But there may be other settings that will dramatically change the appearance of images that you don't want to use for editing. For example, on my HP monitor it has: Low blue light/ Night/Reading/HP Enhance+/Multimedia/Photo/Custom. Some of these settings will introduce a colour cast or change the contrast and saturation. So if you accidentally do editing in those modes then what you see will not be what other people will see. So if you use any of the other settings, you will need to remember to reset back to the best setting for editing. Once or twice I accidentally used the warmer "Reading" setting for editing which gave me the wrong colour balance. Now I am much more careful. I have calibrated my monitor and don't change the settings. Kind regards Chris I think that if matching on-screen colours very closely to colours you see in print then a hardware calibration and profiling of the screen and using the correct printer profile for the ink/paper/printer combo is more important because, as you have implied, you cannot control the screen settings of viewers of your online images and so the colours/tones they see are unlikely to be exactly the same as what you see whether you are using a calibrated and profiled monitor or not. But if you use a properly calibrated and profiled monitor then it is much more likely that people viewing your online images with a properly calibrated and profiled monitor will also see the colours/tones on their monitor that you see on yours. A common complaint you will see on the internet is something like "Why are my prints too dark?". The answer is because they have been using an uncalibrated monitor and its brightness is set too high or they have actually calibrated their monitor but to a too high brightness to match the output of their printer. Fwiw I have calibrated my monitor to a brightness 80 cd/m2 which gives a very good match to the output lightness of my printer. |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,372
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 15, 2021 3:39:41 GMT
Thanks caspa and ChrisI do not print at home. Coincidently, I ordered a 2022 calendar yesterday with 12 different photos. The sample should be here in a couple of days. Might be a good test to see if the lab's printer "sees" what I see on my monitor. I am liking the monitor but it does a weird thing under specific conditions in PSE. (And it is not a problem for editing.) I will revisit in a day or two and try to post an example. Thanks Clive |
|
Chris
Established Forum Member
Posts: 491
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Chris on Oct 15, 2021 8:04:07 GMT
Thanks caspa and Chris I do not print at home. Coincidently, I ordered a 2022 calendar yesterday with 12 different photos. I do wonder sometimes how some labs print their photos. I believe some will calibrate their system and print exactly what the photographer sends them. Other labs will use software to "enhance" the photo before printing. Kind regards Chris |
|
caspa
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 121
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by caspa on Oct 15, 2021 8:34:59 GMT
I do wonder sometimes how some labs print their photos. I believe some will calibrate their system and print exactly what the photographer sends them. Other labs will use software to "enhance" the photo before printing. Kind regards Chris I am not sure what you mean by "....print exactly what the photographer sends them".If the lab has proper printer profiles for their printers then they might print exactly what the photographer sends them only if the photographer used a properly calibrated and profiled monitor and the working colour space the photographer used to process the image is embedded in the image file sent to the lab, won't they? If the photographer hasn't used a calibrated screen or if he/she used the pc's OS calibration feature which is based on the quality of one's eyesight then how close the lab's print matches the image sent to it is a bit of lottery to some extent, isn't it? And this isn't taking into account to what extent the colours in the image file might be out of the printer's colour gamut and the rendering intent the lab uses to handle out of gamut colours. |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,372
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 15, 2021 15:08:53 GMT
If the photographer hasn't used a calibrated screen or if he/she used the pc's OS calibration feature which is based on the quality of one's eyesight then how close the lab's print matches the image sent to it is a bit of lottery to some extent, isn't it? I think you are correct. However, a couple of things ... I don't make a lot of prints, but in all the years I've been using labs I'd say 95% of the prints made for me have been good and reasonably match what I was seeing on my computer. (There are about 35 canvases and photo-paper prints in our house. One had to be redone because I had not paid attention to a blue cast of my own doing!  100$ operator error vs monitor calibration.) Years ago, I used an expensive lab to make prints for a photo show and felt the print quality was no better (possibly less desirable) than a local box-store lab that is managed by an actual photo lab tech. Thanks for your input. Clive |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,372
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 15, 2021 15:10:19 GMT
I believe some will calibrate their system and print exactly what the photographer sends them. Other labs will use software to "enhance" the photo before printing. Online labs should have an option to print "as is" or make adjustments. |
|
100$ operator error vs monitor calibration.) Years ago, I used an expensive lab to make prints for a photo show and felt the print quality was no better (possibly less desirable) than a local box-store lab that is managed by an actual photo lab tech.