Arrrrggh !!

I had a photo book made for my daughter for Christmas by Shutterfly. I noticed that the colour photos seem a bit rich. The colour saturation and contrast was a bit heavy and the exposure was a wee bit dark. The Monochromes actually looked nicer, slightly better contrast IMO. Then I thought, I haven't calibrated this monitor in years. Colour balance was fine, but the gamma was off. I them checked my photos here. Yep. Confirmed. Now I had to adjust every colour photo I have posted or sent everywhere if I want to to look corrected,..................... ARRRRRRRRRGGGHH !!!!

I am just a retired enthusiast. Thankfully no $$$ was involved.

Not knowing what others are going to see when they look at my photos on their monitors (mine may be calibrated but many of my viewers' likely aren't) is part of the joy and mystery that is photography these days. I don't fight it but, instead, have come to embrace it as one of those unknowns. I sometimes even take it into account in my preparation of files for the screen. Years ago, I used to fret that people would look at photos on my web site or photos I send them on their PHONES ... way too small. I got over that, too, having learned that there's absolutely nothing I can or care to do about this.

For your own good, it's great that you discovered a way to better present your photos on the web and to get a closer printed version from Shutterfly.

I can almost guarantee that most people looking at your photos wouldn't notice the difference in saturation you're talking about. They might, once you pointed it out, but even then it's possible they won't see it to the same degree you're noticing it.

In a lot of good art, there's an element of chance. That can be exciting and inspiring. The actor opposite you on stage could blow a line and you'll suddenly have to stray from the script and improvise. The lighting in the gallery won't be as good as you'd hoped. The music at Carnegie Hall will sound differently in the front of the orchestra than it does in the back and on the sides and it will sound very differently up in the balcony (often better, but people can't see you as well). Films will be presented on better and worse screens, with projectors that may not be as bright as others because a theater is trying to save on its energy bills. Some paintings have to be shown behind glass to protect them over long periods of exposure. Some sculptures are missing heads and many are missing penises, even the males!

Art is human, photography is human, and it's all imperfect and there are elements of serendipity, accident, and some stuff will always be out of our control. A playwright writes a play and then relies on a director and actors and lighting designer and stage manager to put together a performance and interpret his words. The best thing a photographer or artist can do is her best, expressing herself as best she can. The second best thing to do is to let the work live and let go of it once it's finished and out there.

Spent the last few hours re-tweaking photos in Lightroom. I should leave the ones I don't intend to upload or do anything with,... but I can't help it. I am definitely a post processor.

I think it's admirable that you want to tweak your photos to your satisfaction. I also fuss quite a bit over getting my photos to just where I want them. And, to the extent I can, when I print them, I present them the way they work best for me. But once I send those files to others or give prints to a gallery for display, it's out of my hands and I let the photos live in the world, with all its flaws.

When it comes to posting online there are to many variables many that you have no control over. I recently posted a photo on No Words with dark shadows, I had adjusted them in LR so that the amount seen in the dark areas was to my liking. When viewing to result on PN the shadows are almost black, so that's two different results viewed on the same monitor. Am I going to worry about it, no what's the point it is what it is.

You can't control what other people see, but it is what it is. What really counts is how your images look in print. You can make adjustments on a trial and error basis without calibration, but monitor calibration and accurate print profiles save a lot of paper, ink and time.

Since most browsers are not color managed (i.e., recognize embedded color space in images), it's best to convert your images to sRGB color space for posting. In a color manages browser, images in sRGB and Adobe RGB, for example, will look the same. If not, Adobe RGB images will look faded by comparison.

HAHAHA I have no idea what others see, including me. My 3 computers don't agree, my 2 tablets don't agree with each other nor with my computers, and forget looking at anything on my TV moitor.

Ive tried to balance them to agree to some degree, but it seems to vary with the pictures. Also after taking the time to adjust the colors, my scanned B&Ws take on weird hues varying from sepia to greens.

Then there is printing (I don't do much printing plus I send them out when I do)... balanced to print from one computer, doesn't mean if I edit the same picture on the other computers, the print will look the same. It doesn't. Also not all pictures edited on one computer agree with the prints I get back. too many variables at the lab?

Another point a retoutcher told me... room lighting where you edit has an influence on the image colors when editing. He suggested I work in a low light situation so the color temp of the room light doesn't interfere.

Too much trouble plus im not doing it for clients. so I leave it to fate n try to use one computer for all my pictures.... it just makes me wonder though; what do others see?

ince most browsers are not color managed

Chrome is color-managed. Safari is color-managed. Firefox is color-managed. Edge is color-managed. IE 11 is sort of color-managed. Pretty much everything on a computer is color-managed now.

If the content is good, these things won't matter to the viewers.

What matters to viewers is not so easily assessed or dismissed and can’t necessarily be answered by asking the viewers. The reason most artists fuss much more over their craft than most viewers will recognize as important or necessary is that all the fine points and details DO matter in the bigger picture. A slight color shift may well be dismissed by most laypeople but it can easily affect the emotional response a viewer will have, whether that viewer ever realizes it or not. A colder tone to a photo can have a major impact even on a viewer who doesn’t know how much a colder tone affects emotions.

In any case, my point all along has not been that it doesn’t matter, because it actually does matter a great deal. My point is that, at a certain point there’s nothing that can be done to control things and, at that point, it’s best to let the work take on its life just as your children eventually will.

Michelangelo didn’t break his back over every brushstroke and detail on the ceiling for no reason. Every detail adds to what the bigger picture becomes. He also, importantly, did it for himself.

I agree with Alan that content often has the biggest impact, while at the same time recognizing that not all art or photography is about main impact. Much is about the lesser impactful subtleties and those can never be dismissed.

robertsimpsonnorth,

The first suggestion I would make is to assure that Shutterfky has turned off any of their own default color, contrast, saturation and et cetera corrections that they may impose automatically that could be exacerbating the problems that you have already solved.

Second, the single biggest improvement you can make on your end besides calibrating your monitor would be to use an IPS monitor that'll give you a 99% solution. Even if you can only afford 200-300 dollars for a low end Dell or NEC the color accuracy should be more than satisfactory. Good hunting.

Here is an example of before calibration and an after calibration edit

Before Now. Edit next post

After calibration edit

I had a photo book made for my daughter for Christmas by Shutterfly. I noticed that the colour photos seem a bit rich. The colour saturation and contrast was a bit heavy and the exposure was a wee bit dark. The Monochromes actually looked nicer, slightly better contrast IMO. Then I thought, I haven't calibrated this monitor in years. Colour balance was fine, but the gamma was off. I them checked my photos here. Yep. Confirmed. Now I had to adjust every colour photo I have posted or sent everywhere if I want to to look corrected,..................... ARRRRRRRRRGGGHH !!!!

 

I am just a retired enthusiast. Thankfully no $$$ was involved.

You have to calibrate (properly** and for a specific goal) and do so on a regular basis:

**Why are my prints too dark?

A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013

In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?

Display calibration and WYSIWYG

Proper print viewing conditions

Trouble shooting to get a match

Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4

Low resolution:

You cannot control what other's see on the web as already stated. You have no idea if they are using color managed browsers or calibrating their displays and just posting sRGB doesn't in any way ensure a match.

Colour, particularly colour balance was not the issue with my monitor. The gamma was too bright. That would affect the way colour saturation and colour contrast appears. Exposure looks a little darker too. Colour balance needed no adjustment.

In color managed applications, the gamma has absolutely no role. Perhaps you're thinking of contrast ratio as gamma, not at all the same:

X-Rite i1Display Pro Advanced Features | Contrast Ratio with Coloratti Andrew Rodney - X-Rite Photo Blog

All I know is that colour balance was not affected.

And there's FAR more to ideal display calibration than 'color balance' as outlined in the URLs provided. You say you have an ARRRRRRRRRGGGHH mismatch issue. Some here are trying to help you should you decide you're willing to accept some help.