Monitor to monitor variability.

[iancoxleigh]

<p>I have my monitor at home (a 23" Apple CD) calibrated with an Eye-One and the

brightness set to match my print output (turned down about 1/2 way of the small

range of variance available). I have a variety of B&W images where I have pushed

the highlights to the absolute edge BEFORE they lose detail, and that

contrasting 'pop' is what makes the image work to a large degree.</P>

 

<p>Well, I was recently browsing my own images from a friend's un-calibrated

screen and from another friend's colour-calibrated screen that was none-the-less

set to full-brightness. On the uncalibrated screen some of my images looked

positively dreadful with completely blown out highlights and on the other screen

they suffered but not so much.</P>

 

<p>I have two questions from this:</P>

 

<p>1. I will post a couple links at the bottom to a few of these images. If you

might comment on whether they look significantly overexposed or not.</P>

 

<p>2. How do you handle this situation in your posted images? They look good to

me. They match my local output. But, they might blow-out on other's screens.</P>

 

<p>By observing which images are most affected (and it is only a handful) I can

see that it wouldn't take too much tweaking to pull them back into range for the

worst of my friends' monitors. But, then, the images loose some impact on any

screen that is set like mine.</P>

 

<p>Worst affected from my portfolio:</P>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6632892">DA Roses</A></P>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6629818">Clematis</A></P>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6432000">Lotus</A></P>

 

<p>The lotus shot is the most enervating as it looks completely under control on

my own screen and quite bad on my friend's screen (blown out in a large blotch

just above the middle of the flower).</P>

[Matt Laur]

Looking at those, at this moment, from a vanilla Dell laptop set to typical desktop-worky-high-contrast mode (the way the vast majority of people look at things, these days). Alas, those white are pretty darn blown out. First image the most so.

[Norma Desmond]

Ian--

 

I'm not sure you're still speaking to me, but I'll give it one last shot at communication with

you. I have an Apple iMac 24" and have had the same experience. What looks fine on my

screen has looked blown out both on my work computer and my laptop. Your stuff looks

fine on my Apple screen. I've recalibrated my Apple screen to be more in line with what I

perceive are the majority of monitors being used so I think my stuff is being better seen

more recently. A definite shortcoming of internet

viewing. You think highlights are troublesome, try shadows and color . . . warmth/

coolness vary tremendously.

 

--Fred

[don_e]

"How do you handle this situation in your posted images?"

 

I don't because I can't. No one can. One reason why I don't take comments or critiques of online jpegs seriously.

 

There's two computers at my desk, both have a unit of the same display. One is calibrated the other is not. Its color temperature in OSD is set to "srgb" which greys out brightness and contrast controls. It's the best of the builtin temps.

 

On the uncalibrated display DA Roses is brighter and more contrasty, losing gradations near the highlight. It is slightly warmer, too, which in a color jpeg may be what gives the impression of being slightly more saturated. It doesn't appear blown out, but very close. The section of leaf between the bottom and middle flower has little gradation. The calibrated display shows texture and more gradation.

 

The uncalibrated display is set to a sane default, but DA Roses looks too bright and washed out at the highlight end compared to it on a calibrated display.

[les]

Well, Ian, they look a bit blown on my (calibrated) monitor - because the highlights are blown. I have downloaded the first image - and the results are in the attached pics.

[les]

In the above histogram, the highlights appear to be clipped.

The sampler (on the first picked 4 spots) shows (255,255,255) - attached.

[les]

And the results for these locations are here.

[les]

I also checked the third image - identical result, although histogram looked a bit better (still, clipping was present). While calibrated monitor helps - the images appear to have the highlights clipped nonetheless.

[yoni_perlmutter]

On my Dell 27" calibrated monitor with visual only inspection

your 1st image, "DA Roses" has severely overblown highlights - objectionally so on this monitor.

 

The 2nd and 3rd images come through on this in quite good shape:

with "Lotus" being richest in tone&tonality and "Clematis" being "flatter" but certainly not washed-out.

 

I also happen to like the "Lotus" image.

[petemillis]

Ian, this is interesting. My monitor (IBM 18 inch TFT) is, I think, set up pretty well. Brightness is nowhere near maxed out (80%) but I have really properly calibrated it - I'm not even sure if it's possible. The roses image does look a little blown, but when I open it in Canon DPP 3.2 and use the "show highlights" option, the blown highlights don't appear in exactly the same places as Leszek has shown. Maybe I've done something wrong - I'm not sure. The results for Clematis and Repose are both similar - highlights blown more on Repose, with just some very small spots of blown highlight on Clematis. These are also dramatically improved just by a tiny nudge down on brightness in Canon DPP.

 

Attached is the screen shot for Roses. The histogram is off the right hand side. If I drop the brightness level in Canon DPP down by one click it all seems good. But either way, it doesn't look bad on my monitor unless I crank the monitor brightness right up, which I think is a mistake a lot of people make!<div></div>

[petemillis]

Ian, I think on all three of these you can safely pull the highlights one little click down with losing the impact of the image on a well set up monitor They should then view better on a monitor on which someone has cranked brightness up to the max I think.

[sattler123]

The roses look completely blown out on my calibrated monitor, the other two pictures are somewhat acceptable. How do these pictures print - esp. the first one? I would bet that you see the same blown out highlights in the prints. As the histograms above show, this is not just a matter of monitor variances. You clipped the highlights. I would go back and correct thos pictures. Oh, btw, except for the cliiping problem, I really like all three of them.

[petemillis]

Ian, I meant to say "I think on all three of these you can safely pull the highlights one little click down withOUT losing the impact of the image"

[iancoxleigh]

Thank you everyone. This is very interesting.

 

Fred: I am definitely 'still speaking' with you. I have no idea where you got the idea I wasn't. I've been more than busy lately and have really only been visiting PN for for some casual image browsing when I take a break. Things should clear up soon and I had hoped to write up my responses to your recent work too (starting with 'will').

 

Leszek Scholz: The areas you show as clipping are close to what I actually wanted. I do/did want some areas of pure white. But, on my friends screen, instead of a few petal tips being pure white, there is a fairly wide ring of white around the entire flower (which you may or may not be seeing).

 

Pete: Thank you for doing the Highlight clipping display. I am actually OK with that amount of clipping. As I said, I wanted the petal tips and highlight edge to fully go to pure white. Moreover, it is only a tiny fraction more clipping than I get on my lightroom display (mostly, I don't get quite as much on the lower petals of the upper right flower). So, at least I know the absolute information is there. But, as I said, on my friends screen I get a thick (0.5cm) ring of pure white all around both the upper left and upper right flowers.

 

I think you're right though that they wouldn't loose much being puller back, I will pull down the highlights and repost these.

 

Juergen: They print fine. But, I am using Harman Fibre Gloss which is a fairly dull creamy white and perhaps that hides the blown highlights a bit. The profile I created for the printer was also a little dark -- I'm unsure why and I did it twice and both times it was dark -- this caused me to lower my screen brightness a bit and then raise the brightness on my images. It works quite well for printing.

 

Oh, and thank you for liking the images even with the technical difficulties here.

 

Thank you all again. This was quite helpful. I have reworked the images slightly and will swap out the files in my portfolio.<div></div>

[iancoxleigh]

Clematis re-worked

[iancoxleigh]

Lotus re-worked

[petemillis]

Ian, they're all good here.

[les]

Yep, much better than before :)

[gordonjb]

For whatever it may be worth this late ; on my calibrated monitor the highlights in the original are blown in some spots, very minor small areas and you reworked shots look much better.

[dseltzer]

For the FWIW pile, I'm using an Apple 23" Cinema and a hueyPRO? made by Pantone. Since using the huey, my prints are well matched to what is shown on the screen. That doesn't mean, of course, that it's calibrated to match what the majority of monitors are set to. Anyway, all that said and I gotta tell you all three images are far better since you adjusted them, especially the Lotus. Oh, my! That shot is several quanta improved, not only in light and saturation, but clarity and depth as well as tonal range. All three were overly light saturated to my perception, and there are obviously nice details that were hidden by the brightness.

 

The DA Roses shot is the only one I'd still nit pick-ally change. The lowest rose seems considerably brighter than the other two, and I can see leaving some of that to enhance the sense of depth, but as it stands, the lowest rose (most forward of the three) seems harsher than the other two. I think it could still stand out and be well differentiated if it, too, went back a click or two. Just how it looks to me, Ian. All this nattering is in the context, you do know, of being quite impressed with the three pictures, and still most drawn to Lotus.

 

Regards,

 

David

[BelaMolnar]

Hi David.

I checked your images on my MAC laptop monitor, and MAC + LaCie 20" calibrated,(blue

eye) monitor. on both monitor, the image is looks perfect for me. No blown out white, all the

images o.k. for me.

 

Cheers; Bela