iancoxleigh Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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 We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 In the above histogram, the highlights appear to be clipped. The sampler (on the first picked 4 spots) shows (255,255,255) - attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 And the results for these locations are here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoni_perlmutter Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sattler123 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancoxleigh Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancoxleigh Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 Clematis re-worked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancoxleigh Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 Lotus re-worked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Ian, they're all good here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Yep, much better than before :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseltzer Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelaMolnar Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now