Image looks great in LCD, but not so great on computer

[john_e2]

<p>Here's side by side shot. Original and enhanced. I spot metered on the water. this was with no flash. this was a baseline shot. I added flash in subsequent shots.<br /> In the LCD monitor the original image looked perfect. Nikon D70. After enhancing it looks better but not sure what else to do to improve it. Doesn't look anywhere near as good as in the LCD on back of camera. Any thoughts.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>Images?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Need more information. Are you shooting RAW, or straight to JPG? How are you handling the files involved? Is your display calibrated?<br /><br />Remember: the camera's LCD is <em>not</em> meant to show you a good representation of the image. It's usually set to be much too bright for that.</p>

[john_e2]

<p>the images didn't upload with the post, I'm trying to figure out how to add the images.</p><div></div>

[john_e2]

<p>I'm shooting basic JPG. they were test shots for a shooting location. I've calibrated the display as best I can. the White balance was set on auto.<br>

the auto adjustments made the pic look hazy so I adjusted the contrast which then resulted in the shadows getting darker. Pic still looks off on the colors.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>OK, so I see the original... but <em>is</em> it the original? Meaning, are you having the camera process the original and turn it into a JPG for you? If so, how are you having it do that? Even on a D70, there are many variables related to everything from color temps to saturation to contrast, brightness, and sharpening. The camera's software follows all of the rules you give it when it creates a JPG from the RAW that it's actually capturing. <br /><br />Or ... are you shooting RAW? And if so, how are you handling them, software-wise?<br /><br />EDIT: comments were before your repeat post with the extra information.</p>

[john_e2]

<p>I have the camera is set to small/basic jpeg. the camera automatically saves them in jpeg, but when I shoot Raw I don't notice any difference. <br>

correction the speed was 320 not 500.<br>

Tone: Low,<br>

Color Hue: MODE1a.0<br>

Saturation: Normal<br>

Focal Length 50mm</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>You just answered your own question. RAW files are huge compared to JPEGs. You need to do some post-processing of the RAW files, including, and especially sharpening.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>You should use the camera's screen for checking composition and viewing the histogram. You can't trust it to show you sharpness or accurate color.</p>

[john_e2]

<p>I'm not using the LCD to rely on sharpness or accurate colors. My point is, the shots look so nice on the LCD but not as good on the computer. Is this just the nature of Camera LCD's? </p>

[joe_c5]

<p>Your monitor is probably (but not definitely) more accurate than the LCD on the back of the camera.<br>

Some things that might be different between the two include:</p>

<ul>

<li>Brightness</li>

<li>Tone curve</li>

<li>White point</li>

<li>Black point</li>

<li>Primary colors</li>

</ul>

<p>If your goal is to match the LCD on the back of the camera, I do not recommend starting with either auto levels or auto contrast, since its version of the image did not use either one.</p>

[ken_morano]

<p>Computer video card drivers allow you to alter the tint of your computer display to your liking.<br>

This caused a problem with my computer since I had inadvertantly set the driver in the Nvidia control panel to adjust the desktop color settings to a darker, reddish cast. I resolved the issue by going back into the driver control panel program to reset the sliders to a neutral setting.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>In the LCD monitor the original image looked perfect...After enhancing...Doesn't look anywhere near as good</em></p>

<p>You're going to have to define "good" very specifically and how the enhanced version is "not good". Too many variables at work to guess what you find pleasing and what you don't.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Is your monitor calibrated with an external device like a Spyder, Colormunki, i1, etc? If not, that could explain the difference. Is the software you're viewing the image with on the computer color managed? That might make a difference.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"I spot metered on the water"

 

You do realize that the spot meter doesn't give you the correct exposure unless you know how to adjust the exposure for what you are metering off of?

[john_e2]

<p>I spot metered the water to get an idea what I would have to do when I added flash in order to balance background and foreground I did not want a blown out background. I spot metered the water because I decided that was going to be the hottest area in the background. This was the first shot I took with no flash. In subsequent shots I added flash to balance between foreground and background. this shot was my baseline shot.<br>

my disappointment is and has always been, since, I started shooting digital is that the Camera LCD always looks so nice and crisp. Colors look good etc. . As you can see in the original it has a green hue and the pics look dull on my screen. I have to sharpen and tweak, but can never duplicate what I see on the back of the camera.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<blockquote>

<p>My point is, the shots look so nice on the LCD but not as good on the computer. Is this just the nature of Camera LCD's?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is. Really, it has to do with seeing the image much smaller. Your eye can not see the details so over all it just looks better. Ever look at a web site and see an image thumbnail and looks like it would be a really cool image. When you click on it and see it much larger you can see it is not nearly as "cool" as you thought. Basicly, I have noticed this many times. More than once I have been bummed after seeing an image in post that I thought was a real keeper while chimping. Just determine what the photo lacks and learn from it.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

 

[jaydesi]

<p>I agree that the image on the LCD nearly always looks sharper by nature of it being smaller. Even a little motion blur can be undetectable in the LCD yet becomes quite obvious at 10% on a monitor.</p>

<p>Also, JPEGs degrade in quality with each save, albeit very slightly, so it's really better to shoot RAW, do all your processing, then export to JPEG when you're ready to print or upload the file to a website. It's also non-destructive, meaning you can go back and remove some/all of your edits to the RAW file and redo them later, as your skill improves or if new tools are introduced that make post processing better. If you're editing JPEGs, you either have to overwrite and degrade your original, or process your original from scratch each time you want to do something different.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>The camera LCD screen is not really designed to give a accurate representation of color, hue, contrast, sharpness. Trusting the LCD "Preview" screen is a mistake; that's why it's called "Preview."<br>

It is NOT a calibrated display.</p>

<p>Some of the later generation DSLR's use high pixel count preview screens, which do a much better job compared to the earlier models. (D-70 LCD vs. D-300)</p>

<p>Still, even these higher res screens are not highly accurate representations of color; how can they be?...<br>

Shooting RAW yields a jpeg (processed) image preview, not even close to what the final output will be.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The final result does not depend on how it looks on the back LCD. I have seen many DSLR the LCD of which is broken, but every thing else still works fine, great pictures. If the pictures look good on LCD, that's a good thing, no harm to anything</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>is that the Camera LCD always looks so nice and crisp. Colors look good etc</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I always see the pictures on the camera LCD are really really bad, so bad that I usually turn it off, rarely want Preview, LCD is mainly to go to menu, setup some thing once a while. I never think the picture is sharp because I cannot see any details</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Not mentioned here is the fact you're basing good or bad results on the look of one scene that happens to induce WB errors caused by the shade and daylight. Spot metering the water which contains mixed colors of reflected midday daylight and sky blue (lots of red in that spectrum) and the color of the water surrounded by shaded green grass would most likely guarantee a green result. Happens to me all the time even shooting Raw. A "Shade" or custom WB preset would've given better results to work with even shooting jpegs.</p>

<p>Default Auto Levels setting will not fix that image. You'll have to go into Level's Option dialog box and set custom WB using the Color Picker. Since that's too complicated even for me to hassle with, I'ld suggest using ACR's color temp sliders to get that tree to look as it should under shade and not the purple-ish blue that Auto Levels delivered. Adjust saturation accordingly.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Below are the results I got in ACR with these settings:</p>

<p>Color Temp: +13<br>

Tint: +45<br>

Contrast: -23<br>

Clarity: +30<br>

Saturation: +60<br>

Curves: Medium Contrast</p>

<p>Adjust color temp sliders and saturation to taste.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

I don't recall John mentioning what software he used to view the images. I would encourage John to try to review them in

Nikon's View NX software which should look pretty close to what he saw in his LCD screen. If NOT then he has a

monitor calibration issue.

 

If the photo looks good in View NX John can tweak it, convert it to jpeg and be done with it. Or he can experiment in ACR or

Lightroom or his favorite raw processor to try to achieve an even more pleasing look. In the latter case he can use the

View NX version as a guideline whose quality he will hopefully exceed. But if not he can still go back to the View NX

version.

[john_e2]

<p>I'm using Photoshop CS</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi John, with digital photography there are some things that need to be calibrated so that a final image matches what you saw originally and what you wish to reproduce. I used a D70 and still use other Nikons. In my opinion, the LCD screen is NOT suitable for judging final results - it is too small. I use a D3 and D700 with larger LCD screens and only rely on them for approximations. To judge your final image you need your computer screen and suitable software - Nikon View or Capture NX2 are better, or use something like Lightroom or Aperture for management and photoshop for fine tuning. But with the computer you must have your monitor correctly calibrated - I use a Spyder 3 and I re calibrate every month. I also have profiles for my Epson Printer, (Available from most printer manufacturers or paper manufacturers via internet) and the various papers I use. It may surprise you but different papers produce different results from the same image when printed. I would recommend you to use RAW + large JPEG and set your D70 to no compression and Optimum Quality in the menu. I know this means less on the card but I used 4 and 8 Gb with my D70 and they gave me more than enough shots.</p>