digitaldog

You're lost as usual. You can't even decipher the website you linked to let alone understand it's now Sharp/NEC that absolutely has NOT exited the display market as you falsely claim. You are of course entitled to your uninformed opinions on this subject. I am simply pointing out that the opinion was formed without facts, science/data or critcal thinking. I therefore I find it foolish. Do get in the last foolish and incorrect word on this; you can't help yourself otherwise as we will all soon witness (again)!

Based on year's of history I don't believe what you tell us.

What you wrote that is WRONG in multiple ways as so often the case: “A word of caution: NEC is exiting the desktop monitor market.”

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/how-move-lightroom-to-new-computer/

Exactly, there is no evidence but a bit of typical FUD. 😜 You can still purchase the products too: https://bluesquare.digital/27-color-critical-desktop-display-with-spectraview-engine.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/1519332?gclid=CjwKCAjw-rOaBhA9EiwAUkLV4kz_fbjbFvYGlxHRNyB-_ePnjQwrg_OSAF4vtmWPC16wx_Qu7rhOQxoCRTEQAvD_BwE https://www.adorama.com/ncpa311dbk.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw-rOaBhA9EiwAUkLV4gmQ1NU8m1jEX_5FR7V4Dkfp2XWQnz9WkPhBohnPZ6pFsJ5Tu00r6RoCEbgQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_source=adl-gbase-p

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan NEC is now part of Sharp. https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/colorcritical Lets see some evidence that Sharp is exiting the desktop 'monitor' market please.

First, did you attempt to reset the NVRAM, PRAM, and SMC? Might be worth a try. Or logging into another account (you may need to make one) to see if this screen issue resumes? I'd simply get a good, external display and drive the MacBook from that (which is what I have done for years). My MBP drives the superb SpectraView PA271Q, I keep the lid closed (no need for that display). Bigger, better and far more color managed than the Laptop display.

I'd like an update too please.

Depends on a number of possible settings on the iPhone (which you may not be fully aware of). But again, without a raw, which CAN be exported from Photos for us to examine, I'm kind of done with this silly game of speculating for those not too familiar with how this camera might work. ;)

Then likely the results of a rolling shutter at the moment of capture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

If you view your iPhone shot in Apple Photos do you see the icon for Live Photo? Upper top left, says “Live”?

What kind of phone, was it perhaps an iPhone set to Live Photo or another camera phone with a similar option? Take Live Photos with your iPhone camera

Nearly impossible to provide an accurate answer without having access to the raw (ideally in something like Dropbox).

Articles on exposing for specifically and only raw:
OneZone – The Optimum Digital Exposure
ETTR
The Optimum Digital Exposure - Luminous Landscape
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
The Unbearable Lightness of Mystic "Exposure" Triangle
Red Flowers Photography: Now It is Easy to See the Real Picture
Exposure for RAW vs. Exposure for JPEG
Beware the Histogram
Establishing the in-camera exposure meter calibration point is the way to extract more dynamic range from your camera

Maybe OBAs which you can check if you have a blacklight flashlight to shine on it. OBAs=bad.

Exactly. But you had him at “if you know the effect you're after”. He clearly doesn't or understands the process known as Solarization. Further, he admits this in the 2nd sentence after the first: “why?” :D

Lastly (if we are all so lucky), you might also attempt to study and attempt to understand the traditional Solarize techniques of which you have illustrated you are unaware of: A good article about solarization with detailed procedures and tips on how to do that "The major observable effects of solarization are a partial reversal of tones (light tones become darker, although dark tones don’t generally get lighter, although they may sometimes look darker because of the darkening of surrounding tones) and the creation of so-called Mackie lines: white outlines at boundaries between areas of different light/dark values".

Correct, it can't be answered (for a number of reasons), one being, luminosity is almost never the word you want unless you are trying to describe the total radiant energy (watts/sec) of a source and is expressed in cd/m^2 (candela per meter squared). 2nd, any RGB values need a defined color space and the encoding can vary.

You obviously do not understand me correctly. No, I did not create Solarize. Yes, I have created several Photoshop filters. http://pixelgenius.com/ No, further tweaking does not increase banding on high bit data. Yes, your images provided appear crappy; in this we agree totally. Yes, hold your breath.

There what? The Solarize filter and it's effect on brightness was explained to you. Altering brightness after Solarize if desired, was explained to you. What are you still confused about now? I agree, the images are crappy but that's a subjective opinion and not a technical one (which is the topic).

Seems you've now found out, that's often untrue: The raw may be 12 bits but PSE doesn't handle the raw data and no ACR doesn't provide a Solarize filter. And of course, one can render a 12 bit raw as less than 12 bits using ACR if such a user doesn't know how to use ACR.

From a camera JPEG sure. Try raw, high-bit data if you can..... More facts to the 'why' and luckily for us Photoshop users, Solarize can operate on that bit depth. Elements? http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

Having never, ever seen even one of your images, I can't confirm or deny it has anything to do with the filter. Why the filter does what it does has been explained to you. What about those facts do you not understand???

Why? Think of 128 x 2 and levels (encoding) of an image.... Been this way since day one of the 'big boy" product (Photoshop) that predates PSE; you're just wondering today? From 1995 "Adobe Photoshop Handbook" by Mark Siprut (I wrote the chapter for him on Filters, page 389, the photography of my dogs at the time). This darker appearance is explained of course. And the 'fix' if you don't want the way the filter mimics this old darkroom process. But please do show us your 'image' (Photo hopefully?) with and without Solarize, I'd love to see your idea of what 'looks like crap". No flaw, by design. For like 30 years.... :D http://digitaldog.net/files/SolarizeExplainedforFranz.jpg

Which could (should) be achieved with 'better" display calibration for print to display matching. ;)