Overexposed - Underexposed - Monitor callibration

[Gavjenks]

dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator

Your word choices of "dumb" and "lowest" imply that there's something less CORRECT about the calibration of typical consumer electronic devices, and something more CORRECT about printers' standards.

That would be an error, though. There's not. Nothing is more right or wrong about either of them. The right choice for calibration as an artist is the one that matches your intended work's viewing conditions. Purely relative.



In other words, it is equally "dumb" to calibrate to printers' standards if you never print your work as it would be to calibrate to iphones if you always print your work.

 

[cgipson1]

If you're only posting to the web, calibration is arguably even more important.

If calibration were designed to bring your monitor to the median color space of all popular manufactured viewing devices in the modern era, yes.

But that's not what typical calibration does. It pushes you toward a standard that was arbitrarily decided somewhere and is used in professional circles like printers, which may or may not equate to what the typical internet viewer sees.

So if your work is mainly intended for the internet, you should either:
A) Calibrate to the central tendency of the consumer electronics market (mobile and laptops and desktops), rather than to printing standards, or if you can't find any official body that maintains that information,
B) Own or borrow a handful of the most widely bought viewing screens (e.g., Mac, Dell, and Lenovo computer monitors, and iphone, ipad) and attempt this yourself. Or
C) With limited funds, just calibrate toward whatever the most most one or two popular devices are (probably the iphone, but I'm not entirely sure. Easy enough to research)

A - sRGB IS a Standard... why not just use that for calibration (for those Internet photographers! lol!) sRGB - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
B and C - Too many variable... brightness, color, screen protectors, ambient light... etc... etc...etc.....

 

[Robin_Usagani]

You put it next to your usual lighting condition in front of your monitor while editing of course!

 

[Derrel]

Well...there have been threads here and on other forums...there is a HUGE variation in monitors...there is always somebody, somewhere, who is viewing photos and web pages on a simply pathetic computer monitor, or a sub-standard screen on some mind of device.

I was watching one of the Creativelive.com webinars, and the presenter (Doug Gordon) said that basically, spending time color-correcting images was a waste of time because people view them on-line on their crappy work computer, or their ridonculusly-outdated piece-o-junk Windoze laptop, or the basement computer the kids left for them when they moved out, and so on...

 

[Josh66]

dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator

Your word choices of "dumb" and "lowest" imply that there's something less CORRECT about the calibration of typical consumer electronic devices, and something more CORRECT about printers' standards.

That would be an error, though. There's not. Nothing is more right or wrong about either of them. The right choice for calibration as an artist is the one that matches your intended work's viewing conditions. Purely relative.



In other words, it is equally "dumb" to calibrate to printers' standards if you never print your work as it would be to calibrate to iphones if you always print your work.

There is a good reason for that. That reason is that most consumer devices ship with something other than the correct color profile. Maybe you've never calibrated a monitor before - I really don't know or care all that much.

Whenever you do finally make that jump, you might be surprised how differently the "right" colors look compared to the ones you've grown used to seeing every day.

 

[cgipson1]

You put it next to your usual lighting condition in front of your monitor while editing of course!

Again, what brightness? Do you have to do a factory reset every time you need to calibrate it? Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change). Can you gaurantee every screen protector is going to allow the same amount of light through, and at the same color? Can you gaurantee that everyone will have the same ambient light when they do the comparison, because that will affect it greatly!

That is where REAL calibration has the advantage... it reduces as many variables as possible, and will even compensate for screen protector differences, ambient light differences, screen differences, etc....

 

[Gavjenks]

B and C - Too many variable... brightness, color, screen protectors, ambient light... etc... etc...etc.....

What's that supposed to mean? "Too many" variables? You don't get a choice to have any fewer.

If you display your work on the internet, then you display your work on the internet. However many variables the internet users have is the number you have to deal with! Whether you like it or not. Holding your fingers in your ears and going "nanananana" and ignoring it isn't going to make the internet any less variable.

So once we've accepted that it's an extremely variable place, what's the BEST effort you can put forth to give your images the best chance of being viewed as you intended? Well, regardless of how variable the internet is, your best chance will always be putting yourself near the central mean tendency of internet viewing devices. NOT the central tendency of printers who have nothing to do with you or your clients.

If you fail to do that, then your work will suffer from both the variability (which will still be there) AND being away from the mean central tendency, which will add up to even more overall inaccuracy than if you had calibrated to Dell factory settings and iphones, etc.

 

[Josh66]

You can't control what everyone else sees. You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though. After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do. Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?

 

[Gavjenks]

Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change)

No, you can't guarantee that. You have to, in fact, periodically recalibrate to whatever the current modern central tendency is for consumer electronics, if you want the most accuracy.

Pain in the **? Yes. But necessary for maximum accuracy. If you just use the printers' standards and then sit on your laurels forever, then all you're doing is giving up and GUARANTEEING that you'll NEVER have maximum accuracy. Seems to me it is better to at least try.

 

[Gavjenks]

You can't control what everyone else sees. You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though. After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do. Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?

This is absolutely true. You can't control them, but you have to do the best that you can do.

And the best you can do is to calibrate your own editing system to match the mean of what most clients are going to be viewing on, which if your business is on the internet means things like Dell factory monitors and factory calibrated iphones. After that, it's out of your hands.

But if you calibrate to an unrelated industry's standards that don't match, then there IS still power remaining in your hands (the power to recalibrate to a more accurate on average and relevant standard), which you are not taking maximum advantage of.

 

[cgipson1]

Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change)

No, you can't guarantee that. You have to, in fact, periodically recalibrate to whatever the current modern central tendency is for consumer electronics, if you want the most accuracy.

Pain in the **? Yes. But necessary for maximum accuracy. If you just use the printers' standards and then sit on your laurels forever, then all you're doing is giving up and GUARANTEEING that you'll NEVER have maximum accuracy. Seems to me it is better to at least try.

Tell you what.. you calibrate to your IPHONE or whatever! I will stick to professional tools... problem solved!

 

[Gavjenks]

Problem solved in terms of ending an argument on the internet, perhaps. Problem not solved for having clients (who are usually not image professionals!) most likely to actually see the images you want them to see.

The reason many professionals use those standards you are talking about is only because most professionals rely heavily on prints. People tend to pay less for digital desktop backgrounds than they do for wedding albums. But if you exclusively sell desktop backgrounds anyway, then what do you care about what most other people make their money off of?

 

[Josh66]

You can't control what everyone else sees. You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though. After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do. Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?

This is absolutely true. You can't control them, but you have to do the best that you can do.

And the best you can do is to calibrate your own editing system to match the mean of what most clients are going to be viewing on, which if your business is on the internet means things like Dell factory monitors and factory calibrated iphones. After that, it's out of your hands.

But if you calibrate to an unrelated industry's standards that don't match, then there IS still power remaining in your hands (the power to recalibrate to a more accurate on average and relevant standard), which you are not taking maximum advantage of.

And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right. Thank you for providing that example.

 

[cgipson1]

Problem solved in terms of ending an argument on the internet, perhaps. Problem not solved for having clients (who are usually not image professionals!) most likely to actually see the images you want them to see.

The reason many professionals use those standards you are talking about is only because most professionals rely heavily on prints.

Remember above where I mentioned a STANDARD sRGB? Guess what... that is the INTERNET standard... so most of the silly toys you mention will work with it!

 

[Gavjenks]

And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right. Thank you for providing that example.

You have still yet to explain the gap between "The printing industry happens to standardize it this way" versus "This is the cosmically and philsophically RIGHT way to do things."

I fully agree on the first part. The second part you are pulling out of thin air.