Overexposed - Underexposed - Monitor callibration

[Gavjenks]

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!

What are you talking about? Yes, sRGB is the internet standard for data format. That has nothing to do with this conversation. Robin and I are both already (probably, I know I am) using sRGB. So what? Using sRGB is an important first step, but it itself is not calibration. You have to also go further and adjust the white balance and gamma, etc. of your monitor to match that of the intended display device/format to be fully calibrated, in addition to having compatible data formats.

This thread is about the white balance and gamma, etc., not the sRGB, which should generally be assumed unless stated otherwise since it is the default setting on pretty much everything.

 

[Josh66]

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.

The second part, as in my thanking you? You are correct - I did pull that out of my ass.

Look, there IS a standard. If you choose to ignore that fact, it's on you.

I may not reply in a timely manner from this point on, wifey wants me to watch a movie, and I have beer to drink.

 

[Gavjenks]

A. Standard. For. The. Printing. Industry.

And so far nobody has bothered to even attempted to explain why that would be remotely relevant to people viewing things on internet devices, NOT in printed form.

You are aware that there can be more than one standard for something in the universe, yes? Apple almost certainly has a different standard for their displays than the printing industry does for prints (because, you, they're totally different things. Apple is going to be more concerned about eye strain, splashy marketing claims, etc. which is likely to push them in different directions than big pro-quality printers who work with companies not with flighty end users)

 

[cgipson1]

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.

The second part, as in my thanking you? You are correct - I did pull that out of my ass.

Look, there IS a standard. If you choose to ignore that fact, it's on you.

I may not reply in a timely manner from this point on, wifey wants me to watch a movie, and I have beer to drink.

I agree... I feel like I got stuck in some hipster, slacker "Dumb and Dumber" episode... I am out of here!

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor. And charlie calibrated his monitor. He said my photo was overexposed. Holy crap.. what's going on here?

Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered. It was a gift for the wedding day. All the prints look good just like my monitor. Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see. I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter. So what is the problem here? Both of the monitors are calibrated.

 

[cgipson1]

Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor. And charlie calibrated his monitor. He said my photo was overexposed. Holy crap.. what's going on here?

Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered. It was a gift for the wedding day. All the prints look good just like my monitor. Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see. I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter. So what is the problem here? Both of the monitors are calibrated.

Robin, calibration doesn't work that way... lol! Brightness is one of the things it tries to equalize as much as possible. And I was not the only one that said they were too bright... was I?

 

[mmaria]

Just today, someone here said that the WB in a photo of mine was off. It wasn't. No offense to that guy (he didn't realize his calibration was off), but you can't really comment on colors unless you are sure you're seeing the same thing the photographer is seeing. It's either right, or it's not.

oh yeah...that would be me...

I've never commented on wb before because I worked on non calibrated monitor. So few days ago I calibrated my monitor with ColorMunki Display, it's not professional level, but enough I would say. better some then none.
And after my monitor was calibrated, to my eyes, something was just not right but I wont believe my eyes cause they will fool me I' ll believe calibration. So there I go and post my first "wb is off" comment... and I got response that wb is dead on! Confused!!!? and we established that my monitor is off.
I calibrated it for a few times and under different ambient lights and in different rooms even, it's still too warm... it was too cold before the calibration
So my calibration gave me more problems then I had before...

and just to know... I'm not that guy....I am "she" as she didn't realize her calibration was off

 

[Overread]

Calibration and printing is one of those dark arts. It's possibly one of the more complex and tricky areas of digital photography, especially as the difference between "Just plug the calibrator in and let it do its work" and actually taking control over the calibration process is a very big jump (and not one all the companies make easy - my Spyder manual basically operated on the line of - if you don't know what's going on just don't press any of the shiny buttons).

I would say that its worth doing - it lets you get consistent results without the natural drift of monitor calibration affecting your workflow. It also means that you can end up with a setup which can go to print without the worry that you'll have to send off for re-prints to adjust minor over or under exposure problems.

 

[manaheim]

Guess what, Robin! Professional print labs...

That's nice if you print your photos.

What if you shoot photos intended mainly to be displayed on the internet, though? Desktop backgrounds, stock scenes for online articles, blah blah.

If so, then it may in fact BETTER not to calibrate your monitor, because all the people viewing your image will be using whatever their factory-standard calibrations are. You'd be better off buying whatever the most common monitor type is, or two or three of the most common devices, and adjusting your colors to look best on that/those, even if it looks bad on a calibrated monitor.

Sorry bud, but I would rather my **** be right, period. I don't care who makes your tablet - if it's off, it's off.

The people who care are people who look at your work on their tablets, obviously.

Again, if your main audience uses tablets, and you calibrate your equipment away from what they have and toward a more "correct" monitor (according to printing standards), you are effectively breaking it and guaranteeing that you're going to get wrong, inaccurate images.





Bottom line: There is no such thing as a "correct" (universally) calibration. The correct calibration is whatever best matches the situation in which your work will be viewed most.

This is a great point, but it still doesn't matter.

Think of it this way, Robin and Gav.

If you don't correct your images, then they are going to look wrong or weird on a lot of people's monitors.
If you DO correct your images, then they are going to look wrong and weird on a lot of people's monitors, but they'll print correctly.

That's sort of glib and oversimplified, but the point is that with correction you have a chance of them looking right on viewing and printing sources that are correct. As you said, the apple devices tend to be pretty damned close to correct (go apple!), so calibrating at least ensures THOSE folks will see what you see. AND you'll get a smattering of people who have displays like this DELL IPS display I have that is pretty near dead-on from the factory... so those people will get a good view as well. Everyone looking at these cheap Samsung displays are screwed, but what are you going to do? They were screwed anyway. (I love Samsung btw, but their color accuracy on these cheap displays is atrocious)

BTW, you doing it by eye isn't really all that bad... I've seen people who are really good do a DAMNED good job at getting a display color accurate by eye. It's never perfect, but it's close. I can do a reasonable job with it myself.

Also... the images people are talking about... I think there was a good bit of personal preference in those comments. I thought they were a little hot, too, but I took that as a personal choice- not a mistake.

ymmv.

 

[KmH]

Factory-standard calibration only lasts for a short time, because electronic display calibration drifts as a display ages.

Which is why even professional grade computer displays used by professional image editors get re-calibrated about once a month.
Many of the images those pros edit are used online.

The electronic display universe is a jumble of color management practices.

 

[cgipson1]

Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor. And charlie calibrated his monitor. He said my photo was overexposed. Holy crap.. what's going on here?

Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered. It was a gift for the wedding day. All the prints look good just like my monitor. Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see. I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter. So what is the problem here? Both of the monitors are calibrated.

Robin.. I should have also asked.. are you on a IPS monitor? they are much more accurate than Non IPS displays. (And if you are on a laptop... forget it! Most can not even be accurately calibrated!)

 

[The_Traveler]

This seems like two different arguments going on here that are almost orthogonal to each other.

I thought that the pictures looked too bright, Robin likes the way they look at that brightness and they way they print - that didn't seem to be a color balance issue but a brightness issue.

 

[cgipson1]

This seems like two different arguments going on here that are almost orthogonal to each other.

I thought that the pictures looked too bright, Robin likes the way they look at that brightness and they way they print - that didn't seem to be a color balance issue but a brightness issue.

Agreed, color was not off... they were in that modern "bright, hazy" look that seems so popular with a certain segment of photographers right now... Not blown, just brighter than I personally liked. More of a personal like / dislike than anything.

Since brightness is also something that is taken into consideration when calibrating... how are these arguments not meaningful? Since the vast majority of us who do calibrate seem to have a "common ground" in agreeing what good exposure is, calibration must be working for us... agreed?

 

[The_Traveler]

I calibrate and what I print matches very close to what I see on the screen and my images look pretty good when I've seen them at random other places.

Since Robin has calibrated and he likes his images that way, there's no argument about that.
The argument is whether to calibrate or not.

Since we, collectively, have no idea what the modal group of internet screens are seeing, we might as well hope that random variation goes towards a mean and that the standards are close to that mean - and set our screens for that.

It's no loose to calibrate.

 

[Josh66]

The argument is whether to calibrate or not.

I agree.
I don't think I ever saw the photos everyone is talking about - but that's not really what this thread is about anyway.

If Robin likes the "overexposed, washed out" look, that's fine. He should still calibrate though, to make sure his photos look the way he thinks they look.

The only reason I can really see NOT to calibrate is if you just don't have the hardware - and that is a very simple problem to solve. You don't have to break the bank on it either. Most of the differences in the "better" calibration units are only in the software. You can get very good calibration software for free (ArgyllCMS and DispcalGUI) - so if you're on a budget just get whatever you can. Even a cheap calibration unit will be better than nothing.

I can't think of a single scenario where calibration would be a bad thing...