Viewing on-line photos question ...

[Vinny]

As I view photos on-line whether here or on other sites some of the photos look blown out. I am not viewing photos with a calibrated IPS monitor and am wondering how those of you who with a web site and are trying to sell photos deal with customers that would have the same view (non calibrated IPS monitor) of the photos or worse than I do.

My assumption is since some are blown out and others aren't it might not be my monitor (or it could be) but the photos that were posted. Trying to get a customer to buy from an on-line source that would see a "bad" photo would seem like an up hill battle.

Just being curious!

 

[KmH]

Not only do few photo buyers have calibrated computer displays, they don't all use web browsers that are are color-aware.

So there is nothing a photographer selling photos online can do, beyond making sure they themselves have a calibrated display, and an effective, color managed workflow.

 

[Overread]

One bonus however is that the average person (who isn't generally aware that computer monitors need calibration) buying photos isn't likely to pick up on the same "faults" within a shot that a photographer (hobbyist or pro) will see. So you do get some leeway in that your average customer isn't going to notice so much as you yourself will.

 

[Garbz]

Take the approach from the music studios. Do your final master on nice hardware, but check your release on a **** monitor. Sure they aren't all the same but get a TN panel and then look at your photo from different angles to see how the photo looks for various contrast changes.

You'll find that in some cases this can save your photoshopping that you think was good enough. Hidden in the deep blacks in the realm of near enough is good enough is often some nasty photoshopping that someone looking on a cheap monitor with the brightness oh so high will spot right away. So it's a good idea to check like this.

 

[Vinny]

All 3 make sense ... using best practices, using a "regular" monitor to view what others may view and the fact that non photographers will view things differently than photographers.

 

[skieur]

Realize too, by the way, that a quality CRT monitor will display photos and colour more accurately than a flat screen LCD. Most flat screen LCDs come from the manufacturer set for maximum brightness and gamma, so that they show well in stores.

The result is that a photo that shows dark on a quality CRT monitor will show bright on the average overadjusted LCD flat screen.

Complicating things further is the Photoshop RGB space versus srgb space.
Photoshop RGB is imbedded in the photo, even if you later change it to srgb format. The visual result is that someone posting a Photoshop rgb space photo with great colour, brightness, and gamma, despite conversion by the web site, the photo will appear dark, underexposed and lacking in vibrant colours.

Some arguments over the technical area might relate to the poster and the critique provider seeing "different" images on the forum.

skieur

 

[Vinny]

I would think that most people who are viewing photos these days are using non IPS LCD monitors as you said and possibly laptop screens to view photos. CRTs are probably not in the picture anymore for the average home viewer. Which is my point about a website for the professional photographer - it's got to be a rough thing trying to convince potential customers how good your photography is.

I have a non IPS LCD monitor and have tried to "calibrate" it via websites that give you guidance and the truth is it isn't up to task for photo editing. But I've owned it for a few years now, am an amateur with limited funds so at this time it suits my needs.

My observation is from other sites as well, not just the forum. I have seen some beautiful images and some blown out images. But I have noticed here that for a lot of critiques that are given nobody mentions something is blown out which leads me to believe that it is my monitor's levels but then I will see a photo that is IMO absolutely correct in exposure and start to think it's not. I guess "the correct" photo could be processed dark so my monitor would make it look great but too dark is not in the critique as well, so who knows ...

I'm still thinking photography was much simpler before digital!