Zane

[Evertking]

CC please..
Tried to desaturate the image a bit, I felt like my colors tend to get cartoonish, especially the greens.
6D
135mm
32 in octabox camera left.

 

[Mike Drone]

Nice picture =]

 

[Evertking]

Here is the untouched file.

My computer... I dunno. When I edit and export my images look fine, then I export them to a phone, they just are dark and all outta wack... It's confusing, I don't know which to trust. The monitor is a Benq. Thinking about buying a calibration tool.

 

[Evertking]

Nice picture =]

Thanks

 

[smoke665]

My computer... I dunno. When I edit and export my images look fine, then I export them to a phone, they just are dark and all outta wack... It's confusing, I don't know which to trust. The monitor is a Benq. Thinking about buying a calibration tool.

Nice, comfortable, young man appropriate pose. I prefer the original.

One thing I've noted previously on your images is that they tend to appear on the dark side. I had assumed that was an editing choice, but apparently that isn't a case. I pulled a histogram of your original unedited image here Image histogram online this was the result

If your original (pre export) file shows a full data file then it is likely a calibration problem.

Maintaing color accuracy and brightness when you export and view on other devices is an ongoing battle. Between the differences in devices and the way many web sites crush images it can be a real PITA. I use an older ColorMunki by X-Rite which has been replaced by i1Display Studio to calibrate my monitor, in the room I'm editing in. There are many factors that can affect how the image shows on another device but ambient light and monitor brightness are two biggies. If you aren't calibrating your monitor on a regular basis, you'll have some form of shift (color/brightness) on other devices.

I'm assuming also when you export you use sRGB as your color space. Using a different standard will result in shifts on other devices and social media. If I'm really being picky I will soft proof the image to IEC 61966-2-1:1999 standard before I export as sRGB for web or other viewing. If I plan on printing an image I use the color profile supplied by the lab to soft proof. Finally I double check the exported images for web on an android tablet, which gives me a good representation.

 

[Original katomi]

Have a look at cropping so that it becomes a portrait format inc the post on the right and come in to just inside
The second post out from his hand on the left
Try and darken that yellow ? Whatever it is on the left by his Hand
Let us know what you think

 

[tirediron]

I was about two reply that while I liked it, it felt about 2/3 of a stop too dark, and then, *Poof* there's the original, which looks much better, IMO.

 

[Evertking]

My computer... I dunno. When I edit and export my images look fine, then I export them to a phone, they just are dark and all outta wack... It's confusing, I don't know which to trust. The monitor is a Benq. Thinking about buying a calibration tool.

Nice, comfortable, young man appropriate pose. I prefer the original.

One thing I've noted previously on your images is that they tend to appear on the dark side. I had assumed that was an editing choice, but apparently that isn't a case. I pulled a histogram of your original unedited image here Image histogram online this was the result
View attachment 193457
If your original (pre export) file shows a full data file then it is likely a calibration problem.

Maintaing color accuracy and brightness when you export and view on other devices is an ongoing battle. Between the differences in devices and the way many web sites crush images it can be a real PITA. I use an older ColorMunki by X-Rite which has been replaced by i1Display Studio to calibrate my monitor, in the room I'm editing in. There are many factors that can affect how the image shows on another device but ambient light and monitor brightness are two biggies. If you aren't calibrating your monitor on a regular basis, you'll have some form of shift (color/brightness) on other devices.

I'm assuming also when you export you use sRGB as your color space. Using a different standard will result in shifts on other devices and social media. If I'm really being picky I will soft proof the image to IEC 61966-2-1:1999 standard before I export as sRGB for web or other viewing. If I plan on printing an image I use the color profile supplied by the lab to soft proof. Finally I double check the exported images for web on an android tablet, which gives me a good representation.

It's been EVERY image I export and yes, it's sRGB. I made a post a while back that when I edit and I try and brighten the images up in ACR that the highlights just look awful, and 9 outta ten times what looks fine in camera looks blown out in post.
I'm obsessive about checking the blinkies. Take the OCF shoot above. Set the background, then move to the light and I will work with the light till I like his skin tones.

 

[smoke665]

It's been EVERY image I export and yes, it's sRGB. I made a post a while back that when I edit and I try and brighten the images up in ACR that the highlights just look awful, and 9 outta ten times what looks fine in camera looks blown out in post.
I'm obsessive about checking the blinkies. Take the OCF shoot above. Set the background, then move to the light and I will work with the light till I like his skin tones.

Here's the thing, if your monitor hasn't been calibrated, for the room/light you are in, then it could well be to bright, which would account for the underexposed looking image on export. I downloaded your SOOC image into LR, and used the auto to get a starting point, then adjusted it to what I hope is close to what your camera captured. Here is the starting histogram from your SOOC image in Lr

Now here is the histogram after the adjustments in Lr. See the difference in midtones and highlights?

here are the LR adjustments made. Note the exposure bump +1.16 and the highlights are not blown. Can't speak for how your camera handles the highlights, but on my Pentax's I can push the exposure to the point that the highlight blinkies just start without them.


Now here is the image with those adjustments. Note there's a lot of room for improvement but with a low res file it's about as good as it gets. This really is a good shot.

My workflow, is that out of camera, my first step is to take the image to as close to a perfect SOOC in Lr as possible, then do a virtual copy. During that initial edit I'm watching not only the image but the histogram (which to me is just as important as what I'm seeing in the image). From there I do any creative edits on the virtual copy, first in LR, then in Ps. I've found it's better to pull down the brightness in an image then to pull it up post, seems to be less noise to me.

 

[Derrel]

I prefer the original shot.

 

[tirediron]

...I'm obsessive about checking the blinkies. ...

I don't think you have any exposure issues, I suspect it's almost all related to your post-processing set-up. You're producing work of a calibre which warrants the investment in a GOOD monitor and a quality hardware calibrator. That said, one of the first things I do with every new camera is reduce the blown highlight ("blinkies") trigger threshold; that way I know if I have just a small or few small areas, I don't actually have any missing information.

 

[Derrel]

I think you should do a side-by-side comparison between your desaturated picture and smoke665's adjustment. I think there are a few overly-bright small elements in the background that cause this to be a 95% shot instead of a 100% shot.

 

[Evertking]

I will play around with more images from this shoot. I look at the monitor and the brightness is cranked 100% and my editing in the dark are not helping. I guess I should have just trusted the ACR histogram instead of going by my eye. I can take a image and just hit auto in ACR in my usual surroundings.. kids asleep.. only light in the room is the monitor and it was cranked all the way up and it looks awful. That's when I would bring it down.
I remember making a post about this sometime ago and got to thinking and it was at this time I got this new computer setup and monitor.
Thanks everyone for taking the time to help.
Would a calibration tool help with a cheaper monitor or just invest in a better monitor?

 

[smoke665]

I look at the monitor and the brightness is cranked 100% and my editing in the dark are not helping

Well there you go, a perfect storm.

Would a calibration tool help with a cheaper monitor or just invest in a better monitor?

For about the same money you can buy the calibration hardware/software, or a new monitor. The difference is the new monitor won't solve your problem, but the calibration will.

 

[DanOstergren]

I look at the monitor and the brightness is cranked 100% and my editing in the dark are not helping. I guess I should have just trusted the ACR histogram instead of going by my eye.

100% brightness isn't a good setting for photo editing in my opinion. When I do editing, I have the brightness setting at less than 50%. Granted, the displays I edit with are a late 2015 iMac Retina 4K and a Microsoft Surface Pro 5, which in my opinion both have quality displays.

Would a calibration tool help with a cheaper monitor or just invest in a better monitor?

Regardless of whether you use a quality display or not, a calibration tool is recommended. I'd get the calibration tool first and see how it changes your work, and then decide if you want a better display further down the road.

Also keep in mind that your eyes are going to have to get used to the new calibration settings, and things might look unusual to you until they adjust to the changes.