Hello everyone.

 

I'd like to talk about the screens we use and how they display our photos. There are many brands and many models and many different screen technologies out there. Not everyone can afford a high quality professional grade screen, I certainly know I don't have one. With that in mind, I wonder if what I see on my screen when I edit my photos is the same as anyone else, and especially the curators. What may look good on my screen might look washed out or too dark or bright, etc. on another screen.

 

I personally have calibrated my screen using this site: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ Is it any good? I don't know, I'm not an expert. So this is an appeal to those who know a thing or two about this topic. Do you have recommendations about screen calibration? Any software you use, or good resources? It would also be nice to hear from the curators: what screens do you use, how do you make sure you see what the photographer intended you to see.

 

Looking ahead, maybe we could create a kind of common calibration standard that everyone could use to ensure that we see what we are supposed to see.

 

Looking forward to your responses.

Alex.

Hi Alex

 

Calibrating a monitor is important and fortunately, current models have come down in price.

 

I use the X-Rite Color Munki and can recommend, there are many others which will work just as well.

 

I was not familiar with the link you gave us, looked at it and seems if you follow directions will come up with something reasonable. Would not think any of your images would be turned back due to bad calibration.

 

The main problem with monitors is making whites appear blown when they are not. I normally do not display whites much above 230 since many monitors are unable to show properly.

 

If you want the most accurate or an accurate enough to be confident, need a monitor profiler.

 

al

Alex,

 

Your suggestion of a common calibration standard is a good one. A gray scale from pure black to pure white would help members to see if their screen is too dark, too bright, or has too little or too much contrast by noting which patches are visible and which are blurred together. I don't know how that could be done for colour though. (how red is red?)

 

I had a look at the Lagom link. Thank you for sharing that. It looks like quite a thorough process.

 

I would recommend getting a calibration device. As Alfred pointed out, they have come way down in price. The first I bought in 2004 was a LaCie, and cost about $600. The last one I got was a Sypder 4 that cost about $200 on sale a couple of years ago. They are even cheaper now.

 

It's a good investment because it gives you confidence for editing. I'm sure the Curators have calibrated monitors, so if your monitor is calibrated, you'll be on the same page with them.

 

The ambient light in your work room is an important factor. Try and keep it the same from day to day if possible.

 

One more detail - you probably already know this, but it's best to submit your photos with a sRGB profile because most monitors use that as a standard. I don't know which editing program you use, but in Photoshop, click 'Edit', then 'Convert to Profile'.

 

The photos in your gallery look good on my screen. Some of the colours seem a bit saturated, but that's just my opinion and not a scientific measurement. The one titled 'Ice Church' makes a good test. What I see on my screen is an overall cool blue scene, but the doorway on the left where the light comes in is pretty much pure white. When I measure a screen shot with the Photoshop eyedropper, it shows that it's just slightly warm (about 5 - 10 units, depending where the sample is taken) I'm sure most viewers of this photo would find the colour realistic, and see the white as a clean white.

 

You might want to have a look at this 'Printer evaluation image' to see if your monitor is displaying the nuances of colour that are described in the text.

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html

 

http://jirvana.outbackphoto.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

 

Steven, senior critic

I am still using my 6 year old PC, Eizo CG222W and Spyder3 for calibration. In addition to the quite expensive CG-line, Eizo has developed also a FlexScan-line with calibration tool and software in a set. Without deeper knowledge I would assume that this set which aims at ambitioned hobbyists covers your needs but is much cheaper than the ColorEdge-line.

 

While I paid CHF 1'400.-- for a 22" monitor and a calibration tool in 2010, the FlexScan Photo set of today is around CHF 1'000.-- including a 27" monitor and the calibration tool. With the 24" monitor, it is even below CHF 700.--. If I were to replace my monitor, I would choose a 27" FlexScan.

 

Hope that helps,

Thomas

Hi Alex,

no doubt a good monitor can do the difference but if it's not constantly calibrated it's almost useless in photo editing.

I do my editing and prints and I can tell you my first two years on digital were really disappointing especially when looking at the final product, that is prints.

So years ago I gave up trying to obtain something good from my old IMac and I bought a demo Eizo CG223W at a good price that is still an amazing monitor even after several years of use.

Unfortunately Eizo monitors are quite dear but today you can find many other outstanding products at a more affordable price.

You can eventually check the BENQ SW2700PT that is really valid, covering 99% Adobe RGB space and with internal LUT.

IMHO the main problems with standard monitors are

1) glossy screen, producing reflections and creating false contrasts - I suggest matte screens for editing.

2) brightness and contrast difficult to handle and often frustrating when printing or watching on another monitor - I suggest a calibration once a month and the use always of a shading hood. As external calibrators Spyders from Datacolor are more than valid and affordable.

In normal lighting conditions good parameters for setting your monitor could be as follows: Brightness 105cd, White Point 6500k, Black Level 0,5cd, Gamma RGB 2,2

3) Adobe RGB coverage - could seem superfluous but it's not. Nowadays you can find affordable monitors covering 98% or more of this color space giving you back all color nuances that would remain unseen on a normal SRGB monitor.

Said that, the working space and how is illuminated is even important: working area shouldn't be too bright and light should never come from your back even if soft.

I hope this helped.

Let me know how things evolve as I'm curious.

Regards

Carlo

 

Well, it's been a while, but I thought I'd revive this thread because I've bought a new monitor. It's a Dell UltraSharp U2415 24" Widescreen LED Backlit IPS Monitor. It's by no means "professional grade", but it's an upgrade from what I had before. One plus is that it's factory calibrated to the sRGB colour space and a gamma of 2.2, so I don't have to get a screen calibrator for now, though I do plan to buy one in the future.

 

I've been using it for a couple of weeks, and I do have to say that it's an improvement on my 8 year old LG that I had before. The screen is bright, the colours are nice, it's a pleasure to use.

 

The main thing I noticed when comparing the two is that my old monitor displayed darker shadows, and as a result about half of my images now appear with too light shadow tones. I've been spending days trawling through my collection and adjusting them. This really opened my eyes to just how important it is to have a well calibrated screen. If you don't, what looks good on your screen will look bad on someone else's.

 

I've also visited a few online monitor calibration sites, and the results are pretty near spot on to how they should be, which is good to know for anyone who wants to calibrate their screen but doesn't have an external calibration tool. Here are the sites:

 

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm

 

I hope I've provided some good insights into the subject, and maybe even helped someone out there.

 

I wish you all good (back)light. ^_^