Calibrated monitor vs by-the-numbers approach?

ccpickre

So, I've dabbled in Photoshop for a few years, but never actually known what I'm doing.

I'm curious about when ever you alter settings (BnW conversions/calculations, color balance, curves, contrast, highlights, etc, etc etc), are you supposed to be looking for that magc number or combination of numbers? Or is it all a matter of what you want the end result to be?

EDIT: removing the preposition at the end of a sentence

wxwax

I'm not sure I understand the question.

For skin tones, people often go by the numbers.

For the rest, it's really a matter of what you want your image to look like. Numbers may or may not be useful, I guess.

ccpickre

I guess that's what I meant. Should I go by the numbers, or just do what I want

I guess I'm a fan of vibrant over natural, so I steer away from the numbers game. But that's just me.

wxwax wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

For skin tones, people often go by the numbers.

For the rest, it's really a matter of what you want your image to look like. Numbers may or may not be useful, I guess.

pathfinder

The problem with strictly going how "things look to me" is that our eyes can very easily be fooled and fail to see color casts that are apparent when you look at the pixel data. Also, without setting a good Black and a good White point ( not a specular reflection) , you may be limiting the range of contrast and color in your image without being aware of it.

The short answer for me, and I suspect many other photographers here on dgrin, is that we do both.

We examine our images on a calibrated monitor, we see the same images in print on paper and compare them, and we know what the numbers mean and should look like. So we look at images, but also take the time out to measure a few pixels to make sure that they make proper sense.

As for desiring saturated colors - there are many of us here who also like saturated colors - you might look at the LAB color discussion threads and some of the POP tutorials here on dgrin also.

There is a lot of material here on dgrin to digest about image processing - give yourself lots of time, and don't be overwhelmed - folks here have been studying this in their spare time for years. Just take a little bit at a time. You will find lots of names you have seen here before on dgrin:D

ccpickre

pathfinder wrote:

The problem with strictly going how "things look to me" is that our eyes can very easily be fooled and fail to see color casts that are apparent when you look at the pixel data. Also, without setting a good Black and a good White point ( not a specular reflection) , you may be limiting the range of contrast and color in your image without being aware of it.

The short answer for me, and I suspect many other photographers here on dgrin, is that we do both.

We examine our images on a calibrated monitor, we see the same images in print on paper and compare them, and we know what the numbers mean and should look like. So we look at images, but also take the time out to measure a few pixels to make sure that they make proper sense.

As for desiring saturated colors - there are many of us here who also like saturated colors - you might look at the LAB color discussion threads and some of the POP tutorials here on dgrin also.

There is a lot of material here on dgrin to digest about image processing - give yourself lots of time, and don't be overwhelmed - folks here have been studying this in their spare time for years. Just take a little bit at a time. You will find lots of names you have seen here before on dgrin:D

Thanks Dad.

I finally calibrated my monitor, so regardless of what happened to my previous photos, I have to start over cause they look horrible now anyway. So I should be able to do it right this time.

pathfinder

I look forward to seeing your images when you get them back up in your galleries.

Duffy Pratt

While working, most people will rely a bit on both (and on the eyes of others, if possible).

In the end, the numbers don't matter at all. The only thing that counts is how the picture looks to the client (and you might be your own client) in the final presentation format, whether its an Inkjet print, a web display, a CMYK press run...

Duffy

jfriend

Lots of good reasons to use the numbers

Duffy Pratt wrote:

In the end, the numbers don't matter at all. The only thing that counts is how the picture looks to the client (and you might be your own client) in the final presentation format, whether its an Inkjet print, a web display, a CMYK press run...

I agree, partially...

If you can make lots of test prints on the target printer or you know exactly which screen it's going to be viewed on, then one can certainly go by your eyes alone as that is the only thing you are trying to satisfy.

But, the point of using the numbers is that in an imperfect world where your system doesn't match lots of other systems that might also display your photos (screens and printers) and where your eyes might lie to you about a color cast after you've been staring at images for awhile, the numbers don't lie and can be both very revealing and very helpful.

I have two calibrated displays and a printer that matches them quite well, but I still find the numbers very helpful in addition to my eyes. For example:

I use the CMYK numbers all the time for verifying/adjusting skin tones to help me see whether there's too much or too little red and to tweak the cyan values.

I use sample points in neutral colors in the image all the time to check for or fix color casts or set white balance.

When trying to determine proper white balance or color correction on images without known color references, I use numbers to identify impossible colors that give you good hints about what the real color must have been.

In some retouching tasks, understanding the numbers can really help you identify helpful blendif settings or helpful channel blends or other ways to isolate the effects of a given change. For example, in LAB mode, it's often quite practical to isolate the effect of a change to things that are positive in B and negative in A or >20 in B and less than 10 in A or >50 in L or something like that.

I'm not saying to avoid using your eyes, but the numbers can make lots of tasks more foolproof, quicker, more accurate and less likely to be machine specific.

rutt

[imgr]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/2791546-M.jpg[/imgr]
What this discussion needs is moral clarity.

You absolutely have to learn to correct colors by the numbers! Your eyes are easily fooled on the monitor into seeing what you want to see instead of what you (and others) will see in print or perhaps on a different monitor.

I've found and corrected a large number of other people's (and my own) blue horses and squirrels, bright orange faces, green skies, &etc. The amazing thing was that people weren't seeing it. The photographer didn't see it and the people who responded to the threads didn't see it. Nobody was satisfied exactly, but they didn't know why. Here are a few recent examples of this:

• http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=60020
• http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=60157
• http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57459
• http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57918 One of my own where I wasn't seeing it

Many of the times the post started off like this: How do you like my B&W conversion? On examination, there was a perfectly fine color image except it had a bad cast of some sort. The work of a minute to fix with a curve or blending or a filter or i2e. Instead, the photographer just knew s/he didn't like the color, so instant B&W. One dgrin moderator went so far as to have a calendar proof printed with an uncorrected tungsten skin tone in a glamor shot. And this was after the shot had been posted and received a lot of replies. (Granted this was in the early days of dgrin. I don't think this would happen now, we've all learned too much.)

Do calibrate your monitor, either with hardware or adobe gamma (windows) or the Apple display tool. It will help you to see the image as it's supposed to be and help you to make artistic judgments. But don't think that because you have a calibrated monitor you are really seeing what you think you are seeing.

Duffy Pratt

I agree with Rutt with one minor reservation. The endpoint is some final output. And the way one judges the results is by getting opinions. The opinion depends on how the picture looks, and not on how well it matches the numbers. The reason working by the numbers is so important is because it gets the most positive opinions, from other peoples eyes, in the vast majority of cases.


Duffy

rutt

Measure to be sure or you'll miss opportunities to improve your images. No reservations.

If you are breaking the rules by making blue horses or green skies you need to know that you are doing it and why. The point of my stories is that there have been plenty of images where other people's opinions are overwhelmingly positive, but where the numbers revealed that something was amiss and everyone missed it. Once corrected, everyone preferred the edit. But nobody saw the problem.

Here is another case in point to which I haven't yet gotten around to responding.

Duffy Pratt wrote:

I agree with Rutt with one minor reservation. The endpoint is some final output. And the way one judges the results is by getting opinions. The opinion depends on how the picture looks, and not on how well it matches the numbers. The reason working by the numbers is so important is because it gets the most positive opinions, from other peoples eyes, in the vast majority of cases.


Duffy

wxwax

rutt wrote:

What this discussion needs is moral clarity.

pathfinder

Rutt always sets the bar high:D

And thats a very good thing

ccpickre

Well, I'm not so sure about my monitor anymore. I manually calibrated it, and my colors look flat, while the contrast is well defined.

Yet when I choose the sRGBIE whatever setting, the colors are vibrant, but there's little contrast, and I don't know which one to use

rutt

ccpickre wrote:

Well, I'm not so sure about my monitor anymore. I manually calibrated it, and my colors look flat, while the contrast is well defined.

Yet when I choose the sRGBIE whatever setting, the colors are vibrant, but there's little contrast, and I don't know which one to use

Read my posts in this thread. You are barking up the wrong tree. First learn what your images should look like. Then it will be easy to figure out if they actually do look that way.

LiquidAir

My general approach is I first move the picture to where the colors are correct, then I add whatever pop I want. Adding the pop first is a sure recipie for disaster.

Do I work by the numbers? Sort of. Generally I start with the light source. For me, determining how the scene was lit is always the first step in color correction. I have calibrated my camera using a color card under several common light sources so if I know the light, I know up front what I need to do. From my calibrated settings the shot usually just needs minor tweaks. And yes, those calibrations were done by the numbers. Starting this way also means I usually catch mixed light problems from the get go and I can decide up front whether my strategy is going to try to fix the mixed cast, hide it, or live with it.

pathfinder

ccpickre wrote:

Well, I'm not so sure about my monitor anymore. I manually calibrated it, and my colors look flat, while the contrast is well defined.

Yet when I choose the sRGBIE whatever setting, the colors are vibrant, but there's little contrast, and I don't know which one to use

Welcome to the conundrums facing photographers who view and edit images on a computer screen. Is mine correct? Is my neighbor going to see on her monitor what I see on mine? How do I know which, if either, is correct. And what do I mean by "Correct"??

When we calibrate our monitor we are setting its colors to match known, existing standards of color tone so we can be sure that the colors on our screen will closely match those seen by our neighbors if they also have taken the time to calibrate their screen to the same standard. It is kind of like tuning the violins in an orchestra. They all need to match each other in tune, but they also need to match some existing external standard so that they can play with the orchestra.

When many folks first see a real calibrated screen it does seem flat and sometimes even to possess a color cast. (I thought my Apple screen was pink the first time I saw it. After it was calibrated, the pink warmth went away and I saw a nice neutral gray that matches a PRINTED neutral gray. )

Now, my calibrated monitor matches my prints when they are printed with the correct profile for the paper used. I can have some faith that what I see on screen will be captured on paper.

But as Rutts images shows - it is very easy to fool our eyes. If you take the Digital Color meter probe ( you have one on your MAC ) and read the pixel data of the two squares A and B - they will read exactly the same data and yet your eyes would swear that one is darker than the other.

Many computer monitors and TV screens have had the color saturation popped up quite a bit, as this is what catches people's eye quickly. The problem is that intense color images will pay a price in fine visible detail and shadow detail, and the colors will not be there in a print anway- the color intensities are such that they are not able to be replicated with dyes and inks on paper. (Photoshop has a way of checking for out of gamut colors to address this issue when editing - View >Gamut )


If you calibrated your screen with the MAC's program, live with it for a while, and look at some graduated grey scales and color charts to see how they look. Your images seem fine when viewed on the web on my monitors.

Are the monitors at the Daily Student calibrated in any way?

People who are employed to color correct images for the printing industry, are very careful about the color of their screen backgrounds - Neutral Gray is recc'd - That is why I do not run a screen saver full of colors nor do I have a colored background on my monitor - only pixels that read 128,128,128.........gray

Your initial question was about looking at the pixel data - it is worthwhile to understand what whites, blacks, and grays look like and what their numbers should be very close to. Macs hava a neat little program called Digital Color Meter ( I think that is the name - I am writing this post on a Win box right now)

ccpickre

They all need to match each other in tune, but they also need to match some existing external standard so that they can play with the orchestra.
But arguably, when tuned correctly, a Cflat will always be a Cflat, whether in a studio or live recording

Unlike colors that will look different depending on OS and Browsers

So if I'm going to compromise, should I take flat colors and more contrast? Or vibrant colors and less contrast?

Not to mention how do the settings on my monitor (brightness, contrast, saturation) affect my choice. Should I calibrate my monitor with flat level colors ( I ignored the "pop" when purchasing mine), or listen to the mac software that has me set extreme settings for calibration, but says nothing about levels for actual use (it told me to set my contrast ALL the way up during calibration, but I can't imagine leaving it like that 24/7)?

And I'm not sure abotu the calibration at the IDS, since we have Apple Cinema monitors, and the old square ones (plasma I think).

ivar

ccpickre wrote:

Unlike colors that will look different depending on OS and Browsers

If you calibrate your monitor correctly, it should look the same I would think?

pathfinder

Not all browsers display the same image file in the same appearance, because not all browsers are ICC profile aware - some just assume all images are sRGB even if they are not. Safari, I think, is aware of the profile the image is tagged with.

Baldy has blogged quite a bit about this topic here and specifically here

Set you MAC monitor profile gamma to 2.2, not 1.8 - nobody uses 1.8 gamma anymore.

ivar

pathfinder wrote:

Set you MAC monitor profile gamma to 2.2, not 1.8 - nobody uses 1.8 gamma anymore.

Paging DavidTO!

Why did you tell me i needed to set it to 1.8?

pathfinder

ivar wrote:

Paging DavidTO!

Why did you tell me i needed to set it to 1.8?

:D:D

Nearly everywhere I read, folks set MACs to a gamma of 2.2, unless they know specifically that they need a gamma of 1.8.

2.2 matches the Windows world must viewers use, and hence your images will look similar in either Operating System.

Gamma 1.8 favors prepress in large scale printing with CMYK I believe. Very few of our readers here are likely to need it.

ivar

pathfinder wrote:

:D:D

Nearly everywhere I read, folks set MACs to a gamma of 2.2, unless they know specifically that they need a gamma of 1.8.

2.2 matches the Windows world must viewers use, and hence your images will look similar in either Operating System.

Gamma 1.8 favors prepress in large scale printing with CMYK I believe. Very few of our readers here are likely to need it.

Ugh, I will never understand this stuff I think. I need someone to actually sit next to me (for a few days most likely) and explain and show me this stuff.

I don't even know what a Gamma is (well, it's actually the name of a diy-store over here )

From now on, I'll just wack a huey on, let it do its thing and accept that I have no clue.... The more I read about it, the less I seem to understand

pathfinder

ivar wrote:

Ugh, I will never understand this stuff I think. I need someone to actually sit next to me (for a few days most likely) and explain and show me this stuff.

I don't even know what a Gamma is (well, it's actually the name of a diy-store over here )

From now on, I'll just wack a huey on, let it do its thing and accept that I have no clue.... The more I read about it, the less I seem to understand

When you use a colorimeter to calibrate your screen, ( I use a Spyder2Pro ) it will ask you what gamma you want to use. It won't make that choice for you.:D

ivar

pathfinder wrote:

When you use a colorimeter to calibrate your screen, ( I use a Spyder2Pro ) it will ask you what gamma you want to use. It won't make that choice for you.:D

Actually, the huey does seem to do that for me. There are a bunch of choices as to what type of calibration you want at the end. Its probably incorporated in that, but its not something that I have to set. Trust me, I would have been clueless otherwise

ccpickre

pathfinder wrote:

When you use a colorimeter to calibrate your screen, ( I use a Spyder2Pro ) it will ask you what gamma you want to use. It won't make that choice for you.:D

Oddly enough, raising the gammut caused the contrast color problem I think

But ultimately I stuck with the 2.2

And Apple does tell people they should switch it to 2.2 They just don't do it for you.

I'm glad my mac is better for photography, otherwise I would be annoyed

rutt

Moderators: why not split off all the posts starting with 14 into a separate thread. It really isn't the same topic as the threads title.

pathfinder

John, rather than splitting off the thread because it is off topic, my inclination is to let it run for a while, as the discusion does tend to center around issues relating to monitor's appearance and evaluation of images - even including gamma on a MAC.

Perhaps instead, start a new thread specifically directed at the by the nunbers versus a calibrated monitor appraoch.

You know my feelings about numbers, I am sure.

I like'em and I use'em I calibrate also.

LiquidAir

ivar wrote:

I don't even know what a Gamma is (well, it's actually the name of a diy-store over here )

Gamma is the "curvyness" curve that is used to match the numbers (0->255 usually) to a voltage sent to your monitor. Since monitors are roughly linear devices and our eyes are roughly logarithmic, the gamma curve is used to map the number range more closely to the eye's preception of brightness with the primary goal of reducing posterization in the darker tones.

When you calibrate your monitor what you are mostly doing is calibrating for the way your monitor converts voltages to brightness. So, in a calibrated system the gamma describes the curve used to convert numbers to brightness (letting the voltages fall as they may). Since photographer generally don't care about voltages on the video cable, calibrating is always the right thing to do if you care about accurate color because it takes one variable (your monitor response curve) out of the system.

ccpickre

pathfinder wrote:

John, rather than splitting off the thread because it is off topic, my inclination is to let it run for a while, as the discusion does tend to center around issues relating to monitor's appearance and evaluation of images - even including gamma on a MAC.

Perhaps instead, start a new thread specifically directed at the by the nunbers versus a calibrated monitor appraoch.

You know my feelings about numbers, I am sure.

I like'em and I use'em I calibrate also.

Especially considering my judgment of how far personal prefernce goes, depending on whether my monitor is calibrated correctly

ziggy53

One aid I rather like is to use a "calibration image", which is simply someone else's judgement of a good color target. Flesh tones are particularly difficult to "get right", but you can take a small section of a known image, create a new layer in PS, and then overlay that snippet of color onto the image in question. You then adjust the image in question to match visually the known image.

Some useful links:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/calibration-750.mg
http://www.smugmug.com/help/calibration-1400.mg
http://www.colour-science.com/quality%20test%20tools/test%20files/Reference%20Print%20monitor%20900x600pixel.jpg
http://www.pclwest.com/pclwest_monitor.jpg
http://www.hornphoto.com/images/monitor-target-image.jpg
http://www.photoproduction.com/download/FugiTarget.jpg
http://www.albumart.com/FRONTIER_TARGET_ALBUMART.jpg
http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/images/target.jpg