[Liney]

Just had some thoughts on a scenario, and wondered at the opinions of the group on the matter.

I have my laptop, which I use for all my post processing changes. Recently I had the opportunity to plug in a second (larger) monitor to try out some other applications, but I took the opportunity to have a look at some recent shots just to se how they looked on the bigger screen.

First thing I noticed was that the colour was off, or at least the skin tones were darker for one thing. A bit more investigating showed up other differences and a bit of tweaking with the monitor settings got rid of most of the differences, but it got me to pondering about the issue.

In my post-processing experience I take quite a bit of notice of the histogram display, and tweak some of the coarse settings based on the display. I then do the fine tuning by looking at the actual picture, which of course will be influenced by the monitor I am viewing the picture on.

So the question is this, how much of your changes is done with reference to the histogram, and how much is just looking at the image and tweaking it till it looks better?

And a further question, how much do you consider the performance of your monitor when you are choosing equipment, adjusting your display settings or your final images?

[dcBear78]

Monitor obviously makes a huge difference. Years ago, before I was into photography a mate's partner was venturing out into her own photography and graphic design business. She asked me about monitors because she was using her laptop and her printer was telling her that her colours were off.

The histogram is a tool but you need accurate visual representation if you care about what you are presenting.

Now I have a 27" monitor who's primary purpose is gaming. I did a rough calibration with online tools (I know not at all definitive but a guide) and I just don't like looking at it as I find it too dull for normal use. I also have a 2nd monitor which is calibrated(ish). This is a better, but smaller panel. I use Lightroom's dual monitor ability and use it to check before final edits.

I am waiting for half decent, affordable 4k screens. Can't wait to see my images in almost full detail.

[NicoleC]

Personally, because of the macro shots I tend to take, the histogram is not very useful as a tool. So I visually make the changes and then look at the histogram to see if there is improvement to be made.


What *is* useful is a calibrated monitor. If you plan to print your images, it's a virtual necessity. Otherwise the image you are looking at (as you discovered) is skewed in terms of color, contrast, hue, etc.


If you only plan to display images digitally, for example on the web, you have to be aware that they are going to look different on many different monitors. There's not much you can do about that except process on a monitor that is as true as possible.

[rawr]

I have two monitors (one for photo, one for office work) and calibrate them every month or so. I don't use the histogram as a guide to post-processing as much as just doing it all by eye. Skin tones are really hard to adjust with the histogram, especially when lit by artificial lighting like pulsing LED's.

I started calibrating my monitors regularly when I noticed images of mine (and even web pages etc) would look different as I moved from screen to screen. It also helps a lot when preparing stuff for print.

It's perhaps a lost cause though worrying about colour accuracy when you post images online. I used to worry about how my pix on flickr looked to others, but now I don't sweat it. I just do the best I can. The proportion of people out there with monitors adjusted accurately is probably way less than 1%. So there may only be a tiny group of viewers in any online audience who could view your image exactly as you would.

[emalvick]

Photography is a visual art. I would hate to rely on a histogram as my judge for an image being right.

I calibrate my monitor with an emphasis on getting the brightness right. Color is important, but before I started calibrating, my biggest issue was getting the image to be bright enough when printed. Monitors are back lit, and by default they are too bright. Anyway, a key to good calibration is getting the colors right and the brightness (levels).

[SpecialK]

I use all the forum gallery photos as a reference because I know everyone else has calibrated monitors.

Then I make my photos look the same.

[photolady95]

I know everyone else has calibrated monitors.

Not everyone. MIne wasn't until about 15 minutes ago.

[OregonJim]

how much do you consider the performance of your monitor

It is quite pointless to do ANY post processing without a calibrated monitor, unless you are the only one viewing the images. Even then, replacing your own monitor can require reprocessing all of your images if either was uncalibrated.

Switching from one uncalibrated monitor to another is like having someone arbitrarily change the white balance, contrast and brighness settings on your entire photo collection!

[reeftool]

I never thought it was much of an issue until I saw some other peoples monitors. Some of them are cranked up so bright, I don't know how they can use it. I have mine adjusted pretty close to my print output. It's a little darker than my iPad but the colors generally look right. I use Spyder4 Pro on an LG IPS 23inch screen.

[photolady95]

When I calibrated mine today I thought the whites weren't white enough, but now I am on my tablet the whites on it are the same as my monitor for the desktop. So, I would say the monitor is calibrated correctly. Using this tablet has shown me my uncalibrated monitors color, and other settings were way off. Colors on here are far more in tune to what I though they should look like.

[nomadkng]

a monitor is only a tool and like all tools if the results are bad, then it's time for a replacement.
like putters, I go through 2-3 monitors a year because they can't seem to make my images look good and sell.
so I think you have the question backward, it should be "How does your processing affect your monitor?"

The answer, mine cowers in fear with each new SD card upload because it knows its inevitable fate....

[magkelly]

Differing monitors is one reason why both my cameras and my monitors are all set to the same color scheme. I use Adobe RGB whenever I can, and even then when I am done post processing I check the final photos on several monitors, not just in one. Ditto browsers. I check in Firefox, IE and Chrome.

[Liney]

For what started off as a general musing, there certainly seems to be a lot of feeling on the matter.

Thanks to all for your input, I will need to give it some closer scrutiny

[reeftool]

Laptop screens are notorious for being bad although after some nasty blogs in the tech world questioning why a $300 tablet had a high res IPS panel and a $1000 laptop came with a dreadful TN panel that washed out every time you mover your head, Windows laptops started matching tablets with quality screens and higher resolution. They had to. There are standards and specs for displays concerning color gamut but most monitors come nowhere near matching them. Even the cheapest of monitors will benefit calibrating but if you're really picky about having accurate colors, get a good monitor. A good monitor will advertise something like covering 98 to 99% compatibility with AdobeRGB and 100% sRGB.

[Kerrowdown]

How much does your monitor affect your processing?

For me it's everything and calibration is an absolute essential.