[normhead]

Thanks TonyW, you're more than patient.

[BigMackCam]

EDIT: I am a little concerned that the original thread could be lost here and apologise to Mike if this is a hijack. Happy if you want to seperate to another thread

No apology necessary, Tony. Your discussion with Norm is very educational. I think anyone reading the thread would find it as interesting as I do

[BigMackCam]

An update:

By selling something I wasn't using, I've been able to invest in a relatively inexpensive external monitor, ordered for delivery early next week. It's a 24" BenQ BL2420PT, with QHD (2560 x 1440) resolution and 100% sRGB gamut. Although smaller than some of you good folks recommended, the screen size is as large as I'm comfortable with on my home office desk, whilst offering a PPI density that's extremely close to that of the 17" HP laptop I've been using for some years (~129 PPI on the 17" laptop vs ~122 DPI on the 24" BenQ monitor - near enough the same, for all intents and purposes).

Whether-or-not the resolution is ideal for photo editing is less important to me than the familiarity of what I've been using thus far. With this monitor I'll be able to process my photos to the same on-screen quality that I previously achieved on my old laptop, whilst enjoying the benefit of 4K on the new laptop's 15.6" screen for high-res videos and the like. Plus, by comparing between the two screens, over time I should be able to develop a feel for how I'll need to process on the 4k 15.6" laptop monitor so that things still look good on the lower-pixel-density 24" external...

Thanks again for all the input on this

[dsmithhfx]

I'm interested in how folks rationalize optimizing their photos for a specific, calibrated hdpi display they happen to own, knowing the chances are slim-to-none the vast majority of other viewers will be using same. I say this because I'm struck by how photo appearance, including color-balance, contrast and saturation can vary widely (indeed, wildly) among various displays.

Personally, I routinely view photos on 6 different systems: two pcs (mac and ubuntu) switched between the same 1080p physical display, a pc dual-booting Win7 and fedora with a newer 1080p display, a 7" android tablet, and a 5" android phone (both mobile devices with hdpi displays). These are all 'generic', consumer sRGB dsplays, none are colour-calibrated apart from built-in software adjustments (the mobile devices don't even have that). Note I don't print (I have in the past, and optimized photos for the printers, papers and inks, often requiring muliple passes to get it right), my photos are only shared over the internet and the vast array of end-users' viewing devices that implies.

[BigMackCam]

I'm interested in how folks rationalize optimizing their photos for a specific, calibrated hdpi display they happen to own, knowing the chances are slim-to-none the vast majority of other viewers will be using same. I say this because I'm struck by how photo appearance, including color-balance, contrast and saturation can vary widely (indeed, wildly) among various displays.

Personally, I routinely view photos on 6 different systems: two pcs (mac and ubuntu) switched between the same 1080p physical display, a pc dual-booting Win7 and fedora with a newer 1080p display, a 7" android tablet, and a 5" android phone (both mobile devices with hdpi displays). These are all 'generic', consumer sRGB dsplays, none are colour-calibrated apart from built-in software adjustments (the mobile devices don't even have that). Note I don't print (I have in the past, and optimized photos for the printers, papers and inks, often requiring muliple passes to get it right), my photos are only shared over the internet and the vast array of end-users' viewing devices that implies.

Currently, I'm using my 17" FHD HP laptop, low-end HP desktop with an external 23" (I think) FHD consumer-grade HP monitor (which I sometimes connect to the laptop), and a 10.1" 1280 x 800 2-in-1 tablet PC. All have been calibrated using a Colormunki Display colorimeter and Argyll CMS / DisplayCAL software, and I use those profiles both for the operating systems (Windows 10 and Linux Mint 18.3) and any colour-managed apps - web browser, image viewing and editing, etc. The external HP monitor was closest to displaying accurate colour and contrast out of the box, changing only slightly after calibration. The default profiles for the laptop screen and (to a slightly lesser extent) my 2-in-1 were very cold and unnaturally blue, and both benefited hugely from calibration.

I'll colour manage my new laptop + external monitor setup in the same way.

Of course, this only guarantees that photos will look consistent between my different screens, plus any one else viewing them on accurately-calibrated, colour-managed systems. But that's the best any of us can hope for

[TonyW]

Congratulations on your new acquisition. BenQ have come on a lot in recent years and are capable of producing very good quality monitors, invading a little into Eizo, NEC territory.

Screen size is not necessarily as important as some think (a degree of subjectivity leading to preference). Nice to have a large screen but apart from the limit imposed by manufacturer choice of panel there’s the limit imposed by how high the graphic card can output.

There may not be an “ideal monitor resolution” for photography. My ideal for instance would match my standard printer resolution with a pixel density of 360 ppi - when viewed at what I feel is a comfortable near point viewing distance.
That would apply to whatever screen real estate I could accommodate and afford on my desktop.

One thing and the main reason for my response. Some BenQ models are now able to be hardware calibrated. Basically there is a direct communication between the calibration device, the calibration/profiling application and the monitor. The application being allowed direct access to the monitor LUT and able to adjust in possibly 10bit, 12 bit or more internally (even though monitor 8 bit) to lead to greater profiling accuracy. I will not buy a monitor without this ability in future.
Worth checking if your particular monitor offers this and you have a suitable calibration device

[BigMackCam]

Congratulations on your new acquisition. BenQ have come on a lot in recent years and are capable of producing very good quality monitors, invading a little into Eizo, NEC territory.

Screen size is not necessarily as important as some think (a degree of subjectivity leading to preference). Nice to have a large screen but apart from the limit imposed by manufacturer choice of panel there’s the limit imposed by how high the graphic card can output.

There may not be an “ideal monitor resolution” for photography. My ideal for instance would match my standard printer resolution with a pixel density of 360 ppi - when viewed at what I feel is a comfortable near point viewing distance.
That would apply to whatever screen real estate I could accommodate and afford on my desktop.

One thing and the main reason for my response. Some BenQ models are now able to be hardware calibrated. Basically there is a direct communication between the calibration device, the calibration/profiling application and the monitor. The application being allowed direct access to the monitor LUT and able to adjust in possibly 10bit, 12 bit or more internally (even though monitor 8 bit) to lead to greater profiling accuracy. I will not buy a monitor without this ability in future.
Worth checking if your particular monitor offers this and you have a suitable calibration device

Thanks, Tony

Sadly, the BL2420PT doesn't include hardware calibration. And, though not a wide gamut model, it's one of BenQ's "Designer" series, aimed squarely at photo / video editing, CAD/CAM, animation etc. According to BenQ's product marketing blurb:

"Covering 100% of sRGB and Rec. 709 color spaces, BL2420PT’s advanced IPS wide viewing angle technology minimizes color shift to inspire absolute design confidence. 100% sRGB color gamut accuracy adheres to industry standards in digital production, and Rec. 709 reproduces accurate resolution, frame rate, color gamut, gamma, and white point performance in high-definition video work.

Each BenQ Designer Monitor is individually factory-calibrated upon production to assure precise Delta-E and Gamma performance. Calibration results are validated against industry color standards to deliver the truest and most representative view of original content."

As a result, I'm hoping that software-level calibration (using my Colormunki Display colorimeter) will only result in minor adjustments with negligible impact on colour accuracy.

The HP ZBook 15 G5 has hardware calibration built in, so I'll be interested to see how closely matched the laptop and BenQ screens are after calibration...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-09-2018 at 07:11 AM.

[kaseki]

... All have been calibrated using a Colormunki Display colorimeter and Argyll CMS / DisplayCAL software, and I use those profiles both for the operating systems (Windows 10 and Linux Mint 18.3) and any colour-managed apps - web browser, image viewing and editing, etc. ...

I'm aware that Argyll and DisplayCAL can operate under Mint, but I have never read how the process is performed for taking the data, generating the ICC profile, and getting Mint to use it. Is there an accessible reference for this? I had thought that the Linux oriented Hughski-Colorhug would cover it in their documentation, but it seems that they are out of stock.

Thanks

[BigMackCam]

I'm aware that Argyll and DisplayCAL can operate under Mint, but I have never read how the process is performed for taking the data, generating the ICC profile, and getting Mint to use it. Is there an accessible reference for this? I had thought that the Linux oriented Hughski-Colorhug would cover it in their documentation, but it seems that they are out of stock.

First, you install "Dispcalgui" and - if I remember correctly - "Argyll" (perhaps "Argyll-ref" too?) from the Software Manager, or direct from their source or websites if you prefer. Then, connect your colorimeter and run DisplayCAL with whatever settings you prefer, depending on your particular use case (D65, D50 etc.). I mostly use "Office & Web (D65, Gamma 2.2)" since I don't print all that often, and D65 is in widespread use. By default, the resulting .icc file will be stored in "/home/<username>/.local/share/icc/" (though you can change this path in DisplayCAL's configuration). Once the calibration is complete, DisplayCAL will give you the option of setting the current user or all users to the new display profile. Or, you can run the "Colour" app in Mint, click "Add Profile", select "Other profile", then navigate to and select the new profile you just created in DisplayCAL.

It's really that simple

Note that if you tend to edit images for both on-screen and print use, it's worth creating profiles for both D65 and D50 respectively. You can then select the appropriate profile as required, based on the target medium (I have a D50 profile set up for those occasions where I intend to print).

Also note that any colour-managed applications (browsers, image viewers, photo editors etc.) will need to be configured to use the OS-selected display profile if possible, or otherwise pointed directly at the profile you wish to use. This is very important, as many apps don't automatically utilise the profile that the OS is using, and some apps aren't even colour-managed (in which case, avoid those apps and use alternatives where crucial to your photography workflow).

EDIT: Having installed Argyll, instead of using DisplayCAL you could of course use the built-in colour profiling in Mint 18.3 by running the "Colour" app and clicking the "Calibrate" button with the relevant device selected. But I prefer DisplayCAL due to the configuration options available, and the wealth of resulting information following calibration.

[kaseki]

Thank you!

kas

[stevebrot]

Here is the problem that I see when looking at work edited on smaller high resolution monitors. Everything looks good on a small high res monitor. The 27" 5K iMac seems to be the biggest offender since it is so common for photographers. I just had a discussion on another board with a guy using an A7R3 with an adapted Nikon 105mm F/1.4. On my monitor it was obvious he missed focus on the eyes, but on his 27" iMac he insisted he nailed focus. The same thing will happen if you print large. If you are looking for 100% Adobe RGB then I assume you will be printing a lot.

Yep ^ ^ ^


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'm interested in how folks rationalize optimizing their photos for a specific, calibrated hdpi display they happen to own, knowing the chances are slim-to-none the vast majority of other viewers will be using same. I say this because I'm struck by how photo appearance, including color-balance, contrast and saturation can vary widely (indeed, wildly) among various displays.

Its simple...A broad gamut, color-managed work flow ensures that one has consistent presentation at all steps of the process under local control with strong potential for similar consistency when working with outside print services at their supported gamut and/or display to the Web at much reduced gamut and bit depth.

Strangely enough, it appears to work quite well. My JPEGs on Flickr look extremely similar on my essentially immutable laptop screen as on my calibrated system upstairs. The prints done with my Canon Pro 100 are also true to that same calibrated system, assuming they are viewed under natural light and printed using the appropriate printer/paper ICC profiles. This approach sure beats working from the manufacturer-supplied monitor profiles and seeing nothing but suckly uploads and/or prints.


Steve

[TonyW]

I'm interested in how folks rationalize optimizing their photos for a specific, calibrated hdpi display they happen to own, knowing the chances are slim-to-none the vast majority of other viewers will be using same. I say this because I'm struck by how photo appearance, including color-balance, contrast and saturation can vary widely (indeed, wildly) among various displays.

Personally, I routinely view photos on 6 different systems: two pcs (mac and ubuntu) switched between the same 1080p physical display, a pc dual-booting Win7 and fedora with a newer 1080p display, a 7" android tablet, and a 5" android phone (both mobile devices with hdpi displays). These are all 'generic', consumer sRGB dsplays, none are colour-calibrated apart from built-in software adjustments (the mobile devices don't even have that). Note I don't print (I have in the past, and optimized photos for the printers, papers and inks, often requiring muliple passes to get it right), my photos are only shared over the internet and the vast array of end-users' viewing devices that implies.

Rationalization is easy IF your output is going to print - you will not be showing your image with an embedded printer paper profile You have zero control of what other user will see so ALL bets are off.


As you have already said you know nothing of other viewers choices or setup. None of them for instance will work to any standards e.g. ISO for viewing and printing.

You do not know what size resolution screen a user has neither do you know if the screen has had any form of calibration or even had a profile applied that may give the user the chance to see what you see. If you include a step wedge with your images with instructions on what a user may expect to see (gradations in the shadows and highlights for instance) and instructions to change the monitor brightness etc it may help (if anyone can be bothererd) to correct improper set up for viewing conditions for luminance but may do little for chrominance and the fact that users will very readily adapt to colour cast - look long enough (only a short time in reality) and that nasty magenta cast is gone.

The only thing you can do if you have a wide gamut monitor is to switch to sRGB and if possible have a look on another output device that has been set up to look 'nice'. SImilarly high resolution monitors require specific working methods and understanding if you are to get the most from them and it is important to realise that like colour gamut and colour management you should not expect others to be able to view and see what you see.

Just buy a generic consumer display that has a gamut somewhere approaching sRGB set it to how you like it and forget matching anything

[BigMackCam]

Just buy a generic consumer display that has a gamut somewhere approaching sRGB set it to how you like it and forget matching anything

This is the only part of your post, Tony, that I would respectfully challenge...

More and more serious hobbyist photographers are using, at the very least, software calibration with their screens. And one would hope all professionals already do Given that photography forums like these are used by some to share their photos with like-minded enthusiasts, is it not better to calibrate one's screens in the hope that at least some people - those who've also calibrated their screens - will see a very close reproduction of what was intended?

I remember on these very forums, a few years back, a number of my photos being described as underexposed, amongst other things. I'd been processing my photos based on my preferred screen brightness, and the result was that many folks who used a lower, more accurate brightness setting saw my photos as dark, when they looked just fine to me. That was before I started calibrating my screens. Following calibration, it ceased to be an issue (or, if it was still an issue, the problem was with the viewer's setup, not mine). It didn't, however, solve the lack of skill in my photography! I'm still working on that

[dsmithhfx]

Rationalization is easy IF your output is going to print - you will not be showing your image with an embedded printer paper profile You have zero control of what other user will see so ALL bets are off.


As you have already said you know nothing of other viewers choices or setup. None of them for instance will work to any standards e.g. ISO for viewing and printing.

You do not know what size resolution screen a user has neither do you know if the screen has had any form of calibration or even had a profile applied that may give the user the chance to see what you see. If you include a step wedge with your images with instructions on what a user may expect to see (gradations in the shadows and highlights for instance) and instructions to change the monitor brightness etc it may help (if anyone can be bothererd) to correct improper set up for viewing conditions for luminance but may do little for chrominance and the fact that users will very readily adapt to colour cast - look long enough (only a short time in reality) and that nasty magenta cast is gone.

The only thing you can do if you have a wide gamut monitor is to switch to sRGB and if possible have a look on another output device that has been set up to look 'nice'. SImilarly high resolution monitors require specific working methods and understanding if you are to get the most from them and it is important to realise that like colour gamut and colour management you should not expect others to be able to view and see what you see.

Just buy a generic consumer display that has a gamut somewhere approaching sRGB set it to how you like it and forget matching anything

Yeah that's pretty much what I thought.