Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2018, 02:07 PM - 1 Like   #91
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
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
No problem Mike and in fact I do not neccessarily disagree with your points in second and third paragraph. The point I was trying to make is that as we really have no control of others screens and the way that they use and view them. So its a crap shoot trying to decide therefore any old sRGB monitor may do even with calibration efforts.

Calibration can be a minefield - most often asked question I guess is why are my prints so dark compared to monitor. Why does colour look off. What standards to I calibrate to White Point, Gamma, Black level contrast ratio etc. The chance of getting it wrong is strong - it may be pleasing to you but hopeless for others to judge. Yes it is absolutely better to attempt some form of calibration in the hope that others that have also calibrated will get to see something like your intention.

When I was younger (queue for a song here!) and investigating trying to get the illusive print to screen match I came across some weird and much less than wonderful advice. One from a pretty famous photographer sadly no longer with us. That advice was calibrate to 140 cd/m2, White Point D50 and 1.8 gamma. Bad advice as non correct nor even qualified. I will not name the guy as I did and do respect his work but it still remains that this advice pretty poor

Your experience I would say is not uncommon just look around the forums (in general not this one of course) and you may see examples that lead others (incorrectly in many cases) to tell you that you are under or overexposing your images because to them if they have anywhere near a profiled screen for their editing/viewing environment. The problem may be exposure but most likely the way you edit to compensate for what you see on a too bright or too dark monitor.

There are two seperate ISO standards currently for viewing/editing and printing - most will not use them or need to but some professional environments must comply.


Last edited by TonyW; 12-10-2018 at 02:35 PM.
12-10-2018, 02:37 PM   #92
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
No problem Mike and in fact I do not neccessarily disagree with your points in second and third paragraph. The point I was trying to make is that as we really have no control of others screens and the way that they use and view them. So its a crap shoot trying to decide therefore any old sRGB monitor may do even with calibration efforts.
Absolutely

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Calibration can be a minefield - most often asked question I guess is why are my prints so dark compared to monitor. Why does colour look off. What standards to I calibrate to White Point, Gamma, Black level contrast ratio etc. The chance of getting it wrong is strong - it may be pleasing to you but hopeless for others to judge. Yes it is absolutely better to attempt some form of calibration in the hope that others that have also calibrated will get to see something like your intention.
I've been lucky in that the few prints I've had done looked good - though I assume the printers did some sort of exposure adjustment on my behalf before printing, which is (I'd imagine) something you don't want if you're a professional - but for someone like me, inexperienced in having physical prints made, a benefit.

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
When I was younger (que for a song here!) and investigating trying to get the illusive print to screen match I came across some weird and much less than wonderful advice. One from a pretty famous photographer sadly no longer with us. That advice was calibrate to 140 cd/m2, White Point D50 and 1.8 gamma. Bad advice as non correct nor even qualified. I will not name the guy as I did and do respect his work but it still remains that this advice pretty poor
Can I ask, Tony, what you calibrate to when your target is on-screen viewing, and then for print? I'd be very interested, as there seem to be many different opinions

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Your experience I would say is not uncommon just look around the forums (in general not this one of course) and you may see examples that lead others (incorrectly in many cases) to tell you that you are under or overexposing your images because to them if they have anywhere near a profiled screen for their editing/viewing environment. The problem may be exposure but most likely the way you edit to compensate for what you see on a too bright or too dark monitor.

There are two seperate ISO standards currently for viewing/editing and printing - most will not use them or need to but some professional environments must comply.
I guess I'm happy if (a) my images look good - and fairly consistent - on all of my devices, and (b) if any assessment of under / over-exposure or colour inaccuracy is due to others' lack of, or differing, calibration. So long as I know I've used a sensible calibration approach and things look good to me, I'm comfortable that others may not see my photos the same way. On that note, I'm not a prolific sharer of my photos (though I do occasionally post a few on these forums), but I do share photos with my parents and a few friends. For my parents, I've calibrated both my Dad's PC screen and my Mum and Dad's tablets so that - as close as possible - they reproduce my photos as I saw them during editing. The few friends I share photos with either use similar calibration to me, or none at all - and for that latter group, I assume a position of "moral high ground" by explaining that on my calibrated screens, all looks good
12-10-2018, 04:04 PM - 1 Like   #93
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
.......
Can I ask, Tony, what you calibrate to when your target is on-screen viewing, and then for print? I'd be very interested, as there seem to be many different opinions
My current display profiles shown here
Working with UHD 4K 100% AdobeRGB display - some questions - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

I tend to mostly favour using the following for editing and even everyday printing. Important these are my figures and compromises made for editing environment and print viewing environment so I can get at least a predictable print result and a comfortable editing experience - YMWV

White Point: 6500 K
Black Level: Minimum
Contrast: around 640:1 (too high really for photo printing)
Gamma: 2.20
Luminance: 110 cd/m2

It differs a little from the minimum ISO 3664 standard by slightly higher Luminance and much higher contrast. But I do not follow the requirements of working in a full ISO 3664 compliant environment including very low ambient light levels and proofing levels (print illumination).

Most of the time this is “good enough” to get a close screen to print match or at least a predictable result.

I do not like the result of viewing for printing the LCD at D50 as it is far too yellow and dim (although the eyes will adapt in a short time).

I also believe that this is too far from the monitors native point and also far from the printing paper bases that I have come across.

Nearly all recommendations I have seen suggest using D65 (near enough to 6500 K) or the monitors native white point which will be quite close even for printing. Illumination of the print often overlooked the suggested source would be around D50 still or perhaps ideally if you know where the print is to be hung set your print illumination brightness and colour at your workstation to match

Ideally for printing match your favourite paper white to screen white i.e. if your paper looks bluer or yellower darker or lighter than your screen display then there is little chance of getting a really good screen to print match

QuoteQuote:
I guess I'm happy if (a) my images look good - and fairly consistent - on all of my devices, and (b) if any assessment of under / over-exposure or colour inaccuracy is due to others' lack of, or differing, calibration. So long as I know I've used a sensible calibration approach and things look good to me, I'm comfortable that others may not see my photos the same way. On that note, I'm not a prolific sharer of my photos (though I do occasionally post a few on these forums), but I do share photos with my parents and a few friends. For my parents, I've calibrated both my Dad's PC screen and my Mum and Dad's tablets so that - as close as possible - they reproduce my photos as I saw them during editing. The few friends I share photos with either use similar calibration to me, or none at all - and for that latter group, I assume a position of "moral high ground" by explaining that on my calibrated screens, all looks good
Your position on the moral high ground is all you really need to consider. If you are happy with your results and they are consistent and predictable then you are in a good position

Last edited by TonyW; 12-10-2018 at 04:18 PM.
12-10-2018, 04:38 PM   #94
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Thanks, Tony... I should have re-read my own thread

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
I tend to mostly favour using the following for editing and even everyday printing. Important these are my figures and compromises made for editing environment and print viewing environment so I can get at least a predictable print result and a comfortable editing experience - YMWV

White Point: 6500 K
Black Level: Minimum
Contrast: around 640:1 (too high really for photo printing)
Gamma: 2.20
Luminance: 110 cd/m2

It differs a little from the minimum ISO 3664 standard by slightly higher Luminance and much higher contrast. But I do not follow the requirements of working in a full ISO 3664 compliant environment including very low ambient light levels and proofing levels (print illumination).

Most of the time this is “good enough” to get a close screen to print match or at least a predictable result.

I do not like the result of viewing for printing the LCD at D50 as it is far too yellow and dim (although the eyes will adapt in a short time).

I also believe that this is too far from the monitors native point and also far from the printing paper bases that I have come across.

Nearly all recommendations I have seen suggest using D65 (near enough to 6500 K) or the monitors native white point which will be quite close even for printing. Illumination of the print often overlooked the suggested source would be around D50 still or perhaps ideally if you know where the print is to be hung set your print illumination brightness and colour at your workstation to match

Ideally for printing match your favourite paper white to screen white i.e. if your paper looks bluer or yellower darker or lighter than your screen display then there is little chance of getting a really good screen to print match

Your position on the moral high ground is all you really need to consider. If you are happy with your results and they are consistent and predictable then you are in a good position
Excellent information, and much appreciated - many thanks again!

12-11-2018, 01:57 PM   #95
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
Well, my HP ZBook 15 G5 arrived today, and the BenQ 2420PT monitor arrived yesterday. I just got round to setting everything up this evening, and I'll admit to being rather pleased based on initial impressions

The ZBook is lovely, and the DreamColor 4K screen really is marvellous - though not perfect, since at maximum brightness (600 nits!!) there is a little light bleed noticeable in the corners and edges, but this disappears at more realistic settings. Interesting to note that Windows 10 scaling was set to 250% (!!) by default in order to give decent sized icons, text and application windows. I haven't changed it, as it looks good to me. Nor have I installed any photo processing software, and that will be the acid test in usability for me (I suspect I have some adapting to do ). One strange thing... The DreamColor calibration software came with factory calibrated sRGB, AdobeRGB and various other profiles, but I notice that sRGB and AdobeRGB profiles had been calibrated at 500cd/m2 luminance, which seems a strange choice ... clearly not intended for photographic use, at any rate. Anyway, I've calibrated an sRGB D65 profile at 160cd/m2 (probably too high, but it's what I've been working with thus far), and everything looks good... exactly as I'd expect, but with a much nicer looking screen than I'm used to. I'll create sRGB D50, AdobeRGB D65 and D50 at appropriate luminance settings tomorrow...

The BenQ is, if anything, even more satisfying than the ZBook. The ZBook was quite an investment for me, and by anyone's standards not an inexpensive laptop. But the BenQ monitor was, in contrast, a very inexpensive bit of kit... yet despite that, the design and build quality is great. It's really very sturdy and ergonomically pleasing to use. I might have preferred "real" buttons instead of touch sensitive ones for accessing and navigating the menus and settings, but that's a minor gripe and subjective on my part. And the display itself is *beautiful*. I haven't calibrated it yet, but using the built-in, factory-calibrated sRGB profile (again, one of several on offer for different purposes), it's indistinguishable from my ZBook's new sRGB profile - at least, to my eyes, once brightness is adjusted. I will, however, install DisplayCAL and Argyll CMS tomorrow, and - as with the zBook - create D65 and D50 profiles at appropriate luminance settings, as I'm sure in reality there are differences versus the ZBook, even if I don't notice them.

Thanks again for all the feedback and help, folks. I'll report back once I've got everything calibrated, photo processing apps installed, and tried my hand at some post-processing

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-11-2018 at 02:33 PM.
12-11-2018, 03:45 PM   #96
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
.....The DreamColor calibration software came with factory calibrated sRGB, AdobeRGB and various other profiles, but I notice that sRGB and AdobeRGB profiles had been calibrated at 500cd/m2 luminance, which seems a strange choice ... clearly not intended for photographic use, at any rate. Anyway, I've calibrated an sRGB D65 profile at 160cd/m2 (probably too high, but it's what I've been working with thus far), and everything looks good... exactly as I'd expect, but with a much nicer looking screen than I'm used to. I'll create sRGB D50, AdobeRGB D65 and D50 at appropriate luminance settings tomorrow......
Great to hear that you are impressed at first view (so you should be after the outlay!). FWIW 160cd/m2 might be too high for printing unless you address print illumination correctly to match (last I heard Schewe was using somewhere around that figure but with a GTlite booth for print)

Last edited by TonyW; 12-11-2018 at 03:47 PM. Reason: Removed image as copyright DigitalDog
12-11-2018, 03:56 PM   #97
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Great to hear that you are impressed at first view (so you should be after the outlay!). FWIW 160cd/m2 might be too high for printing unless you address print illumination correctly to match (last I heard Schewe was using somewhere around that figure but with a GTlite booth for print)
Thanks, Tony

I'm calibrating to D65, gamma 2.2 and 160cd/m2 for on-screen work... I'm intending to create D50 profiles using gamma 1.8 at 100cd/m2 for printing, but will have to experiment with the results of that before I settle on the right levels. I'll only rarely need to use those, as most of what I do is for on-screen viewing...

12-11-2018, 04:20 PM - 1 Like   #98
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
The BenQ is, if anything, even more satisfying than the ZBook. The ZBook was quite an investment for me, and by anyone's standards not an inexpensive laptop. But the BenQ monitor was, in contrast, a very inexpensive bit of kit... yet despite that, the design and build quality is great. It's really very sturdy and ergonomically pleasing to use. I might have preferred "real" buttons instead of touch sensitive ones for accessing and navigating the menus and settings, but that's a minor gripe and subjective on my part. And the display itself is *beautiful*. I haven't calibrated it yet, but using the built-in, factory-calibrated sRGB profile (again, one of several on offer for different purposes), it's indistinguishable from my ZBook's new sRGB profile - at least, to my eyes, once brightness is adjusted. I will, however, install DisplayCAL and Argyll CMS tomorrow, and - as with the zBook - create D65 and D50 profiles at appropriate luminance settings, as I'm sure in reality there are differences versus the ZBook, even if I don't notice them.
I can definitely resist buying a ZBook, but the BenQ looks like a nice piece of kit and probably a good-sized step up from what I have been using. I should never have checked back with this thread.


Steve
12-11-2018, 04:41 PM - 1 Like   #99
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Thanks, Tony

I'm calibrating to D65, gamma 2.2 and 160cd/m2 for on-screen work... I'm intending to create D50 profiles using gamma 1.8 at 100cd/m2 for printing, but will have to experiment with the results of that before I settle on the right levels. I'll only rarely need to use those, as most of what I do is for on-screen viewing...
Just a quick thought as I am off to the land of Nod.

Hope you do not mind a comment and a quick tip or two bearing in mind no single correct answer and if it works for you fine but...

160 cd/m is much higher than I would expect to go even editing in fairly bright daylight ambient lighting. Have a look at a site I always send people to
White saturation - Lagom LCD test
How do the whites look you should see separation up to 254 if not you are clipping
Black level - Lagom LCD test
How do the blacks appear next to complete black should only just be distinguishable - if all appear just dark grey then you are pushing too high

Why D50 for printing and why gamma 1.8, has someone recommended this?

Do you like working in D50 for some reason?

Does D50 match your paper colour and contrast when viewing your print near to screen just take a sheet of printing paper to compare - if screen looks too yellow or too blue compared to printer paper and/or too light then D50 may not be a good match.

If you are happy fine if not you may want to keep D65 and invest in a viewing light of around 5000k or the excellent Solux bulbs 4700k. Just a quick check to see why a particular workflow
12-11-2018, 04:46 PM   #100
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Just a quick thought as I am off to the land of Nod.

Hope you do not mind a comment and a quick tip or two bearing in mind no single correct answer and if it works for you fine but...

160 cd/m is much higher than I would expect to go even editing in fairly bright daylight ambient lighting. Have a look at a site I always send people to
White saturation - Lagom LCD test
How do the whites look you should see separation up to 254 if not you are clipping
Black level - Lagom LCD test
How do the blacks appear next to complete black should only just be distinguishable - if all appear just dark grey then you are pushing too high

Why D50 for printing and why gamma 1.8, has someone recommended this?

Do you like working in D50 for some reason?

Does D50 match your paper colour and contrast when viewing your print near to screen just take a sheet of printing paper to compare - if screen looks too yellow or too blue compared to printer paper and/or too light then D50 may not be a good match.

If you are happy fine if not you may want to keep D65 and invest in a viewing light of around 5000k or the excellent Solux bulbs 4700k. Just a quick check to see why a particular workflow
Tony, many thanks - I not only don't mind the tips and advice, but greatly appreciate them. I'm also off to bed, so will respond more thoroughly tomorrow
12-11-2018, 04:48 PM   #101
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I can definitely resist buying a ZBook, but the BenQ looks like a nice piece of kit and probably a good-sized step up from what I have been using. I should never have checked back with this thread.


Steve
from what I have heard the BenQ SW2700 is a pretty decent monitor with a good spec. Not Eizo NEC territory yet but neither in their price bracket. Check it out as I thing it adds Big Bang for buck

BenQ SW2700PT 27" Widescreen LED Backlit QHD SW2700PT B&H
12-11-2018, 07:48 PM   #102
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,137
Unless I have misread something, if one wants to put the calibration matrix into the monitor's LUT memory, one has to calibrate using the BenQ software with a supported calibration sensor. Could a Linux fan be so lucky that this software can be operated under Linux? Or is one limited to depending on calibration aware programs to make corrections? Ref: Post 84 of this thread.
12-12-2018, 12:35 AM   #103
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 706
Benq Master Palette Element (for SW2700PT: is the calibration/profiling application it is available as an iOS or Windows download onlyat least AFAIK.

It may use a selection of calibration pucks, but the software supplied will not work to communicate directly with the monitor so hardware calibration is out without BenQ software - well that is my understanding as I have not used the monitor
12-12-2018, 02:44 AM   #104
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kaseki Quote
Unless I have misread something, if one wants to put the calibration matrix into the monitor's LUT memory, one has to calibrate using the BenQ software with a supported calibration sensor. Could a Linux fan be so lucky that this software can be operated under Linux? Or is one limited to depending on calibration aware programs to make corrections? Ref: Post 84 of this thread.
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Benq Master Palette Element (for SW2700PT: is the calibration/profiling application it is available as an iOS or Windows download onlyat least AFAIK.

It may use a selection of calibration pucks, but the software supplied will not work to communicate directly with the monitor so hardware calibration is out without BenQ software - well that is my understanding as I have not used the monitor
Perhaps the calibration software would run in Linux under WINE? Or, alternatively, you could install Oracle VMWare and create a Windows virtual machine and run it under that...
12-12-2018, 10:24 AM - 1 Like   #105
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,137
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Perhaps the calibration software would run in Linux under WINE? Or, alternatively, you could install Oracle VMWare and create a Windows virtual machine and run it under that...
I use Crossover Linux (based on WINE), and have found that the least well replicated [WINE Is Not an Emulator ] Windows function is communication with USB devices. For example, even after a lot of work affecting permissions and installing links into the "C-drive", I was never able to get the CACTUS software to communicate with the CACTUS flash device even though the Linux device handler could see the device and determine its characteristics. Crossover claims no support for USB devices.

After using my neighbor's Mac a couple of times for software upgrades, I bit the bullet and reinstalled Win7 using recovery disks onto an old Acer laptop shared with Mint 18.3. (The tiresome process of installing Windows should count as penance for some heinous previous-life crime.)

So, without someone asserting that he has BenQ software working under WINE (along with critical details), I would not want to assume that it works. VM Windows, however, is a different kettle of fish that I've never peered into.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, display, elements, graham, guitar, interface, nash, ohh, photo, photography, photoshop, questions, resolution, srgb, term, user
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What 4K UHD Blu-ray do you recommend as showstopper. TonyW General Talk 13 11-26-2018 01:43 PM
Samsung Galaxy Note III with 13MP stills and 4K UHD video ! jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 10 12-15-2013 02:50 AM
Black Magic releasing 4K camera for $4k and Pocket RAW video camera for $1k ploetzlich Photographic Industry and Professionals 9 08-07-2013 04:18 PM
Color space: AdobeRGB?? WMBP Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 04-10-2009 12:24 PM
SRGB vs. AdobeRGB oatman911 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 02-07-2009 09:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top