[Dartmoor Dave]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Yes, I see it too, Dave. It is very slight, very minor, but it's there - and not consistent across multiple shots.

Thanks for the confirmation, Mike.

I just want to reiterate that there's absolutely no intended criticism of the quality of the photography here. Eddy is a very talented guy who could potentially make a great living as a pro, but somehow we've got to make him realise that monitor calibration is an essential and not an optional extra.

[BruceBanner]

As I indicated previously, the mere fact that you're working professionally is enough for me to believe you should be using colour management and device profiling (devices being camera, display, printer, etc.). Only then can you be sure what you start out with is an image that accurately represents the scene, what you see on your display while working (in colour managed editing software) is an accurate representation of what you're creating, and what's spit out at the printer is as close to that as possible. With that foundation, if your clients should ever have an issue with how light, dark or colour-(in)accurate your photos are, you can be confident it's not your system at fault but either (a) your processing / editing tastes, or (b) the client.



A couple of points here:

(1) That 1-2% inaccuracy from a good quality, factory-calibrated monitor could turn into 5-10% over time without you realising it. This is why professionals frequently re-profile their displays and why, even for my own amateur use, I do so every few months.

(2) Colour accuracy is never meaningless. Per my earlier comment, it ensures that what you've created is what you thought you created, rather than something different. If you were painting a canvas with oils and a brush - or even painting your home - you wouldn't wear tinted sun-glasses that caused inaccuracies in your colour and luminance perception. You'd want to accurately perceive what you were painting and know that what you created is an accurate representation of what you intended.

(3) Following on from point 2, what you do to your images with presets etc. is immaterial. It's not necessarily that your images need to be colour accurate when completed (although if you were, say, a product photographer, that would be the case) - it's that you ought to know what you see on your display is an accurate representation of your images. Otherwise, what you believe looks "right" may not be right when viewed or printed on a colour managed and profiled device.



Aye, but there's the rub. Whilst those photos look fantastic to me, I don't know if what I'm seeing on my profiled display is what you intended (i.e. what you see on your unprofiled display). I'm potentially - probably, in fact - seeing a slightly (or considerably) different version of what you think you created. Imagine, instead, that you've sent me these files so I can print the photos for your client, and they come out looking quite different to how you intended. Wouldn't that concern you, and how would you know whether it's your system or mine at fault?



On that note, you've paid for editing software presumably because it helps you to create your art as you intended. Yet your hemming and hawing over a $300AUD spend (less if you buy used) that would ensure what you've created is precisely what you think you've created. That's what I don't get.

Regarding software... having previously been a Lightroom guy, I now mostly use Darktable and/or RawTherapee and GIMP (all free) for processing and editing, and DisplayCAL (also free) for display profiling. They all work very well indeed.



Congratulations on your fine new monitor. My own BenQ BL2420PT - also one of the "Designer" series - is excellent, so I think you'll be very pleased with yours. Just make sure you set it to straight "sRGB" mode (selected in the monitor menus), and set your OS to drive it with a plain, unadulterated sRGB profile. Oh, and set your brightness appropriately, so your white luminance level is at no more than, say, 120 cd/m2. I'm not sure how you'll do that without a calibration device and profiling software, but use whatever method works for you until then

I'll be clear on this. I'm not saying it's a complete waste of time, colour calibration has its clear uses, I'm purely talking about it's value, not disagreeing for one minute it's not doing what it says on the tin. If one cost $50 I wouldn't have typed this thread

My point is, when going way off from natural tones through film presets and LUTs, the colours go whacky backy anyway. Factor in also the fact your clients monitors are different and uncalibrated (or using their phones), there's no consistency in the actual world between client and tog. I'd have to supply them with the same monitor as me, install at their home, calibrate it and then send the images and say "there... are we happy?".
Really in the end all that matters is if the photographer sees what he sees on his screen, is happy with it, and prints and gets something that is 'the same' to what he sees on his monitor, then he's on the right path. Even a print tho.. it differs where you hang the picture, time of day viewing it, gloss or matte, haha.

When I do my meet and greets with new clients I actually show not a pc screen or tablet but actual prints, some 30 or so (talking points and what not). I always try to say 'can we go over here' towards natural shaded light to look at the images, not under artificial light or in a dark spot). I have been doing my own prints (I think the wedding album in my links above show a final print box), but that in itself is not always as simple as just printing the Jpg. My local photography printing service actually screwed up more of my prints than I do myself, magenta or green tints, proof that they are not turning off their printer colour management O.o My point is, just having a calibrated monitor and going 'Print' is not how this works at all, you still have many stages to go through till you get the printing side of things to produce something that looks like what you have on your screen.

As I said, it's not product photography. I'm not working as part of a team in a group project where we must all see the same files and images in exactly the same colour tones. I'm a photographer, I take the shot, I edit it, I then present the images and offer prints. I have had one client thus far complain that my shots are too bright, in which I had to visit her house and turn the brightness down from maximum lol. Colours being absolutely bang spot on.. just not sure how important that is (if funds are tight, which mine are!). I'll likely get a calibration eventually, but I just wondered how good these new monitors are out of the box (kinda the purpose of this thread), I'm on old garbage monitors currently and can see how obvious calibration would be needed for them, modern ones not so sure (if of course they are aimed at togs)..

I guess I've been using my prints (and checking my images on other devices like phones and tablets) as my kinda 'calibration'. If I edit on my screen, am happy with my prints, think the images on phones and tablets around the home (that are not set to some weird display setting such as Reading Mode or Warm etc) look ok... then that's kinda been my 'calibration' method for the level of professional work I do. Serious product photography I am not. I'd be concerned if I was editing something on the PC, getting a certain colour, checking the image on my phone and tablet and seeing something that was really way off from what I was seeing on my PC. But... I don't think that is really happening. The fact is you all (who use calibrated devices) might see exactly what I see (if my monitor too was calibrated), I just find it a tad bizarre that the actual most important person in the whole picture (the client) does not, and never does (which is why I check my own devices around the home to give me additional feed back on my images, in essence I don't really believe in 'one true version', just trying to work on an image that looks good on multiple common modern screens (and prints).

Photography is just expensive . Getting my shots is not about owning a camera and a lens, a nice computer and calibration, god I wish that were true/simple. I don't even have all the good lenses, what stuff I do have I have to basically try and double up on. Two cameras, two lenses of each kinda focal length, multiple light stands, multiple soft boxes, multiple lights, AD200's x2, V1'sx2, triggers x2,... the list goes on and on and on... I really am at the point of just trying to 'cut corners' at least for a little while (and at places I'm thinking are perhaps a 'luxury' item i.e. nice to have, perhaps not mandatory). I can tell you now, you cannot do professional (event) photography on Darktable, Gimp and RT. I love these programs, I use RT often, but you need LR or C1 for library and syncing issues otherwise your edits will take weeks not days (and cost you dearly) (as well as PS for some stacking group shot stuff and skin retouching). So the software being paid for is subscriptions + presets, LUTs, tutorials etc etc.

I think I said this at the start, only Tony's done it better. Good to here someone else chip in with what I think is an essential point that is 'missed' from the generic, software based approaches that are pushed by third party suppliers.

I had a brief look at hardware calibrated monitors, it just seems the pricetage outweighs the lesser ones, which at least you can use without calibration or caluibrate later. It seems a nice monitor without hardware calibration but buying calibration tool was quite a lot cheaper than buying a hardware calibrated monitor (at least that's what it appeared on my searches).

In the end, the only thing that matters with wedding photos is that the bride has to like them.

But. . . looking through the set, in the shot of the couple with the dogs the dress looks white but in the rest of the photos it has got a very slight rose coloured cast(*). So the question is: what colour was the dress really, and why does it change from shot to shot? If it really was slightly pink then it should look consistently that way. The photos are beautiful, and I've got no intention of criticising your skills because you're one of the most talented photographers on this forum. But sooner or later, if you're taking money to photograph weddings, getting the colour of the dress correct and consistent is going to become an issue.

(*)There's a very slight rose coloured tint to the dress on my monitor, which I've recently calibrated using DisplayCAL. I'd be very grateful if others could say what shade of white they are seeing in the dress on their screens, because it would help me to know if my recent recalibration is accurate.

Ok, there is a subtle difference there indeed, that I'm seeing here as well, on both uncalibrated monitors. That's not a calibration issue tho, I mean these images (100 in total) were all edited in 2 days on the same panel (a dying panel... you'll shudder if I showed you the shape the screen was in when I edited these ), what you're seeing is the difference between some lenses. Some were taken with lensbaby, some FA ltds. And the light was changing (sun coming through cloud, some shots not), and so the synchronisation of the preset with the subtle changes in WB and different glass is accounting for that difference.

This is a perfect example however. I didn't notice it, bride didn't, no one has ever pointed it out (and I can tell you a lot of people in the photography mould have seen these images), till now. You have a good eye, but are we nit picking here? It's a slightly different shade (and it has nothing to do with colour calibration either, just my bad incompetent editing and synchronisation ability... no seriously!).

The reason I linked you lots of my work (and you can just see a heap more work by going to Eddy Summers) is to demonstrate that I think all the images on the website are acceptable enough, yet have been editing on 1-2 different monitors, some uncalibrated, some calibrated, some on an 18 month old calibration, some edited day time, some night time, some in a different work space bla bla. So instead of seeing differences within a set... it would be more interesting to say "yo bruce... see this image here, it looks way to green, or magenta" etc and then find out when that shot was taken, whether it was on an uncalibrated monitor or not, whether I am now seeing it with a calibrated monitor and how far off I was etc. But... I don't think that's really the case. And after shooting for 2 years you just kinda know when you're looking at a monitor that's WAAAAyyyyy off. I mean when I took down my busted 43 inch 4k monitor (the one that died) and reconnected an old 2006 27 inch 1080p one up, it was night and day difference how (bad this new old 27inch monitor was looking and how much it struggled to display a decent white looking white compared to the previous 43inch 4k (that was once calibrated back in 2018)...

And I think this is the point. When I have heard someone say 'is your monitor calibrated?' it's usually on the tail end of a submission from a newbie asking for feedback in his shot. The skin tone could look off, green or sickly and thus the more educated shooter is thinking his monitor is off, skin looks fine to him but to everyone else its off. This is a totally valid use of suggesting a monitor calibration, the newbie needs help, he can't even look at a monitor and know from looking at it that things are off.

But.. to those of us who have been around awhile... who've been through this process... do we really stray off the path that badly for our amatuer/semi pro/non professional product photography shots? I'm starting to think monitor calibration is about education, once you have seen a good screen calibrated you understand what you did wrong, is it possible to revert? And if so how much, how badly, so badly it affects all your images or is it enough to simply check up on your work time to time on some other devices around the place?

I see the same rose tint on the first shot using a Benq sRGB monitor with displaycal and an old Spyder3.

That said, it's a perfectly acceptable tint, the trouble with white wedding dresses is they tend to pick up unexpected tints and that's before we get to printing them out.

Excellent wedding shots though, natural, well posed and a lovely feel to them all. Plus you got everyones head and feet in, always a bonus!

Thank you, much appreciated. I do wish to make it clear that I am not self promoting. I know I put out a nice quality of work, but I have my role models and they wipe the floor with my work, there's still a long way to go (and good monitor calibration is probably instrumental ahahhaha). I just thought it was interesting to link a few albums (and you can check out more on my website) whereby you might think "aha! that's pro level work... he must definitely use a calibrated monitor!" when in fact... no... or at least it was done once, back in late 2018 or something... O.o

Bruce, when you are doing a important shoot do you incorporate a colour target, like a ColorChecker Passport, at any point in the shoot? Would probably be useful.

Nope, I don't even grey card. Haven't had time in these events, however... it was something I thought about investing in at some point. Sometimes its about the learning curve I am on, still very much baby steps for me. I tend to shoot RAW and AWB. I jump in LR and the first thing I do is see if I'm happy with the AWB my camera chose, I try the 'Auto' to see if I feel it improved or worsened the WB. I then start eye balling things till white looks white and skin looks good etc. From there it's preset time and that can just screw everything up, make a nice flesh tone overly orange etc. Other times it can be a beautiful change. The issue with large events like weddings is that the light changes through out the day, some indoor shots, some outdoor, some with flash. Picking or choosing one preset or LUT never works for the entire day, it can suit one area/location/time but not another, and that can account for a flow issue. So often you segment the days work, pick a preset that works for each segment before the larger sync and see if it flows ok etc.

Yes, I see it too, Dave. It is very slight, very minor, but it's there - and not consistent across multiple shots. Of course, that may be what @BruceBanner sees on his monitor too. If so, then it was a valid creative decision... If not, it's a limitation resulting from post-processing with display and/or profile inaccuracy.

I will say once more, though - fantastic photography, both in terms of composition and processing. My comments around colour management and profiling take nothing away from that...

It's a mistake, nothing to do with monitor calibration, sync issues and idiocy on my part. If anything it's a good argument/example for shooting with one lens and not switching back and forth with many different kinds of lenses during an event that you are trying to keep consistent.

I'll see how this monitor goes tomorrow, natively out of the box. For now i rely on you all to keep me in check! Speak up if you see some colours looking bizarre (in a non cool way), for now I think I will just keep using my 'multiple devices and print' method as a means to keep me on a decent ball park correct colour profile

[3by2]

Thank you, much appreciated. I do wish to make it clear that I am not self promoting. I know I put out a nice quality of work, but I have my role models and they wipe the floor with my work, there's still a long way to go (and good monitor calibration is probably instrumental ahahhaha). I just thought it was interesting to link a few albums (and you can check out more on my website) whereby you might think "aha! that's pro level work... he must definitely use a calibrated monitor!" when in fact... no... or at least it was done once, back in late 2018 or something... O.o

Only recently have I acquired a decent monitor and a 2nd hand calibration device. I've not found that I need to go back and re-edit stuff that much but I have found that it makes judging things a lot easier, especially highlights and shadows and the detail in them but then my monitor was some muddly old Hanns G thing, so that's hardly surprising. I did intend to use it as a 2nd monitor but alongside the new one it looked so bloody awful that I couldn't.

[BigMackCam]

Eddy is a very talented guy who could potentially make a great living as a pro, but somehow we've got to make him realise that monitor calibration is an essential and not an optional extra.

As I said, it's not product photography. I'm not working as part of a team in a group project where we must all see the same files and images in exactly the same colour tones. I'm a photographer, I take the shot, I edit it, I then present the images and offer prints. I have had one client thus far complain that my shots are too bright, in which I had to visit her house and turn the brightness down from maximum lol. Colours being absolutely bang spot on.. just not sure how important that is (if funds are tight, which mine are!). I'll likely get a calibration eventually, but I just wondered how good these new monitors are out of the box (kinda the purpose of this thread), I'm on old garbage monitors currently and can see how obvious calibration would be needed for them, modern ones not so sure (if of course they are aimed at togs)..

I guess I've been using my prints (and checking my images on other devices like phones and tablets) as my kinda 'calibration'. If I edit on my screen, am happy with my prints, think the images on phones and tablets around the home (that are not set to some weird display setting such as Reading Mode or Warm etc) look ok... then that's kinda been my 'calibration' method for the level of professional work I do. Serious product photography I am not. I'd be concerned if I was editing something on the PC, getting a certain colour, checking the image on my phone and tablet and seeing something that was really way off from what I was seeing on my PC. But... I don't think that is really happening. The fact is you all (who use calibrated devices) might see exactly what I see (if my monitor too was calibrated), I just find it a tad bizarre that the actual most important person in the whole picture (the client) does not, and never does (which is why I check my own devices around the home to give me additional feed back on my images, in essence I don't really believe in 'one true version', just trying to work on an image that looks good on multiple common modern screens (and prints).
...
This is a perfect example however. I didn't notice it, bride didn't, no one has ever pointed it out (and I can tell you a lot of people in the photography mould have seen these images), till now. You have a good eye, but are we nit picking here? It's a slightly different shade (and it has nothing to do with colour calibration either, just my bad incompetent editing and synchronisation ability... no seriously!).

The reason I linked you lots of my work (and you can just see a heap more work by going to Eddy Summers) is to demonstrate that I think all the images on the website are acceptable enough, yet have been editing on 1-2 different monitors, some uncalibrated, some calibrated, some on an 18 month old calibration, some edited day time, some night time, some in a different work space bla bla. So instead of seeing differences within a set... it would be more interesting to say "yo bruce... see this image here, it looks way to green, or magenta" etc and then find out when that shot was taken, whether it was on an uncalibrated monitor or not, whether I am now seeing it with a calibrated monitor and how far off I was etc. But... I don't think that's really the case. And after shooting for 2 years you just kinda know when you're looking at a monitor that's WAAAAyyyyy off. I mean when I took down my busted 43 inch 4k monitor (the one that died) and reconnected an old 2006 27 inch 1080p one up, it was night and day difference how (bad this new old 27inch monitor was looking and how much it struggled to display a decent white looking white compared to the previous 43inch 4k (that was once calibrated back in 2018)...

And I think this is the point. When I have heard someone say 'is your monitor calibrated?' it's usually on the tail end of a submission from a newbie asking for feedback in his shot. The skin tone could look off, green or sickly and thus the more educated shooter is thinking his monitor is off, skin looks fine to him but to everyone else its off. This is a totally valid use of suggesting a monitor calibration, the newbie needs help, he can't even look at a monitor and know from looking at it that things are off.

But.. to those of us who have been around awhile... who've been through this process... do we really stray off the path that badly for our amatuer/semi pro/non professional product photography shots? I'm starting to think monitor calibration is about education, once you have seen a good screen calibrated you understand what you did wrong, is it possible to revert? And if so how much, how badly, so badly it affects all your images or is it enough to simply check up on your work time to time on some other devices around the place?

Alas, I fear I've failed

I'll give it one last push, then I promise I'll shut up:

You've convinced yourself of the reasons why you don't really need a profiled display, or - at the very least - why you can get away with not having one. You've convinced yourself that an arbitrary "in the ball park" result - based on your subjective assessment - is good enough; an acceptable compromise...

... and yet...

... you've got great cameras, at least some great glass, great accessories, great software (which, if it's running well, means you have a half-decent PC too), great new factory calibrated display, great (?) printer (certainly good enough, from what you've said). You've invested a lot of money. But, expensive though this photography lark is, someone so highly creative and skilled as you, working professionally, should have profiled displays and printers - and, compared to what you've spent for the rest of your gear, the price of a colorimeter device (used, if necessary*) for profiling your lovely spanking-new display is a drop in the ocean.

You've compromised so little thus far on everything else... why compromise on something so fundamental as colour and light?

---

* FYI, there's an older Datacolor Spyder 4 colorimeter on eBay Australia right now with 18 hours left to go and one bid of $30AUD, from a seller with 100% positive feedback. It wouldn't be my first choice of device, but paired with free DisplayCAL software it should nonetheless make a decent display profiling kit. I reckon it might sell for between $100 - $150AUD (perhaps even less). Better still (much better, IMHO), also on eBay Australia, a brand new X-rite i1 Display Studio for $249AUD, but there's a 15% discount coupon bringing the price down to $212. The seller has at least three in stock.

I'll see how this monitor goes tomorrow, natively out of the box. For now i rely on you all to keep me in check! Speak up if you see some colours looking bizarre (in a non cool way), for now I think I will just keep using my 'multiple devices and print' method as a means to keep me on a decent ball park correct colour profile

We won't be able to say if the colours are bizarre or not, Eddy, since we won't know what your original scenes looked like, what your post-processing intentions were (which won't be accurately represented in your files anyway, because you're working on a non-profiled display), or what your tolerances are for variances / inaccuracies in your post-processing and final presentation - although it seems, with respect, those tolerances are greater than ours (some of us, at least). So, we'll be able to tell you if we think the images look good (I've no doubt they will, given your creativity and ability ), but not whether they're as you intended...

I promised I'd shut up - so, I'll leave it there for this thread

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-20-2020 at 10:55 AM.

[Dartmoor Dave]

My local photography printing service actually screwed up more of my prints than I do myself, magenta or green tints, proof that they are not turning off their printer colour management O.o My point is, just having a calibrated monitor and going 'Print' is not how this works at all, you still have many stages to go through till you get the printing side of things to produce something that looks like what you have on your screen.

I'm going to jump on those couple of sentences in one last attempt to convince you, and then like Mike I'll shut up.

Your local printing place shouldn't have to turn their colour management off. A good print house will let you download the profiles that they use in their printers for each different paper type, and in Photoshop (and probably in Lightroom although I don't personally use it) you can preview exactly how your image will look when printed by using a process called soft proofing. If you don't soft proof already you should be doing it, and you can only soft proof accurately by using a properly calibrated monitor.

The money you save by not having to redo prints that didn't come out how you expected them to will pay for a monitor calibration device pretty quickly. Heck, I use a Spyder 2. You can pick them up for peanuts these days, and it's a lot better than no calibration at all.

So there ya go. Calibrate your monitor just so you can soft proof your prints accurately. I'll shut up now.

[BruceBanner]

Nah I do appreciate the feedback guys I really do.

Didn't someone say not to go for Spyder 3 and 4's? For some reason?

That's DCXpert, basically that store is Pentax Australia but on eBay, so good to know they sell the X-Rite. So is this unit here the only thing I really need? The 15% eBay codes come around quite often;

X-RITE I1DISPLAY STUDIO (EODISSTU) | eBay

My pc is a total potato. It needs a serious replacement or at the very least an eGPU to assist on the graphical side of things. I had to buy a new monitor because the last one died and that was another unscheduled $700AUD purchase... :'(
Last year I made maybe $6-7k in photography work, all of it spent back into the business on more gear. I'm just sick of working for a job and spending all the funds generated from it back into gear, what's worse is not acquiring new gear but just replacing failing tech
I'm wondering at what point I can stop replacing or updating and just turn a profit...

For now I'll likely borrow my mates Spyder 5 and redo that again with the Display CAL thing, I passed him this thread as he was having issues and I think Tony or some other had some useful workarounds that have apparently worked well for him.

[BigMackCam]

Didn't someone say not to go for Spyder 3 and 4's? For some reason?

I'm not aware of that. However, for some time, X-rite has been the better choice for colorimeters. Older Spyder devices have generally proven less accurate than their X-rite competitors (though some entry-level X-rite models have been awful), have allegedly demonstrated greater copy variation, and were more limited in terms of contrast ratio. The most recent version that I know of, the Spyder X Pro, seems to be quite well regarded - but still lags X-rite's i1 Display Pro by some margin. All of this said, a Spyder 3 or 4 device with DisplayCAL - using the correct settings for your specific monitor - is better than no profiling. If you're trying to find the best bang for buck at the lowest price, I'd look for the now-discontinued X-rite Colormunki Display that I use. The newer i1 Display devices are definitely better, but the old Colormunki Display is an awfully good model and quite capable of doing what you need (and more).

That's DCXpert, basically that store is Pentax Australia but on eBay, so good to know they sell the X-Rite. So is this unit here the only thing I really need? The 15% eBay codes come around quite often;

X-RITE I1DISPLAY STUDIO (EODISSTU) | eBay

Yes, that's all you need in terms of hardware! I believe you download the X-rite software from their website, or it may come on a CD. Alternatively - and this is what I'd recommend - don't install that and use ArgyllCMS plus DisplayCAL instead (if I remember correctly, you now install DisplayCAL first and it prompts for and manages the ArgyllCMS download). DisplayCAL is much better, IMHO, and widely relied upon by many.

My pc is a total potato. It needs a serious replacement or at the very least an eGPU to assist on the graphical side of things. I had to buy a new monitor because the last one died and that was another unscheduled $700AUD purchase...

Last year I made maybe $6-7k in photography work, all of it spent back into the business on more gear. I'm just sick of working for a job and spending all the funds generated from it back into gear, what's worse is not acquiring new gear but just replacing failing tech
I'm wondering at what point I can stop replacing or updating and just turn a profit...

Ah, OK. Well, hopefully the new / replacement equipment you're buying will last. Certainly I'd expect your monitor and, if you replace it, the PC to give you a minimum of five years, possibly ten (my 2012-vintage HP i7-4700MQ laptop, which I technically replaced in December 2018, is still going strong - albeit with epoxy glue holding bits of the lid's crumbling hinge mounts together ). I'd imagine your camera bodies take most of the wear from professional work, so I guess those will need servicing or replacing every few years. With good care and a bit of luck, the lenses should last much longer... same with lighting and accessories...

For now I'll likely borrow my mates Spyder 5 and redo that again with the Display CAL thing, I passed him this thread as he was having issues and I think Tony or some other had some useful workarounds that have apparently worked well for him.

That's a far better solution than no profiling! Just be sure to install the Spyder 5 correction data for DisplayCAL (not necessary if you're using Spyder's own software)...

Good luck

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-20-2020 at 03:08 PM.