Hello all,
Starting from the unveiling of the sunset/sunrise TOPE exhibition, Fernando
and I have been having a sporadic discussion about the visible detail in some
images. I have been very puzzled about the fact that apparently he does not
see the same quality of image that I do when we download the exact same
jpeg. I didn't cover all of this in conversation with Fernando, but I guess
that
it won't hurt to bring it out now.
Some of this started when I read that he wrote that he had used a T32 to
make fill flash on undersides of the branches through which the sun was
shining. He remarked about how well it looked; just as he had planned. The
shadow had been illuminated very well. He saw it, and so did others,
because they remarked on it.
To my eyes, on my own machine, it looked as though no flash had been
used at all. The shadow side of those branches was (and is) as black as the
Ace of Spades, on my machine. From what I could see, I did not understand
what was being discussed. What is there to say about the level of
illumination in pitch black?
We exchanged variously edited versions of his image, but neither of us really
were satisfied with the outcome.
More recently, we have been discussing another image which also has
extremes of light and dark; the dark being lit up by a T32 flash. But that use
of fill flash also hardly shows at all on my machine. Very puzzling.
Then I remembered that my daughter's computer has a monitor which I
absolutely detest - not only because it is ridiculously large 17 or 21 inches
or
something wide so you can never find the mouse, and it is miles from one
side to the other - but everything is bleached out - there is NO colour
saturation at all. And I am unable to get it back to reality; but never mind,
it's
not my machine.
However, I also remembered Fernando's last TOPE shot, so, having
persuaded daughter to fire her machine up and log on (passwords all over the
place), I looked at the last TOPE. Yes, Fernando's image DID have light in
the shadow, and one could see the flash had worked. Well, if that one is OK,
what about MY image?.
YUKK. The blacks had turned to grey or brown or worse, rich orange to pale
yellow, deep rich blue to anaemic light blue. You get the picture. Totally
washed out. Yet, on MY machine, the colours and illumination of this image
perfectly matched the example prints I have of that image which have the
qualities I admire and sought.
I checked two other of my TOPE images, using her machine. They were
disasters. Equally or worse washed out, with very blown-out highlights or
saturation destroyed. So too were the images of most other exhibitors.
So, I ask the questions, is there a common standard for the saturation etc
settings of monitors, and how can we ensure that what each of us sees is
the same?
For the two TOPE images of the last exhibition, who can see detail in the
branch shadow area of Fernando's image - and who can not? Who sees the
sky in my image as a gradation of dark, rich blue, with rich oranges and reds
in the last rays coming from the sun - and who sees instead, pale blue
instead of dark blue, and yellow instead of orange and red?.
Who compares their TOPE image with a print and finds it matches, and who
compares theirs with an image that has never been printed, (in which case
there is no paper reality check on illumination level, colour shift, or
saturation)?
As it is, I now have the impression that images which I carefully prepare to
my excellent chef's recipe =|;-)> look like a pale dog's breakfast on some
other monitors.
Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|