Brian,
I'm not claiming this will give you a perfectly calibrated monitor, but if
you set up the monitor (contrast, brightness) so the you can see the step
wedge on my web site with each step distinct from it's neighbour you should
be able to view images reasonably ok.
Follow the link to "monitor setup" on:
lrh.structuregraphs.com
...Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Swale
> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2005 9:26 PM
> To: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile; olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Computer monitor settings for image viewing
>
>
>
> 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
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|