Beginner Monitor brightness query

T

TLR-330

Messages
995
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Got a second load of prints done since I started with a digital SLR and some are a bit on the dark (underexposed) side. TIme I started looking at colour calibrated monitors etc. My question is, although monitors may display the correct colour, do the self calibrating ones also adjust brightness or is there some other magic trick, e.g. trial and error, to get the brightness of the monitor correct before printing?

Any good or bad comments (apart from price) between the Eizo CS series and Dell Ultrasharp?

Cheers
 
A calibrator will also set your desired screen luminance level and then your can adjust this to more closely match the printer. Some calibrators will also constantly adjust the screen luminance depending on the ambient light. The other thing that you can do is that if all your prints are dark you can adjust the brightness of the print on export using programs such as Lightroom.

Have you checked the histogram to see if your images are actually underexposed?
 
View media item 12946Let's see if this makes sense (to me or to you).

Photo in overcast weather with some mist in the air, the sun is low and behind clouds. I think it is underexposed but I appreciate help with what the minuscule histogram shows.
 
View media item 12947Dat histogram next :-(

I run the screen at 1/3 of its brightness thinking what I see is more or less what I will get. What I got is probably 1/2 stop under what is above and with much more of a green cast (presumably the mist playing tricks I cannot see on screen).

No editing done to the images beyond whatever nikon does to them by default.

Any ideas welcome.
 
Last edited:
TLR-330 said:
View media item 12946Let's see if this makes sense (to me or to you).

Photo in overcast weather with some mist in the air, the sun is low and behind clouds. I think it is underexposed but I appreciate help with what the minuscule histogram shows.
Click to expand...

TLR-330 said:
View media item 12947Dat histogram next :-(

I run the screen at 1/3 of its brightness thinking what I see is more or less what I will get. What I got is probably 1/2 stop under what is above and with much more of a green cast (presumably the mist playing tricks I cannot see on screen).

No editing done to the images beyond whatever nikon does to them by default.

Any ideas welcome.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's particularly underexposed, the histogram is pretty much where I'd expect it to be given the scene and the light. (you could bump it up if you wished but it might not match what you saw). If you're getting underexposed prints with a colour cast a couple of things spring to mind. Screen calibration and/or printer profiles. Have you got the right ICC printer and paper profiles?

By the way trying to get the prints to perfectly match what you see on screen is a royal PITA and I've never managed to get it absolutely 100% even with a calibrated wide gamut monitor, correct ICC profiles and doing print proofs first. I use the Canon Pixma Pro 100s and I know Canon printers tend to be on the warm side.
 
Your image is definitely under by roughly 1/2 to 2/3rds stop.

What monitor are you editing on now? Is it calibrated and profiled?

There really is no need to fork out on an expensive monitor, simply calibrate and profile your current monitor. There is no correct luminance level, it will all depend on the ambient light and where and how you are viewing your prints. The correct level is when you have as close a match as possible (remembering the monitor is transmitted light and the print is reflected so you will never get an exact match)

I refuse to allow the hard/software to alter the luminance level according to the ambient light levels...
 
snerkler said:
By the way trying to get the prints to perfectly match what you see on screen is a royal PITA and I've never managed to get it absolutely 100% even with a calibrated wide gamut monitor, correct ICC profiles and doing print proofs first. I use the Canon Pixma Pro 100s and I know Canon printers tend to be on the warm side.
Click to expand...
It certainly is.... correctly calibrated and profiled monitor along side soft proofing is your friend.
 
I will have to do some reading given what you said above. At the moment I was tinkering with a laptop but In the loft I have another PC with some old Eizo's. Calibration of monitors AFAIK not possible on any of them. Having looked at the photos under a brighter light I thought they matched quite well what I have on my rather dark screen so maybe I overeacted to what I saw in a darkish room. Another glass of wine will sort it all out, perhaps.

PS. I am only trying to reproduce what I saw and due to brain cells working in weird ways I am not prepared to use Adobe stuff and go down the rental route, so for now I am sticking to Nikon's offerings, Gimp and I would buy software as long as I do not have to rent it.
 
Last edited:
TLR-330 said:
I will have to do some reading given what you said above. At the moment I was tinkering with a laptop but In the loft I have another PC with some old Eizo's. Calibration of monitors AFAIK not possible on any of them. Having looked at the photos under a brighter light I thought they matched quite well what I have on my rather dark screen so maybe I overeacted to what I saw in a darkish room. Another glass of wine will sort it all out, perhaps.

PS. I am only trying to reproduce what I saw and due to brain cells working in weird ways I am not prepared to use Adobe stuff and go down the rental route, so for now I am sticking to Nikon's offerings, Gimp and I would buy software as long as I do not have to rent it.
Click to expand...
For calibration I use the X-rite i1display pro, I never use computer in-built calibrations. Photos are best viewed in good daylight. Also, you tend to find that photos lighten once they've dried. On some printers/papers it's not really noticeable, but some can brighten quite a bit once dry.
 
snerkler said:
Photos are best viewed in good daylight. Also, you tend to find that photos lighten once they've dried. On some printers/papers it's not really noticeable, but some can brighten quite a bit once dry.
Click to expand...
These were printed commercially and by having looked at them better it is not the lab which is at fault so I can name it DSCL. What I did not write in the previous comment was that my two brain cells have been overworking to figure out if I should print a bit lighter given the light in Scotland during the winter months (going potty now).

@PhilH04 If I try now to increase the exposure I can go up by 1/3 of a stop before the white on the mane of the horse starts looking blown out.
 
TLR-330 said:
These were printed commercially and by having looked at them better it is not the lab which is at fault so I can name it DSCL. What I did not write in the previous comment was that my two brain cells have been overworking to figure out if I should print a bit lighter given the light in Scotland during the winter months (going potty now).

@PhilH04 If I try now to increase the exposure I can go up by 1/3 of a stop before the white on the mane of the horse starts looking blown out.
Click to expand...
I still don’t see an issue with the exposure. You could raise the exposure so that the histogram is more central but would this be a true representation of what you saw? Histograms don’t have to be balanced or central, they should represent the scene. In fading light I can imagine this is what it would have looked like to my peepers. Of course, people will have differing opinions on this, but I don’t want shots I took in dull/dark conditions to look like they were taken in bright daylight.

If it would help you can send me the image and I can print it to see how it comes out to see if it’s the darkness of the image causing dark prints, or if it’s the profiles used?
 
TLR-330 said:
If I try now to increase the exposure I can go up by 1/3 of a stop before the white on the mane of the horse starts looking blown out.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be about right.

You should be able to calibrate and profile your laptop, it will not be ideal but should suffice. Your older monitors should calibrate and profile, the hardware part, Calibration, is in simple terms setting the luminance (brightness) and gamma (contrast). The profile is a Look up Table that tells your graphics driver how known colours should display.

snerkler said:
or if it’s the profiles used?
Click to expand...
A profile will have no effect on the darkness or lightness of a print, it is down to monitor luminance and viewing conditions. If you normally view your prints under low light levels then everything should be adjusted for that and vice versa. I print commercially so results are viewed under industry standard illumination, however if needs be I will adjust...
 
PhilH04 said:
Yes that would be about right.

You should be able to calibrate and profile your laptop, it will not be ideal but should suffice. Your older monitors should calibrate and profile, the hardware part, Calibration, is in simple terms setting the luminance (brightness) and gamma (contrast). The profile is a Look up Table that tells your graphics driver how known colours should display.


A profile will have no effect on the darkness or lightness of a print, it is down to monitor luminance and viewing conditions. If you normally view your prints under low light levels then everything should be adjusted for that and vice versa. I print commercially so results are viewed under industry standard illumination, however if needs be I will adjust...
Click to expand...
What I meant by this is that if the OP doesn’t have the profiles and doing a soft proof first he may find brightness, colour, temp etc of the final image won’t be the same as the final print. I know that with some paper profiles I use I have to either bump the exposure or increase brightness on export to match my original image. Some profiles/papers can darken the image from my experience.

Of course, I don’t profess to be an expert and you obviously know more than I do, I’m just sharing my experiences/mistakes with the OP (y)
 
snerkler said:
What I meant by this is that if the OP doesn’t have the profiles and doing a soft proof first he may find brightness, colour, temp etc of the final image won’t be the same as the final print. I know that with some paper profiles I use I have to either bump the exposure or increase brightness on export to match my original image. Some profiles/papers can darken the image from my experience.
Click to expand...
That is more than likely a function of the paper/ink combination so you are in fact correct when you say that you sometimes have to compensate and as you rightly say, is the reason to correctly soft proof. It goes without saying that there are poor profiles out there as well, I regularly test canned profiles and find that some are good and others not so, for this reason I create our own profiles for our printers. Of course soft proofing etc is pointless if your monitor is not calibrated and profiled correctly.

Wasn't meant to be a criticism...;)
 
PhilH04 said:
That is more than likely a function of the paper/ink combination so you are in fact correct when you say that you sometimes have to compensate and as you rightly say, is the reason to correctly soft proof. It goes without saying that there are poor profiles out there as well, I regularly test canned profiles and find that some are good and others not so, for this reason I create our own profiles for our printers. Of course soft proofing etc is pointless if your monitor is not calibrated and profiled correctly.

Wasn't meant to be a criticism...;)
Click to expand...
I didn’t take it as such ;) I’m always happy to learn though (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top