Reliable methods to get images ready to print - always too dark

[mikeyw]

Hi,

I process most of my better images in LR4 and get results i'm mostly happy with on screen. However whenever i try and get images correct for print they come back terrible in the main.

Always they appear to be dark and shadowy, printed pisc struggle with contrast and sharpening renders hair straw like.

What would be useful is some kind of 'to print' preset which vastly brightens the image, softens it and reduces contrast.

Like most of us i have a life so really need a quick fire reliable way to get images set up properly for printing and not just for looking good on a crisp well lit led screen.

tia,
Mike.

 

[Alisonfd]

You need to calibrate your monitor. The best way of doing it is using a hardware calibration such as a Sypder or Colormunki. If you're not already using an IPS monitor, you could also buy one of those as they will give you the best results especially when calibrated.

If you can't afford to buy anything then you can do it with software, if you're using windows it has a tool built in which you can use. But software calibration isn't as good as hardware, as it doesn't take into account the ambient lighting etc in your room.

Are you printing yourself or sending to a company?

If you're printing yourself, look up a profile for the paper you are using on your printer. If you're printing with a company, look on their site to see if they advise using their profiles.

You can also try turning the brightness down on your monitor. Before I could afford a hardware calibrator or IPS screen, I kept my brightness on the lowest setting which helped a lot.
You could also try bumping the brightness up a bit before you send them to print. But really calibrating your monitor with a hardware calibrator will be the best.

 

[mikeyw]

Thanks - i'm aware of monitor calibration but i like my monitor as it is with nice bright vibrant images. It just seems wrong i have to dull my monitor right down just so it will make generating prints easier.

I take the images to a local lab for processing.

Think it's an area of monitor / printing technology that needs a big overhaul. Monitors almost need a printing preset so you can temporarily change it for this purpose

 

[Paul-H]

It might be the printing service you are using, have you tried any others. But to be honest without a calibrated monitor how do you expect anything to match.

You might try asking you printer for a copy of their profile and use that to soft proof your image to gauge how it might look after printing.

If your monitor is out you are fighting a loosing battle to start with.

Paul

 

[droj]

Monitor display settinges are most unlikely to be right for imaging purposes as bought. You need to accept this.

Hardware calibration is overrated and is a bit of a modern bandwagon, like cloning.

A display can be made to tally with print results without looking 'dull'.

This may or may not be useful to you - http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

 

[Chappers]

Monitor calibration is a must if you want accurate representation on screen and a print. A simple pre-set just wont work. You need to take into effect the complete system, including the video card as well. Plus not all monitors are created equal and will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and over time

Not everyone can justify a calibration device,so how do you get round this problem.

Well you can come up with an offset. Now Lightroom in the print module has a slider for Brightness and Contrast to overcome this problem. If you are using another program then I'd suggest you use the brightness control to get the screen to match the prints you have had done. Make a note of this setting and the reverse it. Say you need to make -20 density/brightness change. Then when you need to output an image for printing you make a +20 adjustment to the file that goes to the printers.

Now this is not foolproof but can help. One area this doesn't work is if you have a colour miss match between highlights and shadows. In this case calibration is the only real answer

 

[Pookeyhead]

Hi,

I process most of my better images in LR4 and get results i'm mostly happy with on screen. However whenever i try and get images correct for print they come back terrible in the main.

Always they appear to be dark and shadowy, printed pisc struggle with contrast and sharpening renders hair straw like.

What would be useful is some kind of 'to print' preset which vastly brightens the image, softens it and reduces contrast.

Like most of us i have a life so really need a quick fire reliable way to get images set up properly for printing and not just for looking good on a crisp well lit led screen.

tia,
Mike.

As already been said several times, you need a calibrated monitor.

As for sharpened hair looking like straw... stop sharpening. What looks great on screen may look bloody awful in print. For printing, you don't really want to be adding much sharpening... in fact.. I never add any to my full resolution files for print.

Hardware calibration is overrated and is a bit of a modern bandwagon, like cloning.

Dude.. it's neither modern, nor a bandwagon. The need to accurately calibrate displays for colour critical print work pre-dates digital photography itself.. by decades.

Lagom's test pages would be a stop gap just to stop completely wasting your money on crap prints, yes, but there's so much hit and miss with luminance and gamma and it relies on your ability to objectively judge things as much as anything, especially gamma.. where I've seen people squint at the strips for ages and still got it wrong. It also does nothing to address white point, which is almost impossible to guestimate for most people due to the ambient lighting having so much influence on decisions made in this area.

I WOULD use Lagom.... for now.. it's free after all.... but anyone who prints a lot really needs to ensure their display is accurate by investing in a calibration device, as anyone in the photography or printing industry will advise you to do.

Depends how much you print. If the OP has already wasted enough on crap prints to buy a Color Munki... my advise would be just buy a Color Munki before he's wasted enough to buy a second one.

If you just print occasionally, Lagom will get you close enough. It depends on how fussy you are about prints. Lagom's accuracy in many areas does rely on YOU though, whereas the calibrator method removes the biggest source of error (the human) from the equation. Even if you don't LIKE how your screen looks after calibration... tough... right is right.

 

[Brian G]

Thanks - i'm aware of monitor calibration but i like my monitor as it is with nice bright vibrant images. It just seems wrong i have to dull my monitor right down just so it will make generating prints easier.

I take the images to a local lab for processing.

Think it's an area of monitor / printing technology that needs a big overhaul. Monitors almost need a printing preset so you can temporarily change it for this purpose

You might "like" your monitor with "nice bright vibrant images" but it is WRONG.
Once you have "dull(ed) my monitor right down" by correctly calibrating it, your eyes will soon adjust to that as being right.
Your eyes are one of the most easily fooled of the senses.
YOU may think you can adjust your monitor "by eye" but you are wrong.
If you are aware of monitor calibration then you should be practicing it.
Even a modestly priced calibration device will save you money on wasted prints in the long run.

The ColorMunki Display mentioned above by Pookeyhead is a good, reasonably priced calibrator.
I chose it after reading the review on this site, which I would recommend you read, especially the "Monitor profiling - why?" part of the review.
I've only had prints made since I calibrated my monitor and I've never had a commercial print made that didn't match my monitor display.

 

[Willid1]

I like my monitor as it is with nice bright vibrant images. It just seems wrong i have to dull my monitor right down just so it will make generating prints easier.

As said above calibration is the way to go, calibrate the monitor then adjust your images in PS or LR etc to your taste then send them for print.

At the moment your images look like they do because of the monitor not because the image is adjusted properly.

HTH

David

 

[sunnyside_up]

To continue on the colour accuracy path, as was briefly mentioned above, you need to make sure you're using the correct colour profile - your printer will be able to advise you of this.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thanks - i'm aware of monitor calibration but i like my monitor as it is with nice bright vibrant images. It just seems wrong i have to dull my monitor right down just so it will make generating prints easier.

I take the images to a local lab for processing.

Think it's an area of monitor / printing technology that needs a big overhaul. Monitors almost need a printing preset so you can temporarily change it for this purpose

I never saw this when I first read the thread.


As Brian said... if you like saturated, vibrant images... you calibrate your monitor to be accurate (even if you don't like it) and THEN make your IMAGES saturated and vibrant in processing. Whatever you want to do with your images.. no matter how over the top... you should still be starting with an accurate monitor otherwise, in all likelihood your prints may come back significantly different.. as you've already found out.

Besides... I'm not sure why you think a calibrated monitor is dull. What makes you think it will be dull when calibrated?


The fact is.. you're sending stuff to print and it comes back wrong.. that's because your monitor is probably calibrated poorly. We're trying to help you here.

 

[Box Brownie]

The human eye and brain are wonderfull at accepting what is in technological terms unsuitable........in this case above for creating prints!

The OP's remark about the bright saturated screen being his best liked viewing setting (and why should he change just to create said prints) takes me back decades to the early days of colour TVs.

A neighbour of ours was the first one we knew to get a colour set and they liked to spend money on "the best makes", as was the way of things back then we went to admire their purchase and though I am sure they could have adjusted it it had the most ghastly green colour cast.............there was not any pure whites or proper blacks. Later I said to my dad, as he hankered after a colour TV as well, please do not buy the same make/model as the colour is rotten. A few months later he bought an Hitachi model and it was lovely and lasted many years with good stable colour that was a joy to watch.......without relying on the brain to ignore colour casts

 

[Pookeyhead]

The human eye and brain are wonderfull at accepting what is in technological terms unsuitable........in this case above for creating prints!

The OP's remark about the bright saturated screen being his best liked viewing setting (and why should he change just to create said prints) takes me back decades to the early days of colour TVs.

A neighbour of ours was the first one we knew to get a colour set and they liked to spend money on "the best makes", as was the way of things back then we went to admire their purchase and though I am sure they could have adjusted it it had the most ghastly green colour cast.............there was not any pure whites or proper blacks. Later I said to my dad, as he hankered after a colour TV as well, please do not buy the same make/model as the colour is rotten. A few months later he bought an Hitachi model and it was lovely and lasted many years with good stable colour that was a joy to watch.......without relying on the brain to ignore colour casts

Your neighbour may ahve just set it badly.


You're right though... you "get used" to what you use every day. Often, when a monitor is calibrated I hear people say they don't like it. If they were used to something vry saturated and warm, they'll think it's cold and lacks colour. If they were used to something cooler, they'll think it's too warm. If they were used to having their brightness set to max, they'll think it's dark.

Tough titties basically.... even if you don't LIKE it when calibrated, accept that it's accurate, and stick with it... it will become "normal" to you in next to no time.


Right is right... whether you like it or not.


If you want ridiculous colour in your images.. fine.. but adjust your IMAGES... not your monitor. Your monitor should always be accurate, otherwise you've no frame of reference to work from.

 

[Brian G]

Your neighbour may ahve just set it badly.


You're right though... you "get used" to what you use every day. Often, when a monitor is calibrated I hear people say they don't like it. If they were used to something vry saturated and warm, they'll think it's cold and lacks colour. If they were used to something cooler, they'll think it's too warm. If they were used to having their brightness set to max, they'll think it's dark.

Tough titties basically.... even if you don't LIKE it when calibrated, accept that it's accurate, and stick with it... it will become "normal" to you in next to no time.


Right is right... whether you like it or not.


If you want ridiculous colour in your images.. fine.. but adjust your IMAGES... not your monitor. Your monitor should always be accurate, otherwise you've no frame of reference to work from.

In the case of monitor/print matching this is definitely a case of two wrongs NOT making a right.
Your monitor has to be right before you can even think about adjusting your images for printing.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not sure I understand that, sorry.

 

[Ido Scharf]

Computer monitors are set to show the brightness and color they do out of the box, because that's what makes movies, games and the web look great. That simply isn't suitable for photographic work. Accept that fact and calibrate your monitor. There's no way around it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Computer monitors are set to show the brightness and color they do out of the box, because that's what makes movies, games and the web look great. That simply isn't suitable for photographic work. Accept that fact and calibrate your monitor. There's no way around it.

Some are yes. Some are reasonably well set up actually though. Some Dell screens, and NEC screens are very well set up from the factory. That's not the issue though. The problem is that they won't stay set. As TFT panels and back lighting ages, it effectively changes the brightness, contrast, and gamma response of the screen, and will still periodically need adjusting.. and will continue to do so until it effectively won't calibrate any more. Usually that happens after around 5 to 6 years when the panel no longer reaches required brightness levels, or can't achieve white point any longer. That varies with use.

 

[Chaz Photos]

What you need to understand is, most monitors are set for in an office, office are very bright places, this is because more monitors are used like this then for photography.
In setting up may screens I have found Mac's are the brightest getting between 120 to 140 cdm2, Windows I found to be around the 100 to 120 BUT for photography you need around 85 at first this look dull but after a wile it look just right and you prints will match.
I think you must calibrate your screen with a tool, like the ColorMunki , as you can not believe what you think our eyes see.

 

[Pookeyhead]

85 cd/m2 is far too dark. between 100 and 120 cd/m2 is the accepted luminance for a dimly lit room, or brighter room respectively.

85cd/m2 would only really be appropriate for an almost dark room.

 

[Brian G]

Not sure I understand that, sorry.

Yes -I didn't put it very well.
What I was trying to say was that if you start out with an error (badly calibrated monitor) no amount of adjusting is going to give you a correct end result (print) whether intentionally or accidentally.

What you need to understand is, most monitors are set for in an office, office are very bright places, this is because more monitors are used like this then for photography.

If you go into a large department store (J*hn L*wis for example) and look at their TV display, they are all cranked up to high brightness/contrast because they look more impressive like that.
People are being "educated" into expecting their images to look that way, in the same way they are being "educated" into accepting the dreadful audio quality of digital radio.

 

[Chaz Photos]

85 cd/m2 is far too dark. between 100 and 120 cd/m2 is the accepted luminance for a dimly lit room, or brighter room respectively.

85cd/m2 would only really be appropriate for an almost dark room.

Sorry but this is not how it works for my set up, the ColorMunki takes the room lighting levels in to account and 85 is the most common setting I have had for my and others set up

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sorry but this is not how it works for my set up, the ColorMunki takes the room lighting levels in to account and 85 is the most common setting I have had for my and others set up

Then your room must be very dimly lit.

It's accepted practice to work with fixed levels, and control your room lighting rather than let the software auto adjust, ESPECIALLY if software profiling, which you are more than likely doing, as luminance changes across a 8bit output will undoubtedly affect gamma. I'd switch ambient adjustment off if I were you, and instead control your room lighting.

 

[Chaz Photos]

Then your room must be very dimly lit.

It's accepted practice to work with fixed levels, and control your room lighting rather than let the software auto adjust, ESPECIALLY if software profiling, which you are more than likely doing, as luminance changes across a 8bit output will undoubtedly affect gamma. I'd switch ambient adjustment off if I were you, and instead control your room lighting.

No room is not dark and I find same setting in many others rooms.

 

[Chappers]

Just to echo David's comments above. I have an iMac and at full output it can get to nearly 300Cd/m2 Way too bright. Mines set to 125Cd/m2 in a reasonably light room.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Which is why I don't use the feature. It's just not accurate. 85cd/m2 is just too dark unless you're in a really dimly lit room. Much better just controlling the room lighting.


[edit]

All this can be subjective though. When I sit in my room working, my wife often says "Why are you sat in the dark" when to me it's moderately lit. To her, anything that's not floodlit to daylight levels is "dark".

(shrug).

 

[Alastair]

80cd/m2 suggests your calibration device is bottoming out at the lower acceptable threshold. This could be down to low ambient light levels, but I wonder if it could also be that an acceptable calibration couldn't be achieved at a higher level?

Summary taken from http://www.colourstandards.com.au/monitor_display.html

(note, there has been a review and re-issue of ISO 3664 since the summary was prepared)

ISO 3664:2000

• The chromaticity of the white displayed on the monitor should approximate that of D65. The luminance level of the white displayed on the monitor shall be greater than 75cd/m2 and should be greater than 100cd/m2. (When a standard says shall, the requirement must be met; should is a strong recommendation.)
  
• The area immediately surrounding the displayed image shall be neutral, preferably grey or black to minimize flare. The luminance of the border be preferably 3% of the white point luminance, or less.
  
• When measured in any plane around the monitor or observer, the level of ambient illumination shall be less than 64 lux and should be less than 32 lux. The monitor shall be situated so there are no strongly coloured areas (including clothing) directly in the field of view or which may cause reflections in the monitor screen. Ideally, all walls, floors, and furniture in the field of view should be grey and free of any posters, notices, pictures, wording or any other object that may affect the viewer’s vision. All sources of glare should be avoided since they significantly degrade the quality of the image.

ISO 12646:2004

This International Standard specifies requirements for uniformity, size, resolution, convergence, refresh rate, luminance levels and viewing conditions for a colour display used to simulate a hard copy proofing system.

• The chromaticity of the display should be set to D50. The luminance level should be as high as practical but shall be at least 80cd/m2 and should be at least 120cd/m2. The black point shall have a luminance that is less than 1% of the maximum luminance.
  
• The display resolution shall be sufficient to display an image of 1280 x 1024 pixels without interpolation. All luminance values should be within 5% of the luminance of the centre.
  
• The ambient illumination level, when measured at the face of the monitor, shall be less than 32 lux. The surrounds shall be no more than 10% of the maximum luminance of the screen.

ISO 12646:2008 Graphic technology -- Displays for colour proofing -- Characteristics and viewing conditions
ISO 3664:2009 Graphic technology and photography -- Viewing conditions

 

[Brian G]

Then your room must be very dimly lit.

It's accepted practice to work with fixed levels, and control your room lighting rather than let the software auto adjust, ESPECIALLY if software profiling, which you are more than likely doing, as luminance changes across a 8bit output will undoubtedly affect gamma. I'd switch ambient adjustment off if I were you, and instead control your room lighting.

Funny, this morning I just received the reminder to recalibrate notice from ColorMunki.
When it checked my room brightness it measures 580 lux and I have screen brightness set to 120
I don't use automatic level monitoring either.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Your screen is not measured in lux... it's measured in candelas per metre squared... cd/m2... the two don't correlate.

 

[Pookeyhead]

80cd/m2 suggests your calibration device is bottoming out at the lower acceptable threshold. This could be down to low ambient light levels, but I wonder if it could also be that an acceptable calibration couldn't be achieved at a higher level?

Summary taken from http://www.colourstandards.com.au/monitor_display.html

(note, there has been a review and re-issue of ISO 3664 since the summary was prepared)



ISO 12646:2008 Graphic technology -- Displays for colour proofing -- Characteristics and viewing conditions
ISO 3664:2009 Graphic technology and photography -- Viewing conditions

All accurate.

However... stipulating a white point is misleading. D50 is often listed as the white point for photography use, but what people fail to appreciate is that it's not an arbitrary value you must set. You should only use D50 if your room lighting is D50, and your print booth is D50 etc. What's MORE important than the absolute value is the consistency of the environment.

The reason far more people prefer D65 is because D65 lighting is far more widely available.

If your environment is lit with D65, then your screen should be 6500K. So long as your ambient lighting and monitor white point match you will be accurate. There's no point having D50 set just because someone tells you to when you have 6500K lighting.... as the two will conflict.

 

[Brian G]

Your screen is not measured in lux... it's measured in candelas per metre squared... cd/m2... the two don't correlate.

I didn't say the screen was measured in lux, just the room ambient.
I never specified units for the screen brightness, I just select the number I want from the ColorMunki drop-down menu.

 

[Alastair]

All accurate.

However... stipulating a white point is misleading. D50 is often listed as the white point for photography use, but what people fail to appreciate is that it's not an arbitrary value you must set. You should only use D50 if your room lighting is D50, and your print booth is D50 etc. What's MORE important than the absolute value is the consistency of the environment.

The reason far more people prefer D65 is because D65 lighting is far more widely available.

If your environment is lit with D65, then your screen should be 6500K. So long as your ambient lighting and monitor white point match you will be accurate. There's no point having D50 set just because someone tells you to when you have 6500K lighting.... as the two will conflict.

The full standards go into more detail.. .. you would be expected to read more than the summary if you were following them. But from memory, there is a reason why D50 is now specified for colour-proofing for printing - something to do with UV?

The only person I know that ever had to work to these standards had done it for so long he could set a room and monitor up by eye alone. The calibration devices were only brought in to confirm his set-up, and during the time I knew him there was never a need to make an adjustment to the set-up he'd done himself. But his colour vision and perception was extraordinary.

 

[Mark_T]

I too have this 'problem' and solved it by having a preset calibrated by eye to a printed image; I just flick it to that preset before processing something to be printed.

My rather elderly monitor is probably not capable of being properly calibrated, but I still get usable results.

 

[Chaz Photos]

Funny, this morning I just received the reminder to recalibrate notice from ColorMunki.
When it checked my room brightness it measures 580 lux and I have screen brightness set to 120
I don't use automatic level monitoring either.

• 40 watt incandescent = 380 – 460 Lumens
• 60 watt incandescent = 750 – 850 lumens

So not very bright room then more reason to have 85 cdm2

 

[Chaz Photos]

AS I just set up my computer after moving I just run my ColorMunki The default setting is D65, ambient light was 83.41 Lux setting for screen 80 cd/m2 run software and all looks good on both screens.

One big mistake I have seen, taking room brightness, is putting the sensor on the desk in-front of the monitor, A big mistake, as you will get light from your screen/s.
I did a test to see how much difference it was so I placed it on desk in-front of screen some 400mm away first reading 86.32Lux then second reading with the screens shielded and the reading was 83.41 Lux

NOTE: Lux, Lumens and ccd/m2 are all different kinds of measurements.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The full standards go into more detail.. .. you would be expected to read more than the summary if you were following them. But from memory, there is a reason why D50 is now specified for colour-proofing for printing - something to do with UV?

The only person I know that ever had to work to these standards had done it for so long he could set a room and monitor up by eye alone. The calibration devices were only brought in to confirm his set-up, and during the time I knew him there was never a need to make an adjustment to the set-up he'd done himself. But his colour vision and perception was extraordinary.

Most mere mortals do not have such acuity though.. that's the problem

The standards you're referring to here though are for professional pre-press proofing where the whole shebang is colour managed and maintained by professionals. The whole work flow will be D50, including proofing booths and room lighting.

Whatever standard you work to, you set the white point of the monitor to the lighting. Setting it to D50 when you don't have D50 lighting for ambient or proofing would be foolhardy. Proper D50 lighting is expensive, and the likelihood of the average home user having is probably zero. However... what IS accessible and cheap for the home user is 6500K daylight lighting, which if used, would necessitate the screens white point being set to D65. It's for this reason that the color Munki software suggests D65 as default, as that is a more suitable white point for home use, and the color munki is a consumer device. Color Navigator, which is used with Eizo Color Edge screens suggests D50 for photography because it's a high end screen and is more likely to be used in a professional environment. However.. here, I have reset color Navigator to D65 because my darkroom lighting is 6500K.

So long as the ambient and screen white point match, you're OK.


However... having said this... setting your screen to 3200K just because you use domestic 3200K lighting would be equally as silly, as it's just too warm, and too yellow to be practicable.. 3200k as a screen white point is just too warm for your eye/brain system to normalise.

You do NOT just set D50 because it's a "photography" standard, unless your whole workflow and proofing uses D50 lighting. If you have no controlled room lighting, D65 is a better option, as at least it will seem more neutral during the day when daylight is a factor.

For home use, my advice (if you are bothered by accuracy) is to use a black out blind during the day, and use a fairly dim daylight balanced light source. I've probably linked to it elsewhere, but Pro Lite make excellent 6500K lighting, and a 11w Pro Lite in a desklamp (assuming you have white walls) would be an excellent choice. Then if you calibrate to D65, your environment and screen are colour managed.

AS I just set up my computer after moving I just run my ColorMunki The default setting is D65, ambient light was 83.41 Lux setting for screen 80 cd/m2 run software and all looks good on both screens.

One big mistake I have seen, taking room brightness, is putting the sensor on the desk in-front of the monitor, A big mistake, as you will get light from your screen/s.
I did a test to see how much difference it was so I placed it on desk in-front of screen some 400mm away first reading 86.32Lux then second reading with the screens shielded and the reading was 83.41 Lux

NOTE: Lux, Lumens and ccd/m2 are all different kinds of measurements.

Another problem with having the monitor influence the reading is the colour temperature of the light as well.

if 85cd/m2 seems ok for you, then it's difficult to argue, but it does seem quite low for photography use, where 100cd/m2 is far more typical with subdued, managed lighting. I've no idea how dark the room is though.

 

[Dmax]

Just in case you did not get it , you need to your calibrate your monitor

 

[pjm1]

Hi @mikeyw - look what you've started!

Something that others haven't really touched on... why do you take photos? In my view, it is for any number of reasons:

1. Just for reference - they'll stay on the hard disk and rarely be looked at (if ever)
2. Just for me - I want to look at them and occasionally print them out
3. To show others when they come around but I don't send them to anyone else or upload them to Flickr etc.
4. To put on Flickr, Facebook, email to friends etc.
5. To print out and hang on my wall / give to others etc.

Let's be clear - if it's #1 all the way then do whatever you want... it's not going to make much difference. Very few people fit into this category though.
If it's #2 then, again, it's really up to you how you set up your computer and printer. If you don't like the output then you need to change something, but it's your equipment and your choice. If you send them away to be printed then you either need to find a print shop which is set up just the way you like it (and stays that way) or you need to acknowledge how they calibrate their print systems and find a way to match that, at least for proofing purposes.
If it's #3 then a bit like #1, it is up to you. Bear in mind others may not share your views on saturation etc. but that's not really an issue for you - they're guests!

Now on to the more important stuff...

#4 - unless you are happy to have comments like "eurgh" that red looks horrible, then you need to acknowledge that people with calibrated displays will not see what you're seeing. Most importantly, this means that if you are editing an image, you are making changes to that image which could look completely different (and possibly not very complimentary) on calibrated displays. Maybe you don't care... in which case fine, but really don't expect positive comments from people who've gone to the trouble of setting up their displays to look neutral. Neutral is "good", by the way - if you are doing photo editing then you want a monitor simply to show the image in true light without applying casts, over or under saturation etc.
#4b - the average Joe on facebook etc. won't have a calibrated display and probably also quite likes oversaturated, oversharpened images. If that's your target market then fine, but don't expect too much positive feedback from people who don't fall into this category.
#5 - if you're spending potentially quite serious money having your photos professionally printed for hanging then you really do need to have some way of proofing. I'm afraid this means you need to calibrate your monitor no matter how much you don't like it... sorry!

As others have said, your first reaction post calibration might be "eurgh, that's flat and boring." In which case, you need to go through your images and boost the saturation/contrast etc. to whatever you think looks right. Funnily enough, I had to do the opposite: after getting an entry-level IPS panel (Dell 2412) and running through Lagom, I had to reduce the saturation in every one of my images (bloomin' laptop with it's cruddy display). Over time, you might wean yourself off over-saturated images... or not. If that's what your eyes & brain like, then that's up to you.

 

[Rockshifter]

Can any of the gurus advise on practicality of using histogram of images to check brightness when using non calibrated monitor ?
My monitor's is set to very bright - the way I like it, and I tend to check brightness of image using histogram when posting on line.
Thoughts ?

 

[Brian G]

As I tried to explain above, Two wrongs don't make a right.
You have exactly the same problem as the OP.
YOU might "like" your monitor set too bright, but for critical photo work you will just have to accept that it is WRONG, and get it calibrated.
As suggested above, FIRST calibrate your monitor, THEN, if you want your images bright and saturated, adjust your images the way you want them.
I don't see how referring to the histogram is going to help you if your monitor is uncalibrated.

 

[Chappers]

Charles

Using the histogram just won't work. It has nothing to do with the display at all. It just shows the distribution ,in brightness ,of the image pixels. Lightening or darkening the screen will have no effect on that at all