[low.pfile]

I am torn…

for you hardcore amateurs and photography pros

Calibrated vs. not calibrated for general web image output?

I have been taking photos for a dozen years. purely amateur stuff. purely web output. no physical prints. Although, I have taken a print class at a local photo center. And recently purchased and used the X-Rite's i1Display Pro (a calibration and profiling system for a display / projector). So I have my custom profile in my iMac ready to use. Of course it resulted in a lower overall brightness, and there was a bit of a color shift towards warmer. This was as I expected because I used to use a calibrated NEC LCD display and I know that the 'everyperson' has their display set at max brightness, without calibration.

But using that new custom display profile, I've edited/processed a few photos of an event and then reviewed on a non-calibrated MacBook Pro ( and smartphone ) and the images were very bright and oversaturated, while on the calibrated iMac display, on which they were edited, they were as expected.

So I am second thinking that using the iMac profile (using the built-in OSX Display Calibration Assistant) might be a better approach when dealing with image output for web only use. What do you guys think/do?



side note: I am also looking for a second LCD screen 24" (not 27") to connect to the MacBook Pro for some photowork and graphics when in a secondary location. the 15" MBP screen is just too small. under $500 possible?


cheers

[SET Man]

Hey!

     Tough one 

     Personally I've never use those calibration device on my Mac. Right now I have 13" MacBook Pro and I've only used the Mac's built-in calibration assist. (Before that I was using 12" PowerBook G4) And it looks better than out of the box after. And yes I do all my photos on this little Mac.

    Also, I rarely make print now but when I do the prints from my local lab that I use often pretty much matched what I see on my little 13" screen so with that I've never feel the need to get one of those calibration devices.

     Anyway, I've been wondering about these for sometime myself. But so far the prints I got from my lab look great and I've seen my own pictures on my friends' and others computers and they look fine. Also, Apple now use the more universal 2.2 gamma, so it is less of a problem now when viewing photos from Mac on PC's screen and etc.

    I don't know, I guess it is up to you. If you do lots of prints than it is more important to calibrate your screen to match your print output from your printer or the lab.

Take care,
Buddy
     

[low.pfile]

Thanks Buddy,
Yeah Profiles for printers are very important, but they don't apply to me 98% of the time. If I printed I'd use those profiles. My quandary applies to output for web/screen viewing.
Getting ready to process images tonight...looks like I'll revert to my old iMac profile, just a few ticks down from max brightness--why won't Apple allow you to enter a numeric setting for brightness AND lock it?!

going for a bike ride now. editing in the eve.

[Photon46]

Interesting that there appears to be so much difference in monitor appearance after calibration. Like Buddy, I always went through the built in Apple calibration program when I used Apple monitors and never had any problems with edited images looking wrong when I saw them on another display. After I went to a 27" NEC monitor I started using X-rite calibration and noticed very little difference in the appearance of images as compared to the built-in Apple calibration. On my system, the x-rite comparison curves showing pre and post calibration were almost identical. So the big difference you are seeing baffles me? FWIW, most of my work ends up used in print, so I have gotten in the habit of always using the "eyedropper" tool in Photoshop to check my image white and black points as a control. 

[jqp]

Several things come to mind...

relatively small percentage of apple monitors out there - less than you would think
all monitors are different and are set differently
many photos are deliberately color shifted or color altered - so what is "real"
probably most monitors are set with too much brightness, and come this way from the factory?


Reminds me of how studio recordings were mastered for car radios for songs when they would most likely be heard in a car...or for other scenarios...but we want "the perfect" mastering for our home systems.

[low.pfile]

Thanks jpq and Photon46

yes, apple displays are not in any way a majority, but I think the default brightness is always an issue. just like "torch mode" on LCD TVs

The profiles created are noticeably different to me. even the iMac default vs iMac Calibrated are different. Below show some examples....

[low.pfile]

Maybe this will work, maybe not.....the other day I attempted to take screen shots to capture the different profile results. but OSX does not take the display profile into account for screen shots. So I set up my camera on a tripod and took quick images to show the relative difference between the profiles I have currently. These, in no way, are accurate for color or dynamic range, but they show the relative difference. The funny thing is that unless YOU are viewing these on a somewhat accurate display they will likely look very similar.

1. iMac OS Calibration Assistant
2. Xrite_Calibrated in Afternoon Daylight (closed window shades)
3. Xrite_Calibrated in Dark Room with small lamp - No Auto Ambient
4. Xrite_Calibrated in Dark Room with small lamp - with Auto Ambient
5. iMac - Out of Box (Max Brightness)

NOTE: the profiles 1-4 are based on the Xrite calibration Brightness setting with is around 55%. Also the iMac out of box image is a bit brighter than to the eye. But I didn't want to take the time to figure the absolute perfect exposure. screen shots are tough.

camera settings:
1/15sec, ƒ/5.6, ISO 200, AutoWB, 35mm lens (yeah, my view is a little tilted)

[SET Man]

Hey!

   Hmmm.... interesting. Viewing on my 13" MBP non-retina in my dimly lit room with 27" LCD TV on in front of me. I set my brightness about 80-85%

  #5 is way too bright, but that's kind of expected. The sad part is that most people (non photographer, graphics related) will be using their Mac this way.   

  #4 is a bit too dark.

  #3 and #2 are close. But I feel #3 looks better to me.

  #1 is close to #3 of which I think looks best, just a tad lighter. Not bad for a built-in calibration.

   Of course this is not absolute since we are talking about screen shots here. Are you setting the exposure based on which one?

    How your photos looks on other screens that you have seen?

Take care,
Buddy

[low.pfile]

I'm still working on it.

the Dell U2412M 24-Inch monitor showed up today--thanks Amazon!

I see that I can use it as an second display with the imac 27 in Lightroom-lots of options. I didn't calibrate the DELL but knocked down the brightness two clicks.  and there is a noticeable difference in the image rendering. the iMac calibrated is still very dark. I have 600 images to sort through and the dark lighting shows up clearly different between the two displays. This project is screen/web output only so I am still dialing it in.

I think having a couple of monitors will help me see what others will see.

now to select the best 30 shots.....



now to go stir the marinara sauce...

[Photon46]

PM sent, check your messages.

[jqp]

what is your opinion of the the Dell U2412M so far?

[low.pfile]

jqp, It is awesome to have a NON-GLOSSY display. the iMac screen reflectivity definitely has its shortcomings. the off angle viewing on the DELL is very good. but, as stated, it is uncalibrated, but good out of the box. I am just using it as the secondary display for Lightroom work, to see the range of possibilities of how images appear.

But I mainly bought the DELL to be the display for my work MacBook Pro when I work from home for my day job. I was very surprised, that I  can't use the iMac as a monitor for the MBP...vintages matter.


Photon46, i'll check in with ya later.

cheers