-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Monitor Notes - MF Photographers must go 32 inch Pro IPS 4K
- Thread starter Greg7579
- Start date
P
pentaust
Guest
I guess, factory precal should be pretty good to begin with, however XRite or Datacolor kits will do for fine tunning.
P
pentaust
Guest
All you need is a Dell UltraSharp 32 PremierColor UltraHD 8K Monitor: UP3218K. Hopefully your graphic card can drive 8K.
Canadianguy
Veteran Member
I have never used one of the wide gamut monitors - I have always used monitors where you just set it and forget about it - ok maybe run a calibration once in a while.
But these wild gamut monitors seem to have different colour modes that one has to select?
Are you changing modes based on your output use? For example, if you are outputting photos for the web - you select the sRGB mode but if you are outputting for print you pick the AdobeRGB mode or if you are doing video you would switch the mode to DCI-P3?
We do design for print and web, and processing of photos. So we need monitors that cover AdobeRGB, but primarily we need accuracy. Client displays are all over the place. We often hear "That colour you've used for our logo is all wrong" because they have wildly inaccurate monitors and have never seen their logo colours accurately displayed.
The BenQ I mentioned looks interesting because it makes it easy to switch between colour spaces (and B&W). I might do that if I get it. But at the moment I just leave my current display on AdobeRGB.
On thing to note, though. No matter how accurate we are, it's only one step in the process. When we design a print job, then we often attend a press check prior to running off 50,000 (or whatever) prints. Even the very best printers (like Hemlock in Vancouver) working from an exactly produced file, and with all the best equipment, still benefit from some expert hands-on tweaking at the press. Same thing for printing a photo if you want real accuracy. You have to take care of the whole process.
It's not obligatory.
Not for that. If I'm outputting to the web, I convert to sRGB in the image editor. the sRGB gamut is entirely contained within the Adobe RGB gamut.
If I were proofing video, I'd pick whatever video colorspace was the target, but my video work is infinitesimal.
I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
--
the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com
Manzur Fahim
Veteran Member
I agree with Greg, ASUS ProArt line of factory calibrated monitors are amazing, and at a good price too. They have 27 inch and 32 inch both sizes. I've been using the ProArt PA328Q since 2014, and have just upgraded to PA329C. I also tried to use the xrite iDisplay Pro calibrator and it always returns a -5 on brightness, everything else is spot on at factory settings.
Manzur Fahim
Veteran Member
X-rite iDisplay Pro is a really good one.
P
pentaust
Guest
For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration. So, I use the luminosity setting that allow the largest color gamut on my monitor, and I rely on histogram for the images I want to print.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
I'd be interested to know how you came up with your choice of 80-100 cd/m2 for soft proofing?
I've also found in many youtube videos about printing, they recommend to push the histogram before printing in an attempt to compensate for the fact the monitors are back illuminated whereas prints are front lit. I've found that pushing image luminosity before printing is a flawed method, because there is a hard limit for the white level that can be achieved in prints: this hard limit is the photo paper itself. So, I don't over brighten my images for printing, I only adjust for centering of image histogram. My solution to overcome the difference between back lit/front lit was to project a good amount of light on the prints themselves when viewing them, using arrays of high CRI 4000K led lights. So, far, I'm very satisfied with the results.
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi,For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration. So, I use the luminosity setting that allow the largest color gamut on my monitor, and I rely on histogram for the images I want to print.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
I'd be interested to know how you came up with your choice of 80-100 cd/m2 for soft proofing?
I've also found in many youtube videos about printing, they recommend to push the histogram before printing in an attempt to compensate for the fact the monitors are back illuminated whereas prints are front lit. I've found that pushing image luminosity before printing is a flawed method, because there is a hard limit for the white level that can be achieved in prints: this hard limit is the photo paper itself. So, I don't over brighten my images for printing, I only adjust for centering of image histogram. My solution to overcome the difference between back lit/front lit was to project a good amount of light on the prints themselves when viewing them, using arrays of high CRI 4000K led lights. So, far, I'm very satisfied with the results.
Basically, I would think that white on the screen should match the luminance of white in the place the print will hang.
Done that, you can simulate the darks in soft proofing, simulating paper and ink.
If you hang the prints on a white wall, you would use a white surround for the soft proof.
I think Jim's suggestion is right on target. With 90 cd/m^2 I get good visual match between soft proof an print.
A question may be, how do you print? Personally I print on an Epson 3880 up to 16"x23". Larger than that, I use a printing service that essentially dumps the images on DurstLambda, with no intervention. Using that service I found 'soft proofing' work very well.
That said, I don't regard me a printing guru,,,
Best regards
Erik
--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Last edited:
Short of saturation, that is surprising. The LCD filters are not affected by brightness, just the backlight. Well done LED PWM should not have this issue.For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
- How are you measuring the volume? CIElab? CIELuv?
- How are you calculating the reference?
- Where does the gamut change?
- Are you claiming nonlinear effects?
I think histogram is a great tool for getting good exposures, but a lousy tool for soft proofing.
I've been using that since 1992, when I had a $20,000 Barco monitor and a $40,000 Dupont 4Cast printer. Glad that prices have come down.
Ah, the old self-luminous thing. I deal with it through experience and tweak the last bit in with hard proofing. I don't have the space for a viewing booth that negates the self-luminous psychological effect.
I don't brighten my images for printing at all.
--
https://blog.kasson.com
Last edited:
Turns out I'm not alone:
Post-processing & Printing - Photography - FM Forums
Explore Post-processing & Printing photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.
www.fredmiranda.com
But that's not enough unless you use an appropriate surround. With a black image-editing surround, your prints will still be too dark.
P
pentaust
Guest
Yes, this is surprising, I would have thought the system to be rather linear especially when lowering luminosity, but apparently it's not. My 10 years old IPS monitor has a default factory hardware calibration setting mode, any change of monitor parameters automatically disable the factory hardware calibrated mode, then it is not possible to reach as much gamut volume when the default factory setting is disabled (I've tried many times, trying different things), the default factory cal mode is what give the best starting point for a software based calibration.Short of saturation, that is surprising. The LCD filters are not affected by brightness, just the backlight. Well done LED PWM should not have this issue.For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
- How are you measuring the volume? CIElab? CIELuv?
- How are you calculating the reference?
- Where does the gamut change?
- Are you claiming nonlinear effects?
Unless printers have a limited dynamic range like digital sensors...
My choice was to edit my images so that they look how I want them to look on display. Then, in order to compensate for the backlit/frontlit effect, I boost the lighting on the prints, and it works amazingly well. I've been really impressed by how much quality added light can make prints look outstanding.
So what do you do then in soft proofing? Black level only to compensate for paper dmax?
P
pentaust
Guest
We can find a lot of things online, mostly superficial, mostly refactored from prior online content, various versions of the same superficial content. You can go much further by doing your own tests, and solving you problems yourself as opposed to asking solutions to google search engine.
I've long hung on answers from internet search engines, trying to find solutions from what other people have published online, until I realized that I can do better, much better by using my own problem solving skills
Very often, answers from the web are popular answers , but often not the best answers.
Thank you for your sagacious general comments.We can find a lot of things online, mostly superficial, mostly refactored from prior online content, various versions of the same superficial content. You can go much further by doing your own tests, and solving you problems yourself as opposed to asking solutions to google search engine.
I've long hung on answers from internet search engines, trying to find solutions from what other people have published online, until I realized that I can do better, much better by using my own problem solving skills
I am not relying on internet search engines here. As I said, this is a method for soft proofing that I have been using myself since 1992, with no small success.
Jim
You didn't answer any of the first three questions.Yes, this is surprising,Short of saturation, that is surprising. The LCD filters are not affected by brightness, just the backlight. Well done LED PWM should not have this issue.For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
- How are you measuring the volume? CIElab? CIELuv?
- How are you calculating the reference?
- Where does the gamut change?
- Are you claiming nonlinear effects?
That's pretty old. What is the backlight technology? If it's CCFL, there could easily be nonlinearities.
If you'd answer the questions above, I might be able to comment on your specific case.
Actually, the correct raw exposure has nothing at all to do the the dynamic range of printers; it is the exposure that gets the most photons to the sensor while avoiding clipping in areas that the photographer cares about.
I know some people do that. I've done it to test the idea. If your monitor is too bright, it's better than nothing.
That's certainly true. Many museums and galleries, including most of the ones where I've displayed my images, limit the lighting level to protect the images. Some of them have archival responsibilities which dictate that.
First, I use the monitor brightness that I've described.
Second, I use a light surround that's wide enough to simulate the end viewer's surround.
I use a monitor hood.
Third, I control my visual adaptation with the ambient room light. I don't soft proof in darkness.
Then, paper Dmax simulation can come into play. If the profile is designed properly, that can be done in the profile. However, Dmax depends on viewing geometry, and there's really no substitute for taking hard proofs to the venue to make sure you've got it right.
Jim
--
https://blog.kasson.com
Last edited:
P
pentaust
Guest
That's right. I'm afraid I experimented with the color cal. of my monitor several years ago, so I don't remember how the calibrated gamut changed when I tweaked monitor settings. I'd need to get into this again to answer your questions , and I don't currently have the time/will to do it, sorry. But thanks for trying to help.You didn't answer any of the first three questions.Yes, this is surprising,Short of saturation, that is surprising. The LCD filters are not affected by brightness, just the backlight. Well done LED PWM should not have this issue.For my monitor, I've found that the luminosity setting has an effect on the max volume of color gamut that can be achieved by calibration.I do normally keep my monitor much brighter than when I do soft proofing, which I do at 80 -100 cd/m2. I've got a different setting for that:
- How are you measuring the volume? CIElab? CIELuv?
- How are you calculating the reference?
- Where does the gamut change?
- Are you claiming nonlinear effects?
I fully agree, the correct raw exposure has nothing at all to do with the dynamic range of the printer. I would also add that monitor brightness is unrelated to the brightness of the print which depends on paper and front lighting, beside the lose link of subjective changing human perception. That's why I think relying on monitor soft proofing is a very weak method , yet popular method. Matching the content of the export file (histo+range of colors) to the capabilities of the print process is however much more robust than soft proofing with the eyes via a monitor that can't show the range of printed colors. Yet, everyone mess around soft proofing and always get surprised that the prints that never quite match what they see on their monitors. I jumped out of the soft proofing bandwagon, I use printer+paper color spaces and hard proofing, I have no surprises.
Yes, and if your monitor is too dim, you just push the histogram to the left until it clips because you can't go further. So, why not just forget about monitor and just center the histogram in the middle of the range printable by the print process?
For my prints' show room, the lights are switched on only during show times, otherwise in near darkness (room closed). Given 30 (and much more for pigment inks) years archival rating at 10 hours daily light dose, it's not a few weeks of illumination per year that are going to age the prints very much. In addition, the remaining time outside exhibition times, prints are stored in the dark. And, if print aging is a problem, say if you exhibit 6 months per year, you can even have a second copy permanently stored in the dark, you can even re-print if necessary.
Yes. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
Museums and some galleries have a responsibility to preserve the object. To them, a second copy is a different object. I know prints can look a lot better when the light is brighter, but that's not in the cards for many exhibit spaces.
By the way, I talked about this issue well over a decade ago:
Improving on the museum experience - the last word
In the November/December 2007 issue of Lenswork, Brooks Jensen wrote an essay on the implications of "the ongoing revolution in commercial printing technologies." Jensen asserts, and justifies the position, that the best commercial printing processes can produce images equaling or exceeding the...
blog.kasson.com
In that case, I am confused by the point that you're making above. Can you explain?
Are you saying that the histogram of the output-referred image is not germane to printing that image? In that case, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. If you're looking at the histogram of the image in native printer color space, it can be quite useful. It doesn't substitute for a soft proof, but you can see where the image will block up on the printer. However, not many workflows allow this histogram to be observed easily. In any case, Can can agree that a histogram is not a substitute for a soft proof (and, by the way, for critical work, a soft proof is not a substitute for a hard proof).
Can you at least tell me if the backlight on your display is CCFL or LED? If it's CCFL, I understand why it could be nonlinear.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum