Bill's original picture looks better on my monitor too, but my monitor is only set using the freebie calibrators, not your fancy ones.
The slightly darker version increases the shadow density and so reveals the machine marks on the surfaces better. Again this may simply be down to our respective monitor settings.
DaveW
LeCoultre Movement
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Thanks for doing that Bill.
Yes, artistically if I had to chose between the two I would probably opt for your original posting too. However in a situation where detail or information content was most important (such as a technical publication for example) then on my monitor I would judge the modified image as being better for the purpose.
Although again I would use the history brush to restore the brushed steel surfaces (including the orange engraving) and the edge and top of the winder back to your darker original.
Bruce
Yes, artistically if I had to chose between the two I would probably opt for your original posting too. However in a situation where detail or information content was most important (such as a technical publication for example) then on my monitor I would judge the modified image as being better for the purpose.
Although again I would use the history brush to restore the brushed steel surfaces (including the orange engraving) and the edge and top of the winder back to your darker original.
Bruce
Well, I learned a few things! I hope this thread was beneficial for all who viewed it on this forum. I am going to bookmark at least three of the links Dave provided. Like Rik stated earlier, I am more concerned with my monitor matching my printer. But, I am always curious as how my photos are viewed on other monitors. I have my own website that I use as a portfolio, to show my work to people interested in having me take pictures for them. I will be shooting some vintage automobiles this spring, so right now it is loaded with some of my car shots. The person who wants the pictures was able to go to my site and see examples of work. So, I am interested in how my images appear to others on the web! I am learning more about histograms everyday. Since the '80s I have used Ansel Adams Zone System for calculating exposure. Since going digital, I have modified that, where, I "expose for the right". (right side of the histogram, the highlights) Thanks Bruce.
If you are interested, my site:http://www.photologicdesign.com/
If you are interested, my site:http://www.photologicdesign.com/
Bill
Sorry to be so late in getting to your post Bill but of course you have had plenty of company on this subject. 
Just as well, I have nothing to comment on about monitors, other than they show images and the pixels burnout occassionally (TFT's thin film transistors). The first image of the watch I really like better and it looks fine on my monitor and so does the second but it appears to have less contrast. But, that is on my monitor which is not calibrated unless I take my fist and give it a technical tap.
Just as well, I have nothing to comment on about monitors, other than they show images and the pixels burnout occassionally (TFT's thin film transistors). The first image of the watch I really like better and it looks fine on my monitor and so does the second but it appears to have less contrast. But, that is on my monitor which is not calibrated unless I take my fist and give it a technical tap. 
The second one is now showing some nice ruby coloring (are they rubies or sapphires) on the jewels and the darker face and winding knob is showing more detail on the surface but I agree the lighter machined metal surface is getting a little bright. I have to say I am liking the second one a little more though.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
Doug Breda
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24057
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Bill,
This has been an interesting discussion thread. It even prompted me to spend an embarrassingly long time re-evaluating my own monitor calibration and how to control it. (See this topic for today's big win on the control issue.)
But the more I think about the question you originally asked, the more I think we've missed one basic suggestion:
If you don't have any other access, try hitting up the management at some local computer store to let you try out their machines. Even if their demo machines are not connected to the Internet, I'll bet they could read a CD if you carried one in.
One other thought...
You mentioned histograms. They're really important. A lot of the reason that your second image looks "too light" is that it doesn't have any pure blacks in it. Flying a cursor over the Photoshop histogram reveals that one has to go all the way up to Level:20 to find even 111 pixels (0.18%). So that image is essentially giving up the bottom 8% of the available dynamic range (20 levels out of 255). If you move the threshold to make those 111 pixels pure black (Level:0), then you can adjust gamma over quite a wide range to lighten or darken the image, and it still retains its snap. Give it a try, see what you think.
--Rik
This has been an interesting discussion thread. It even prompted me to spend an embarrassingly long time re-evaluating my own monitor calibration and how to control it. (See this topic for today's big win on the control issue.)
But the more I think about the question you originally asked, the more I think we've missed one basic suggestion:
- Find a bunch of different monitors and take a look yourself.
If you don't have any other access, try hitting up the management at some local computer store to let you try out their machines. Even if their demo machines are not connected to the Internet, I'll bet they could read a CD if you carried one in.
One other thought...
You mentioned histograms. They're really important. A lot of the reason that your second image looks "too light" is that it doesn't have any pure blacks in it. Flying a cursor over the Photoshop histogram reveals that one has to go all the way up to Level:20 to find even 111 pixels (0.18%). So that image is essentially giving up the bottom 8% of the available dynamic range (20 levels out of 255). If you move the threshold to make those 111 pixels pure black (Level:0), then you can adjust gamma over quite a wide range to lighten or darken the image, and it still retains its snap. Give it a try, see what you think.
--Rik
Rik- Happy New Year! Yes, I agree I should evaluate my site from as many different monitors as possible to get an idea what others are seeing. And, I have, many times. Not only from friends computers, but, from all of the computers at work. I work for a small company, 22 employees, there are eleven computers in our office and one on the shop floor. We have an off site IT guy who keeps our server and LAN running. But, I have been appointed the "computer guy" in the office. Wow! that's scary!! I am the liaison to the IT guy. So, from time to time I have looked at my site from a fair amount of computers. I want to know how you think my images look! I am looking for some subjective opinions.
One of the reasons I was prompted to ask for opinions was, I felt my original image was to flat. Of course I had seen the histogram for it. ##### the histogram and it's flat midrange! For me it doesn't pop! I think I should go into "curves" and pump-up the contrast! Now, by coincidence, I'm using a new monitor. so, is it just me, or my monitor? I will keep fine tuning my monitor, and there will be plenty more photos for me to fret over! To sum it up, I wanted to know how my images are perceived.
One of the reasons I was prompted to ask for opinions was, I felt my original image was to flat. Of course I had seen the histogram for it. ##### the histogram and it's flat midrange! For me it doesn't pop! I think I should go into "curves" and pump-up the contrast! Now, by coincidence, I'm using a new monitor. so, is it just me, or my monitor? I will keep fine tuning my monitor, and there will be plenty more photos for me to fret over! To sum it up, I wanted to know how my images are perceived.
Bill