I know this has been mentioned before, but the comments on the B&W challenges really seem to bring this home. A lot of people seem to need to calibrate their monitors before trying to comment on pictures!
The fundamental problem is that the correct calibration for picture viewing very often is not the correct calibration for working and doing things like word processing etc.
I see comments that say 'too dark' and comments that say 'too bright' I get 'too contrasty' and 'not enough contrast' I even get a wide range of comments about the very subtle green tint in my picture (which if the monitor is badly calibrated can look very green)
I think we need to acquire/ purloin/ create some brightness/ contrast charts and also a qiuck tutorial on gamma correction to help people set up correctly. I also think the brightness/ contrast target should appear on every single page that people might be using to vote just to make sure it gets seen.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: I know this has been mentioned before, but the comments on the B&W challenges really seem to bring this home. A lot of people seem to need to calibrate their monitors before trying to comment on pictures!
The fundamental problem is that the correct calibration for picture viewing very often is not the correct calibration for working and doing things like word processing etc.
I see comments that say 'too dark' and comments that say 'too bright' I get 'too contrasty' and 'not enough contrast' I even get a wide range of comments about the very subtle green tint in my picture (which if the monitor is badly calibrated can look very green)
I think we need to acquire/ purloin/ create some brightness/ contrast charts and also a qiuck tutorial on gamma correction to help people set up correctly. I also think the brightness/ contrast target should appear on every single page that people might be using to vote just to make sure it gets seen.
I would love to see a good tutorial on this myself... I know very little about it. When I do see a photo that is too dark or too bright, I take this into account and play with my monitor controls to see if I can correct it with my monitor before I make a comment on it...
I absolutely agree! I think the problem is due to the fact that most people (unless you do desktop publishing and web design) don't understand or know that monitors need calibrating. Monitors which have been left "On" for years (eg. the monitor i use at work) tend to flatten colours quite drastically because it's so old. No amount of calibrating can fix it! Also Macs display information with a gamma (or contrast) of 1.8 and PCs at 2.2. The higher the gamma number the darker the screen.
Originally posted by KDJohnson: This may help a little. Calibration
I can see all of the individual blocks on that page... however, i'm on a laptop at work and the laptop display is definitely not a good place to look at photos.. :)
Originally posted by jmsetzler: I can see all of the individual blocks on that page... however, i'm on a laptop at work and the laptop display is definitely not a good place to look at photos.. :)
Calibration is a complex thing - that's why there are several companies selling spyders to measure it correctly. Also, the monitor is only one part of the equation - the room lighting also plays a big part in how a picture looks on a screen (or a print for that matter)
That's why neutral colour lights cost so much and why most office or home environments don't have carefully controlled lighting.
what people think of as white is just one of several quite different colours that can be considered white - have a look in home depot in the paint isle if you want an example of this - or think about the various white balance settings for film and digital cameras.
That black to white scale is good to establish the correct brightness/ contrast settings but does nothing to help with the colour settings/ colour temperature/ gamma correction (total or per channel) and incident light, which all can quite dramatically change how a picture looks
this is an issue that has been raised before. i think it's a good idea, if for no other reason than that it will help a lot of people have a better feel for the baseline.
The problem is that this is still a subjective result. The only real way to get a good calibration is with a monitor spyder that actually checks the output analytically and adjusts the gamma values in the graphics adaptor accordingly.
Though that kind of subjective adjustment is a whole lot better than just adjusting the monitor so that it is comfortable for web viewing/email/word processing and then hoping that pictures will look the same across multiple machines.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: The problem is that this is still a subjective result. The only real way to get a good calibration is with a monitor spyder that actually checks the output analytically and adjusts the gamma values in the graphics adaptor accordingly.
I don't think we're going to get away with telling the voters to please purchase a 300 dollar piece of hardware before voting.
The nice thing about being a graphic designer is that I need one of those anyway (monitor spyder) for the work I do. So the company pays the bill.
But the other link I had was for software that would be on a website's server, isn't it? Since I know very little about the web, I'm not sure. The viewer doesn't buy anything...if that's the way I understood it. I'd be willing to send a little money Drew and Langdon's way for that. Should I say that? :)
The site DPReview has a block with monitor checking/calabration data on the bottom of the summary before each camera review is started. I think it's a good idea as long as you don't penalize those people with a dial-up connection too much.
I've never received a criticism on that so I can maybe safely assume I'm in the ballpark.
And that's all any of us really need to be, for these porpoises.
Originally posted by Reuben: Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: [i] The problem is that this is still a subjective result. The only real way to get a good calibration is with a monitor spyder that actually checks the output analytically and adjusts the gamma values in the graphics adaptor accordingly.
I don't think we're going to get away with telling the voters to please purchase a 300 dollar piece of hardware before voting.
Originally posted by KDJohnson: This may help a little. Calibration
Thanks -- I could see all the steps.
That 16-step gray scale is 64kb saved as a .bmp -- should be smaller as GIF or JPEG. Is it too much bandwidth hit to put one on the top or bottom of each voting page (where the voting numbes are)? It could be scaled smaller and still be useful.
Also, how about making the page background of the voting page a neutral gray?
Originally posted by Remie: Originally posted by GeneralE: [i] Also, how about making the page background of the voting page a neutral gray?
I agree! The backgroundcolor of the page has a major impact on the photos.[/i]
Probably a better idea would be to allow the user to select a background colour when they submit the image. Maybe just white/ black or grey but at least have some control over it.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: Originally posted by Remie: [i]Originally posted by GeneralE: [i] Also, how about making the page background of the voting page a neutral gray?
I agree! The backgroundcolor of the page has a major impact on the photos.[/i]
Probably a better idea would be to allow the user to select a background colour when they submit the image. Maybe just white/ black or grey but at least have some control over it.
It makes a big difference to how a picture looks.[/i]
If you mean the submitter is the one who can choose the background then I totally agree with that Gordon.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: Probably a better idea would be to allow the user to select a background colour when they submit the image. Maybe just white/ black or grey but at least have some control over it.
It makes a big difference to how a picture looks.
Although, this comes close to "using a border." Of course I myself would love those choices (maybe two grays) but if we're all going to use the same background I think the light gray is the standard.
The submitter should be able to choose the background colour for their picture, even if it is only out of a limited subset of colours (black and white would even be a good start)
