Calibrating and Profiling Monitors...do it correctly. Use Argyll CMS.

[mikling]

I think we are confusing analogies here. Ansell adams used his eyes as his monitor. There was no intermediate media his processing depended on what he saw. The other thing is to consider why musicians and mix engineers use high quality studio monitors. If the photographer wants to translate the end image to print or other media, then having a well calibrated monitor is vital...regardless of color space chosen.

Now here is the question that will have you wondering. Many photographers sell images on the internet and then ship prints. On the internet, the accepted standard is sRGB.....it is by default whether or not you like it. If ARGB is encoded, it is more likely that the potential purchaser will see the wrong color rather than the correct one, due to browser selection and setup as well as whether or not the viewing device is calibrated or not. There is a much higher chance that the viewer will see a more accurate rendition if sRGB is encoded. So....in these cases, would it not be better to simply use sRGB so that the delivered images look similar to the one that is shown online? If such is the case,,,,,would the photographer be better off simply working in sRGB and an sRGB capable monitor might well be totally sufficient in this scenario?

 

[Emulator]

The link below gives interesting reading relating to colour spaces, cameras and monitors.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/284944?start=0&tstart=0

 

[3dogs]

I think we are confusing analogies here. Ansell adams used his eyes as his monitor. There was no intermediate media his processing depended on what he saw. The other thing is to consider why musicians and mix engineers use high quality studio monitors. If the photographer wants to translate the end image to print or other media, then having a well calibrated monitor is vital...regardless of color space chosen.

Now here is the question that will have you wondering. Many photographers sell images on the internet and then ship prints. On the internet, the accepted standard is sRGB.....it is by default whether or not you like it. If ARGB is encoded, it is more likely that the potential purchaser will see the wrong color rather than the correct one, due to browser selection and setup as well as whether or not the viewing device is calibrated or not. There is a much higher chance that the viewer will see a more accurate rendition if sRGB is encoded. So....in these cases, would it not be better to simply use sRGB so that the delivered images look similar to the one that is shown online? If such is the case,,,,,would the photographer be better off simply working in sRGB and an sRGB capable monitor might well be totally sufficient in this scenario?

Mike im not mixing anything......what I said was that given the choice, his choice of monitor would have been made on exactly the same basis as was ALL his other choices.

See my postv#21 this thread, printing is an abolute conundrum, your question on selling via Internet is spot on .

There is no point in me taking my 40 year old car to the local Toyota Dealership for service. The mechanics use plug in "car rips" (computer) to tune cars, there are no ports to plug into. Same with a monitor that has no, or limited control or programmable drives.
All I am trying to articulate with respect to monitors is that the end result depends on just how programable the monitor is and what it is able to reproduce. Now on that point I have a theory :

Whilst the scientists CLAIM that we cant see certain tones and range, I will ask a question right back: If we cant see what they say we cant, then why is it there in the first place? The answer is, we CAN see, reognising or articulating may be switched off for some reason, as in we have ( the scientists claim, we have switched off the brain function that allows animals the ability to recognise non human facial fatures an ability we are born with, and continues till it switches off early in our development as babies, , choosing rather to specialise and selectively favour human features) however, I suspect that at some level we ARE able to discern the presence/ absence of high levels of tonal range, and thst is , I believe, a prime driver in developing our personal preferences in the things we see, such as pictres and fabrics.

In performance pursits they are finding genetic differenc drives ability, most of us have at best 20/20 vision, but they have measures individuals with 20/9 that can discern detail invisible to average sighted folk.

Here I rest, I have put forward my case as best I can, got it off my chest etc. so back to vegie state till next time for me!

 

[stratman]

@3dogs:
Crikey! I think you are seeing things. Put your tin foil hat back on.

The human eye can only discern so much. Geniuses in a windowless lab somewhere have determined the number to be around 10 million colors and all of this is within the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Visual acuity, the clarity or sharpness of vision such as 20/20 vision, is not how many colors you can see nor is something invisible if you cannot perceive it due to visual acuity issues.

The following article may shed some light on why larger 'bit' monitors may be helpful to those who manipulate images: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

 

[3dogs]

@3dogs:
Crikey! I think you are seeing things. Put your tin foil hat back on.

The human eye can only discern so much. Geniuses in a windowless lab somewhere have determined the number to be around 10 million colors and all of this is within the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Visual acuity, the clarity or sharpness of vision such as 20/20 vision, is not how many colors you can see nor is something invisible if you cannot perceive it due to visual acuity issues.

The following article may shed some light on why larger 'bit' monitors may be helpful to those who manipulate images: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

With respect......Two totally separate paragraphs, two totally separate issues. In relative terms 20/20 is VERY average and many attributes are lost to those having only average visual acuity and if you can't see detail, you will not see graduation because its lost in a blur.
On colour I will happily wear my foil hat, science is espousing a crock of shite, has NO idea what it is talking about and is perhaps (if lucky) back at the point of declaring the world flat.
Throw light on a fish thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean, and it glows with colour, why because it needs colour to attract a mate and blend in. Science tells us fish are colour blind.........WOW! so why do they have colour if its not seen or required. Why do male fish assume glowing gaudy colours when breeding...if their mate can't see it....what CRAP! Nature, does NOTHING by accident, leaves nothing to chance. If they have no need to see colour then why very much enlarged eyes......there is light down there, we just don't have the tools to see it. Science does not say they can't see down there, but it does say their vision is monochrome.......piffle!

What has any of this to do with monitors, if a monitor can't show some colours in our measured colour space, a calibration is not going to fix that. If one part of the screen is brighter than the rest, again calibration is not going to fix that either. So when you look at your monitor to edit colour, on one you are editing great blocks and on the other small chunks. If one part of the screen is brighter than another and you selectively edit the output risks being astray, and chances are that person will either a) not be able to see it, or b) not know how to fix it and make do. Colours and composition go hand in hand and paint artists use it to convey their message.

Frankly I am very comfortable sitting under my foil hat secure in the knowledge that our colour preferences are, at a subliminal level, far sharper and able to process blocks of tonal range that are, if present result in a pleasing perception, if absent, not so pleasing.

When I look at the dry bark of a gum tree I see the colours, others say its just a uniform dull blue gray........come a rainy day and they comment on the sudden appearance of the colour they said was not there previously...........

@stratman you are right on both counts, and I am comfortable being able to see differently, it makes me who I am

 

[stratman]

With respect......Two totally separate paragraphs, two totally separate issues. In relative terms 20/20 is VERY average and many attributes are lost to those having only average visual acuity and if you can't see detail, you will not see graduation because its lost in a blur.

Visual acuity is not color vision though there is correlation between the two in pathological conditions. However, certain common conditions that affect near vision acuity, such as presbyopia from old age, may be corrected. The correction does not alter the native ability of the brain to determine colors. The ability to perceive colors was always there but the incoming data from the eyes, through the optic nerve and then into the brain was imprecise due to refractive error, similar to computers - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Correct the refractive error and then begin to better interpret the world around you.

On colour I will happily wear my foil hat, science is espousing a crock of shite, has NO idea what it is talking about and is perhaps (if lucky) back at the point of declaring the world flat.

Maybe so. There is too much pseudoscience going around these days that countries are willing to bet their financial health on. Has anyone ever visually counted, one by one, each of the ~16 million colors of a 24 bit monitor?

Nature, does NOTHING by accident, leaves nothing to chance.

Yes, 'accidents' do happen in Nature and are called mutations. I cannot speak to your fish example, so will leave to the resident ichthyologists on the forum.

What has any of this to do with monitors, if a monitor can't show some colours in our measured colour space, a calibration is not going to fix that. If one part of the screen is brighter than the rest, again calibration is not going to fix that either.

Finally we speak the same language!

When I look at the dry bark of a gum tree I see the colours, others say its just a uniform dull blue gray........come a rainy day and they comment on the sudden appearance of the colour they said was not there previously...........

The relevant point is whether the camera picks up these colors, that your monitor can display them, your printer can print them. Can the guy who didn't see the colors before now see them on the monitor or print? If not, one of you has a vision issue.

@stratman you are right on both counts, and I am comfortable being able to see differently, it makes me who I am

My favorite sentence in your post.


*Edited to correct the monitor bit rate from 16 to 24 bits.

 

[3dogs]

Yes, 'accidents' do happen in Nature and are called mutations. I cannot speak to your fish example, so will leave to the resident ichthyologists on the forum.
/QUOTE]
Richard Dawkins (the late) amongst others has it that its genes that do it, mutation, abhoration, accident is not evolution. I do not accept the random selfish gene theory either, there is an underlying intelligence that is not accidental.

Maybe so. There is too much pseudoscience going around these days that countries are willing to bet their financial health on/QUOTE]

and most of that promulgated by mainstream Science for the purpose of gaining financial and political power IMHO

Has anyone ever visually counted, one by one, each of the ~16 million colors of a 16 bit monitor?/QUOTE]

Yes, how else did Science arrive at that number, if Science is right, then the number must be right

 

[The Hat]

Phew after all of them BIG words I think I need my eye tested.
Amazing...

 

[stratman]

You were kidding about the 16 million colors, right?

We cannot see all ~16 million colors even if we manually counted.

The number is mathematically calculated based on the understanding of the technology.

Found a nice article from the people of Eizo monitors on bits and monitor performance to help people choose a monitor to fit their imaging needs: http://www.eizoglobal.com/library/basics/maximum_display_colors/

*I have corrected something from post #64 -- correcting '16 bit' to '24 bit' monitor for ~16 million colors.*

 

[3dogs]

You were kidding about the 16 million colors, right?

We cannot see all ~16 million colors even if we manually counted.

The number is mathematically calculated based on the understanding of the technology.

Found a nice article from the people of Eizo monitors on bits and monitor performance to help people choose a monitor to fit their imaging needs: http://www.eizoglobal.com/library/basics/maximum_display_colors/

*I have corrected something from post #64 -- correcting '16 bit' to '24 bit' monitor for ~16 million colors.*

..................what!! Are you going to now tell me that we bin arguin about 16 million colours, an no one out there bothered to count them BEFORE they told us there were 16 million.
My flamin eyeblls are hangin on my cheeks, and I lost the count three times, an there might be only 15, 000, 998.
Cripes, we cant trust itchyologists, scientologists, mathamatologists, next you gunna tell me the proctologist does'nt know shite........seems you cant trust anybody these days, an now @TheHat needs a oculist for eye strain and an optomist to clear away the fog.