what light setting should computer be to edit photos
nutstae • Junior Member • Posts: 32
Monitor Brightness for Photograph Editing?
1
Hi community,
Whenever I work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, it looks perfect on my screen, only it looks very nighttime and have a very stiff contrast on majority of other screens.
Then I presume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed it earlier? how do you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
Cheers
Re: Monitor Brightness for Photo Editing?
1
nutstae wrote:
Howdy customs,
Whenever I piece of work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, it looks perfect on my screen, but it looks very dark and have a very strong contrast on majority of other screens.
So I presume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed information technology earlier? how do you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
The all-time style is with a hardware calibration tool such as an 10-Rite i1 but those price coin. You can try this site:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm
to get shut for complimentary.
-- hibernate signature --
Leonard Migliore
Canon PowerShot G12 Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-South DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/three.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +11 more
Mike CH • Veteran Fellow member • Posts: 9,631
Turn it downwardly...
4
nutstae wrote:
Hello community,
Whenever I piece of work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, it looks perfect on my screen, simply information technology looks very dark and have a very stiff contrast on majority of other screens.
So I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and stock-still information technology before? how exercise you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
Thanks
Commonly, monitors are besides bright in the default settings for photograph editing, especially if you print. So the recommendation there is to turn downwardly the monitor to around 110 cd/m2. Many monitors are up around 300 cd/m2 in brightness, which means that prints will look dark. A quick fix is to turn effulgence down to about one/iii. More avant-garde would be to use a monitor profiling tool, which will take intendance of not merely the brightness but as well the colours.
What I find a fleck curious in your situation is that the images are dark on other monitors. Exercise you know if they are color profiled?
Regards, Mike
-- hide signature --
Wait and encounter...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do hateful to speak generally the statements are probable to be marked as such.
Canon G7 X Two Catechism EOS 5D Marker 3 Canon EOS 5D Marking IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +14 more than
hotdog321 • Forum Pro • Posts: 21,081
Down and dirty monitor brightness scale:
10
Exactly. Most monitors need to be turned way down and the contrast turned manner upwards. Hither'southward a downward and dirty scale method.
Accept your camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where y'all postal service DPR messages. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, i/four sec.
Now turn your monitor down until you lot get a expressionless-on reading. Bingo! Brightness is calibrated. It may not exist perfect, merely it volition exist pretty darned close in my experience.
Catechism EOS 5D Mark 4 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Ii USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L Ii USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +three more
OP nutstae • Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Turn it down...
1
Mike CH wrote:
nutstae wrote:
Hi community,
Whenever I work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, it looks perfect on my screen, but information technology looks very dark and take a very strong contrast on majority of other screens.
So I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and stock-still it before? how practice you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
Thank you
Commonly, monitors are too bright in the default settings for photo editing, especially if you print. So the recommendation at that place is to turn down the monitor to effectually 110 cd/m2. Many monitors are up around 300 cd/m2 in brightness, which means that prints volition expect night. A quick fix is to plow effulgence down to about one/3. More advanced would exist to use a monitor profiling tool, which will take care of not only the brightness simply also the colours.
Cheers for your response.
How do you achieve that 110 cd/m2? where practice you even find that information? can it be manually dialed or changed? im no "I dont know annihilation virtually calculator" but this is new to me.
What I observe a chip curious in your state of affairs is that the images are nighttime on other monitors. Do you know if they are colour profiled?
Regards, Mike
-- hide signature --
Wait and encounter...
I hardly ever speak for anybody only myself. In the cases where I practise mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.
OP nutstae • Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Downwardly and dingy monitor brightness calibration:
1
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Nearly monitors demand to be turned way down and the contrast turned way upward. Here's a down and dirty calibration method.
Accept your photographic camera with a normal lens and make full the frame with the white surface area where y'all post DPR messages. Ready the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, 1/four sec.
Now plough your monitor downwards until you lot get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Effulgence is calibrated. Information technology may non exist perfect, but it volition be pretty darned close in my experience.
Thanks for your response.
but what is the science backside this method? I am only wondering no offence non trying to debate or anything
hotdog321 • Forum Pro • Posts: 21,081
Re: Downwardly and dirty monitor effulgence scale:
ane
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Most monitors need to exist turned manner downwards and the contrast turned way up. Here'due south a down and dirty calibration method.
Take your camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where y'all mail service DPR messages. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, 1/4 sec.
Now turn your monitor downwardly until you get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Brightness is calibrated. It may not be perfect, only it will exist pretty darned close in my experience.
Thank you for your response.
merely what is the scientific discipline behind this method? I am but wondering no offence not trying to argue or anything
This method but brings the monitor brightness down to the approximate brightness used by calibrated monitors. The pure white DPR posting screen is the same for everyone. Non a whole lot of "science" here--just a matter of getting the exposure into the ballpark.
Canon EOS 5D Marker IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.viii Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Two USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L Two USM Catechism EF xvi-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Re: Downwardly and dingy monitor effulgence calibration:
1
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Most monitors need to exist turned way down and the contrast turned way up. Here's a downward and dirty calibration method.
Take your camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where you mail service DPR letters. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/xi, 1/4 sec.
Now turn your monitor downwardly until you get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Effulgence is calibrated. It may not be perfect, but information technology will exist pretty darned close in my experience.
Thanks for your response.
just what is the science behind this method? I am just wondering no offence non trying to contend or anything
The science is the relationship of EV to illuminance. Hotdog is setting the camera to EV ix at ISO 100. This corresponds to an illuminance of 64 cd/m^2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
Information technology'south a adequately brilliant trick; never underestimate a professional person.
-- hide signature --
Leonard Migliore
Canon PowerShot G12 Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-South DX Nikkor xvi-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +xi more
buybuybuy • Veteran Member • Posts: five,388
Re: Downwards and dirty monitor brightness calibration:
1
Leonard Migliore wrote:
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Most monitors demand to be turned way down and the dissimilarity turned way up. Hither'south a down and dirty scale method.
Take your photographic camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where you post DPR letters. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, 1/4 sec.
Now turn your monitor downwards until you get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Brightness is calibrated. It may not be perfect, simply it will exist pretty darned close in my feel.
Thank you for your response.
but what is the scientific discipline behind this method? I am just wondering no offence not trying to argue or anything
The science is the relationship of EV to illuminance. Hotdog is setting the camera to EV 9 at ISO 100. This corresponds to an illuminance of 64 cd/m^two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
Information technology's a fairly brilliant trick; never underestimate a professional.
Adept job, hotdog. But I think EV ten might be preferable: 1/8 sec @ f/11, ISO 100 for ~128 cd/m^two
Perhaps some intermediate effulgence setting between EV 9 and ten is the best compromise.
Mike_PEAT • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,344
Not only your monitor, but your room lights too!
three
nutstae wrote:
So I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed it before? how do you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
The style to fix this is with a calibration tool. The ane I use also measures lighting levels because that'southward likewise a reason for you to take the monitor brightness higher!
When I got a job as a photo editor I used a calibrator to calibrate the brightness and colour of the monitor, simply it likewise told me me that the lighting in front of the monitor was too vivid so I stopped using the overhead lighting in my office, and fix upwardly indirect lighting that doesn't shine on my piece of work surface, and likewise a task light that lights upward my keyboard (merely not the monitor nor my optics).
BG454 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,337
Re: Down and dirty monitor brightness calibration:
ii
Leonard Migliore wrote:
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Nearly monitors need to be turned way downward and the dissimilarity turned way upwards. Hither'south a downwards and dirty scale method.
Take your photographic camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where yous mail DPR messages. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, i/iv sec.
Now plough your monitor downward until y'all get a expressionless-on reading. Bingo! Brightness is calibrated. Information technology may not exist perfect, simply it will exist pretty darned close in my experience.
Thank yous for your response.
but what is the science behind this method? I am just wondering no offence not trying to contend or anything
The science is the human relationship of EV to illuminance. Hotdog is setting the photographic camera to EV 9 at ISO 100. This corresponds to an illuminance of 64 cd/m^two:
That's rather dim.
Most calibration systems suggest a value between 100 and 120 Cd/m2.
Anyone who thinks they can calibrate a monitor "past eye" is fooling themselves.
Sony RX100 Olympus PEN-F Canon EOS 80D Catechism EOS 5D Marker Four Catechism 6D Mark II +17 more
hotdog321 • Forum Pro • Posts: 21,081
Re: Not only your monitor, but your room lights too!
one
Mike_PEAT wrote:
nutstae wrote:
Then I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed information technology earlier? how do y'all optimize your effulgence setting for your monitor?
The fashion to fix this is with a scale tool. The i I use also measures lighting levels because that'southward besides a reason for you to have the monitor effulgence college!
When I got a chore equally a photo editor I used a calibrator to calibrate the effulgence and colour of the monitor, but it as well told me me that the lighting in front of the monitor was also bright and then I stopped using the overhead lighting in my office, and set upwardly indirect lighting that doesn't shine on my work surface, and also a task lite that lights up my keyboard (simply not the monitor nor my eyes).
I been using keyboards with illuminated keys for some time to avert lighting the desk area. Another suggestion is to avoid bright colors around your photo editing area to keep from saturating your eyes with false color--neutral white walls, blackness and white fine art.
Canon EOS 5D Mark Four Catechism EF 100mm f/2.viii Macro USM Canon EF lxx-200mm F2.8L IS Two USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L Ii USM Canon EF sixteen-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
hotdog321 • Forum Pro • Posts: 21,081
Re: Down and muddy monitor brightness calibration:
ane
buybuybuy wrote:
Leonard Migliore wrote:
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Most monitors need to exist turned way downwardly and the dissimilarity turned way upwardly. Here'south a downwards and dirty calibration method.
Take your photographic camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where y'all post DPR messages. Gear up the photographic camera manually to ISO: 100, f/eleven, 1/4 sec.
Now turn your monitor downwardly until yous get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Brightness is calibrated. Information technology may non be perfect, but it will be pretty darned shut in my experience.
Thank y'all for your response.
just what is the science behind this method? I am just wondering no offence not trying to argue or anything
The science is the relationship of EV to illuminance. Hotdog is setting the camera to EV 9 at ISO 100. This corresponds to an illuminance of 64 cd/m^2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
It's a fairly brilliant fox; never underestimate a professional.
Adept job, hotdog. Only I think EV x might exist preferable: one/viii sec @ f/11, ISO 100 for ~128 cd/g^2
Perhaps some intermediate brightness setting betwixt EV 9 and 10 is the best compromise.
Thanks, guys! My onetime Spyder3Express just handles color balance, and so I was forced to come up with a "field expedient."
Canon EOS 5D Marking IV Catechism EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L Ii USM Catechism EF sixteen-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
KLO82 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,460
Re: Downward and muddy monitor brightness calibration:
one
hotdog321 wrote:
buybuybuy wrote:
Leonard Migliore wrote:
nutstae wrote:
hotdog321 wrote:
Exactly. Almost monitors demand to be turned way down and the dissimilarity turned fashion upwards. Here'south a down and dirty calibration method.
Take your photographic camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where yous post DPR messages. Ready the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, 1/four sec.
Now turn your monitor down until you get a dead-on reading. Bingo! Effulgence is calibrated. It may not exist perfect, simply it will be pretty darned close in my experience.
Thanks for your response.
but what is the science backside this method? I am merely wondering no offence not trying to debate or anything
The scientific discipline is the human relationship of EV to illuminance. Hotdog is setting the camera to EV 9 at ISO 100. This corresponds to an illuminance of 64 cd/m^2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
Information technology's a adequately brilliant trick; never underestimate a professional.
Skillful job, hotdog. But I remember EV 10 might be preferable: 1/8 sec @ f/xi, ISO 100 for ~128 cd/m^2
Perhaps some intermediate brightness setting between EV ix and 10 is the all-time compromise.
Thanks, guys! My old Spyder3Express only handles color residue, and then I was forced to come up with a "field expedient."
I personally employ 9.7EV, which is effectually 104cd/ m^ii. In the higher up example, it will be ISO 100, f14, one/4 sec or any equivalent exposure.
Canon EOS RP Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Catechism RF 35mm F1.viii IS STM Macro
Ed B • Forum Pro • Posts: 11,938
Re: Monitor Brightness for Photo Editing?
one
nutstae wrote:
Hi customs,
Whenever I work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, information technology looks perfect on my screen, but it looks very dark and have a very strong contrast on bulk of other screens.
And then I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed it before? how do you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
Thank yous
http://world wide web.tftcentral.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/manufactures/icc_profiles.htm
Just gyre down, notice your monitor and set the recommended values.
May non be perfect merely information technology will be very close and is the next best thing to owning a calibration tool.
Good luck.
hotdog321 • Forum Pro • Posts: 21,081
Re: Monitor Effulgence for Photograph Editing?
ii
Ed B wrote:
nutstae wrote:
Howdy customs,
Whenever I piece of work on my photos through lightroom or photoshop, it looks perfect on my screen, simply it looks very dark and have a very potent contrast on majority of other screens.
So I assume my monitor is brighter than others? has anyone expereinced this and fixed it before? how do you optimize your brightness setting for your monitor?
Cheers
http://www.tftcentral.co.great britain/articles/icc_profiles.htm
Just gyre downward, find your monitor and set the recommended values.
May not be perfect simply information technology will be very close and is the side by side all-time matter to owning a calibration tool.
Expert luck.
Hey, this is really cool--cheers for the link! I had no idea this existed. My monitor isn't listed, but I tin can run into this would be a valuable resource. Bookmarking.
Canon EOS 5D Mark Iv Canon EF 100mm f/two.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Two USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
not evergreen; monitors historic period
2
Ed B wrote:
http://world wide web.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc_profiles.htm
Just whorl down, find your monitor and set the recommended values.
May not be perfect only it will be very close and is the next all-time thing to owning a calibration tool.
Those figures might be okay for some monitors if you know that your monitor is the same historic period as the ones that were tested at TFT Central.
Only monitors modify as they age. Backlights get dimmer, for one affair, drastically changing the numerical value that y'all would need to set in the monitor'due south brightness control to reach whatever given luminance level.
And more than than that, many monitors have features that touch what numbers you lot would use to achieve specific luminance and white bespeak values.
For example, I accept an NEC 2490WUXI, which they have tested, and it exposes both of the issues I mentioned above. First, my monitor is several years old and has many thousands of hours of use on it. Its backlights are fading -- it tin can't reach the maximum brightness information technology in one case could. 100% on the effulgence control is a lot darker than information technology was when the monitor was new.
It as well has a feature called Color Compensation, which is designed to better screen uniformity, and it has 5 different setting levels. Each one of them affects the output of the backlights differently. I'd need to know whether TFT Fundamental had that feature gear up the same way I practise in order for their numbers to piece of work for me (setting aside the historic period issue).
ArtMar • Contributing Member • Posts: 608
Re: Monitor Effulgence for Photo Editing?
1
Merely to be sure: when y'all save your photo in PS exercise you salvage information technology with the sRGB profile?
If non, that could be a trouble for viewing information technology on other monitors.
On another note, adjusting only the brightness does not necessarily produce correct colour temperature in relation to gamma. You actually should apply a measuring device with respective software.
FYI: Manufacturer's suggested calibration settings (for web use) for my Eizo monitor are: 120 cd/m2, Yard=6500, gamma=2.2.
I get a one stop different reading
1
hotdog321 wrote:
Take your photographic camera with a normal lens and fill the frame with the white area where yous mail DPR messages. Set the camera manually to ISO: 100, f/11, i/four sec.
Just another data point:
My monitor -- an NEC 2490WUXI -- is calibrated to a luminance of 120 cd/m2 with an i1 Brandish Pro colorimeter. With your test method, it gives a one stop different exposure: ISO 100, f/eleven, 1/viii sec. -- i.e. y'all settings would event in my monitor being set a bit darker than it is now.
Ed B • Forum Pro • Posts: 11,938
Re: not evergreen; monitors age
1
Eamon Hickey wrote:
Ed B wrote:
http://world wide web.tftcentral.co.u.k./articles/icc_profiles.htm
Just curlicue downwards, find your monitor and set the recommended values.
May not be perfect but it will be very close and is the next best thing to owning a calibration tool.
Those figures might be okay for some monitors if you know that your monitor is the same age as the ones that were tested at TFT Central.
But monitors change as they age. Backlights get dimmer, for one thing, drastically changing the numerical value that you would need to gear up in the monitor's brightness control to reach any given luminance level.
And more than that, many monitors have features that touch on what numbers yous would use to accomplish specific luminance and white point values.
For case, I have an NEC 2490WUXI, which they have tested, and it exposes both of the issues I mentioned above. First, my monitor is several years old and has many thousands of hours of use on it. Its backlights are fading -- it tin can't reach the maximum effulgence information technology once could. 100% on the brightness control is a lot darker than it was when the monitor was new.
It also has a feature chosen Color Compensation, which is designed to ameliorate screen uniformity, and it has 5 different setting levels. Each one of them affects the output of the backlights differently. I'd demand to know whether TFT Central had that characteristic fix the same way I do in club for their numbers to work for me (setting bated the historic period issue).
I agree the values aren't perfect and that every individual monitor is a little different and that every monitor is afflicted by room lighting.
There's no replacement for a calibration tool but virtually people don't take one of those and then this site should help them go shut to proper settings.
There'southward no "one size fits all" so people should probably consider the values as just a skillful starting point.
Source: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3805469
0 Response to "what light setting should computer be to edit photos"
Post a Comment