Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: adust luminance with brightness or RGB sliders or both?  (Read 12771 times)
ChasP505
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2009, 09:11:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
...a Samsung SyncMaster 213T. This is not a very high end monitor, but my results are decent and I am in no rush to upgrade to possibly a NEC. For my purposes, I think the EIZOs are overkill and overpriced.


Bill, the setup you described virtually mirrors my own setup.  The Samsung 213T is a great monitor, using an excellent PVA display panel.  I'm in no rush either and have no need to upgrade.  I feel like I'm in the "sweet spot" for an entry level photo editing system.
Logged

Chas P.
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2009, 10:32:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Chas, Patrick,

In light of the preceding discussion....   It seems to me that (in a montior with a non-writable LUT) adjusting brightness with video card is functionally the same as changing the monitor RGB sliders correct in terms of what's physically being done to the LCDs.  Is that right?

(I have found I can hit my target luminance by lowering brightness to 2 and lowering RGB to around 90, calibrating with the Spyder software.  I am going to do some spot checks over the next couple days on the warmed-up monitor to see how stable the setting is.)
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2009, 11:48:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChasP505
The difference is you're making a software adjustment at the video card, rather than making the only true physical adjustment on your display -- dimming the backlight.  Let's face it...  If you really need a monitor that can deliver 105cd/m2 or lower, you'll need to make a bigger investment.  Take a look at the NEC P221W.

Agreed. Messing with the LUTs is something you want to avoid if possible.

Far better to raise the target luminance and then the print viewing luminance to result in a visual match. For some newer LCDs, getting anything less than 140-150 cd/m2 is going to be difficult or impossible. Its not an old CRT, there’s little reason to treat it as such, work in a dark cave and have issues with banding. Raise the luminance targets for both display and viewing conditions and move on.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2009, 12:08:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

If I interpret this correctly, your basic argument here is that high display luminance combined with high ambient lighting will induce the same luminosity edits one would be inclined to make with low display luminance and low ambient light, such that the resulting print would be the same either way, and therefore if correct under one set of prep conditions will remain so under the other. Fine. For the sake of my eyes, when I need to replace my LaCie 321, I still hope there will be high quality LCD panels capable of low luminance values without banding.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChasP505
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2009, 12:25:05 PM »
ReplyReply

The original discussion and the OP's question was about how to get a Dell 2209WA, an low end 8 bit, e-IPS paneled LCD down to 105cd/m2...  Not about higher end displays with 10-12 bit internal LUTs.  I agree with Mr. Rodney...  The difference between 105cd/m2 and the 120cd/m2 that this display is capable of natively is not that great.  We're not talking about 105 vs 265cd/m2.  Just a slight increase in the ambient light situation should equalize things.  For me it involved a minuscule adjustment of the blinds on my office windows.
Logged

Chas P.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2009, 12:29:25 PM »
ReplyReply

No disagreement there. I was thinking of ranges beyond 120, as Andrew was talking 140/150.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChasP505
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2009, 12:45:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually Mark, my employer (corporate marketing department for a large real estate company) recently consolidated its offices.  For me this meant moving from a windowless, light controlled private office to a bright new steel and glass corporate cubicle environment.  We had to adjust all our monitors and the range is around 165-200cd/m2.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 12:46:59 PM by ChasP505 » Logged

Chas P.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2009, 01:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Andrew,

If I interpret this correctly, your basic argument here is that high display luminance combined with high ambient lighting will induce the same luminosity edits one would be inclined to make with low display luminance and low ambient light, such that the resulting print would be the same either way, and therefore if correct under one set of prep conditions will remain so under the other. Fine. For the sake of my eyes, when I need to replace my LaCie 321, I still hope there will be high quality LCD panels capable of low luminance values without banding.


Not high ambient light, matching (matching to produce a visual match) of the print viewing booth.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2009, 01:43:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, yes, I was thinking relatively of course. That said, not everyone, your's truly included, views prints in a viewing booth; so one needs to do something that works according to the "most likely" viewing environment.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2009, 02:05:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
That said, not everyone, your's truly included, views prints in a viewing booth; so one needs to do something that works according to the "most likely" viewing environment.


Moot when comparing the display to the print since all other viewing conditions take the display out of the equation. If you are trying to determine that your display and print match, patting yourself on the back for sound color management, you obviously have to have something by that display to view the prints. Something you can control and is consistent.

Once you move the print out of that environment, its not necessarily going to “match” the display but you’ll never know, that display could be feet or miles apart. And if you liked the print to display matching, and you viewed said print under a decent illuminant, you’ll adapt to how the print looks elsewhere. It will not “look wrong.”
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2009, 02:28:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I have Solux illumination for the initial matching with the display - just not in a booth. It's not perfect that way, but it works satisfactorily. Then I also look at the prints under other kind of illumination to see whether they "hold up", because I would be showing them to others under non-Solux conditions. As you say, at that point, the matching exercise is history, but the prints still need to look good.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2009, 10:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you to all the posters for an informative thread.  I didn't realize that the brightness of the work area could affect the apparent brightness of the monitor.  Lighting my work area better should help things out.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad