With respect for your on-screen workflow, Bruce, a print will look the _same_ to all viewers, not necessarily _right_... :-) Just consider all the worries that were tossed onto the list while we waited for the Annual.
The TN panels, btw, varies a lot in quality between manufacturers. I understand it has something to do with the thickness of the LCD film used. The thinner the film, the wider the viewing angles. That doesn't do anything to rectify the puny 6 bits of colour depth per channel, of course. But after a quite steep learning curve a fortnight ago (culminating with two purchases; one desktop screen and a laptop), I'm surprised how well they can actually do. Given proper calibration, of course. For my desktop screen I went for an IPS from HP, and I'm quite happy with it. My laptop is due for delivery at the end of the week, and it's a Dell Precision 2400 with a non-glare LED backlit TN panel. I'll probably get back to how well that screen performs later on. Interestingly, there are no IPS panels for laptops. Not even the Lenovo W700 has one. Nor does Apple's Pro line of Macbooks. HP has one model which alledgedly has a superior screen labeled "DreamColor", but apparently even this one is a thin-film TN panel. Below 17" screens there is nothing at all except el cheapo TNs. If you go directly to the websites of the flat panel manufacturers(Samsung, LG, etc.), this is confirmed by looking at the available models. All TN for laptop sizes. What's interesting, though, is that OLED screens are emerging for smaller screens now. Cellphone and photo frame screens, mostly. There is one exception to that rule; LG has one 17" wide-screen OLED in production. I have trawled the market to see if any laptop mfg.s have picked up on it, but there's no sign of it yet. I hope OLEDs will have hit the market big time when I need my next laptop. :-) Cheers, Jostein 2009/2/28 Bruce Walker <[email protected]>: > Nick David Wright wrote: >> >> Herein lies one of my biggest peeves about digital photography. >> >> The photographer does not have any control over how the print looks when >> it is displayed. >> >> I put some of my best shots on the web a couple years back. On my >> fully-calibrated screen they looked wonderful. I went to my sister-in-law's >> house and she wanted to see them so we pulled them up on her screen and they >> looked like crap. >> >> You do have quite a bit of choice in the material of the printed form. But >> when you send the finished product off, at least you can be assured that the >> person you send it to will see it in the manner that you intended. >> >> ~Nick David Wright >> http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ > > That's the gist of the argument I was going to raise. And I will go further > and state that most people view images on crap monitors, so no two viewers > of your work are seeing the same thing! > > Inexpensive LCD monitors that the average user has these days are all of the > TN (twisted nematic) type. I have found that these things act like an > out-of-control Photoshop curves filter where the pixel brightness across the > range depends entirely on your vertical viewing angle. Hence if the > histogram of your image resembles a bell curve (centered around 128), then > your image will look somewhat normal viewed straight on, brighter if viewed > from above and darker viewed from below (ie looking up at the screen). Same > thing happens if you raise and lower the LCD-lid angle on your > laptop/notebook PC. > > Images with an overall darker histogram tend to look *very* dark and lacking > contrast seen at the usual viewing angle, while high-key images look > completely washed-out. > > If you present a subtly rendered image, say a portrait taken in a candlelit > room, it will tend to look completely washed-out and too dark with no > contrast to make out any detail, so Average Viewer will skip right on past > looking for those flowers in the sun that look OK on TN monitors. > > I have a TN display and a good IPS display side by side. I now make a habit > of inspecting images alternately on both displays as I'm post-processing so > I'll see what most viewers are likely to see. I find I now have to use > Curves to increase the brightness quite a bit for the TN display as I've > been in the habit of making more moody, saturated colour images using the > IPS display that simply become dark and indistinct for most people. > > Sigh. > > So the upshot is: pix on paper will look right for everyone, thus solving > the viewing problem. I never thought I'd be supporting paper, but the more > I get into this photography thing, the more I want to see my shots on paper. > (Guess I'll be shopping for a printer this year instead of next.) > > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
