I have had my iMac monitor calibrated by my Spyder 2 as I received it
from Apple. And have always had to fight the "Dark Print" phenom with
all three of my printers.
Reading a Shutterbug article yesterday about this, I realized my LCD
was still set to full brightness. It was recommended that I d/l and
try out a software program called "Color Eyes Display Pro" to
calibrate the monitor to the standards I input. Recommended was Color
Temp of 6500, 2.2 Gamma, and 90 as a luminance setting, allowing the
monitor to fit better with the printable gamut.
So I thought I'd take a look at my Gallery http://gallery.me.com/
jomac to see how much that had changed. What I saw was that most of
my images were (naturally) quite a bit darker than when I managed
them before publishing them.
But no one has ever mentioned this, so I wonder if all of you have
noticed a lack of features in the dark parts of these images.
I am going to upload an image right now that I will set up with the
monitor as it is now. Shot in the shade it's white shows a 221 L, it's
black as 22 L, compared to a previously processed photo shot in the
sunshine before this calibration with a 233 white, 8 black. I did move
the contrast up .04, and the exposure up .33 so it looked ok to my eye.
Take a look at the month of 07.2009, last picture, plus anything shot
anytime prior to that (I know the two little dogs chasing each other
in the late day shade are dim and under-contrasted)(and not sharp) and
let me know please.
So it seems to me that these values are in the image, and the monitor/
graphics card slides these values around to make the image fit the
display gamut. Am I right?
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
“ Nature is considerably more creative and inventive than humankind.
Without Nature there isn't any humankind. Without humankind, Nature is
fine.”
--
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.
