PhotoLab 4 with X-rite i1Display Studio display calibrator

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

Carry on with Joanna’s ‘Christmas Present’, explaining this stuff so patiently to you!

And before trying out something different, you should understand what you are doing. So, get familiar with it first. – When you want to check your settings, you also might have a look for quality test images

It’s quite a Christmas Present - what was just mud, floating around in my brain, is starting to make sense. FAR different from even a week ago. I’m beginning to think I understand, but then I find out I didn’t really understand. It’s gradually coming together.

I’ll edit a new image tonight and post here.

I have more questions, but I’ll wait a day or two to ask. The top of my list is “Target White Luminance”, which I have set to 120 as instructed by the software. Had I used 200, the would have made all my photos way to bright, correct? And if I used 100, or 80, that would make for darker images. At some point I want to ask what difference these numbers make, and when to use a different value. If you are mostly printing, and I’m mostly making images to be viewed on-screen, is that how a person would set the value?

Yes, I will download and save the images you suggested. Hope they come with data as to how they were processed.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Ok, now send me, via a direct message if you want, a jpeg from a file you have processed, as if you were sending it be printed, as I am interested to see what it looks like on my 80cd/m2 monitor.

I’ll post it here in the forum - but I have no idea how I would process an image differently to print, compared with one to be viewed on-screen. I just edit an image, and send it off to be printed - on the rare occasions when I do printing at all… I gave away my color printers long ago. Ink dries out, and laser costs too much. In India, I print things all the time, but they just take my images and do whatever it is they need to do to get good prints.

What exactly does 80cd/m2 mean?

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

@mikemyers

The top of my list is “Target White Luminance”, which I have set to 120 as instructed by the software. Had I used 200, the would have made all my photos way to bright, correct? And if I used 100, or 80, that would make for darker images.

Most screens are (set) too bright, which usually leads to prints being too dark. You might want to create profiles taken at different brightness levels. You can then use these depending on how bright you set your monitor. I find that everything above 100 cd/m² is not comfortable to look at.

Why are my prints too dark? - how to fix the dark prints problem

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I have no idea how I would process an image differently to print, compared with one to be viewed on-screen

You don’t do anything different. The aim of this exercise is to see whether your edit, done on a screen at 120cd/m2, will print or not.

Why I use 80cd/m2 is because I have a completely calibrated workflow from RAW file through to print. My experience is that a brighter screen for editing will produce a darker print than intended. A darker screen produces a file that will print to a calibrated printer without any change at all.

@mikemyers

What exactly does 80cd/m2 mean?

It’s a measure of illumination in Candela per square metre.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Why I use 80cd/m2 is because I have a completely calibrated workflow from RAW file through to print. My experience is that a brighter screen for editing will produce a darker print than intended. A darker screen produces a file that will print to a calibrated printer without any change at all.

I will attach a link to a gallery I made of many of my water photos back in May, this year. These were edited in what was likely a too-bright room, using a display that was also too bright.

Looking at them now on my non-calibrated iMac display, they look good.
Looking at them on my calibrated ASUS, they (and everything else on that screen) looks too dark.
If what you are saying is correct, all of these should look “too dark” to you.

On the other hand, to the rest of the world, for people looking on their non-calibrated every light displays, they will probably look just fine.

If the above is true, photos from my calibrated system should look good to you, but maybe too dark for others. But having been done on a too-bright monitor, the rest of the world, using their too-bright equipment, will see them just fine.

Are you suggesting I change my default setting to something less than 120 as was suggested in the software setup program?

I will do as you suggest, and edit a new photo with my new settings, and post it.

If I’m correct, at some point I will be asking you if I should be creating images that look best to you, on. your calibrated equipment, or to “the rest of the world” who have no idea what calibration is or does, let alone why.

I read the article you linked to, but that is talking mostly about prints. I bet you are right, and if I had some of my images printed, they would come out too dark, unless the printer compensated for this.

05/31/2020 Fun on the Water - m

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

@Joanna

The aim of this exercise is to see whether your edit, done on a screen at 120cd/m2, will print or not.

I remember a job in which I had to correct all images of a book because the person who had done the images first was working with a screen that was too bright…

@mikemyers, if you want to roughly see if an image is going to print well or not, you can hold an unprinted piece of paper next to a white area of an image. You can then possibly see that the screen looks much brighter than the paper… A printed paper has no backlight
Also, max. contrast is much higher on a screen, say 1000:1, which is roughly 10 stops…

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Ok, now send me, via a direct message if you want, a jpeg from a file you have processed, as if you were sending it be printed, as I am interested to see what it looks like on my 80cd/m2 monitor.

On my calibrated ASUS monitor, this image now looks good to me. On my iMac display, wherever it is at right now, the image looks slightly darker. Sunlight is gone, room lights are on, and window blinds are closed. I would normally have the iMac display a little brighter - doing so now, setting it at 50% matches the ASUS, and both look fine. I’ll attach the raw file, and my exported image.

_MJM2123 | 2020-12-23-Biscayne Boats.nef (18.7 MB)

_MJM2123 | 2020-12-23-Biscayne Boats.nef.dop (11.8 KB)

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@mikemyers

Yes, I will download and save the images you suggested. Hope they come with data as to how they were processed.

There is no data about processing etc, but a detailed description about each individual pic.

• Datacolor test image (AdobeRGB)
  cdn.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/matrixlarge_2.zip
  is a collection of different real world subjects in colour and b&w in ONE pictures

While I use (print) the Datacolor test image to check a new paper profil, you can watch the very same image on your newly calibrated monitor to see (control) if it looks good – I keep it simple .

[mikemyers]

Anyone who wants to is free to play with this image - I made the sky a little darker, but more than what I show here looked fake. I tried to make the trees just a bit more green. Cropping fixed my terribly tilted horizon - I had been looking at the middle of the image, but wasn’t sure how much more to show. No people = no action = static. I sharpened up the buildings slightly, but originally I wanted them out of focus to make the boat stand out more. I hadn’t even noticed the two cruise ships - I was focused on the boat. My eye ended up watching the flag, taking the image when the flag looked best. It’s not my favorite of this series, but I’m still happy with it. I was thinking of using control points on the sky to bring it out more, but I wasn’t sure how to do it without it looking fake.

Wondering if it will look any different to you now, after the display calibration.

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

tried both again – they work here

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

• Datacolor test image (AdobeRGB)
  cdn.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/matrixlarge_2.zip
  is a collection of different real world subjects in colour and b&w in ONE pictures

I downloaded this a few hours ago - it was daytime, and on my calibrated ASUS, all the images looked dark, when my room was so bright. Now they look fine, they look like the image I just uploaded.

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

Mike … you got it!

In general, the monitor’s brightness ‘has’ to match the viewing condition. When the room is very bright the monitor should be up as well, but in the correct relation. When there is a mismatch, your edit will most probably be wrong (to bright / to dark).
Problem is, the eye (brain) is easy to deceive, as we ‘know’ how it should look like, and when you concentrate on a pic for some time, it will look alright (if it’s not far out). Therefore, get up after some time of editing, walk around and come back to check …
Keep your calibration at least for a while, work with it and find out, if you can ‘regulate’ your viewing condition. And wait for feedback from Joanna (I guess, she was asking for something finished, like TIFF or JPEG).
BTW, if you enclose the dop-file we also might be able to ‘see’ your picture’s brightness.

have fun, Wolfgang
(long passed my bedtime)

---

edit:
I was sure, you had calibrated to 80 cd/m². But now I see, that you went with 120 cd/m² - post # 43

Don’t understand, why you are not following Joanna’s advice.

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

BTW, if you enclose the dop-file we also might be able to ‘see’ your picture’s brightness.

Done - I added it. Not sure how you will “see” the picture’s brightness - do you mean the final brightness after editing?

[mikemyers]

@gregor

Demosaiced and denoised in PL4, then exported to Photoshop, nik detail extractor 25%, black point with levels, white point on flag, cropped so flag is close to top third of image, nik sharpener3 output sharpener 50%.

Beautiful improvement over what I captured.

Ain’t nobody gonna believe that this was taken with a 40 year old lens that is now on sale for $25, from KEH. No automatic nothing. As manual as it gets.

On the side of the life-ring hanging on the side of the boat, the name is clearly legible, as is the rest of the detail. Is this from the “Detail extractor”, or the Nik sharpener, or both? I never realized this was even possible.

Very, very nice!

[mikemyers]

@gregor

Demosaiced and denoised in PL4, then exported to Photoshop, nik detail extractor 25%, black point with levels, white point on flag, cropped so flag is close to top third of image, nik sharpener3 output sharpener 50%.

What you posted reminded me of Nik Collection, and the “Foliage” tool that allowed me to bring out the green in the trees a little more. I started with 10% in Detail Enhancer, as beyond that the name on the life preserver didn’t get more detailed. I did a few more small things.

I don’t like cutting off the boat at the left, but at least it takes away my desire to see that boat. I like the cruise ships though, with their painted funnels.

I left the sky intact, as that brings the dividing line between water and land up to the 1/3 mark. It also keeps what little blue there is in the sky.

I originally wanted the buildings out of focus - not sure which tool you used, but it’s beautiful how it sharpened up the details on the tops of the cruise ships. I have no idea how you did that, considering how out of focus they were. Amazing.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

OK. Here’s how I would edit that image if I wanted to make a good print, or even if I personally were distributing it on the web.

_MJM2123 | 2020-12-23-Biscayne Boats.nef.dop (38,8 Ko)

I’ve tried to respect the “look and feel” of your version but I found that, even though the overall picture is fairly bright, the shadows were lacking in detail, especially for committing to paper.

I have posted the .dop file that you posted but with my version added. Take a look at the adjustments I made, especially the Smart Lighting, tone curve and contrast palettes, for which I used the advanced contrast settings…

The untouched original was definitely too dark to make a good print but I notice that you had raised the exposure a tad. With such a full range picture this is not normally the best thing to do as it starts to push the highlights into over-exposure.

The version that you created is typical of images that are difficult to print, not because they are too dark overall, but that the shadows are lacking in detail and they are overall just a little “dull” or “flat”. By using too bright a screen, your eye is fooled into thinking that the shadow detail is there because the backlighting punches it through in a way that cannot happen with reflected light on paper.

---

Does my version seem excessively bright on your iMac when its brightness is raised? Or do you simply see the extra detail in the shadows?

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Does my version seem excessively bright on your iMac when its brightness is raised? Or do you simply see the extra detail in the shadows?

I’m looking at all of these on my iMac screen, as it’s daytime and everything on the ASUS looks too dark.

That being the case, I see where the detail on the side of the boat does show up on your image, where in mine it’s all just “dark”, but the whole image looks way too light, and the sky goes “over the edge” to where it no longer looks real. My version is right up to that limit - on my screen, the cloud detail barely looks real. Maybe I went too far too, but on yours, it is so exaggerated it no longer looks like a photograph.

For whatever reason, the image you posted almost looks “blurry”. My image looks acceptably sharp, unless/until I look at Gregor’s version which looks better. Somehow he made many of the out of focus areas appear like they were almost in focus. My test is the life preserver on the side of the boat. In his image, the name is perfectly clear. In my version (after seeing what he had done) the life preserver name is reasonably clear. In the image you just posted, it’s blurry.

My main question right now, is how I can make the life preserver as sharp and clear as what Gregor did. Your image is smaller, so I can’t tell how sharp it really is… I also copied the gear on the top of the cruise ship to the right - Gregor’s image makes it appear sharper than what I created.

Last thing - I like the enhanced tree color from Nik Collection, but it’s a little “greener” than what I see with my eyes. Even though I like the effect, maybe I went too far??

Gregor:

Mike:

Joanna:

Gregor:

Mike:

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

I’ve tried to respect the “look and feel” of your version but I found that, even though the overall picture is fairly bright, the shadows were lacking in detail, especially for committing to paper.

I was guessing at the exposure - I guess I didn’t do so well. If I do this again, I’ll bracket the exposure. The black hull was so dark I didn’t even notice the detail at the front, which shows up nicely in your image.

I’m also looking at the lifeboat, on the front of the boat, upside down. On all these images, that part of the lifeboat (at the left) is burnt out, meaning it’s over-exposed. I guess I should check if there is any detail in the original image which can be brought out, or if it’s just gone. So, did I under expose the hull, or over expose the lifeboat?

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

That being the case, I see where the detail on the side of the boat does show up on your image, where in mine it’s all just “dark”, but the whole image looks way too light

That’s what I thought might happen and is why I was advising to use a lower luminance when editing photos. Anyone with a calibrated workflow will see you pictures as too dark and, if you send them to a printer, they are going to have to kludge a non-RAW file to get them to look anything like reasonable.

@mikemyers

My version is right up to that limit - on my screen, the cloud detail barely looks real. Maybe I went too far too, but on yours, it is so exaggerated it no longer looks like a photograph.

And yet, if you could see it on my calibrated screen, the clouds might be a little too defined for your taste but there is no sharpening involved, only a bit of contrast, which could be altered.

@mikemyers

For whatever reason, the image you posted almost looks “blurry”

That’ll be because I exported it at only 1536 x 1024 pixels. here’s the full sized version…

And here is a screenshot of the life preserver zoomed in.

@mikemyers

My main question right now, is how I can make the life preserver as sharp and clear as what Gregor did

Gregor did a lot of processing including using a dedicated sharpener. To my mind, it is over-sharpens, as witnessed by the slight pixelisation and “echos” on transitions.

I could more than likely sharpen it up but my first concern was to demonstrate the light/dark situation rather than a full edit.

@mikemyers

I like the enhanced tree color from Nik Collection, but it’s a little “greener” than what I see with my eyes. Even though I like the effect, maybe I went too far??

Now that you have a larger exported version, what do you think now?

@mikemyers

I’m also looking at the lifeboat, on the front of the boat, upside down. On all these images, that part of the lifeboat (at the left) is burnt out, meaning it’s over-exposed. I guess I should check if there is any detail in the original image which can be brought out, or if it’s just gone. So, did I under expose the hull, or over expose the lifeboat?

Neither! Well the lifeboat was marginally over but not beyond recovery - see what I did at the top end of the tone curve, reducing the maximum to 250. All in all, a well exposed image, it’s just the processing using a too-bright screen that has made you think there was something wrong with the exposure.

Let me know what you think when you see it on the Asus.

---

The main purpose of this version is to show you what an image should look like if you want to print it to a calibrated printer, without having to do any special editing just for the printing. This version should require absolutely no intervention on the behalf of the printing company.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

Oh, and here’s a slightly more sharpened view of the life preserver…