mrtoml
Mancunian
I think this has come up before from time to time...
Exactly this, and the un-named RF member I'm thinking of was recalcitrant and stubborn in his refusal to take advice. So it's best to let people do what they do and ignore them.I think this has come up before from time to time...
If I remember right... it was Flickr's fault.Exactly this, and the un-named RF member I'm thinking of was recalcitrant and stubborn in his refusal to take advice. So it's best to let people do what they do and ignore them.
Nope, it was the dude behind the keyboardIf I remember right... it was Flickr's fault.
(it wasn't)
Not to name names, but some people here on RFF post scans of darkroom prints and to my eyes they certainly look too dark, with drowned shadow detail.Is it my aging eyes or the calibration of my two Macs or why do I find so many pictures here far too dark to see the subject, let alone spot shadow details?
Can anybody give me an explanation?
It is difficult to get DisplayCAL to work with MacOS Sonoma which I believe the OP says he uses.Gamma and brightness are different, it’s possible that you have your monitor perfectly calibrated but with a low or high brightness setting which may alter the way the images look - try using displayCAL with your xrite and check the brightness during the measurement
Gamma and brightness are different, it’s possible that you have your monitor perfectly calibrated but with a low or high brightness setting which may alter the way the images look - try using displayCAL with your xrite and check the brightness during the measurement
I don’t know about the relative brightness of your monitor to your viewing situation, much of my critical work on a monitor calibrated to srgb 2.2 / and 120 nits which is not particularly bright and most of the photos on the site look great or have a clear artistic intention regarding brightness
typically when I’m trying to simulate paper for soft proofing I am at 90 nits, but that is what works for me in the relative brightness of my desk
If you are responding about DisplayCAL it was a freeware program that gives a lot of control over calibration settings. If you don't know what it is then forget about it because it won't work on Sonoma.Here's the calibrator and "About This Mac". I don't know what you are talking about, basta!
View attachment 4836056View attachment 4836059
That's what I did already. Didn't I say so?If you are responding about DisplayCAL it was a freeware program that gives a lot of control over calibration settings. If you don't know what it is then forget about it because it won't work on Sonoma.
Just use the software that came with your i1 device.
Then you should be fine then. 🙂That's what I did already. Didn't I say so?
😎 I know.If it helps you figure it out I also experience some images on this forum as being too dark. The images the same person posts on flickr are dark as well. My thought is your eyes and monitor are fine.
Not to name names, but some people here on RFF post scans of darkroom prints and to my eyes they certainly look too dark, with drowned shadow detail.
What gamma and brightness are you calibrated to?
If you are calibrated to Mac standard gamma of 1.8, photos adjusted to PC gamma of 2.2 look really off. But usually they are too light and contrasty.
Yes, indeed. But the Mac default on a lot of third party calibration device software, including Eye-One and Profiler for the Eye-One device, is still Gamma 1.8. At least it was in December when I reinstalled those software on my new Mac.Apple switched to the standard 2.2 monitor gamma more than 20 years ago. Images should display the same on Macs and Windows computers.