Brightness in an image is subjective?

[Katie]

I'm having a "moment" with my current post processing situation. I have recently upgraded my monitor (which has always been calibrated, by the way) and found that my old monitor was darker than my newer one. Whenever I edited photos before - I dialed down the brightness value to what I liked, which granted, was sometimes less than others prefer. When viewing those same images on ANY other device, I found them to be TOO bright, which is what led me to upgrade to my current monitor...

Anyway, that's all beside the point now. My point is: Is the brightness level in an image a subjective thing? I mean, is there an optimum level one should aspire to? Something that they human eye deciphers as more correct than another level?

I'm asking because I HATE overly bright color images; tolerate them well in black and white; but prefer an overall lower brightness valued image all around. I dig high key when done properly; but I think people sometimes think good contrast and tone = too much damn brightness.

Am I wrong? Does it matter? What do you do?

PS: I think this is probably the first post I've ever started, so go nice on me please. And move this sucker if it's in the wrong spot (as I often am).

 

[Murchu]

I think once you're happy with your blacks and your highlights, its all a matter of taste, or at least that's how I regard my images in lightroom, where brightness mainly adjusts the midtones.

I think in order to be sure you're seeing on your monitor what others see when they view your images on their monitor, giving a thought to the calibration of your monitor/ the gamma setting on your monitor can be important. A difference in gamma, sounds like it was why you found your images brighter when viewing them on other screens. perhaps.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's ALL subjective. And the image that appears on a screen is subject to all kinds of other objective/subjective parameters as well. Only a print provides a real reference point -- and that has to be adjusted to the colour temperature and brightness under which it is viewed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Brian Legge]

The variation out there in monitors - brightness, color, etc - is unfortunately massive. Assume that everyone is going to have your images presented to them differently. Then, everyones eyes will interpret the images differently. What people like is even more varied. 🙂

Expect that you may have to re-tweak it a bit if you ever make prints of your work based on the particular printer you are using.

Calibration at least gives you a baseline which suggests your display shouldn't be radically out of sync. Thats probably about as good as you'll be able to do.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Normally the brightness target for an LCD monitor is 90-110 cdm2 a monitor calibrated to that standard will give you consistent results compared to others who also correctly calibrate.
The light you work in and the colour of your surroundings also has influence...

 

[Godfrey]

I calibrate my display to ensure that I can adjust my image to my liking and have it reproduce with high fidelity to my printer. To ensure that it looks ok for others to view on-line, I've taken to viewing what I post with my iPad first as it has the kind of crisp, modern display characteristics that most users are experiencing, outside of a calibrated environment. Sometimes I make minor adjustments to my photos before posting them, based on what I see on the iPad.

As Roger's reply intimated, there are few absolutes. And there is no way to ensure what other viewers are seeing on their display equipment is "accurate" .

G

 

[jsrockit]

At the very least, you should calibrate your screen.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Monitor-Calibration/ci/12000/N/4050180197

 

[emmef2]

You can calibrate your screen and that will ensure consistency within your processing workflow (printing included)
However there are millions of devices out there and only few ones are calibrated so every time you post an image online be prepared to reading comments about the image being light or dark.
A print ensures far more consistency of viewing even if it also depends on how it is illuminated

 

[jcb4718]

Welcome to the forum, Katie. This reply is going to be something of a 'blast from the past' because displaying a print on a monitor is only an intermediate step for me, my ultimate way of displaying a photo is as a print which I produce in my darkroom. The darkroom is of course a 'world unto itself' i.e. you produce your print without reference to a monitor and according to how you visualize the image. The image is displayed on a wall where (hopefully) you control the lighting. If you are happy with the final result, that's it! How does this translate to viewing images on a monitor? Well, the image you are viewing should be what you visualize; again, that's it! From what other responders are saying, there is a wide variation in the display characteristics of monitors so its impossible to create an image that will display in the same way on all of them.

 

[lynnb]

In addition to the comments above, I'll just add that colour contrast can also affect perceived brightness - something I've noticed with split toning.

A split tone with warm highlights and cool shadows can appear to have brighter highlights, all other things being equal. Even when the split tone is quite subtle.

 

[Sparrow]

It's ALL subjective. And the image that appears on a screen is subject to all kinds of other objective/subjective parameters as well. Only a print provides a real reference point -- and that has to be adjusted to the colour temperature and brightness under which it is viewed.

Cheers,

R.

... even objectivity is subjective I suppose if you peruse Cartesianism to its extreme ... but a bit of colour management gets one closer to the empirical ideal much more quickly 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

... even objectivity is subjective I suppose if you peruse Cartesianism to its extreme ... but a bit of colour management gets one closer to the empirical ideal much more quickly 😉

Dear Stewart,

Well, better by any sane standard, if not necessarily closer to any definable Cartesian ideal.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thompsonks]

No, it's not entirely subjective. If the histogram 'fits,' the basic tones are there; if not, they aren't. After that, you can change things to your liking and that part is expressive/subjective.

Could you say a bit more, Katie, about what you mean by 'brightness'? Do you mean the overall darkness (like Eugene Smith) of BW prints, or the overall lightness (like Henry Wessel)? And in color, do you mean 'bright colors,' in contrast to 'pastel colors'? Bright or saturated colors are part of the world around us, as are pastels. But over-bright or oversaturated colors in prints are problematic. Folks who like them 'subjectively' might be said to have poorly developed judgment.

 

[ChrisN]

... even objectivity is subjective I suppose if you peruse Cartesianism to its extreme ... but a bit of colour management gets one closer to the empirical ideal much more quickly 😉

Dear Stewart,

Well, better by any sane standard, if not necessarily closer to any definable Cartesian ideal.

Cheers,

R.

Hey you two, get a room! 😀