Scanning, images and monitors

[MikeCassidy]

I wet print, but I'm a geek so I'm curious.
My question for the all who use the computer screen as their primary output source: how do you accept that you do not have any idea how your image is going to look like on all the different monitors?

 

[dmr]

LOL, for the stuff I do on the web, I accept the fact that each viewer has accommodated to his or her monitor and therefore my photos will look as normal as anything. 🙂

Seriously, I do want to look into getting one of those monitor color calibration spider things.

 

[aad]

I mainly think about the print-what's on the web is close enough. Besides, most stuff looks the same either on my Mac or my work PC.

 

[MikeCassidy]

Its not just what the viewer is going to see on their moinitor but I owrked on a image on my iBook yesterday posted it then came into work today and the image has a green cast on my Dell monitor; later I'll walk over to one of Mac monitors and see what it looks like.

I reworked the image on my Dell and posted both: http://michaeldcassidy.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/fire-island-flowers/] Blog post..

They are to large to post here. Sorry I've tried several different variations of entering the URL as code BUT it hasn't taken and now I've got to work.

 

[kipkeston]

I have a macbook pro, all I care about is how it looks on my screen. If someone else has a screen with a cast on it, that's not my problem.

I've found that all the macs I've seen look great with my photos and most all of the PCs i've seen have a cast (blue red green whatever) and sometimes look like they have blown highlights (due to the gamma difference I assume). But I'd rather have an image that looks perfect on my screen than anyone else's

It goes even further with firefox and safari. Even on a mac, only safari displays the image correctly. So I've learned to like what I see in safari and lightroom.

 

[fbf]

I believe only safari supports Adobe RGB and all the other browsers only support sRGB. That's why the images look very different in mac than in a PC. I think firefox 3.0 will solve this probblem for windows users soon. I think some people don't know how to correctly output a image after scanning or ps. It's all about the color profile.

 

[kuzano]

Tough question with no real answer

Tough question with no real answer

First, if you are concerned about the consistency of output from what you view on your monitor, and what comes from the camera or scanner, AND what is then output to your printer, that is all a function of color calibration. Web ouput is another issue.

However, you have little control over what others who view your images do in terms of calibrating their equipment. Even over the web, you may correct your images for web content, but that has no impact on the monitors and systems viewing your images on the web.

Maintaining color profiles within your system is an ongoing task due to aging of things like monitors, etc.

Maintaining color profiles in the hope that all the people who see your work are also using the same calibration profiles and maintaining them, or that they even consider the problem, is out of your control.

If you are producing work that is consistently going to the same recipients, and those recipients are sophisticated enough to deal with the color profile issues with regard to the equipment that will be rendering your images means a level of communication to match everything up.

Frankly, it's just a big PITA. Best that you calibrate your system and know enough about profiles to switch your profiles to accomodate the recipients. Most of them are going to do their business their way, and are not going to accomodate you, if they are paying you for your images.

Not much about profiling/calibrating here, I know. Mostly just real world stuff about what to expect in terms of cooperation.

 

[Larky]

The thing is, you'll never be able to get it perfect on everyone's screen, so just don't worry. The print, the thing the public will see, that is important. All the other stuff doesn't really matter.

 

[kuzano]

I forgot to mention a starting point

I forgot to mention a starting point

Adobe has a program (comes with photoshop or their web site) that is just a small utility that will get you started on a basic calibration. It is called adobe gamma. It walks you through a set of simple instructions to set your brightness, contrast and some color settings on your monitor. It's fairly straightforward and works well. However, many people don't personally like the settings as far as viewing them, and that form of calibration is short lived, although its pretty much the same thing that spending money for a calibration tool is going to present you with.

I'm a bit surprised at the "I like what I see on my monitor and the rest of the world can just be satisfied with what I submit".

I presume that means there have been no posters so far who are trying to sell their work.