Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Recommended monitor luminance levels?

Reply
Thread Tools

Recommended monitor luminance levels?

 
 
Pudentame
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-05-2008
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>> Well, my eyes have now got used to the lower luminance...in fact,
>>>> I've now gone down to 90 cd/m2. It makes all the difference for
>>>> monitor/printer matching. So I'm now happy

>
>>> Just for reference, could you please spot meter the white
>>> (RGB=255/255/255) area on your display at 100ISO?

>
>> Could you explain a bit how one does this, and what expected results
>> might be?

>
> Show a white image on your monitor. Switch your (d)SLR to spot
> metering, point it to the white area, and read the exposure it is
> suggesting. (Mine reads 1/80sec f/8 with ISO100.)
>
> Given your number, we poor candelameter-less people may start to
> appreciate what you are talking about (for a photographer, what I did
> is a cheap brightness-meter with precision about 20%; but it is not
> calibrated without your report).
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
>
> P.S. If you do not know how to create a white image, I put one on
> ilyaz.org/photo/tmp/wh400.png
> (created with `convert -size 400x400 xc:#FFF wh.png').
>


For accurate results, wouldn't you need an 18% gray?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <fqn6eb$1qfp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ilya Zakharevich says...
>
>> Show a white image on your monitor. Switch your (d)SLR to spot
>> metering, point it to the white area, and read the exposure it is
>> suggesting. (Mine reads 1/80sec f/8 with ISO100.)
>>
>> Given your number, we poor candelameter-less people may start to
>> appreciate what you are talking about (for a photographer, what I did
>> is a cheap brightness-meter with precision about 20%; but it is not
>> calibrated without your report).

>
> But the measurement obviously depends on the distance between the camera
> and the screen. You have to specify the distance.


If the subject fills the field of view of the light meter sensitive
area, the reading does not depend on the distance.
As you move closer or further away, the change in area
cancels the 1/r^2 change in light from a point.
Example: a wall does not get brighter as you move
closer to it.

See the section below Table 2 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...photons.and.qe
for calibration of light meters to measure light in lux.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
crownfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
-In article <fqn6eb$1qfp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ilya Zakharevich says...
-
-> Show a white image on your monitor. Switch your (d)SLR to spot
-> metering, point it to the white area, and read the exposure it is
-> suggesting. (Mine reads 1/80sec f/8 with ISO100.)
->
-> Given your number, we poor candelameter-less people may start to
-> appreciate what you are talking about (for a photographer, what I did
-> is a cheap brightness-meter with precision about 20%; but it is not
-> calibrated without your report).
-
-But the measurement obviously depends on the distance between the camera
-and the screen. You have to specify the distance.


obviously wrong.

the exposure of your car at 6 feet
is exactly the same as at 100 feet.

-

--
Bob Crownfield
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin_D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
> <(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>> Well, my eyes have now got used to the lower luminance...in fact,
>> I've now gone down to 90 cd/m2. It makes all the difference for
>> monitor/printer matching. So I'm now happy

>
> Just for reference, could you please spot meter the white
> (RGB=255/255/255) area on your display at 100ISO?
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya


Boy, that's gotta be helluva bright. My LCD screen, plenty bright for
me reads 1/13 at f/8.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>> Well, my eyes have now got used to the lower luminance...in fact,
>>>> I've now gone down to 90 cd/m2. It makes all the difference for
>>>> monitor/printer matching. So I'm now happy

>
>>> Just for reference, could you please spot meter the white
>>> (RGB=255/255/255) area on your display at 100ISO?

>
>> Could you explain a bit how one does this, and what expected results
>> might be?

>
> Show a white image on your monitor. Switch your (d)SLR to spot
> metering, point it to the white area, and read the exposure it is
> suggesting. (Mine reads 1/80sec f/8 with ISO100.)
>
> Given your number, we poor candelameter-less people may start to
> appreciate what you are talking about (for a photographer, what I did
> is a cheap brightness-meter with precision about 20%; but it is not
> calibrated without your report).
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
>
> P.S. If you do not know how to create a white image, I put one on
> ilyaz.org/photo/tmp/wh400.png
> (created with `convert -size 400x400 xc:#FFF wh.png').
>

Thanks. I'm installing a new video card today, then will recalibrate.

Complimentary copies, however kind in origin, aren't appreciated by
many, or end up in a Spam trap. They are also counter to NG concepts of
sharing everything in public. Kindly stop!

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:22:03 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>Given your number, we poor candelameter-less people may start to
>appreciate what you are talking about (for a photographer, what I did
>is a cheap brightness-meter with precision about 20%; but it is not
>calibrated without your report).


OK. Spyder says 90 cd/m2.

At ISO200 in P-mode and spot-metering (Canon D40 with 28-135mm
f3.5-5.6 IS USM):

ISO200
f5.0
1/50 second

I don't think that there were any reflections from the screen to
affect the results.

Would have got back to you earlier but been busy getting some travel
gear!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.MetalVortex.com
Contact : www.MetalVortex.com/contact

Blog : www.MetalVortex.com/blog
Experimental : www.NinjaTrek.com

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:12:47 -0800, John McWilliams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>Are you printing from PS? I generally print from LR and it's difficult
>to use third party profiles, on a Mac, at least. I got the 3800 for
>Christmas, and now I am confident that when a print turns out poorly....
>it's my fault. Although I sometimes can blame the gremlins that get into
>the print driver settings.


I process in CS3 and then use Qimage for the actual printing. Qimage
is really good and I've forgiven its quirky interface, much in the
same way that I forgave Photoshop's interface once I started learning
where everything was and how much power I had there!

>Thanks for revisiting this subject! (The luminance one, that is) I hope
>we don't eventually have to process images separately for print vs. web,
>though some already do that (not just size and color space, but luminance)


Yes, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think that
getting the new printer and trying to match screen and print got me
of my behind and do a bit more active research on this!

The way I see most people's screens these days and the super-bright
default settings on new LCDs I'm afraid we may just have to have
different settings

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.MetalVortex.com
Contact : www.MetalVortex.com/contact

Blog : www.MetalVortex.com/blog
Experimental : www.NinjaTrek.com

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
timeOday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2008
Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> I've just been calibrating my new printer but during the process I
> found recommendations that monitor luminance level should be between
> 90 cd/m2 and 100 cd/m2.
>
> I checked my (calibrated) monitor and it was something like 190
> cd/m2. So I've now adjusted my monitor to 100 cd/m2, gamma 2.2 and
> colour temp of 6500K.
>
> Everything looks gray and dim! So are these luminance levels really
> the recommended values for a printer-workflow environment?
>
> This probably accounts for why *some* people think that my
> web-gallery photos are too dark.
>


Here is an example which looks dark to me:
<http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/old_buildings.htm>

Here is the histogram for it:
<http://www.theknack.net/img_histogram.png>

Not only is the distribution of pixels skewed left (i.e. dark), but the
upper 15% (or so) of the color range is almost entirely unused.

Personally I would always use the histogram and not rely on calibration
and subjective adjustments (which are subject to ambient lighting on the
monitor, etc). I have a bunch of old scans which are too bright because
I relied on a faulty monitor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> OK. Spyder says 90 cd/m2.
>
> At ISO200 in P-mode and spot-metering (Canon D40 with 28-135mm
> f3.5-5.6 IS USM):
>
> ISO200
> f5.0
> 1/50 second


Thanks. But this puzzles me; at ISO100, this would be f/5 and 1/25
sec. Mine is f/8 with f/80, which gives about 740 cd/m2...

Strange,
Ilya
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
timeOday wrote:
[]
> Here is an example which looks dark to me:
> <http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/old_buildings.htm>
>
> Here is the histogram for it:
> <http://www.theknack.net/img_histogram.png>
>
> Not only is the distribution of pixels skewed left (i.e. dark), but
> the upper 15% (or so) of the color range is almost entirely unused.
>
> Personally I would always use the histogram and not rely on
> calibration and subjective adjustments (which are subject to ambient
> lighting on the monitor, etc). I have a bunch of old scans which are
> too bright because I relied on a faulty monitor.


Agreed that's too dark - unless the intention is to suggest a storm is
due - a dark threatening sky. Viewed with Firefox or MS IE 7 on Windows.

Wouldn't colour be better to show the rust?

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommended 30" LCD Dual-Link DVI-D 2560 X 1600 Monitor Jim Windows 64bit 11 10-30-2008 09:07 AM
Recommended "clean" internet speed monitor? Steve B NZ Computing 7 01-04-2008 05:33 AM
luminance noise and chroma noise: What is it? Marc Wossner Digital Photography 6 07-05-2007 01:33 PM
Illumination Needed On Luminance! secheese Digital Photography 9 01-27-2005 10:12 PM
Unsharp mask on luminance channel in lab mode? no Digital Photography 3 06-17-2004 02:30 AM



Advertisments