Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Recommended monitor luminance levels?

 
 
crownfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, timeOday-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
-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>

a comparison...
http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted

gamma, lightness, contrast adjusted.

-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.
-

--
Bob Crownfield
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
crownfield wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, timeOday-
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> -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>
>
> a comparison...
> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted
>
> gamma, lightness, contrast adjusted.


The snow loses all detail in this latter version, so perhaps you went a
bit overboard. Also, there is nice detail available in the lattice brick
in the top middle of the image.

Then again, any version might be "right" depending.....

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
crownfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
-crownfield wrote:
-> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, timeOday-
-> (E-Mail Removed) says...
-> -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>
->
-> a comparison...
-> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted
->
-> gamma, lightness, contrast adjusted.
-
-The snow loses all detail in this latter version, so perhaps you went a
-bit overboard. Also, there is nice detail available in the lattice brick
-in the top middle of the image.

on my monitor, it does not. variations are visible.
the brightest areas are over, but only the very brightest.

beng a little more careful...
http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted
-
-Then again, any version might be "right" depending.....
-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2008
crownfield wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,

[]
> -The snow loses all detail in this latter version, so perhaps you
> went a
> -bit overboard. Also, there is nice detail available in the lattice
> brick
> -in the top middle of the image.
>
> on my monitor, it does not. variations are visible.
> the brightest areas are over, but only the very brightest.
>
> beng a little more careful...
> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted


Yes, I agree that second version is just a little better.

Although not calibration software, for a quick check on whether a monitor
is compressing white levels, there is the JASC Monitor Calibration chart:

http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp

and my own simple GreyScale test program:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/s...html#GreyScale

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2008
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:38:48 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>crownfield wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,

>[]
>> -The snow loses all detail in this latter version, so perhaps you
>> went a
>> -bit overboard. Also, there is nice detail available in the lattice
>> brick
>> -in the top middle of the image.
>>
>> on my monitor, it does not. variations are visible.
>> the brightest areas are over, but only the very brightest.
>>
>> beng a little more careful...
>> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted

>
>Yes, I agree that second version is just a little better.
>
>Although not calibration software, for a quick check on whether a monitor
>is compressing white levels, there is the JASC Monitor Calibration chart:
>
> http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp
>
>and my own simple GreyScale test program:
>
> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/s...html#GreyScale


Is all this viewing and comparison going performed in color managed
applications after these files have been downloaded or just viewed in a
non-color managed browser?
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2008
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
[]
> Is all this viewing and comparison going performed in color managed
> applications after these files have been downloaded or just viewed in
> a non-color managed browser?


I can't comment for others, but in my case I calibrate the monitor
(brightness and contrast, using the monitor controls and the display
driver controls) and prefer to use no colour management for applications
(putting them all on a level playing field).

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2008
crownfield wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> -crownfield wrote:
> -> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, timeOday-
> -> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> -> -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>
> ->
> -> a comparison...
> -> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted
> ->
> -> gamma, lightness, contrast adjusted.
> -
> -The snow loses all detail in this latter version, so perhaps you went a
> -bit overboard. Also, there is nice detail available in the lattice brick
> -in the top middle of the image.
>
> on my monitor, it does not. variations are visible.
> the brightest areas are over, but only the very brightest.
>
> beng a little more careful...
> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode...album=adjusted


Amen. That does it! Diff' strokes and all, as the composition is what
pulls this one along, along with "What the *&^&% is that old thing?".

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2008
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:56:07 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>[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


What was the calculation that you used?

PS - I've been in Sweden the last few days and I'll be off to Borneo
later on this week so may not have a chance to respond for quite a
while!

--
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
 
      03-10-2008
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:03:37 -0700, timeOday
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>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.


Thanks, I'm now working at the recommended 90 cd/m2 and have got used
to the monitor luminance levels. This is important as the printer
profiles that I'm using match the screen.

--
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
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2008
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> >> 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...


> What was the calculation that you used?


90 * (8/5)**2 * 80/25 = 737.28

The documented value on the manufacturer's site is: Brightness 500
cd/m2. I'm using factory preset brightness.

WHY would one use less than "the factory preset"?

Yours,
Ilya
 
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