Recommended monitor luminance levels?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. 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.

    --
    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?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    flambe Guest

    If you are using an LCD panel you probably should not be adjusting the
    brightness or contrast.
    For the common type of non-LED LCD panel you should leave brightness and
    contrast settings at the factory default setting.
    Calibrate your monitor according to your device instructions, including
    adjusting RGB if necessary.
    This should yield good color matches but brightness and contrast in the
    final print may not be what they should be.
    As you realize the monitor is so bright that your prints look dim. It seems
    that common calibration devices, like the Spyder, cannot take that
    brightness fully into account when calibrating the monitor and creating a
    profile.
    Sometimes your eyese fool you because you look at a less reflective print
    after staring at a bright monitor: take them to an area with normal light
    and wait a bit before examining them.
    One workaround for this problem is to set up a test strip print with set
    adjustments to brightness and contrast until you find a combination that
    yields prints that are a reasonable facsimile of what you want. Those
    setting should work for a majority of images that you print but some fine
    tuning may be needed.
    I rarely had these problems with even a mid-level CRT.
     
    flambe, Mar 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    frederick Guest

    Marco Tedaldi wrote:
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:


    >
    >> This probably accounts for why *some* people think that my
    >> web-gallery photos are too dark.
    >>

    > maybe...
    >
    > Marco
    >


    I think many of the images in your gallery are too dark (viewing on a
    calibrated diamondtron CRT).
     
    frederick, Mar 1, 2008
    #3
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Guest

    On Mar 2, 3:30 am, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-
    > wrote:
    > This probably accounts for why *some* people think that my
    > web-gallery photos are too dark.
    > --
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu


    > Website :www.MetalVortex.com


    You have quite a collection there, Kulvinder, but they look a little
    dark to me.. (O:

    In other words, yes, maybe.. But then again your style might be low-
    key, so who are we to judge. Look at the multitudes of galleries at
    recognised sites like photo.net and get a feel for what is right, then
    balance that against your calibrater's recommendations.

    What sort of monitor, and which calibration system are you using?
     
    , Mar 3, 2008
    #4
  5. On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:37:53 -0800 (PST),
    wrote:

    [snip]
    >What sort of monitor, and which calibration system are you using?


    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 :)

    I guess the one problem that I now have is that an increasingly
    number of people are getting LCD monitors at +200 cd/m2 and so
    they're going to see insanely bright images on the web. It's going to
    be difficult to persuade these people to lower their luminance levels
    to 90 cd/m2!

    I've got a home-built Vista Ultimate 32-bit Intel dual-core 3GHz PC
    with 4GB RAM. Running Photoshop CS3, and Qimage software for
    printing. Using 32-bit as I'm waiting for the 64-bit drivers to
    mature before switching over for access to >4GB RAM. May swap
    dual-core for quad-core and overclock to near 4GHz too.

    It's a dual-monitor configuration consisting of 2 x 24" widescreen
    BenQ FP241W LCD monitors. Using a ColorVision Spyder (which I've had
    for years) but I'm going to replace that Spyder with a newer version
    at some point.

    Printer is an Epson Stylus Pro 3800 printer (for A2+ prints). Using
    mostly Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk paper and Harmon Gloss FB AI
    paper. I think that I prefer the Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre
    Silk...just done some A2 prints on that paper and they were superb!
    Still need to experiment more with matt papers though!

    --
    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?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 4, 2008
    #5
  6. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > 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
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 5, 2008
    #6
  7. Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    > <>], who wrote in article <>:
    >> 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?


    IZ-

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

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:37:53 -0800 (PST),
    > wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >> What sort of monitor, and which calibration system are you using?

    >
    > 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 :)
    >
    > I guess the one problem that I now have is that an increasingly
    > number of people are getting LCD monitors at +200 cd/m2 and so
    > they're going to see insanely bright images on the web. It's going to
    > be difficult to persuade these people to lower their luminance levels
    > to 90 cd/m2!
    >
    > I've got a home-built Vista Ultimate 32-bit Intel dual-core 3GHz PC
    > with 4GB RAM. Running Photoshop CS3, and Qimage software for
    > printing. Using 32-bit as I'm waiting for the 64-bit drivers to
    > mature before switching over for access to >4GB RAM. May swap
    > dual-core for quad-core and overclock to near 4GHz too.
    >
    > It's a dual-monitor configuration consisting of 2 x 24" widescreen
    > BenQ FP241W LCD monitors. Using a ColorVision Spyder (which I've had
    > for years) but I'm going to replace that Spyder with a newer version
    > at some point.
    >
    > Printer is an Epson Stylus Pro 3800 printer (for A2+ prints). Using
    > mostly Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk paper and Harmon Gloss FB AI
    > paper. I think that I prefer the Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre
    > Silk...just done some A2 prints on that paper and they were superb!
    > Still need to experiment more with matt papers though!


    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.

    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)

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 5, 2008
    #8
  9. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    John McWilliams
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > >> 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').
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <fqn6eb$1qfp$>, 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.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Pudentame Guest

    Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > John McWilliams
    > <>], who wrote in article <>:
    >>>> 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?
     
    Pudentame, Mar 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <fqn6eb$1qfp$>, 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/imagedetail/digital.photons.and.qe
    for calibration of light meters to measure light in lux.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 6, 2008
    #12
  13. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    crownfield Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    -In article <fqn6eb$1qfp$>, 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
     
    crownfield, Mar 6, 2008
    #13
  14. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Colin_D Guest

    Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    > <>], who wrote in article <>:
    >> 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
     
    Colin_D, Mar 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > John McWilliams
    > <>], who wrote in article <>:
    >>>> 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
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 6, 2008
    #15
  16. On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:22:03 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
    <> 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?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 6, 2008
    #16
  17. On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:12:47 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> 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?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Mar 6, 2008
    #17
  18. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    timeOday Guest

    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.
     
    timeOday, Mar 6, 2008
    #18
  19. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > 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
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 7, 2008
    #19
  20. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 7, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. no
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    755
    Lionel
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. secheese

    Illumination Needed On Luminance!

    secheese, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    353
    secheese
    Jan 27, 2005
  3. Marc Wossner

    luminance noise and chroma noise: What is it?

    Marc Wossner, Jul 3, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,193
  4. Steve B

    Recommended "clean" internet speed monitor?

    Steve B, Jan 3, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    437
    Dave Taylor
    Jan 4, 2008
  5. Jim
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,731
    Tony Sperling
    Oct 30, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page